Non-skid on ladder rungs always gives me a chuckle.
In my experience job safety analysis, tool box talks, stop the average guy for thinking for himself. He’ s been told what the likely hazard is and in tool box talks he been told what his roll is in the forthcoming operation and he sees no further than that.Experience counts for a lot but not all JSA’s and TBT’s are carried out by experienced hands.
Shell take the lead in introducing big data to reduce risk at sea:
Safety procedures need to be practical, reasonable, and not too inconvenient to carry out, otherwise there will be shortcut after shortcut
In my view this is a choice made on the ship.
The C/M can high-speed the paperwork in his office or he can walk out to the job location with the crew and evaluate the situation, giving the crew the benefit of sharing the approach of an experienced officer . Once the job is evaluated the checklist can be used to ensure nothing is missed. The crew needs to have an active role as well.
If senior officers are allowing the checklists and procedures to be substituted for having a well-grounded look at the job the fault lies with the officers and crew, not with the checklists.
How is that any different then allowing the bridge watch to depend 100% upon the GPS ? If that’s what is allowed to happen the fault lies not with the tool but with the user.
You’ve never visited an oil majors HQ then.
probably caused by him being drunk.
probably caused by the driver being blind.
probably caused by the driver having an out of body experience.
probably caused by the driver getting a quote from Geiko.
See I can make up unsubstantiated claims too.
I just witnessed a new 3rd engineer come on the boat and take 10mins to put on a harness. To be fair he is a green 3rd and willing to learn, just had no real experience putting a harness on. Tried to put it on with the straps already buckled. I worked in the oil field so had lots of training/experience and walked him through what to look for and showed him how to adjust it properly so he could do it himself and work safe. Saying that, the company only does the “required minimum” when it comes to safety equipment. No secondary tie off hooks were available. Some of the things are asinine, some i understand cost too much for whats expected of us onboard.
Some safety makes sense, some is just to appease the bean counters in the office. Some things i see make me cringe. “Hey, that hydraulic fitting is leaking, let me put my hand on it to somehow diagnose it through osmosis and get a possible injection injury to boot”
Don’t forget to look for those steam leaks leading with your hand. . . .
I had to speak to a PC in my office, so I called and did not get an answer. So, I called a PE and asked of he had seen the PC around, He started laughing. When he calmed down enough to talk, I asked what was so funny, he said the PC had hurt his back and went home. Now, this PE could a real dick sometimes, so I told him it’s now funny that someone got hurt. He started laughing again and said wait you have to understand that the company had just put down all of these new “Safety is Up to You” rugs throughout the office and the PC had tripped over one of them injuring his back.
After asking how injured the PC was and if he would be ok, I will admit, I did see why the PE was laughing. These were the same rugs that everyone in the Fleet were complaining about being dangerous and that they could cause a Trip Hazard.
After working in the oil field we figured out that Safety can be interchanged with Liability for the company. Sure they don’t want anyone to get hurt, they aren’t evil or anything. But, if you hurt your hand, the first thing they do is look at your gloves to be sure you were wearing them. Hurt your eye, were you wearing your safety glasses?
I understand all of them except number four.
I think he learned it wrong. Isn’t it centrifugal force that tends to want to push a train off the tracks? Centripetal force is what helps it turn. But I’m not a physics major.
Safety is generally an investment, not a cost. Besides the fact that everyone’s priority is to go home the same way they arrived onboard, a vessel will not get contracted in this competitive market without an impeccable safety record. All companies have steel sitting in the water, with the biggest difference being the people and culture onboard. That is the differentiator between working or not working and being seen time and time again, even through contract cancellations. Commercial considerations are important as well, but this consideration in particular is being weighed less and less as compared to operational risk exposurses.
For those that may think safety has “gotten out of hand”,…most likely were not exposed to the incident or accident which was attributed to the need or practice they are being subject to at the time. Most safe practices or “rules” in terms of safety were written in someone’s blood in most cases. The better organizations have a process in place where safety alerts (industry and fleetwide), OEM product information bulletins, and proactive measures are fully integrated within task based risk mitigation which put things into better context for the everyday mariner. This extra step usually results in better compliance as well, with the thought process of the “Safety getting out of hand” mentality simply evaporating.
Interesting invention. Why isn’t this compulsory equipment everywhere?:
That looks excellent. I’d like to try it. If it works, it should be required. What does it cost?
Wow, this thing could save a lot of lives. With all of the talk about Autonomous vessels, it would be great if there was some sort of tracker on each and every work vest / life jacket so it could find it’s own way to the MOB!
I wasn’t able to determine this from videos, but I assume (and hope) that the thing turns itself on automatically upon hitting the water.
I say this as someone who has more than once launched an R/C sailboat after forgetting to turn on the receiver.