Patrick Terminals’ risk assessment process for lashing and unlashing operations had not anticipated a fatal accident resulting from being struck by items falling from a portainer or cargo, or from being struck by a moving container. As a result, while the appropriate risk control for this occurrence had been covered during employee training, this was not reinforced in safe work instructions, an important risk control measure.
The implementation of Patrick Terminal’s safety management system resulted in an environment where Patrick Terminal management and stevedores were disconnected in relation to the management of some of the day-to-day workplace safety risks. As a result, there was little ownership of the safe work instructions by the stevedores, and some of the more experienced stevedores were probably no longer aware of the risks posed to them when they undertook unsafe ‘workarounds’ in the workplace and these were not identified by Patrick management.
Patrick Terminals’ safe work instructions for lashing/unlashing did not specifically cover the recognised safe practices of not working under containers or between moving containers and fixed objects. Consequently, there was a discontinuity between the level of awareness regarding these dangers and the training new employees received during their induction period.
The recognised safe practices of not working under or near a container being loaded is not well reflected in national and international guidance published to assist container terminal operators develop their own safety policies and guidelines.
Ta Ann Tasmania did not follow the recommendations contained in section 2.3 of Appendix A of the International Maritime Organization’s Code of Safe Practice for Ships Carrying Timber Deck Cargo when they packaged the timber veneer for shipment by sea.
The Australian Maritime Safety Authority had not inspected the packs of veneer to establish whether Ta Ann Tasmania was packaging the veneer in line with the recommendations contained in section 2.3 of Appendix A of the International Maritime Organization’s Code of Safe Practice for Ships Carrying Timber Deck Cargo.
The instructions that were emailed to Mimasaka’s master by NYK-Hinode Line did not provide the crew with proper guidance about how to stow and secure the packs of timber veneer on deck.
The Operation Manual for Loading and Lashing of Tasmanian/Malaysian Dry Veneer, developed by NYK-Hinode Line for use by ships carrying timber veneer, did not contain any information relating to the stowage and securing of the timber veneer cargo on deck.
Mimasaka’s cargo securing manual did not contain any information relating to the stowage and securing of timber veneer.
Prior to 2 February 2011, the crew had encountered problems with the lifting wire jamming in the head of the davit when the bucket was hoisted too high. However, nothing had been done to prevent it from happening again in the future.
The planned maintenance system on board British Sapphire did not include a specific requirement to maintain or test the wave compensator or its safety interlock on the fast rescue boat davit. As a result, the crew had not identified the issue with the wave compensator safety interlock during periodic maintenance.
The crew did not use resource management principles to ensure that they had a shared mental model of the task that they were carrying out. As a result there was confusion amongst the various crew members as to their roles and responsibilities at the time of the incident
The planned maintenance system on board British Sapphire did not detail a procedure for a recommissioning test following maintenance on the fast rescue boat davit. As a result, any recommissioning test that was done after on board maintenance had not identified the issue with the wave compensator safety interlock prior to the incident.
The training provided to the crew did not ensure they were familiar with the function or operation of the wave compensator or its safety interlock
There was no evidence to indicate that the operation of British Sapphire's (or its sister ships) fast rescue boat davit’s wave compensator and safety interlock had been sufficiently tested at the time of the ship's delivery to ensure safe operation
Training institutions delivering approved STCW courses are not keeping up to date with the introduction of wave compensation units to ensure their courses provide students with the required knowledge to safely operate these units
It was found that the safety interlocks on the wave compensator systems on board British Sapphire, British Emerald and British Ruby had been electrically by-passed thereby preventing the safety interlocks from functioning.. As a result, the wave compensators on board all three ships could be engaged regardless of whether the fast rescue boats were waterborne or suspended from the fall wire
British Sapphire’s fast rescue boat davit procedures did not provide sufficient guidance for the crew in the operation of the wave compensator
The job hazard analysis for the operation of the fast rescue boat was incomplete and did not include an assessment of the hazards associated with the operation of the wave compensator