The mariner
does spend his life doing risk assessments, and in the past - many were prepared to 'play the odds' with their own and with others' lives. Risk assessments 'should' encapsulate those mariners' experience and knowledge, and when done correctly in a forum - should produce an appraisal with integrity. The recording of that risk assessment has more than one benefit:
It remains as a working do***ent for others to build on (gaining the experience and knowledge of those conducting the first RA)
It encourages openness and forces any contributors with an 'agenda' to explain that train of thought (sometimes you have to point this out to some)
It becomes a written record which does force some 'decision-makers' to think twice about what they are recommending.
Common sense and basic seamanship will beat risk assessment by a mille
I see the Risk Assessment process as being built upon those qualities/attributes. It doesn't replace them, but your "common sense and basic seamanship" was/is not sufficient.
I posted a photo on this site of a deck cadet, climbing over a crane jib about 15ft above deck level. No PPE. Several 'experienced' seafarers commented that it was admirable - "one hand for the ship" etc. But - any risk assessment would highlight that the probability of a fall was 'possible' and the result 'death or severe injury'? Apparently the use of a fall-arrestor was deemed to be 'nanny'.
Things
had to change.
"Risk Assessment" has always puzzled me. It appears to assume that we were all taking wild and unconsidered risks before it was introduced.
Not "all" - that is ridiculous. But - sufficient to demand a change in the MO.
One question I meant to ask is in the dark ages when I was a tug master we had to have a 'towage certificate' issued by a Department of Transport Marine Division surveyor before the tow started. Do they still as I saw no nmention of it in the report? This accident would not have happened had their been some experiencen somewhere in the decision making train.
Towing Approval is generally demanded by the underwriter for the operation. The procedure is reviewed by a warranty survey company (e.g. Noble Denton etc), and any shortfalls identified and asked to be addressed. From that - they will produce a checklist for the Warranty Surveyor to complete when he attends the towing vessel(s) prior to the tow commencing. A good Warranty Surveyor - will use the checklist as an aide-memoire and look at more than the checklist - lists.
It just formalises a process that most people have been going through since the year dot. Look on it as being a useful tool, a memory jogger, what you will, but it has stopped the routine taking of many stupid risks, which are usually put down to 'we have always done it like that'.
That is it - in a nutshell. It also assists others in the future, when carrying out 'similar' operations.
The final words of the conclusion tell us a lot:
''In fact, the risk management system instead tends to facilitate the carrying out of risk prone operations''
It can- if you let it. I have sat on many HIRAs, HAZIDs and Task Risk Assessments, and there are often project personnel who do not approach the process with the 'integrity' required. But - there is the opportunity to steer it back on course. One thing is certain - the Risk Assessment process beats the 'Ad Hoc' method any day. I have also carried out Towing Approvals on behalf of the operation underwriters.
In the days when we were taught seamanship we were also taught to think and to avoid stupid risks. More thought than could be put on paper in many hours would pass through the mind. Risk assessment is meant to place the responsibility on those carrying out the orders and to leave those giving the orders free of all blame should a mishap occur.
It must be obvious from the case in hand that a written risk assessment can also permit unacceptable risks to be taken.
I can't agree with that sentiment. The Risk Assessment isn't the final visit to the task - the Toolbox talk allows for the explanation of all the risks identified and the proposed mitigation and for the work party to contribute their experience/knowledge and also to question the assessment.
Yes, sometimes Risk Assessments can be lacking in integrity - some people continue to take shortcuts, and in a previous generation - would have been the cowboys, I reckon. I sense that a lot of the responses above are 'latching on' to the occasions when Risk Assessment fail - as if to prove a point.
Back to the Maersk operation - without going back to the report which I have just skimmed over - I am not sure if the operation had any external indemnity - it may have been self-insured by Maersk, who would naturally be more interested in the operation going ahead than "challenging" every aspect.
Al