Marine Safety Forum – Safety Flash 14-02

Issued: 6th January 2014

Subject: Hi Potential Incident During Routine Hose Handling
During routine hose handling operations at an offshore facility, a cement hose was passed to the
vessel and secured on the starboard aft “horn”. As there was no hanging off strop, the best
practice of the vessel, a rope was used. The hose was then laid across the stern towards the aft
manifold. The hose was too short to reach the manifold and the Leading Hand (the designated
signalman) gave a hand signal to the crane operator to raise the hose so that it could be
readjusted. The hose was laid across the area of the capstan and its ancillary pipework, the hose
became trapped under an area of the body of the capstan and with vessel movement (heave and
pitch putting the stern downwards) combined with crane movement upwards came under tension.
The Injured Person moved between the hose and the inner rail at which time the hose came free
under tension and hit the IP throwing him over the inner barrier and onto the main deck. The main
deck was loaded with deck cargo but the IP landed onto the wooden sheathing missing all deck
cargo. The IP suffered a fractured skull, severely broken leg and facial injuries. The rig could not
offer medical assistance due to the rigs Billy Pugh being out of service. IP was medevac’d to
Lerwick Hospital via Helicopter and then transferred to Aberdeen Royal Infirmary and underwent
two stages of surgery to set the leg.

The communications lines were clear and had been in use on this vessel for some time – UHF
between vessel deck and bridge; VHF between vessel bridge and facility (including crane driver as
required); hand signals from the vessel deck to crane operator as per COSWP. The senior officer
on the bridge (in this case the Master) being in control of the operation as far as the vessel and the
procedures to be followed was concerned.
The IP had been on the vessel for approximately 2 weeks prior to the incident, he had been on a
sister vessel as AB for the previous 5 years; an induction was completed on the Vessel as per
documented company procedures.

Direct Causes Hose snagged under capstan but not hard fast
IP standing in an unsafe position
Crane heaving up / vessel movement downwards resulting
in hose self-release from underneath capstan when under
tension

Contributing Causes Procedural failure –procedures in place but not followed.

No RA or TBT / Job planning conducted.
No pre-set lashing/ securing arrangement on hose, so hose
too short to reach manifold once lashed by vessel crew
Ineffective training regarding job planning (including RA)
Vessel arrangement when using aft manifold passes past
capstan and control mechanisms

It was apparent that no RA or TBT process was followed. It was also noted that during the day
when a number of hose operations had been undertaken there was no reference to the
management system processes except the dry bulk checklist being completed. Training in the
Company’s procedures is completed at induction and through on-board training regimes.

From this incident, it is construed that for jobs that were seen as routine, then no risk
assessment or job planning was considered

The information available on this Safety Flash and our associated web site is provided in good faith and only
for the purposes of enhancing safety and best practice. For the avoidance of doubt no legal liability shall be
attached to any guidance and/or recommendation and/or statement herein contained.

-1-