Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 11
Safety Science 85 (2016) 282–292 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Safety Science journal homepage: www.e

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Safety Science

journal homepage: www.e lsevier.com/locate/ssci

Science journal homepage: www.e lsevier.com/locate/ssci Statistical analysis of ship accidents and review of safety

Statistical analysis of ship accidents and review of safety level

Eliopoulou Eleftheria a , Papanikolaou Apostolos b , , Voulgarellis Markos a

a School of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, Ship Design Laboratory, National Technical University of Athens, Greece b Ship Design Laboratory, National Technical University of Athens, Greece

Laboratory, National Technical University of Athens, Greece article info Article history: Received 25 September 2015

article info

Article history:

Received 25 September 2015 Received in revised form 18 December 2015 Accepted 1 February 2016

Keywords:

Maritime safety Risk assessment Ship accident statistics Safety level Formal Safety Assessment Maritime regulations

abstract

Safety may be defined as an acceptable state of risk by society. In this respect, for assessing the current safety level of ships, it is necessary to quantify the risk level of the operating world fleet, thus estimate and assess the basic contributors to risk, namely the frequency of maritime accidents and the extent of their consequences. The present investigation was motivated by earlier published work of Det Norske Veritas (DNV, 2006), in which they were some alarming signals of worsening of the level of maritime safety. A justified question therefore is whether and how the level of ship safety changed thereafter. Recalling that a fundamental step of a Formal Safety Assessment of maritime assets is the investigation of relevant casualty reports and the analysis of historical data, which characterise the maritime safety performance in the studied period, the herein presented work deals with a systematic analysis of ship accidents in the last decade as a way to evaluate the current level of safety for the majority of ship sub- types present in the world merchant fleet and to conclude on the foreseeable future. The presented anal- ysis also includes a deeper investigation about possible relationships between accident rates and ship’s age, which proved more complex than initially thought. The outcome of the present study indicates that in the last decade although the frequencies of ship accidents generally increased, the safety level of var- ious ship types did not significantly change, as the consequences of accidents remained in average at about the same level.

2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The history of maritime transport is marked by ship accidents with partly disastrous consequences on human lives and impact on society and the marine environment. In response to these disas- trous accidents, more and more new requirements and amend- ments of existing regulations for the safe maritime transport were introduced by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). A remarkable example in this respect is the improvement of safety of tanker operations after year 1990, which is marked by the catastrophic marine pollution accident of the Exxon Valdez 1 tanker in Alaska in 1989; namely, the introduction of new regula- tions and guidelines, of safety codes and improved crew training

Corresponding author. E-mail address: papa@deslab.ntua.gr (P. Apostolos). URL: http://www.naval.ntua.gr/sdl (P. Apostolos). 1 The Exxon Valdez was that largest oil spill in US waters until the Deepwater Horizon offshore spill in 2010; the estimated volume of the spill is being disputed and is ranging between 41,000 and 119,000 m 3 , impacting 2100 km of the Alaskan shoreline; the associated oil spill costs exceeded 7 billion USD; acc. to the Interna- tional Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF), it was the ‘most expensive oil spill in history’, even though not the largest one by the amount of spilt oil of tankers (Eliopoulou et al., 2012).

0925-7535/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

schemes which all contributed to a drastic reduction of accident fre- quencies thereafter (Eliopoulou and Papanikolaou, 2007). They led to an improvement of the maritime safety culture, with the shipping industry adopting more and more a proactive approach to ship oper- ation. Noting that an overwhelming part of marine accidents (more than abt. 80%) is attributable to human factors, it may be concluded that introduced measures addressing ship’s operation ( active safety measures) were very effective in the reduction of accident frequen- cies, whereas measures affecting ship’s design and technology (pas- sive safety measures) have more contributed to the mitigation of accident consequences (for which achieved reduction and control were not that significant). Fig. 1 presents a snapshot for the develop- ment of navigational (collision, grounding, contact) accident fre- quencies for AFRAMAX tankers from the late 70ties and up to the early 2000. In the graph, we have marked the implementation of some key regulations and safety codes that could be held responsible for the declining trends of particular rates. Although Fig. 1 pertains at first only to AFRAMAX tankers, rele- vant trends may be qualitatively extended to all tanker categories and even to other ship types, as most of the noted specific regula- tions were applied to all ship types ; exceptions apply to VETTING and the 94 SOLAS ISM, which are applicable only to oil carrying tankers. The essence of the above snapshot, however, capturing a

E. Eleftheria et al. / Safety Science 85 (2016) 282–292

283

E. Eleftheria et al. / Safety Science 85 (2016) 282–292 283 Fig. 1. Timeline of navigational

Fig. 1. Timeline of navigational accident rates vs. introduced international maritime regulations, safety guidelines and codes ( Eliopoulou and Papanikolaou, 2007 ).

period of 2 1/2 decades, is that the frequencies of navigational acci- dents were reduced for the collisions and groundings by a factor of close to 10 , and to a lesser (but still significant) degree for the con- tacts. However, in the post 2000 period, frequencies of occurrence of serious accidents started increasing again, according to the pre- sent study, which is at first alarming and subject of the present paper. Relatively late compared to other industries (land- and air transport, energy/nuclear industry) and not simply responding to maritime disasters, IMO introduced in year 2000, a formalised pro- cedure for the assessment of ship safety, known from other safety critical industry systems, namely the Formal Safety Assessment process (FSA). FSA is a formalised risk assessment methodology aimed at enhancing maritime safety by using risk analysis and cost benefit assessment. FSA was originally developed (at least partly) as response to the Piper Alpha disaster of 1988, when the particular offshore platform exploded in the North Sea and 167 people lost their lives. Fig. 2 shows schematically the major steps of FSA. Step 1 includes the identification of all possible hazards of the problem under investigation leading to a list of relevant accident scenarios with potential causes and outcomes. In Step 2, a risk analysis is performed in order to evaluate all relevant risk factors. The step includes the determination of the frequency rates of identified major accident categories and of their consequences by statistical analysis of historical data. In Step 3, various risk control options (RCOs) are identified aiming at controlling the ensuing risk factors and mitigating the consequences of accidents. The viability of selected risk control options are examined by a cost benefit assess- ment (CBA) determining the cost effectiveness of each alternative risk control option (Step 4). In the final Step of FSA, recommenda- tions for decision-making are given ( Wang, 2001 ). In 2002, IMO approved the guidelines on Formal Safety Assess- ment ( MSC/Circ.1023, 2002 ) in order to support decision making in relation to the introduction of new regulations; they namely intro- duced a process formalising the assessment of new regulations using risk analysis and cost benefit assessment techniques ( Skjong, 2002, 2009 ). The particular Guidelines were amended by MSC/Circ.1180-MEPC/Circ.474 in 2005 and further revised in 2013 ( MSC-MEPC.2/Circ. 12, 2013 ). Based on this procedure, a ser- ies of high level FSA studies were elaborated within the EU funded research project SAFEDOR for the most important ship types, namely Containerships ( MSC 83/INF.8, 2007 ), LNG ships ( MSC 83/ INF.3, 2007 ), Cruise ships ( MSC 85/INF.2, 2008 ), RoPax ships ( MSC 85/INF.3, 2008 ) and Large Crude Oil tankers ( MEPC 58/

INF.2, 2008 ). The accident statistics of the pre-mentioned FSA stud- ies concerned mainly the time period 1990 (or 1993) to 2004, depending on the availability of data in the EU funded project SAFEDOR (2005–2009) . For some ship types, it was considered nec- essary to update the historical analysis of casualty data and conse- quently the risk assessment of the particular FSA study. In this respect, an update of the FSA for fully cellular containerships was performed ( Eliopoulou et al., 2013; Hamann et al., 2013 ). Focusing on the passenger ships, two sequential thorough re-investigations were done through the EU funded project GOALDS ( Papanikolaou et al., 2013) and the EMSA III project ( Pagiaziti et al., 2015 ). Further significant risk assessment case studies in the maritime field were recently presented by Montewka et al. (2014) and Goerlandt and Montewka (2015) . The herein presented investigation started as an update ( Papanikolaou et al., 2014 ) of similar research work conducted a decade ago by DNV ( DNV, 2006 ) and went deeper into relation- ships of accident frequencies and consequences to ship age ( Voulgarellis, 2015 ). The objectives of the present paper are the quantification of the risk level of the operating world fleet by sta- tistical analysis of historical data and the assessment of the safety level of all basic merchant ship types in terms of accidents’ occur- rence, initial frequencies and basic consequences. For each ship type, accidents occurred in the time period 2000–2012 are being analysed and presented with respect to accident category, total losses of ships and number of fatalities. Furthermore, the complex relationship between accident rates and ship age is also investi- gated and the various contributing factors discussed. The paper is organised as following: After a general introduc- tion to maritime safety, the interaction between marine accidents and international regulatory developments at IMO and the intro- duction of Formal Safety Assessment, we present a statistical anal- ysis of historical casualty data, in which we elaborate on the statistical sampling plan and operational world fleet at risk; a review of the obtained major results of the analysis follows, in which we first comment on the yearly frequencies of the recorded serious accidents per accident and ship type for the period 2000– 2012; in the same frame, a conducted more specific analysis con- siders a sampling plan of the ships categorised by their age and studies the impact of ship’s age on the frequency of accidents, which is not uniform; a similar parametric analysis follows for the consequences of serious accidents in terms of total ship losses and fatalities of People On Board (POB); a timeline analysis regard- ing the sufficiency of the used statistical sample by use of Kendall’s

284

E. Eleftheria et al. / Safety Science 85 (2016) 282–292

284 E. Eleftheria et al. / Safety Science 85 (2016) 282–292 Fig. 2. The five main

Fig. 2. The five main steps of Formal Safety Assessment ( MEPC 58/INF.2, 2008 ).

Tau test follows; finally, we discuss the overall outcome of this study and conclude on the current level of safety of the world fleet.

2. Statistical analysis of casualty data

The source of the processed casualty data is the IHS Sea-web database and the investigation pertains to the generic ship types as defined by the particular database; namely, General Cargo ships, Bulk Carriers (DWT > 1500), Fishing vessels, Reefer ships, Ro-Ro cargo ships, Car Carriers, LNG and LPG carriers, pure Passenger and Cruise ships and Passenger Ro-Ro cargo vessels. The analysis of casualty records, performed for the time period 2000–2012, include those accidents associated with merchant cargo and pas- senger ships, regardless ship size (minimum vessel size was 100 GT), however built after year 1980. Operational fleet at risk has been calculated from source data of the Lloyd’s Register of Shipping database for all the afore-mentioned ship types. The presented results referring to Cellular Containerships and Large Crude Oil tankers (greater than 60,000 DWT) are coming from two earlier completed research projects, namely CONTIOPT (2011–2013) and the EU funded project SAFEDOR (2005–2009), which were complemented by internally funded research of the Ship Design Laboratory in later years ( Eliopoulou et al., 2012 ).

2.1. Sampling plan

Casualty records were extracted from the IHS Sea-web data- base according to the definitions comprising the ‘‘generic ship type”, as illustrated in Table 1 . With respect to the accident cate- gory (and ensuing type of hazards), the following accident cate- gories, as defined in the particular database, were included in the analysis:

Collision: striking or being struck by another ship, regardless of whether under way, anchored or moored. This category does not include striking under water wrecks. Contact: striking or being struck by an external substance but not another ship or the sea bottom. Wrecked/stranded (includes grounding and bumping over bars, etc.): includes ships reported hard and fast for an appreciable period of time and cases reported touching sea bottom. This category includes entanglement on under water wrecks.

Fire/explosion: where the fire and/or explosion is the first event reported (except where first event is a hull/machinery failure leading to fire/explosion). Foundered: includes ships which sank as a result of heavy weather, springing of leaks, breaking in two etc., and not as a consequence of the other accident categories. Hull/machinery damage: includes ships lost or damaged as a result of hull/machinery damage or failure. Missing vessel: the cases where after a reasonable period of time, no news having been received of a ship and its fate being there- fore undetermined. War loss/damage during hostilities: this category is intended to encompass damage or other incidents occasioned to ships by hostile acts. Miscellaneous: includes ships which have been lost or damaged which, for want of sufficient information, or for other reasons, cannot be classified.

The initial sampling plan of available accident records was fil- tered to include only accidents of serious degree of severity , 2 since the ‘‘non serious” cases were very few in comparison to the ‘‘serious” cases. The latter suggests significant underreporting for the ‘non seri- ous’ cases which means that their statistical analysis would be erra- tic. Moreover, in the ‘‘serious” cases, events with total losses of ships are also included. In effect, the analysis was focused on serious acci- dents associated with merchant passenger and cargo ships built after year 1980 3 resulting to a sampling plan of 4572 serious accidents within the studied period, as shown in Table 1 .

2.2. Operational fleet at risk

Before proceeding to the determination of accident frequency rates, as necessary for the conduct of a risk analysis, we need to relate the number of accidents to the yearly operating fleet at risk.

2 Serious marine casualty is the casualty, which results to structural damage, rendering the ship unseaworthy or to ship breakdown, actual total loss or any other undefined situation resulting in damage or financial loss considered to be serious.

3 The exclusion of older ships supports the uniformity of the statistical sample in terms of employed shipbuilding technology, even though (less radical) changes are being observed also in the decades after 1980. Limiting the statistical sample to shorter time periods generally leads to an increase of the uncertainty of statistical metrics, due to the limited number of recorded accidents.

E. Eleftheria et al. / Safety Science 85 (2016) 282–292

Table 1 Number of serious accidents per ship type, time period 2000–2012.

285

General

Bulk

Fishing

Reefer

Ro-Ro

Car

LPG

LNG

Fully Cellular

Large Crude Oil, up to 2010

Cargo

Carriers

vessels

ships

Cargo

Carriers

ships

ships

Containerships

3228

1609

456

210

184

194

140

21

1090

259

Passenger Ro-Ro Cargo (RoPax)

 

(Pure) passenger ships

 

Cruise ships

888

356

217

Tables 2 and 3 present the operational fleet at risk per ship type for the period from 2000 to 2012. For all ship types, except for Large Crude Oil Tankers and Cellular Containerships for which relevant data are coming from projects SAFEDOR (2005–2009) and CONTIOPT (2011–2013), the annual operational fleet was calcu- lated using raw data from Lloyd’s Register of Shipping database.

3. Review of major results

In the following we analyse and review the major results of the conducted statistical analysis in terms of frequencies of accident occurrence for all accident categories and ship types, as well as in terms of typical accident consequences. Presented accident fre- quencies were calculated by dividing the total annual number of registered accidents in a certain period by the number of ships operating worldwide in the same period (Fleet at Risk). Where overall accident frequencies are presented, the accident categories ‘‘War Loss/Hostilities”, ‘‘Miscellaneous”, and ‘‘Missing” were taken into consideration; however, the consequences of these accidents were not considered in the listed statistics. Finally note that the presently conducted study on relationships between ship age and frequencies of accident occurrence did not include Large Tankers and Cellular Containerships due to the lack of data for the investi- gated time period (see, however, an earlier related study by Papanikolaou and Eliopoulou, 2008 on the impact of age on tanker accidents).

3.1. Serious accidents

Table 4 presents the annual frequency of occurrence of serious accidents by ship type. A peak value appears for all ship types in the period of 2007–2008, whereas thereafter frequencies have sig- nificantly decreased, depending on ship subtype. The observed peak value in 2007–2008 may be attributed to following reasons:

Increased traffic in a period of heat of the world economy, thus increased frequency of navigational accidents. Reduced maintenance and delayed laid-up of aged ships in a period of high transport demand. Change of practice in the recording of accidents by the database provider (IHS Fairplay), due to organisational changes (transfer from Lloyds Register to IHS Fairplay).

Commenting on the statistics of cargo ships fleet, lower fre- quencies of serious accidents are observed for fishing vessels, 4 with overall averaged values of 5.40E 03 accidents/shipyear, LNG with 9.12E 03, LPG ships with 1.37E 02 and large crude oil tankers with

4 Note that in this study, we do consider only ocean going fishing vessels of Gross Tonnage over 100 GT; it is acknowledged that the number of accidents and fatalities, when considering additionally occupational risk (that means, the professional risk of a fisherman, independently of the main hazards, considered in this study) and smaller fishing vessels/boats , is much higher. Namely, during IMO-SLF49 (2006), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) informed the IMO Sub-Committee that the fishing industry suffers in excess of 24,000 fatalities per year , the large majority of which were occurring on small fishing vessels.

1.28E 02. On the other side, Reefer ships, General cargo, Cellular Containerships and Bulk Carriers have comparably much higher fre- quencies, namely 1.94E 02, 2.73E 02, 2.42E 02 and 2.37E 02 respectively. Finally, highest overall frequency of accidents was observed for Ro-Ro cargo ships (3.34E 02) and Car Carriers (2.97E 02). Among passenger ships, cruise vessels present the highest over- all accident frequency (5.18E 02) and RoRo Passenger ships follow (4.39E 02), as shown in Table 5 . Both ship types exhibit much higher values of frequencies in comparison to small passenger ships (1.36E 02). Likewise to cargo ships, a considerable peak of frequency value appears in the period of 2007–2010, and a consid- erable drop thereafter. Fig. 3 presents the overall frequency of accident’s occurrence by accident category for cargo and passenger ships. The accident cat- egory with the highest values of frequency of occurrence is hull/ machinery damage; this could be expected, because the particular accident category has by definition a broad range and includes accidents related to machinery failure (without leading to another accident type, i.e. contact, grounding), to failures of hull fittings/ equipment and to hull structural failures that resulted in a non-accidental way (so-called NASF: Non-Accidental Structural Failures, e.g. caused by fatigue of the structure, improper construc- tion/welding, etc.). When focusing on the cargo ships ( Fig. 3 left hand side) we observe the following:

Collision events: lowest frequency is observed for LNG ships and Fishing vessels, whereas the highest values are related to Con- tainerships, Car Carriers and RoRo Cargo ships, which are char- acterised by more frequent operation in congested terminal areas. Contact events: Fishing vessel and LPG ships exhibit lower fre- quencies, whereas the highest values are given for Car Carriers and RoRo Cargo ships, for which the same causes like for colli- sions apply. Fire/explosion: lower frequencies are presented again by LNG and Fishing vessels, whereas the highest values are given for RoRo Cargo ships and Car Carriers, transporting partly sensitive Ro-Ro cargo. In the accident category ‘‘Foundered”, General Cargo ships have the highest frequency; this is related to the high average age for this type of ships (see also later section), to which many small coasters belong; LNG ships did not have any such accident. LNG ships and Fishing vessels have the lowest frequencies of grounding events, whereas the highest frequency values are coming from Bulk Carriers and General Cargo ships and are related their reduced maneuverability and powering for safe operation in adverse weather conditions (see, Papanikolaou et al., 2015 ).

Among the passenger ships, cruise and Ro-Ro Passenger ships exhibit significantly higher values of frequency of hull and machin- ery damage, whereas the frequencies for other accident categories are quite similar, except for the pure passenger ships, which are

286

Table 2 Cargo ships, operational fleet at risk, time period 2000–2012.

E. Eleftheria et al. / Safety Science 85 (2016) 282–292

 

Bulk Carriers

Car Carriers

Reefer ships

Fishing ships

General Cargo

LNG ships

LPG ships

RoRo Cargo

Large tankers

Containerships a

2000

3122

303

785

5337

7375

67

574

330

1554

2036.5

2001

3292

342

806

5629

7615

81

606

355

1538

2207.3

2002

3586

360

819

5977

7802

82

637

367

1567

2411.5

2003

3796

376

823

6233

8004

92

661

383

1636

2601.4

2004

3955

395

826

6408

8225

107

692

398

1663

2778.8

2005

4206

419

830

6554

8527

128

712

413

1756

3009.0

2006

4513

454

832

6684

8876

148

725

421

1855

3337.6

2007

4817

496

835

6770

9231

174

765

438

1977

3730.2

2008

5114

547

842

6824

9658

205

826

451

2114

4169.6

2009

5778

615

849

6907

10,127

257

908

461

2258

4447.1

2010

6888

677

855

6972

10,568

298

970

480

2373

4628.5

2011

8836

743

861

7054

10,988

324

1031

499

4809.3

2012

9919

801

854

7113

11,329

340

1086

512

4932.5

Total

67,822

6528

10,817

84,462

118,325

2303

10,193

5508

20,291

45,099

a Calculated on a monthly base.

Table 3 Passenger ships, operational fleet at risk, time period 2000–2012.

 

(Pure) passenger ships

Cruise ships

Passenger RoRo

 

Cargo (RoPax)

2000

1653

222

1197

2001

1728

242

1254

2002

1794

263

1328

2003

1865

283

1390

2004

1929

300

1457

2005

1995

313

1513

2006

2038

324

1565

2007

2072

338

1610

2008

2120

355

1669

2009

2167

369

1730

2010

2220

380

1777

2011

2261

397

1834

2012

2290

407

1889

Total

26,132

4193

20,213

generally smaller in size and present overall much lower values ( Fig. 3 right hand side).

3.1.1. Effect of ship’s age on accident frequencies In order to study possible effects of ship’s age on accident fre- quencies, we proceed with a breakdown of the sample ships into five (5) age group categories, namely less than 5 years old, between 6 and 10 years, 11–15 years, 16–20 and over 20 years old. The fre- quency of accident occurrence per group age and basic ship type is presented in Fig. 4 . In general, we may distinguish two categories of ships, namely one with distinct high frequencies and the other with much lower frequencies. To the high frequency category belong General cargo ships, Bulk Carriers, Car Carriers and RoRo Cargo ships. In the lower frequency category the following ship subtypes belong: Fishing vessels, LNG, LPG ships and Reefer ships. It is noted that the frequency values of the first category of ships are roughly twice as large as those of the second category in all group ages, except for the ship ages over 20 years, where the values for the majority of ship types better converge. Commenting on the particular ship types:

Fishing vessels exhibit the lowest overall frequencies and have almost the same value for all age groups, thus the ship age seems to be unrelated to the accident occurrence for this ship type. An explanation to this may be the fact that fishing vessels are to a large extend operated by ship masters, who happen to be also (major) owners of the ship, thus are very familiar with the partic- ular ship’s operation and how to respond to accident hazards.

Bulk Carriers appear to have an almost linear relationship between frequency of accidents and ship’s age. The frequency increases, when ship age increases, reaching up to 3 + times higher values for the older ships in comparison to the newbuildings. Car Carriers and Bulk Carriers exhibit considerably increased frequen- cies of accidents in ages over 20 years, when fatigue and other structural problems are getting gradually more serious. LNG ships present relatively low frequencies up to the age of 20 years, whereas the frequency of accidents pertaining to ships with age greater than 20 years has a 2 + times higher value. RoRo Cargo ships, as General Cargo and Car Carriers, exhibit sig- nificantly high frequencies in the age group of less than 5 years, which indicates possible problems with the quality of some new built ships by low cost yards. Passenger ships do not present significant differences among the different age groups, thus their accident occurrence can be con- sidered as independent to ship age. Among them, cruise ships exhi- bit higher frequency of accidents in the first 5 years, indicating ‘‘teething problems” of complex ship newbuildings. Pure Passenger ships exhibit the lowest frequency among all passenger ships, not- ing that here belong relatively small vessels of less complex con- struction and operation.

3.2. Ship total losses

The analysis of ship total losses can provide some insight into how often a catastrophic event happens. Within the studied time period and accounting for all accident categories, including war losses, miscellaneous and missing vessels, the frequencies of ship total loss by ship type are as follows:

General cargo ships exhibit the highest frequency of ship total losses, namely 2.98E 03 per shipyear. Fishing vessels and RoRo Cargo ships follow with 1.63E 03. Reefer vessels, Bulk Carriers and Car Carriers present reduced values in relation to the pre- mentioned ship types, with 1.29E 03, 1.21E 03 and 1.07E 03 respectively. LPG ships have a very low frequency of ship total loss of 5.89E 04, Containerships exhibit a frequency of 2.00E 04, whereas LNG ships is the only ship type, along with the Large Crude Oil tankers, that have no ship total loss in the studied period . Commenting on the above results it is evident that General Cargo ships, with the highest frequencies of founderings (see, Table 6 ), are the most affected ships by total losses. This type of accidents are to a great extend caused by adverse weather condi- tions, for which the relatively small ship size (of coaster cargo ships) and the inferior structural integrity of overaged ships may lead to disastrous consequences. Fishing vessels are often trapped in adverse weather conditions, when fishing, and may capsize/sink

1.55E 02 1.62E 02

1.57E 03 3.66E 03 8.17E 03 1.68E 02 –

2.50E 02 3.51E 03

0.00E+00

2012

1.32E 02 1.36E 02 4.51E 02 2.60E 02 –

1.75E 02 3.38E 03

1.71E 02 1.22E 02

0.00E+00

2011

6.97E 03 1.40E 02 2.73E 02 2.51E 02 1.22E 02

2.31E 02 3.19E 03

1.82E 02 1.73E 02

0.00E+00

2010

2.11E 02 7.53E 03 7.78E 03 6.61E 03 2.59E 02 3.90E 02 2.81E 02 1.55E 02

3.54E 02 3.20E 02

2009

6.76E 02 7.47E 03 9.76E 03 2.54E 02 3.92E 02 5.54E 02 3.65E 02 1.32E 02

3.93E 02 2.62E 02

2008

5.04E 02 6.79E 03 1.15E 02 2.09E 02 4.31E 02 5.25E 02 3.14E 02 2.73E 02

3.78E 02 3.70E 02

2007

3.08E 02 4.19E 03 2.03E 02 2.21E 02 2.88E 02 2.61E 02 2.97E 02 1.19E 02

2.43E 02 2.84E 02

2006

2.86E 02 5.65E 03 1.56E 02 1.54E 02 1.81E 02 2.66E 02 2.13E 02 1.77E 02

2.50E 02 2.78E 02

2005

3.54E 02 3.75E 03 3.74E 02 2.02E 02 1.21E 02 2.26E 02 2.88E 02 1.68E 02

2.12E 02 2.93E 02

2004

7.56E 03 3.65E 03 2.35E 02 1.73E 02 9.17E 03

3.19E 02 4.01E 03

1.86E 02 2.24E 02

0.00E+00

2003

1.55E 02 1.62E 02

2.50E 02 3.51E 03

1.57E 03 3.66E 03 8.17E 03 9.95E 03

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

2002

Table 4 Cargo vessels, annual frequency of serious accidents per shipyear.

1.32E 02 1.36E 02 4.51E 02 1.50E 02

1.75E 02 3.38E 03

1.71E 02 1.22E 02

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

2001

6.97E 03 1.40E 02 2.73E 02 1.33E 02 1.09E 02

2.31E 02 3.19E 03

1.82E 02 1.73E 02

0.00E+00

2000

Cellular containerships

Fishing vessels

General Cargo

Reefer vessels

Large tankers

Bulk Carriers

Car Carriers

RoRo Cargo

LNG ships

LPG ships

E. Eleftheria et al. / Safety Science 85 (2016) 282–292

287

due to flooding of their deck and/or internal spaces. Finally, Ro-Ro cargo ships may suffer stability problems due to shift of Ro-Ro cargo, again in relation to adverse weather. Note that only two ship types exhibit total losses due to war or hostilities, namely General cargo and Fishing vessels with 4.23E 05 and 2.37E 05 respectively. General cargo ships have also a notable value for ship total loss frequency (8.45E 06) in ‘‘miscellaneous” accident events. Finally, General cargo ships and Fishing vessels have a frequency of 2.54E 05 and 1.18E 05 respectively in the ‘‘missing” accident category, which are often close to foundering accidents. Tables 6 and 7 present the frequency of serious accidents that led to ship’s total loss per accident category pertaining to cargo and passenger ships respectively. Commenting on the frequencies of the various accident types, General Cargo ships and Car Carriers exhibit the highest frequen- cies of ship total losses in collision events; Bulk Carriers, Fishing vessels and Reefer ships have relatively low frequencies and the remaining ship types present negligible values. For the contact events, only General cargo ships and Fishing vessels have a notable value of frequency of ship total loss. For the remaining ship types, no ship total loss due to contact events was reported. Relatively high frequency of fire/explosion events is presented for RoRo Cargo ships and Fishing vessels. Reefer, LPG ships, General Cargo ships and Bulk Carriers exhibit here low frequency of ship’s total loss, whereas the remaining ship types present negligible fre- quency values. Foundering cases present significantly high frequencies for the General Cargo ships in comparison to the other ship types. Fishing vessels, RoRo Cargo ships, Reefer ships, Bulk Carriers and LPG ships follow with lower frequency values. hull/machinery failures present very low frequencies of ship’s total loss for the majority of ship types, except for RoRo Cargo ships. Although the frequency of a serious hull/machinery failure is significantly high (see Fig. 3 ), this accident type leads rarely to ship’s total loss. Finally, General Cargo ships, Reefer ships, Bulk Carriers and Car Carriers exhibit the highest frequencies of ship’s total loss in grounding accidents. This is related to maneuverability problems for this type of ships in adverse weather conditions, as elaborated in the EU funded project SHOPERA ( Papanikolaou et al., 2015 ). Concerning ships carrying passengers ( Table 7 ), only pure Pas- senger ships exhibit a notable frequency of ship’s total loss due to collision events and hull & machinery failures, noting that this passenger ship subtype refers to mostly small size shortsea ships. For all other accident categories, frequencies of the various passen- ger ship subtypes are comparable. High frequencies of total loss (2.38E 04) are observed for Cruise vessels in contact events, which involve mostly side con- tacts to fixed installations and piers. This is often caused by insuf- ficient maneuvrability of cruise ships in limited waters and under the action of strong winds in relation to their large windage area. Likewise, Cruise ships and RoRo Passenger ships exhibit high frequencies of total losses in grounding events and this is attribu- ted to the operational profile for this type of ships 5 in limited waters and frequent port calls. In any case, the highest frequencies for ship’s total loss of passenger ships in general are related to fire/ explosion events, followed by Foundered cases. Increased fire/explo- sion frequencies are related to the inherent difficulty of effective fire control in manifold and complex accommodation/public spaces of passenger ships; foundering events are always related to adverse

5 With the most prominent cruise ship total losses due to grounding were in the study period the Costa Concordia accident in January 2012 (32 fatalities) off the coast of Isola del Giglio in Italy and the Sea Diamond at Santorini Island in Greece in 2007.

288

E. Eleftheria et al. / Safety Science 85 (2016) 282–292

Table 5 Passenger vessels, annual frequency of serious accidents per shipyear.

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Cruise vessels

3.15E 02 4.96E 02 4.56E 02 3.18E 02 3.33E 02 5.11E 02 5.25E 02 7.10E 02 8.17E 02 7.05E 02 9.47E 02 2.02E 02 2.70E 02

Passenger

3.63E 03 6.37E 03 5.02E 03 8.58E 03 9.85E 03 9.52E 03 6.38E 03 1.01E 02 1.56E 02 3.00E 02 2.57E 02 1.90E 02 1.92E 02

vessels

Passenger RoRo

vessels

1.84E 02 1.59E 02 1.51E 02 2.95E 02 3.98E 02 2.91E 02 2.30E 02 5.78E 02 6.53E 02 7.23E 02 7.71E 02 4.80E 02 5.03E 02

Cargo Vessels -Frequencies per Accident Type Passenger Vessels -Frequencies per Accident Type General Cargo Bulk
Cargo Vessels -Frequencies per Accident Type
Passenger Vessels -Frequencies per Accident Type
General Cargo
Bulk Carrier
Car Carriers
Fishing Vessels
LNG
Cruise Vessels
Passenger Vessels
Passenger RoRo Vessels
LPG
Reefer Vessels
RoRo Cargo
Cellu. Cont/ships
Large Tankers
1.40E-02
3.00E-02
1.20E-02
2.50E-02
1.00E-02
2.00E-02
8.00E-03
1.50E-02
6.00E-03
1.00E-02
4.00E-03
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
Collision
Contact
Fire/Expl.
Foundered
Hull/Mchy.
Dam
Wreck./Str
and.
Collision
Contact
Fire/Expl.
Foundered
Hull/Mchy.
Dam
Wreck./Stra
nd.

Fig. 3. Frequency per accident category, per shipyear.

Cargo Vessels - Frequency of Accidents per Vessel Age Passenger Vessels - Frequency of Accidents
Cargo Vessels - Frequency of Accidents per Vessel Age
Passenger Vessels - Frequency of Accidents per Vessel Age
General Cargo
Bulk
Carrier
Car Carriers
Fishing Vessels
Cruise Vessels
Passenger Vessels
Passenger RoRo Vessels
LNG
LPG
Reefer Vessels
RoRo Cargo
8.00E-02
7.00E-02
7.00E-02
6.00E-02
6.00E-02
5.00E-02
5.00E-02
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
3.00E-02
3.00E-02
2.00E-02
2.00E-02
1.00E-02
1.00E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
less than 5
6 to 10
11 t o15
16 to
20
Above 20
less than 5
6 to 10
11 t o15
16 to 20
Above 20

Fig. 4. Frequency of accidents per ship type and age group.

weather conditions and often to badly maintained and operated ships in less developed countries. In the earlier Fig. 4 it was noticed that Bulk Carriers, RoRo Cargo, LNG ships and Reefer ships having an age over 20 years exhibit high frequencies of accidents in relation to the younger age groups. Focusing on ship total losses, as elaborated in Fig. 5 , this particular relationship is further strengthened (except for the LNG ships), with older ships more prone to total loss events. However, focusing on the ages up to 15 years old, some differences are visible looking into the ship subtypes, with some ships exhibiting higher total loss rates in intermediate age groups. Significantly high value of total losses is noticed for the younger Car Carriers, which can be only related ship losses in extreme weather conditions with possible shift of Ro-Ro cargo. Finally, focusing on ships carrying passengers ( Fig. 5 right hand side), there is a small increase of the total loss frequency of cruise ships, when the ship age increases, having also negligi- ble frequency in the first 5 years age group. Pure passenger ships exhibit a slight increase up to the age of 15 years; then the fre- quency reduces, but picks up significantly at the age above 20 years. Finally, Ro-Ro Passenger ships with an age above 20 years exhibit also significantly high values, compared to younger ships.

3.3. Fatalities

Table 8 presents the number of registered fatalities (as the sum of ‘‘killed” and ‘‘missing” persons) per ship type. Within the studied period, 4603 persons were lost during ship accidents of interest; from this number, about 65% are attributed to accidents of passen- ger ships (RoPax, Passenger and Cruise ship), whereas the remained percentage is related to lost lives of crew of various cargo ship types (noting that close to 22% of the total is assigned to Gen- eral Cargo ships). In Table 9 , values for the Potential Loss of Life (PLL, fatalities per shipyear) are presented, which were deduced from the available statistical dataset (Historical Loss of Life). Even though the number of People On Board (POB) is very small for cargo ships (only crew members), compared to passenger ships, it is very important to highlight that the fatalities per shipyear for some cargo ships are comparable with those of passenger ships (!), indicating the increased risk of these ship types towards fatal accidents. Also, the comparably high fatality rate of RoPax ships is noted. The latter is attributed to the fact that some RoPax ships in less developed countries are badly maintained and operated, while accidents of overloaded ships in bad weather conditions happen quite fre- quently, sometimes with fatal outcome.

E. Eleftheria et al. / Safety Science 85 (2016) 282–292

Table 6 Cargo vessels, frequency of total losses by accident category.

289

 

Collision

Contact

Fire/explosion

Foundered

Hull/mchy. damage

Wrecked/stranded

General Cargo Bulk Carrier Car Carriers Fishing vessels LNG ships LPG ships Reefer vessels RoRo Cargo Cellular containerships Large Crude Oil Tankers

6.51E

2.36E

04

04

4.23E 05

0.00E+00

1.18E 04

1.69E

04

2.95E 04

1.33E

03

8.85E 05

1.10E

04

6.08E

4.72E

04

04

1.30E 04

6.13E

04

0.00E+00

3.55E 05

0.00E+00

3.79E 04

0.00E+00

7.70E 04

0.00E+00

3.55E 05

2.49E 04

4.60E

04

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

1.96E

04

1.96E

04

0.00E+00

1.96E

04

9.24E 05

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

7.26E 04

0.00E+00

2.77E

04

3.70E

8.87E 05

5.45E

04

04

0.00E+00

4.43E 05

1.82E

04

5.55E

6.65E 05

1.82E

04

04

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

Table 7 Passenger ships, frequency of total losses by accident category.

 
 

Collision

 

Contact

Fire/explosion

Foundered

Hull/mchy. damage

Wrecked/stranded

Cruise vessels Passenger vessels Passenger RoRo vessels

0.00E+00

3.83E 05

0.00E+00

3.83E 05

0.00E+00

2.38E

04

4.77E

3.96E 04

2.30E

04

04

0.00E+00

4.45E 04

4.21E

04

0.00E+00

7.65E 05

0.00E+00

2.38E

2.47E 04

1.15E

04

04

Another interesting ship type are Reefer ships, which also exhibited quite high values of historical loss of life in year 2000 (2.42E 02) and in year 2006 (4.21E 02). Both values correspond to two single accidents, namely the first one in year 2000 with 18 fatalities and the second one in year 2006, when the 3-years old Reefer vessel ‘‘Heng Da 1” had a grounding event with total loss and 35 fatalities. Fatalities per shipyear distributed by accident category are pre- sented in Fig. 6 . Focusing on the cargo ships, the highest fatality rates are coming from foundering events, whereas groundings, col- lisions and fire/explosion follow. Contact events, hull/machinery damages have all very low fatalities frequencies. Looking closer into RoRo Passenger ships ( Fig. 6 right hand side), both foundering events along with grounding and fire/explo- sion events are all contributing factors to the observed fatality rate values and this is related to the operational profile and fitness of some RoPax ships, operating in less developed countries and sustaining a high transportation work in terms of volume. Cruise

vessels exhibit also relatively high fatalities in case of contact events, which is assumed related to the frequent operation of these ships in limited waters and terminals areas, while strong blowing winds may affect their safe manoeuvring and docking. Finally, Tables 10 and 11 present the fatality rates by ship type and ship age group. Calculating the overall fatality rate for each age group regardless the shiptype, the younger vessels (less than 5 years old) exhibit the highest fatality rate and this is herein attributed to loss of a young reefer ship, as it was mentioned earlier in the discussion about the Table 9 results. The remaining age groups practically present a uniform relationship between fatality rates and ship’s age, where the fatality rate generally increases with the increase of ship’s age. For some ship types the rate of increase at higher ages is steeper, but this not contradicting the concluded general dependence rule. Regarding ships carrying passengers, the age group of 11–15 years as well as the group above 20 years exhibit cumula- tively high values of fatalities per shipyear, mainly because of

Cargo Vessels - Frequencies of Total Losses per Vessel Age Passenger Vessels - Frequencies of
Cargo Vessels - Frequencies of Total Losses per Vessel Age
Passenger Vessels - Frequencies of Total Losses
per Vessel Age
General Cargo
Bulk Carrier
Car Carriers
Fishing Vessels
Cruise Vessels
Passenger Vessels
Passenger RoRo Vessels
LNG
LPG
Reefer Vessels
RoRo Cargo
3.00E-03
6.00E-03
2.50E-03
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
4.00E-03
1.50E-03
3.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E-03
1.00E-03
5.00E-04
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
less than 5
6 to 10
11 t o15
16 to 20
Above 20
less than 5
6 to 10
11 t o15
16 to 20
Above 20

Fig. 5. Frequency of total losses by ship group age.

Table 8 Number of fatalities per ship type, time period 2000–2012.

General Cargo Bulk Carriers Fishing vessels Reefer ships Ro-Ro Cargo Car Carriers LPG ships LNG ships Cellular containerships Large Crude Oil, up to 2 010

1007

239

174

64

13

16

19

0

34

18

Passenger Ro-Ro Cargo (RoPax)

(Pure) passenger ships

Cruise ships

2371

575

42

290

Table 9 Fatalities per shipyear, time period 2000–2012.

E. Eleftheria et al. / Safety Science 85 (2016) 282–292

Ship type

Fatalities per shipyear

Ship type

Fatalities per shipyear

Serious cases, fatalities per shipyear General Cargo Reefer ships Bulk Carriers Car Carriers Ro-Ro Cargo Fishing vessels LPG ships Large Crude Oil Cellular containerships LNG ships

8.51E

03

Passenger Ro-Ro (RoPax) Passenger vessels Cruise vessels

1.17E

01

5.92E

3.52E

03

03

1.00E 02

2.20E

02

2.45E

03

2.36E

03

2.06E

03

1.86E

03

8.87E

04

0.00E 00

7.54E

04

Cargo Vessels - Fatali es per shipyear by Accident category

Passenger Vessels - Fatali es per shipyear by Accident category

6.00E-03 5.00E-03 6.00E-02 4.00E-03 3.00E-03 5.00E-02 2.00E-03 1.00E-03 4.00E-02 0.00E+00 Hull / Fire /
6.00E-03
5.00E-03
6.00E-02
4.00E-03
3.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E-03
1.00E-03
4.00E-02
0.00E+00
Hull /
Fire /
Wrecked /
Collision
Contact
Foundered
Mchy.
3.00E-02
Explosion
Stranded
Damage
GeneralCargo
1.78E-03
1.01E-04
3.47E-04
5.04E-03
5.92E-05
7.52E-04
2.00E-02
Bulk Carrier
1.92E-04
0.00E+00
5.90E-04
2.34E-03
8.85E-05
3.10E-04
Car Carriers
1.69E-03
0.00E+00
7.66E-04
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.00E-02
Fishing Vessels
3.32E-04
1.18E-05
2.60E-04
1.01E-03
2.37E-05
2.49E-04
LNG
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
Hull /
Wrecked
Fire /
Foundere
LPG
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.18E-03
1.96E-04
4.91E-04
0.00E+00
Collision
Contact
Mchy.
/
Explosion
d
Reefer Vessels
9.24E-05
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.59E-03
0.00E+00
3.24E-03
Damage
Stranded
RoRo Cargo
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
7.26E-04
1.63E-03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
Cruise Vessels
0.00E+00
8.35E-03
4.77E-04
0.00E+00
7.15E-04
4.77E-04
Cellular Containerships
8.87E-05
0.00E+00
3.99E-04
2.44E-04
0.00E+00
2.22E-05
Passenger Vessels 1.72E-03
0.00E+00
3.83E-05
2.02E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
Large Tankers
4.44E-04
0.00E+00
4.44E-04
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
RoRo Passenger
2.28E-03
4.95E-05
1.77E-02
5.62E-02
0.00E+00
4.11E-02

Fig. 6. Fatalities per shipyears by accident type.

Table 10 Cargo ships, fatalities per shipyear, time period 2000–2012 by group age.

 

General Cargo

Bulk Carrier

Car Carriers

Fishing vessels

LNG

LPG

Reefer vessels

RoRo Cargo

Less than 5

3.24E

03

1.17E

03

4.92E 03

1.23E

03

0.00E+00

8.07E 04

4.87E 02

0.00E+00

6–10

2.54E

03

3.18E

03

0.00E+00

2.84E

03

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

3.79E 03

11–15

4.95E

03

1.72E

03

0.00E+00

3.92E

03

0.00E+00

9.38E 04

7.50E

03

0.00E+00

16–20

Above 20

1.67E 02

1.01E

02

6.44E 03

8.32E

03

4.29E 03

1.07E

03

1.20E 03

1.31E

03

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

8.62E 03

1.20E 03

2.38E

03

3.57E 03

3.99E

03

Ro-Ro Passenger ships, as shown in Table 11 . Recalling the earlier made comment regarding the unique operational conditions and inferior fitness of Ro-Ro Passenger ships in less developed coun- tries, we note that in the reporting period they were two disastrous accidents with high number of fatalities, which decisively deter- mine the values of the shown statistics: the 970 fatalities of the ‘‘ Le Joola ”, which capsized off the coast of Gambia in 2002 and 831 fatalities for the ‘‘ Princess of the Stars”, which was lost during typhoon Fengshen in Philippines in 2008.

4. Assessment of uncertainty of timeline analysis

A basic problem in the statistical analysis of historical ship acci-

dent data is the scarcity and sometime quality of data. Regarding the quality of data: the analyst is requested to cross-check acciden- tal data through various independent sources and update them, as necessary.

A valuable approach, when investigating historical data of the

present type, was presented by Kelangath et al. (2012); it intro-

duces the use of data-driven Bayesian modelling in risk analysis and makes a comparison with different data-driven Bayesian

Table 11 Passenger ships, fatalities per shipyear, time period 2000–2012 by group age.

 

Cruise vessels

Passenger vessels

Passenger RoRo vessels

Less than 5

9.99E

04

0.00E+00

5.13E

04

6–10

3.34E 02

4.29E

02

1.10E

02

11–15

0.00E+00

1.68E

04

2.32E

01

16–20

Above 20

8.68E 03

4.26E

03

5.60E 02

7.81E

03

2.89E 01

3.14E

02

methods possible, what may set off some interesting trends hidden in the casualty databases. In the present study we followed a more conventional way, namely in order to conclude about the sufficiency of the statistical sample in terms of the amount of available historical accident data we conducted for each ship type, a Kendall’s Tau non-parametric test of statistical significance regarding the timeline of observed events. This allows us to rationally determine a possible increasing trend in the number of future accidents. The results of the test are given in Table 12 . From the above conducted test, we observe that as far as the cargo ships fleet is concerned, we note an increasing trend of

E. Eleftheria et al. / Safety Science 85 (2016) 282–292

291

Table 12 Kendall’s Tau test for accident timelines per ship type.

Ship type

Correlation coefficient

Sig. (2-tailed)

Bulk Carriers

.205

.329

Car Carriers

.051

.807

Fishing vessels

0.692

**

.001

General Cargo

0.590

**

.005

LNG

.082

.705

LPG

.256

.222

RoRo Cargo

.282

.180

Reefer vessels

.256

.222

Cruise vessels

.256

.222

Passenger vessels

0.744

**

.000

RoPaX

0.590 **

.005

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

accidents for the General Cargo ships and the Fishing Vessels. Referring to ships carrying passengers, Pure Passenger ships and Passenger Ro-Ro ships (RoPax) also present a statistically signifi- cant increasing trend. For the remaining ship types, no significant trend can be concluded from the available/processed data.

5. Conclusions

The present investigation illustrates current levels of risk and safety for the most popular types of merchant ships in terms of fre- quencies of ship accidents, of people onboard fatalities and of ship total losses. Frequencies related to the occurrence of serious accidents show, in general, increased values in the last ten years (post 2000) of the studied period (compared to DNV, 2006 ), of about 30%, depending on ship type, except from LPG ships, where exhibited values con- siderably decreased. However, focusing on the fatalities per shipyear, the frequency of loss of life was significantly reduced, except for Reefer vessels and RoPax ships, for which the fatality rates increased; in these cases, however, statistics were determined by individual, catas- trophic type of accidents. This observation of declining fatalities for the other ship types appears contradicting the generally increased accident frequency values and indicates that recorded accidents were obviously less severe in terms of consequences and/or this was the result of an improved recording practice of ship accidents by the database provider (less ‘underreporting’, Hassel et al., 2011 ). The investigation of relationships between ship’s age and acci-

dental rates as well as of consequences led to a variety of interest- ing conclusions; namely, that it is not always straightforward that an older ship simply suffers more accidents than a younger one, as sometimes younger ships exhibit more accidents; thus, it is rather

a complicated relationship that is affected by a variety of parame-

ters, like ship type and quality of (new) shipbuilding, the quality and extent of ship’s maintenance and ship operation (seamanship), the time of major class surveys and possible change of ownership, etc. However, clearly an older ship, especially over 20 years of age 6

is more prone to total loss accidents.

Among passenger ships, the highest frequency of accidents is observed for cruise ships, but in terms of fatalities Ro-Ro Passenger ships are leaders. Among the various types of investigated cargo ships, the Ro-Ro Cargo and Car Carriers exhibit the highest accident frequencies, but the General Cargo ships have the highest number of total losses and of fatalities. Estimated values of Potential Loss of Life (PLL) by historical data for RoPax ships present highest values in the last decade, namely

6 Traditionally, the economic life of a cargo ship is set at 20 years, whereas for passenger ships this often increases to 30 years.

1.17E 01 pertaining to all studied accident categories, whereas values for Cruise and Passenger ships are more or less comparable, namely 1.00E 02 and 2.20E 02 respectively. These data were con- firmed in a more recent risk analysis study performed in the frame- work of the EMSA III project ( EMSA III, 2013 ) regarding ships larger than 80 m, it was shown that the PLL values of Cruise vessels are in the range of 4.20E 01–5.98E 02 (depending on the ship size), whereas RoPax ships present PLL values in the range of 1.09E 01–7.12E 01. It is noted that PLL statistics are greatly affected by individual disastrous accidents that (if they happen) decisively determine the statistical values. Recalling a basic definition of safety, namely that safety is a state of acceptable risk by society , we may herein conclude on the level of safety of the world fleet in terms of the average level of risk of ship accidents, thus quantitatively in terms of averaged accident fre- quencies and of their consequences. In that respect we note an increasing trend of the risk of accidents for some ship types, like General Cargo Ships, (large) Fishing vessels, Passenger and Ro-Ro Passenger ships, whereas for other ship types no significant changes are observed. Considering the outcome of the DNV (2006) study, it can be said that in the last decade the frequencies of ship accidents generally increased (which may be disputed, if considering the reduced underreporting , the extent of which is unknown), but the safety level of various ship types did not signif- icantly change, as the consequences of accidents remained in aver- age at about the same level. Nevertheless the safety performance of the various ship types differs and needs special care when aiming at a continuous improvement of ship safety in the years to come. Independently, considering that the causes for the overwhelming majority of ship accidents (especially of the navigational type of accidents) are related to human factors, which are to a great extent independent of ship type, efforts for the improvement of maritime safety need to include research on human factors, improved crew training schemes and familiarisation with new technologies, crisis management, etc., even though the quantification of possible improvements will be difficult to establish in view of the nature of the safety problem and the complexity of human factors effects ( Harrald et al., 1998 ).

References

CONTIOPT, Formal Safety Assessment and Multi-Objective Optimization of Containerships. NTUA-Germanischer Lloyd Bilateral Project, 2011–2013. DNV, 2006. Level of Safety of Ships in the Period 1999–2004. DNV Report. Eliopoulou, E., Papanikolaou, A., 2007. Casualty analysis of large tankers. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 12 (4), 191–271, November 2007, Springer Japan, ISSN 0948-4280 (Print) 1437-8213 (Online) . Eliopoulou, E., Hamann, R., Papanikolaou, A., Golyshev, P., 2013. Casualty analysis of cellular container ships. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Maritime Conference on Design for Safety-4th Workshop on Risk-based Approaches in the Marine Industries (IDFS 2013), 25–27 November, Shanghai, China. Eliopoulou, E., Papanikolaou, A., Diamantis, P., Hamann, R., 2012. Analysis of tanker casualties after OPA90. J. Eng. Marit. Environ., Part M 226 (4), November 2012, ISSN 1475-0902 . EMSA III (2013–2015). Assessment of the acceptable and practicable risk level of passenger ships related to damage stability. Project Funded by the European Maritime Safety Agency. Goerlandt, F., Montewka, J., 2015. A framework for risk analysis of maritime transportation systems: a case study for oil spill from tankers in a ship–ship collision. J. Saf. Sci. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.02.009 . Hamann, R., Papanikolaou, A., Eliopoulou, E., Golyshev, P., 2013. Assessment of safety performance of container ships. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Maritime Conference on Design for Safety-4th Workshop on Risk-based Approaches in the Marine Industries (IDFS 2013), 25–27 November, Shanghai, China. Harrald, J.R., Mazzuchi, T.A., Spahn, J., Van Dorp, R., Merrick, J., Shrestha, S., Grabowski, M., 1998. Using system simulation to model the impact of human error in a maritime system. Saf. Sci. 30, 235–247 . Hassel, M., Asbjørnslett, B.E., Hole, L.P., 2011. Underreporting of maritime accidents to vessel accident databases. J. Accid. Anal. Prevent. 4 (6), 2053–2063 . Kelangath, S., Purnendu, D., Quigley, J., Hirdaris, S., 2012. Risk analysis of damaged ships – a data-driven Bayesian approach. Ships Offshore Struct. 7 (3), 333–347. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2011.592358 .

292

E. Eleftheria et al. / Safety Science 85 (2016) 282–292

MEPC 58/INF.2, 2008. FSA – Crude Oil Tankers, Details of the Formal Safety Assessment. Submitted by Denmark, IMO London, 4 July 2008. Montewka, J., Ehlers, S., Goerlandt, F., Hinz, T., Tabri, K., Kujala, P., 2014. A framework for risk assessment for maritime transportation systems – a case study for open sea collisions involving RoPax vessels. J. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2013.11.014 . MSC 83/INF.3, 2007. FSA – Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Carriers, Details of the Formal Safety Assessment. Submitted by Denmark, IMO London, 3 July 2007. MSC 83/INF.8, 2007. FSA – container vessels, Details of the Formal Safety Assessment. Submitted by Denmark, IMO London, 3 July 2007. MSC 85/INF.2, 2008. FSA – Cruise Ships, Details of the Formal Safety Assessment. Submitted by Denmark, IMO London, 21 July 2008. MSC 85/INF.3, 2008. FSA – RoPax Ships, Details of the Formal Safety Assessment. Submitted by Denmark, IMO London, 21 July 2008. MSC/Circ.1023, 2002. ’Guidelines for Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO Rule-Making Process. IMO, London, 5 April 2002. MSC/Circ.1180-MEPC/Circ.474, 2005. Amendments to the Guidelines for Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO Rule-Making Process (MSC/ Circ.1023 – MEPC/Circ.392). IMO London, 25 August 2005. MSC-MEPC.2/Circ.12, 2013. Revised Guidelines for Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) for Use in the IMO Rule-Making Process. IMO London, 8 July 2013. Pagiaziti, A., Maliaga, E., Eliopoulou, E., Zaraphonitis, G., Hamann, R., 2015. Statistics of collision, grounding and contact accidents of passenger and container ships. Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on ship Operations, Management and Economics (SOME), 28–29 May 2015, Athens. Papanikolaou, A., Bitha, K., Eliopoulou, E., Ventikos, N.P., 2014. Statistical analysis of ship accidents that occurred in the period 1990–2012 and assessment of safety level of ship types. In: Proceedings of the Maritime Technology and Engineering

Conference (MARTECH), 15–17th October 2014, Lisboa, Portugal, pp. 227–233 (ISBN 978-1-138-02727-5). Papanikolaou, A., Eliopoulou, E., 2008. Impact of ship age on tanker accidents. In:

Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Ship Operations, Management & Economics, SNAME Local Section, Athens. Papanikolaou, A., Hamann, R., Lee, B.-S., Mains, C., Olufsen, O, Tvedt, E., Vassalos, D., Zaraphonitis, G., 2013. GOALDS – goal based damage stability of passenger ships. In: Transactions of the 2013 Annual Conference of the Society of Naval Architect and Marine Engineers (SNAME), Seattle. Papanikolaou, A, Bitner-Gregersen, E., El Moctar, O., Guedes Soares, C., Reddy, R., Spengler, F., Shigunov, V., Zaraphonitis, G., 2015. Energy efficient safe ship operation (SHOPERA). In: Transactions of the 2015 World Maritime Technology Conference (WMTC2015), Society of Naval Architect and Marine Engineers (SNAME), Providence. Skjong, R., 2002. Risk Acceptance Criteria: current proposals and IMO positions. Proceedings of the Surface Transport Technologies for Sustainable Development, Valencia, Spain, 4–6 June 2002. Skjong, R., 2009. Regulatory framework. In: Papanikolaou, A. (Ed.), Risk-Based Ship Design, Methods, Tools and Applications. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg (ISBN 978-3-540-89041-9) . SAFEDOR, 2005–2009. Design, Operation and Regulation for Safety. EU Project, FP6-

516278.

Voulgarellis, M., 2015. Statistical Analysis of Serious Accidents in the Period 2000– 2012 (Diploma Thesis). National Technical University of Athens, Ship Design Laboratory, March 2015 (in Greek).