Насколько прозрачным и достоверным является расследование морских инцидентов? Таким важнейшим вопросом задается автор настоящей публикации. Важность и актуальность вопросов, связанных с расследованием чрезвычайных морских происшествий не вызывает сомнений, поскольку тщательное и прозрачное расследование дает возможность извлечь уроки из морских происшествий, в том числе аварийных, с тем чтобы минимизировать их в будущем. Такое расследование оказывает весьма позитивное действие на состояние безопасности мореплавания. Важнейшая цель таких расследований – это выявление причин, вызвавших инцидент. Выяснение причинных связей позволяет обогатить опыт мореплавателей и изучать чужие ошибки чтобы не совершать такие же. Таким образом, ясное и прозрачное расследование морских инцидентов с рекомендациями по их предупреждению в будущем оказывает помощь всей морской индустрии. Если же фактические обстоятельства морских происшествий расследуются с опозданием и недостаточно аккуратно, это приводит к тому, что картина чрезвычайного морского происшествия затемняется и становится расплывчатой. Такого рода расследование не приносит пользы для развития практики мореплавания. Часто оно бывает направлено лишь на выяснение вопроса о том, кто должен платить и сколько.
Investigating the factors behind marine incidents provides a rich resource of safety information – but are we making use of that resource?
How transparent and accurate are marine accident investigations today? All too often, there are many hurdles in the way of investigations, including the different interpretations of events and priorities from the local port authority, from commercial and legal interests, and as the result of media influence. Some authorities even hamper, delay or deny permission to surveyors to attend and carry out inspection and enquiries. When ascertainment of facts and data is delayed, the scene gets blurred.
The matter becomes worse when we approach the question of surveys carried out on behalf of private interests, eg P&I Clubs, owners and cargo owners, rather than the accident investigations carried out by the flag in question. Sometimes permission to board and inspect a vessel or to meet the ship’s Master and crew for a reasonable study is inordinately delayed. Sometimes senior officers and crew are flown home without the investigators having even minimal access, leaving the entire investigation stymied. And yet, both marine insurance policies and the Hague Rules provide for reasonable cooperation and facilities to inspect and assess’ the casualty. Where does this leave the investigation? Am casualty scene is follow ed bv a flurry of phone calls between operator, vessel owner and legal consultants.
Who pays?
The alarming rise in claim values and some of the harsh punitive decisions made against ships’ personnel has led to a need to use the investigation to shore up the legal defence. Furthermore, so many judgements and decisions are decided quite summarily by a local authority. As a result, what used to be primarily a technical survey to be used in prevention of accidents has in recent years often been used for establishing liability – or rather, limiting liability to the maximum extent possible. Hie investigation process has gone in the adversarial legal direction, focusing on ‘who pays and how much?’ as the primary objective, rather than on what went wrong and how to use lessons learnt to prevent a recurrence.
Investigations as resource
Some argue that government surveyors/flag states alone have the jurisdiction to determine the causes of an accident. On the contrary, the results of private accident investigations provide vital data for improving quality assurance manuals and updating standard operating procedures. All the investigation data from loss, damage and claims ultimately goes into the directon of maritime experience.
There is no substitute for such a resource. As Captain Richard Cahill says in The Nautical Institute’s Strandings and their causes: ‘Learn from the mistakes of others before your mistake becomes the lesson for others’. Quite specific and absolutely true. The question is, are we listening to the lessons available, and are we ready to learn from marine accidents to minimise, if not prevent, similar future accidents?
Some of the data we receive, like the MARS reports, is excellent.
But when it comes to major accidents and casualties, all too often it is another matter. Questions of payment or limitation of liability dominate the investigation, and all too often the results are shrouded in secrecy, wrapped up in red tape, and the real truth is buried – and potentially lost forever.
A case in point is the MT Pratihha Cauvery, a tanker which was stranded off Chennai port in 2012. The stranding received much media attention but was soon forgotten. The limited investigation was an eye opener in terms of the handling of the situation and the outcomes, as authorities sought to find out who was to blame, rather than how the incident occurred in order to prevent it in future.
Accident investigation is not a checklist driven exercise, but rather an intelligent study and analysis of the overall scene.
What should we aim for?
t here are some universally accepted guidelines for accident reporting, which all state that investigations should look to establish proximate cause. According to the UK ‘s Merchant Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 2012: ‘Outcomes shall be used for the prevention of future accidents through the ascertainment of [the] causes and circumstances. It shall not be the purpose of an investigation to merely determine liability nor, except so far as is necessary to achieve its objective, to apportion blame’. These guidelines apply specifically to flag state investigations, but they are an excellent starting point for marine accident investigations generally.
Marine accident investigation should aim for specific identification of causes. I lowever, accident investigation is not a checklist driven exercise but rather an intelligent study and analysis of the overall scene. Evidence and photographs must be collected and collated, and in-depth crosschecking and analysis of all facts and figures is required. Metallurgical analysis of the steel may be required, and further lab tests, divers’ reports and so on may also form part of the investigation.
That said, there should be a time limit for identifying the cause, nature and extent of loss and to give recommendations. This should certainly not be more than three months. In fact a preliminary finding report should possibly be made available within 30 days, unless salvage and related matters arc involved. This should be feasible in a normal loss and damage case involving particular average rather than complex matters of general average.
More generally, an investigator must have in depth knowledge of the subject. Investigators need a fair and reasonable idea of what is a safe and unsafe practice – bearing in mind that in any venture there is always an element of risk, and there is no such thing as perfect risk management. Casualty investigation and survey is a crucial area which requires a lot of experience and judgement, and sometimes niche specialisation. Specialised trades such as gas carriers or icc class or polar class vessels in particular require a thorough knowledge of the working of the sector.
Sharing information
If we can learn from accidents at the grass roots level, we can greatly enhance maritime safety. The analysis and outcomes have so much to teach the industry at large. But once we have the information, it is vital that we share it. Regrettably, we have got ourselves into a series of watertight compartments, with each section – and all the information and knowledge it contains – cut off from the next. There are a few stray cases of rapport and team working but overall, there is no real synergy between marine authorities, the owner, port authority, shipping department, flag state, classification societies and P&I Clubs.
Economic viability is the driving force behind shipping today, but every accident is a drain on economic viability. If we can plug the leaks and losses through a realistic safety management system derived trom well documented accident investigations and followed up in practice, wc will have a much improved bottom line. Clear and transparent maritime investigations with solid recommendations for the prevention of future accidents will greatlv help the shipping industry.
Автор: Capt Rajkumar is senior executive director with J В Boda Surveyors, where he has worked for nearly 40 years. In 2004, he received the Service Award in recognition of his outstanding contribution to the shipping industry.
Источник: Seaways. – 2015. – September. – P. 14, 16.