Opinion

Those irritating 20 %


by Ed Verbeek - published on 1 June 2021 839 -

Article by Ed Verbeek, MSc, FNI

A long time ago, on an instructors course, I was taught that you should start your presentation with a BOOM, not with a 'poof'……..

In line with that, I used to start presentations on the infamous 80 % “Human Error” with:

Whenever I hear that 80 % of the accidents at sea are caused by Human Error; I am shocked.
I hope I offend no one, but I am shocked that after thousands of years of designing, building and equipping ships, the technology is apparently still so frail that one out of five accidents has technical causes.


This was closely followed by

I have sometimes heard: “80% Human Error, what are we going to do about it". Well, I have good news: if you would want to reduce it, that is very easy. Just build bad ships and put even worse equipment on board and you will see the percentage of Human Error in accidents reduce dramatically. The only downturn is that you will have to accept an increase in the number of accidents.

I have discovered that such a BOOM can be an overkill. I noticed that some people needed so much time to recover, that they missed part of the rest of the presentation. Some were taken aback, thinking that I was looking for a confrontation…

So I have developed a better sized BOOM, and hope that this is sufficient to raise your interest, without triggering negative feelings. My new start:

Just suppose you want to buy a car, and the seller notices that safety is an important issue for you. Just suppose that he will say: this is not such a good car: almost 100 % of the accidents with this car are because of “Human Error”. That other car is much safer: only 60 % of the accidents are because of “Human Error”, the other accidents are because of brakes failing, steering break-downs, etc etc. Would you agree with this seller?

In fact, what happens as soon as there is any systemic technical problem with a car? There will be a recall! In 2018, Toyota recalled more than 2,4 million Prius cars because of possible power stall in rare circumstances. Toyota declined to say if an actual accident did happen…. In road traffic we’re talking in excess of 99% "Human Error"…..and no one would want it differently. Actually we don’t even discuss it. I am quite sure that in road traffic 20% accidents due to technical failures would be absolutely unacceptable. It would be nice if we could reduce this irritating figure of 20% "Technical Failures" in shipping too! (realising that - while reducing the number of accidents - this would automatically increase the percentage "Human Error")
Technical or Human Error?
Technical or Human Error?
Technical or Human Error?
Technical or Human Error?
My hypothesis is that any mature, well developed system is bound to have a high percentage “Human Error”. As the system develops, and the reasons for technical failures are analysed, these are remedied. The number of technical failures will then reduce. On the human side, as the system develops, risks are better known, and procedures will be developed, bringing down the number of accidents due to "Human Error". However, humans will continue to have to make decisions based on incomplete information, while having to serve multiple, partly conflicting goals, in an imperfect designed and regulated environment. So it is much harder to bring down this number. The sum total is much less accidents, and as accidents attributes to technical failures reduce even more than accidents attributed to "Human Error" , the percentage "Human Error" will increase. A high percentage "Human Error" is an indication that the people at the sharp end are given tools that are 'fit for purpose'.

I like to just play with numbers to gain a better understanding of what the ramifications of statements are. Let's just do that with this statement: suppose that in a developing system there are 1000 incidents, 500 due to technical failures and 500 due to "Human Error". As the system matures, and the technical requirements are better known, adding a bit of steel here, fixing that connection, making that part a bit more resilient, brings down the number due to technical failure to 50. Better selection, training and procedures brings down "Human Error" to 150. So over the years safety increased dramatically. Accidents due to technical failures reduced from 500 to 50. Accidents due to "Human Error" reduced from 500 to 150. The total number of accidents reduced from 1000 to 200. In percentages the total number of incidents reduced by 80%, but "Human Error" has gone up from 50% to 75%(!) while technical failure reduced from 50% to 25%. Although I don't know of any research on the subject, I'm convinced that in the 17th century the percentage "Human Error" was much lower than presently, as many accidents happened because of technical failures, or uncontrollable circumstances.

By the way, although it can be assumed that mature, well developed systems have a high percentage of “Human Error”, this can not be turned around: a system with a high percentage "Human Error" does not necessarily have to be a mature, well developed system. There is always the possibility that a high percentage "Human Error" is due to insufficient selection, training, experience etc. However for a mature, regulated system it is unlikely that this would play a large part.
The message I want to bring across with this article is quite simple: Mature, well developed systems are bound to have a low percentage of technical failures. Consequently these systems will have a high percentage if Human Error. There is no need for a knee-jerk reaction to try to reduce this. Most likely it is a good sign and there is no need to reduce this percentage! We need other indicators to know what needs improvement and how that could be achieved.
Editor's note:
Opinion pieces reflect the personal opinion of individual authors. They do not allow any conclusions to be drawn about a prevailing opinion in the respective editorial department. Opinion pieces might be deliberately formulated in a pronounced or even explicit tone and may contain biased arguments. They might be intended to polarise and stimulate discussion. In this, they deliberately differ from the factual articles you typically find on this platform, written to present facts and opinions in as balanced a manner as possible.

Join the conversation...

Login or register to write comments and join the discussion!
SP
Sanjeev Pande Ocean Sparkle Limited, India
on 13 June 2021, 08:44 UTC

Spot on! In a mature system, a 20% error factor should make us start looking for, or devising, different indicators other than for "human error" if we want to reduce the error percentage any further.
0

Read more...

Opinion What is the added value of pilotage?

by Ed Verbeek Nautical Consultancy and Training - published on 7 December 2020

The individual pilot operates as part of a pilotage organisation. And, as with so many things, the whole is (much) more than the sum of the parts ...

0

Video A Day In Life of Sailors Piloting Tiny Container Ship

published on 14 March 2025

Welcome back to the Fluctus Channel for a feature behind the Model Ships used by captains in training centers. Fluctus is a website and YouTube channel dedicated to sea geeks. Whenever you are curious or an incorrigible lover of this mysterious world, our videos are made for you ! We publish 3 videos a week on our YouTube channel and many more articles on our website. Feel free to subscribe to not miss any of our updates and visit our website to discover additional content. Don’t forget to...

0

Article National Transportation Safety Board Releases Report Detailing 2018 Allision At Louisiana’s Sunshine Bridge

published on 13 August 2020

On October 11, 2018, the Kristin Alexis was performing fleeting work with a crew of six, including a captain, pilot, and four deckhands (two per shift), at the Cooper Consolidated fleeting facility at Convent located at mile 161.5. About 2300, the Cooper Consolidated dispatcher informed the Kristin Alexis captain that their next job was to move the derrick-type crane barge Mr Ervin upriver to the Cooper Consolidated fleeting facility in Darrow, located at mile 175.

0

Video Pilots, Ship Job Description

published on 4 July 2019

What does a pilot do? Job description

0

Video On the frontline: working at sea amid the COVID-19 crisis

published on 8 February 2021

When the world locked down, Australia’s marine pilots continued bringing ships safely into the nation’s ports to deliver the goods we depend on. Around 6,000 ships visit the ports of NSW each year and meeting them at sea to help them navigate into our ports and harbours are Port Authority’s marine pilots and cutter vessel crews. ••• Port Authority of New South Wales manages the navigation, security and operational safety needs of commercial shipping in Sydney Harbour, Port Botany,...

1

Video Traveling on Crude Oil Tanker Seaways Yellowstone In The Gulf Of Mexico Open Sea to Port Aransas

published on 24 January 2023

Take a narrated journey with me on a large crude oil tanker ship. Starting from sea to taking pilot, entering the Port Aransas Jetties, to ending all fast and moored at dock near Corpus Christi Texas. In the video I film the Pilot Boarding the vessel while underway. Link To New Ships YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPACsIutgWlmrhrJ6JCmCIg For inquiries info@thirdcoastdrone.com Web https://www.thirdcoastdrone.com Facebook https://www.facebook.com/Third-...

0

Article Master and Chief Engineer plead guilty in MV Funing case

published on 22 September 2020

The Master and Chief Engineer of the log-carrier MV Funing, have today been sentenced and fined after admitting charges relating to the grounding of the ship at the Port of Tauranga in July.

Master Liang Guang Hong and Chief Engineer Chameekara Prasad Nanayakkara both entered guilty pleas in the Tauranga District Court on 10 September to charges brought by Maritime NZ under the Maritime Transport Act (MTA) 1994.

1

Article Humber Maritime Pilot (UK) dies in river incident

published on 9 January 2023

The man was working as a Marine Pilot for ABP when he fell into the water on Sunday afternoon. The circumstances surrounding his death are not yet known

0

Article Southeast Alaska Pilots’ simulator exam, May 22-28, 2021

published on 7 February 2021

Southeast Alaska Pilots’ is running a third simulator exam May 24-28 with the written exam May 22, 2021. This exam is open to new applicants and those that were not able to attend the previous exam. Those that tested in October or December 2020 will not be eligible

0

Article Adjustment pilot transfer arrangement Multratug-19

by Arie Palmers - published on 9 August 2023

An article by Arie Palmers highlights his collaboration with Multraship to develop a solution aimed at enhancing the safety of pilot boarding on harbor tugs, ultimately reducing delays.

1