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 Batangas Harbor Pilot PCC Undocking Maneuver

published on 28 June 2020

Video by Capt.Harold Janda

0

Opinion New article by The Standard Club: "Remote pilotage - perspective and risks to consider"

by Marine-Pilots.com - published on 8 June 2020

Published on 5th June 2020. Author Capt. John Dolan says: "We would not recommend remote pilotage when the ship is berthing or unberthing. These operations require the presence and advice of an experienced pilot who has extensive local knowledge and who is usually assisted by port tugs."

1

Video Pilot "rides" aboard on ladder elevator. Footage from 1966

published on 22 December 2021

Editors note: There was a reason why this idea of a kind of ladder-elevator did not become accepted!

0

Video DanPilot's focus on digitalisation: Remote Piloting

published on 9 September 2024

European Maritime Days 2024: About DanPilot's focus on digitalisation and our two innovation projects in remote and drone-assisted pilotage as a supplement to traditional pilotage.

0

Video The Port Authority of Jamaica | Critical Services - Pilotage

published on 15 April 2021

Pilotage is compulsory in all Jamaican ports and is a necessity for the safe passage and docking of ships entering and leaving the harbours. No ship or vessel can enter our Ports without the #PortAuthorityJa’s pilotage services. #MarinePilots, being the experts in local conditions, are required to assist in the navigation and manoeuvring of vessels in our channels and port areas and are dispatched to all ports in Jamaica on a 24 hour basis. Our #PilotBoatCrew ensures that Marine Pilots are...

2

Article AIMPA Journal- October 2021 issue XV

by AIMPA - All India Marine Pilots' Association - published on 15 October 2021

The All India Maritime Pilots' Association has released its new journal for October

0

Video Pilot on Board Trailer (Finnpilots)

published on 4 July 2019

Finnish Pilots at work.

0

Video Viking Mars Cruise Ship - Pilot Boarding

published on 22 September 2022

The Viking Mars is a brand new cruise ship, built this year (2022). While it is a relatively small ship when it comes to cruise liners, it's still an imposing vessel. It's big enough to enable them to fit a planetarium, fitness center, hair salon, a spa, and the usual shops, restaurants and cabins. We have filmed quite a few vessels coming in and out of Holyhead port now, and the Viking Cruise Line ships are, without doubt, some of the most classy and good looking vessels about. Lovely...

0

Video New Pilot Vessel "SEA MASTER" / Bulk Carrier Ship "TAI HAWK"

published on 27 April 2020

New Pilot Vessel "SEA MASTER" / On board Bulk Carrier Ship "TAI HAWK" - Arriving at #Recalada #BoardingStation #KM239_1 #PuntaIndioChannel #RioDeLaPlata #Argentine Nueva Lancha de Prácticos "SEA MASTER" / A bordo del Buque de Transporte a Granel "TAI HAWK" - Llegando a Recalada #EstaciónDeEmbarque KM 239,1 del Canal Punta Indio, del Río de La Plata #Argentina This video (original sound) was filmed on board Bulk Carrier Ship "TAI HAWK" (IMO Number: 9284556) and shows the moment when the...

0