COMPLACENCY AS AN ELEMENT OF MARITIME ACCIDENTS. SAFETY on board modern ships – NOT SATISFACTORY 75 – 96% of accidents include CREW´S ERROR Errors made by crewmembers: Management errors – 71% Operational errors.
75 – 96% of accidents include
Errors made by crewmembers:
COMPLACENCY can be divided into:
negative influence of Shipping Companies
expressed through dominant communication COMPANY- SHIP in which process the crew meet the interests of the Company against their own beliefs and attitudes which are eventually lost, or become passive and transform into submissive attitudes
negative influence of leadership expressed through Master´s domination in which case the crew meet the requirements of the authoritysuppressing personal attitudes and beliefs
Shipboard duties…right person for the right job…Senior officers have the burden of due diligence while assigning jobs.
Your crew is your responsibility…
SELF-INDUCED COMPLACENCYnegative influence of the acquired feeling of superiority and personal significance to the change of personal previously positive attitudes
... the container would have been on the plane…!!!
COMPLACENCY represents a process of gradual change of attitudes that transforms a “good” seaman into a “bad” seaman.
the crew unconsciously, in compliance with newly formed attitudes, stop using potential knowledge and experiential resources.
Passivization of knowledge, creativity and motivation
is in fact
activation of the notion of Management Complacency!
change into inhibition begins as a spontaneous reaction to
bad communication or unpleasant environment (hierarchical relations) within which the individual(s) can feel insignificant.
active knowledge, creativity and motivation are gradually suppressed.
The crew still potentially have knowledge and creativity
but they are not stimulated to use them (inhibition).
= SOLAS (1929)
Torrey Canyon (1967)
= MARPOL (1973) & STCW (1978)
Amoco Cadiz (1978)
= SOLAS & MARPOL 1978 Protocols
Herald of Free Enterprise (1987)
= ISM & SOLAS Ch. II-1
Exxon Valdez (1989)
= SOLAS Ch. XII (1997)
Various Bulk Carrier losses – early 1990s
= SOLAS Ch. II-1 (1995)
= EU package I & II
= New IMO rules – phase-out of single hull tankers
supports complacency because of:
which ensure efficiency and successfulness through adaptation of persons to the mechanistic model of behaviour and carrying out duties.
insufficient motivation, communication and cooperationamong officers
job dissatisfaction, superficial interactions of the employees,
Caused by Complacency Syndrome.
Complacency is reflected in:
is not efficient enough to prevent CS
greater motivation and initiative by the Master, Chief Engineer and the Officers on board
building balance between ship´s demands and functional sections of the Company that, in order to satisfy interests of the whole, are prone to neglect the interests of individual ship
develop new relations
mutual advising and planning
the upgrading of ship´s safety(SMS) and
possible reactions in an emergency
REAL TEAM WORK
CAN BE ESTABLISHED AND DEVELOPED ON THE BASIS