Karaya Oturma Kazalarında İnsan Hatası: Konteyner Gemileri için Örnek Çalışma

Dünya denizyolu taşımacılığında konteyner taşımacılığı önemli bir paya sahiptir. Konteyner gemileri genel olarak köprüüstünde yeni teknolojilerin kullanıldığı donanımlara sahip, özel inşa edilmiş gemiler olmalarına rağmen deniz kazaları sıklıkla bu tip gemilerde de yaşanmaya devam etmektedir. Konteyner gemilerinde en sık görülen kaza türlerinden biri karaya oturmadır. Çalışmanın temel amacı konteyner gemileri karaya oturma kazalarında insan hatası kaynaklı kaza nedenlerini belirlemek ve çözüm önerileri getirmektir. Çalışma kapsamında Uluslararası Denizcilik Örgütü (IMO), Bütünleşik Küresel Deniz Taşımacılığı Bilgi Sistemi (GISIS) verileri ile kaza araştırması yapan MAIB, ATSB, TSB gibi kuruluşlarının hazırladığı 1993-2011 yıllarına ait kaza raporları incelenmiştir. Çalışmada kaza nedenleri soruşturma raporlarından derlenmiş ve toplamda 46 adet karaya oturma kazası incelenmiştir. Kaza nedenleri ve çözüm önerilerinin analizinde Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi (AHP) kullanılmıştır. Sonuç olarak konteyner gemilerinde karaya oturma kazalarının önlenmesinde en önemli etmenlerin sırasıyla güverte vardiya zabiti sayısının artırımı, gemi öncesi ve gemide eğitim, köprüüstü kaynak yönetimi, gemi içi uygulamaları, gözcü kullanılması ve son olarak ECDIS cihazı olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Human Error in Grounding Accidents: Case Study for Container Ships

Container transportation constitutes an important share of present-day maritime transportation. Although container ships are, in general, recently-built ships with technologically advanced bridge equipment, marine accidents continue to be frequently observed with these types of ships. One of the most common types of accidents observed with container ships are grounding accidents. The main purpose of the study was to identify the human error-related causes of marine accidents that involve grounding, and bring solution for these accidents. Within the scope of this study, data of International Maritime Organization (IMO), Global Integrated Shipping and Information System (GISIS) and accident reports that are prepared by organizations such as ATSB, MAIB, TSB between 1993 and 2011, were examined. In the study, a total of 46 grounding accidents, compiled from the accident investigation reports, were examined. The AHP method was used for the analysis of the accident data and the proposed solutions. In conclusion, it was determined that the measure with the highest priority for preventing grounding accidents with container ships is increasing the number of watch keeping officers. Other measures which were effective for preventing grounding accidents are included pre-joining and on-board trainings, bridge resource management applications practices, the use of lookouts, and, finally, the use of the ECDIS device.

Kaynakça

[1] O'neil, W. (2003). The human element in shipping. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 2(2):95-97.

[2] Antao, P. and Soares, C. G. (2006). Faulttree Models of Accident Scenarios of Ropax Vessels. International Journal of Automation and Computing, 2:107- 116.

[3] Celik, M., Lavasani, S. M. and Wang, J. (2010).A risk-based modelling approach to enhance shipping accident investiga tion. Safety Science, 48(1):18-27.

[4] Eliopoulou, E . and Papanikolaou, A. (2007). Casualty Analysis of Large Tankers. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 12(4):240-250.

[5] Hetherington, C., Flin, R. and Mearns, K. (2006). Safety in shipping: the human element. Journal of Safety Research, 37(4):401-411.

[6] Martins, M. R. and Maturana, M. C. (2010). Human error contribution in collision and grounding of oil tankers, Risk Analysis, 30(4):674-98.

[7] Mullai, A. and Paulsson, U. (2011). A grounded theory model for analysis of marine accidents. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(4): 1590-1603.

[8] Tzannatos, E. and Kokotos, D. (2009). Analysis of accidents in Greek shipping during the pre-and post-ISM period. Marine Policy, 33(4): 679-684.

[9] Macrae, C. (2009). Human factors at sea: common patterns of error in groundings and collisions. Maritime Policy & Management, 36(1):21-38.

[10] UNCTAD (2011). Review of Marine Transport. Age distribution of the world merchant fleet. Erişim tarihi: 15 Haziran 2014. http://unctad.org/ en/Docs/rmt2011_en.pdf

[11] Yıldırım, U. (2012). Konteyner Gemilerinin Karaya Oturma Kazalarında İnsan Faktörü Analizi, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon.

[12] Lu, C.S. and Tsai, C.L. (2010). The effect of safety climate on seafarers' safety behaviors in container shipping. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 42 (6): 1999-2006.

[13] The Japan Transport Safety Board. (2014). Annual Report. Erişim tarihi: 01 Şubat 2015, http://www.mlit. go.jp/jtsb/jtsbannualreport2014. html

[14] MAIB. (2010). Annual Report. Erişim tarihi: 15 Haziran 2013, http://www. maib.gov.uk/publications/annual_ reports/annual_report_2010.cfm

[15] Uğurlu, Ö., Köse, E., Yıldırım, U. and Yüksekyıldız, E. (2013). Marine Accident Analysis for Collision and Grounding in Oil Tanker with FTA Method. Maritime Policy and Management, 42(2): 163-185.

[16] Rothblum A. (2000). Human Error and Marine Safety. Maritime Human Factors Conference 2000, 13-14 Mart 2000, Linthicum, Maryland, ABD.

[17] Harrald J.R., Mazzuchia T.A., Spahna J., Van Dorpa R., Merrick J., Shrestha S. and Grabowski M. (1998). Using system simulation to model the impact of human error in a maritime system. Safety Science. 30(1998) 235- 247.

[18] McCafferty D.B., Baker C.C. (2006). ABS Technical Papers. Learning From Marine Incidents 3 Conference, 25-26 Ocak 2006, London, İngiltere. Erişim tarihi: 15 Temmuz 2011. https://www. eagle.org/eagleExternalPortalWEB/ ShowProperty/BEA%20Repository/ References/Technical%20Papers/2006/ TrendingCausesMarineIncidents

[19] Akhtar M.J. and Utne I.B. (2014).

[20] Akyuz E. and Celik M. (2014). Utilisation of cognitive map in modelling human error in marine accident analysis and prevention. Safety Science. 70(2014): 19-28. [21] Wang Y.F., Xie M., Chin K.S. and Fu X.J.

(2013). Accident analysis model based on Bayesian Network and Evidential Reasoning approach. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 26(2013):10-21.

[22] Chauvin C., Lardjane S., Morel G., Clostermann J.P. and Langard B.

(2013). Human and organisational factors in maritime accidents: Analysis of collisions at sea using the HFACS. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 59 (2013): 26- 37.

[23] Drupsteen L. and Guldenmund F.W. (2014). What Is Learning? A Review of the Safety Literature to Define Learning from Incidents. Accidents and Disasters. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management. 22(2):81-96.

[24] Barnett M.L. (2005). Searching for the Root Causes of Maritime Casualties - Individual Competence or Organisational Culture?. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs. 4(2): 131-145.

[25] Papanikolaou, A., Eliopoulou, E., Alissafaki, A., Mikelis N., Aksu, S. and S. Delautre. (2007). Casualty Analysis of Aframax Tankers. Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment. 221: 47-60.

[26] Baker C.C., McCafferty D.B. (2004). American Bureau of Shipping ABS Review and Analysis of Accident Databases. Erişim tarihi: 15 Temmuz 2011. http://www.slc.ca.gov/ division_pages/mfd/prevention_ first/documents/2004/human%20 and%20organizational%20factors/ mccafferty%20paper.pdf

[27] Saaty, T.L. (1989). Multicriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Pittsburg: RWS Publ.

[28] Saaty, T.L. (1996). Decision Making for Leaders , Pittsburg: RWS Publ.

[29] Ozdemir, M.S. and Saaty, T.L. (2006). The Unknown in Decision Making What to Do About It, European Journal of Operational Research, 174(351): 349-359.

[30] Saaty, T.L. (1990). How to Make a Decision: the Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operation Research, 48: 9-26.

[31] Wind, Y. and Saaty, T.L. (1980). Marketing Applications Of The Analytic Hierarchy Process, Management Science, 26(7): 641-658.

[32] IMO, 2015. Global Integrated Shipping and Information System. Erişim tarihi: 15 Mart 2015. https://gisis.imo.org/ Public/Default.aspx

[33] Celik, M., Er, I.D. and Ozok, A.F. (2009). Application of fuzzy extended AHP methodology on shipping registry selection: The case of the Turkish maritime industry, Expert Systems with Applications, 36(1):190-198.

[34] Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U. and Ruan, D. (2004). Multi-attribute comparison of catering service companies using fuzzy AHP: The case of Turkey. International Journal of Production Economics, 87:171-184.

[35] Uğurlu, Ö. (2015). Application of Fuzzy Extended AHP methodology for selection of ideal ship for oceangoing watchkeeping officers. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ergon.2015.01.013

[36] Tang L., Acejo I., Ellis N., Turgo N. and Sampson H., (2013). Behind the Headlines? An Analysis of Accident Investigation Reports. Erişim tarihi: 15 Mart 2015. http://orca.cf.ac. uk/58893/1/Symposium%20 Proceedings%202013.pdf

Kaynak Göster