ship case study

Group Assignment LA 1

Case Study of :Oceanic Discoverer

Prepared by:1) PANDIARAJ A/L RETENAM2) ABDUL JABBAR KHAN3) MD.MIZANUR RAHMAN PARVEZ

Contents1. Ship’s particular2. What, when and where happen?3. Location of the watertight door4. How it happen5. Why he got trapped6. Other reasons for the accident7. Overall view of the watertight door8. Solas requirement regarding watertight door9. Lesson learned

Ship’s particular

Type: Passenger Ship

Length: 63m

Breadth: 13m

GT: 1779

Service Speed: 12 knots

Flag: Australian Registered

Classification: ABS

What, when and where happen?• A chief engineer was trapped by a watertight door for more than 8

minutes.• Happened on 19 Feb 2009• Port of Napier, New Zealand.

Location of the watertight door

How it happen?• The ship was conducting the fire and emergency drill. Therefor they

also has to carry out close and test the hydraulically closed watertight doors.

• The Master has closed the watertight door by using remote control system/switch from the bridge.

• After that the Chief Engineer has open the door and got trapped.• He was trapped at watertight door for more than 8 minutes.• Until the crew found and removed him.• Later he was send to hospital.• Unluckily he died on the way to hospital.

Why he got trapped?• The watertight doors were normally set in the local-control mode,

which meant that they would not automatically close after someone had walked through. At the time of the accident the doors were in the remote-close mode, which meant they would automatically close when the user released the opening handle. The crew on board the Oceanic Discoverer routinely passed through the watertight doors without fully opening them when the doors were in the local-control mode, a practice that was probably followed when the doors were in the remote-close mode as well.

• The chief engineer could also followed by trying to pass the watertight door before it is fully opened.

Other reasons for the accident.• The door had been set to close at twice the allowable closing

speed, which would have likely contributed to the accident.• It is possible that the audible alarm warning that the door was

closing, was not working at the time. A failure of the audible alarm may have contributed to the accident.

Overall view of the watertight door

Solas requirement Chapter II-1 Regulation 15.7 referred to power-operated sliding watertight doors• Provided with controls for opening and closing the door by power from both

sides of the door and also for closing the door by power from the central operating console on the bridge.

• provided with an audible alarm, distinct from any other alarm in the area, which will sound whenever the door is closed remotely by power and which shall sound for at least 5s [seconds] but no more than 10 s before the door begins to move and shall continue sounding until the door is completely closed. In the case of remote hand operation it is sufficient for the audible alarm to sound only when the door is moving.

• Additionally, in passenger areas and areas of high ambient noise the Administration may require the audible alarm to be supplemented by an intermittent visual signal at the door.

• shall have an approximately uniform rate of closure under power. The closure time, from the time the door begins to move to the time it reaches the completely closed position shall in no case be less than 20s or more than 40s with the ship in an upright position.

Lesson learned1. Always fully open a watertight door before passing through the doorway when

the door is in the remote-close mode.2. The faster the door closes, the greater the risk. Under no circumstances should

watertight doors be set to close faster than the maximum allowable speed.3. Ship operators should adopt specific procedures for operating watertight doors

in both the local-control and remote-close modes. The procedures should be compatible with the doors’ purpose and design, and the frequency with which they are used.

4. Legislation governing the design and use of watertight doors should be flexible enough to achieve appropriate procedures for the use of any watertight door in any mode.

5. Poorly maintained watertight doors are dangerous. Shipboard planned maintenance systems should be designed and followed to ensure that watertight doors are maintained in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions, and in accordance with good standard marine engineering practice.

END OF SLIDE SHOWTHANK YOU