4.3 Article

Analysis of occupational accidents encountered by deck cadets in maritime transportation

Journal

MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT
Volume 44, Issue 3, Pages 304-322

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/03088839.2016.1245449

Keywords

Occupational accident; marine accident; accident analaysis; seafarer; manpower

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The 2010 Manila amendments to the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Code (STCW) was adopted by the idea to render the profession more attractive to the seafarers, particularly to cadets. It is possible to ensure greater attraction only by providing suitable and safe working conditions on board to cadets. This study analyses occupational accidents and near misses encountered by ocean going deck cadets, who received A-II/I training, during their sea training. The aim of this study was to determine causal factors influencing work accidents and to propose several recommendations for the safety of deck cadets. A total of 857 officer candidates, who received maritime education at university level in Turkey, were interviewed. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method was used in the study to analyse the occupational accidents. As a result of this study on deck cadets, the most risky areas for work accidents were found to be the deck (39.9%), cargo areas (35.7%), areas used for manoeuvring operations (including winch areas and areas in which berthing, unberthing, and anchoring operations take place) (16.1%), and accommodation areas (8.3%). The most important root causes for occupational accidents were identified as not using personal protective equipment (24.2%), haste (22.6%), and presence in inappropriate places (13.6%). This study offers some important insight into the prevention of occupational accidents, and includes suggestions and advisory opinions of sector representatives. As a result of this study, several recommendations for the prevention of accidents are proposed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available