3.8 Proceedings Paper

Can we learn from aviation: safety enhancements in transport by achieving human orientated resilient shipping environment

Journal

TRANSPORT RESEARCH ARENA TRA2016
Volume 14, Issue -, Pages 1669-1678

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.132

Keywords

seahorse; maritime safety; human factors; aviation; resilience engineering; technology transfer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It is well reported in the literature that more than 80% of shipping accidents are attributed to Human/organisational Error. Maritime community has realised that despite all the increased safety standards and technological developments, accidents are still occurring and the systems are not resilient to errors at various levels. The FP7 SEAHORSE project focuses on safety in marine transport by addressing human and organisational factors through transfer of well proven practices and methodologies from air transport to marine transport in an effective, collaborative and innovative manner. This will be primarily achieved by introducing the principles of resilience engineering in an integrated framework which will result in multi-level resilience that linking individuals, team, multi-party teams and organisations in ship operation that ultimately enhancing shipping safety. This paper presents similarities and gaps between two transport sectors while establishing the principles of transfer of skills, technology from aviation to maritime, which includes but not limited to rules, standard operating procedures, safety culture, just culture and mandatory safety reporting methodologies. The paper further present the feasible areas for transfer, experience gained during the transfer of technology/skills from air to marine while outlining the resilience framework adapted to maritime transport. (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available