Mental wellbeing; Human reliability assessment of seafarers during the COVID-19 era

Figures & data

Figure 1. Cumulative number of HRA methods according to the year of publication (Hollnagel, 2005).

Figure 2. Domino model of accident (Qureshi, 2007).

Figure 3. Swiss cheese model for accident causation (Reason, 2000).

Figure 4. Illustration of systemic accident model (Department of Energy, 2012).

Table 1. Human reliability assessment methods for sequential, epidemiological, and systematic techniques (Underwood & Waterson, 2013a).

Techniques	HRA Methodologies
Sequential	Domino Model, Event Tree Analysis, Fault Tree Analysis, Five Whys Method, Critical Path Models.
Epidemiological	Human Factors Analysis & Classification System (HFACS), Swiss Cheese Model.
Systemic	Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM), Systems Theoretic Analysis Model and Process model (STAMP), Accimap.

Figure 5. Developed methodology for the estimation of HEP value for marine and offshore maintenance operations.

Table 2. HEART generic task (Williams, 1988).

Code	Generic task	Recommended human nominal unreliability	5^th to 95^th percentile boundaries
A	Inexperienced, executed quickly without actual idea of the possible outcomes	0.55	0.35–0.97
B	Shift or recovery equipment to new or initial state on one try without oversight or procedures	0.26	0.14–0.42
C	Complex task requiring elevated level of comprehension and skill	0.16	0.12–0.28
D	Fairly simple task performed rapidly or given scant attention	0.09	0.06–0.13
E	Routine, highly practiced, rapid task involving low level of skill	0.02	0.007–0.045
F	Fix or change a system to original or new state following processes, with some verification	0.003	0.0008–0.0035
G	Totally familiar, well-designed, highly practiced, routine task happening numerous times per hour, performed to highest standards by initiative-taking, highly trained and experienced personnel, with time to correct potential error, but without the benefit of significant job aids	0.0004	0.00008–0.009
H	Responding properly to system command even when an enhanced or automated monitoring system for providing precise interpretation of system state	0.00002	0.000006–0.0009

Table 3. Attributes attached to each weight from the questionnaire.

	Weights	Description
Extreme	5	The influencing factor has severe effect on seafarers operational performance.
High	4	The influencing factor high effect on seafarers operational performance.
Moderate	3	The influencing factor has moderate effect on seafarers operational performance.
Mild	2	The influencing factor has little effect on seafarers operational performance.
Negligible	1	The influencing factor has no effect on seafarers operational performance.

Table 4. Modified error producing conditions in HEART methodology.

	Error-Producing Condition	Highest predicted nominal value by which unreliability changes from good to bad
1	Inexperience with an important situation but does not occurs frequently	17
2	Lack of time on hand for error recognition and correction	11
3	A weak signal-to-noise ratio	10
4	Not following controlling information or features that is easily available	9
5	No way of transmitting critical information to operators in a form they can easily understand	8
6	Differences between an operator’s model and that of the designer	8
7	No clear means of overturning mistakes	8
8	Channel overload triggered by simultaneous display of information	6
9	Unlearning a method and applying another that involves the use of an opposite method	6
10	Seafarers need to transfer knowledge from task to task without loss	5.5
11	Uncertainty in the required working standards	5
12	Discrepancy between seeming and real risk	4
13	Unclear, poor, or ill-matched system response	4
14	No clear timely confirmation of an intended action from system	3
15	Inexperienced seafarer (recently qualified crew, although not expert)	3
16	Inadequate standard of information provided by the normal procedures and crew on-board	3
17	Poor or no separate testing or checking of result	3
18	Disagreement between long and short-term goals	2.5
19	Inadequate information for validity check	2.5
20	A gap between the education level of the seafarer and the obligations of the operation	2
21	Encouragement to use unsafe techniques by supervisor	2
22	Little chance to exercise body and mind outside the direct boundaries of the task	1.8
23	Unreliable tools	1.6
24	A need to make decisions that are above the knowledge of the seafarer	1.6
25	Improper distribution of function and task	1.6
26	Improper way to keep track of advances during task	1.4
27	A danger that limited physical capacity will be surpassed	1.4
28	Less importance given to a task	1.4
29	High-level of emotional stress on operator	1.3
30	Indications of sickness among seafarer, especially fever	1.2
31	Low crew morale	1.2
32	Discrepancy of meaning of procedures and displays	1.2
33	A poor or harsh environment (below 75% of health or life-threatening severity)	1.15
34	Lengthy very repetitive cycling of a low mental work tasks	×1.1 for first half hour ×1.05 for each hour thereafter
35	Interruption of seafarer routine work sleep schedule	1.1
36	Change in task pace due to intervention by others	1.06
37	Additional or fewer crew necessary to execute task normally	×1.03 per extra man
38	Age of seafarer carry out maintenance duty	1.02

Table 5. Error influencing factor for seafarers.

	EIFs	Multiplier of nominal probability
1	Extreme level of fatigue	×2.8
2	High level of fatigue	×2.52
3	Moderate level of fatigue	×1.4
4	Mild level of fatigue	×0.14
5	Extreme level of depression	×2.57
6	High level of depression	×2.43
7	Moderate level of depression	×1.76
8	Extreme level of poor communication	×2.35
9	High level of poor communication	×2.18
10	Moderate level of poor communication	×1.53
11	Mild level of poor communication	×0.12
12	Extreme level of sleep deprivation	×2.97
13	High level of sleep deprivation	×2.02
13	Moderate level of sleep deprivation	×1.39
14	Mild level of sleep deprivation	×1.2

Figure 6. Process for development of EIF table.

Table 6. Mean and standard deviation values of the importance of the influencing factors generated from the questionnaire.

	Influencing factors	Mean value	Standard deviation
1	Fatigue	3.50	1.09
2	Depression	3.38	1.16
3	Poor communication	2.94	1.11
4	Sleep deprivation	3.16	1.27

Table 7. Proportional effect of the influencing factors generated from the survey (SAPOE for covid-19).

	Influencing factors	Weight of influencing factor	Proportional effect of individual influencing factors
1	Fatigue	Extreme	0.8
		High	0.72
		Moderate	0.4
		Mild	0.04
2	Depression	Extreme	0.76
		High	0.72
		Moderate	0.52
3	Poor communication	Extreme	0.8
		High	0.74
		Moderate	0.52
		Mild	0.04
4	Sleep deprivation	Extreme	0.94
		High	0.64
		Moderate	0.44
		Mild	0.06

Figure 7. Demography of response.

Figure 8. Response to weight of each influencing factor.

Figure 9. Mooring winch (Aicrane, 2022).

Table 8. Calculation of mooring maintenance operation scenario before covid-19.

	SCENARIO BEFORE COVID-19 LOCKDOWN
Activity	Sub-activity	Nominal human unreliability	Error producing condition	Multiplier of nominal probability	SAPOE base on importance by experts judgement	Assessed Effect	Human Error Probability
Mooring ropes inspection	Check for visible indication of the snap back zone	0.00002	Less importance given to a task Lack of time on hand for error recognition and correction	×1.4 ×11	0.10 0.20	1.04 3	0.0000624
	Check for any heavy abrasion damages on the ropes	0.00002	Less importance given to a task Lack of time on hand for error recognition and correction	×1.4 ×11	0.10 0.20	1.04 3	0.0000624
Mooring winch	Check if all control, links, and levers are grease, free/easy to use	0.003	Less importance given to a task Improper way to keep track of advances during task Lack of time on hand for error recognition and correction	×1.4 ×1.4 ×11	0.10 0.13 0.20	1.04 1.052 3	0.00984672
	Check the load sensor on the mooring winch	0.00002	Less importance given to a task Improper way to keep track of advances during task Lack of time on hand for error recognition and correction	×1.4 ×1.4 ×11	0.10 0.13 0.20	1.04 1.052 3	6.5644E–05
	Inspect the winch barrel/drum for damages	0.003	Less importance given to a task Improper way to keep track of advances during task Lack of time on hand for error recognition and correction	×1.4 ×1.4 ×11	0.10 0.13 0.20	1.04 1.052 3	0.00984672
	Inspect the wrap for damages	0.003	Less importance given to a task Improper way to keep track of advances during task Lack of time on hand for error recognition and correction	×1.4 ×1.4 ×11	0.10 0.13 0.20	1.04 1.052 3	0.00984672
	Check and clean the brake drum from rust	0.003	Less importance given to a task Improper way to keep track of advances during task Lack of time on hand for error recognition and correction	×1.4 ×1.4 ×11	0.10 0.13 0.20	1.04 1.052 3	0.00984672
	Check brake linkage	0.003	Less importance given to a task Improper way to keep track of advances during task Lack of time on hand for error recognition and correction Inadequate information for validity check	×1.4 ×1.4 ×11 ×2.5	0.10 0.13 0.20 0.15	1.04 1.052 3 1.225	0.012062232
	Inspect gears for rust and grease properly	0.003	Less importance given to a task Improper way to keep track of advances during task Lack of time on hand for error recognition and correction	×1.4 ×1.4 ×11	0.10 0.13 0.20	1.04 1.052 3	0.00984672
	Carry out proper marking and labelling on equipment	0.00002	Less importance given to a task Improper way to keep track of advances during task Lack of time on hand for error recognition and correction	×1.4 ×1.4 ×11	0.10 0.13 0.20	1.04 1.052 3	6.56448E–05
Ship mooring fittings	Check all mooring fittings for rust or any heavy damage	0.00002	Less importance given to a task Lack of time on hand for error recognition and correction	×1.4 ×11	0.10 0.20	1.04 3	0.0000624
Fenders	Check all fenders for any serious damage, in the right position and tacked firmly	0.00002	Less importance given to a task Lack of time on hand for error recognition and correction	×1.4 ×11	0.10 0.20	1.04 3	0.0000624
	Total HEP value for pre-mooring maintenance operation						0.061676722

Table 9. Calculation of mooring maintenance operation scenario during covid-19.

	SCENARIO DURING COVID-19 LOCKDOWN
Activity	Sub-activity	Nominal human unreliability	Error producing condition	Multiplier of nominal probability	SAPOE base on importance by experts	Assessed Effect	Human Error Probability
Mooring ropes inspection	Check for visible indication of the snap back zone	0.00002	Less importance given to a task	1.4	0.1	1.04	0.000626851
			Lack of time on hand for error recognition and correction	11	0.2	3
			High levels of fatigue	2.52	0.72	2.0944
			High levels of sleep deprivation	2.02	0.64	1.6528
			Moderate levels of depression	1.76	0.52	1.3952
			Extreme levels of poor communication	2.35	0.8	2.08
	Check for any heavy abrasion damages on the ropes	0.00002	Less importance given to a task	1.4	0.1	1.04	0.000626851
			Lack of time on hand for error recognition and correction	11	0.2	3
			High levels of fatigue	2.52	0.72	2.0944
			High levels of sleep deprivation	2.02	0.64	1.6528
			Moderate levels of depression	1.76	0.52	1.3952
			Extreme levels of poor communication	2.35	0.8	2.08
Mooring winch	Check if all control, links, and levers are grease, free/easy to use	0.003	Less importance given to a task	1.4	0.1	1.04	0.098917088
			Improper way to keep track of advances during task	1.4	0.13	1.052
			Lack of time on hand for error recognition and correction	11	0.2	3
			High levels of fatigue	2.52	0.72	2.0944
			High levels of sleep deprivation	2.02	0.64	1.6528
			Moderate levels of depression	1.76	0.52	1.3952
			Extreme levels of poor communication	2.35	0.8	2.08
	Check the load sensor on the mooring winch	0.00002	Less importance given to a task	1.4	0.1	1.04	0.000659447
			Improper way to keep track of advances during task	1.4	0.13	1.052
			Lack of time on hand for error recognition and correction	11	0.2	3
			High levels of fatigue	2.52	0.72	2.0944
			High levels of sleep deprivation	2.02	0.64	1.6528
			Moderate levels of depression	1.76	0.52	1.3952
			Extreme levels of poor communication	2.35	0.8	2.08
	Inspect the winch barrel/drum for damages	0.003	Less importance given to a task	1.4	0.1	1.04	0.098917088
			Improper way to keep track of advances during task	1.4	0.13	1.052
			Lack of time on hand for error recognition and correction	11	0.2	3
			High levels of fatigue	2.52	0.72	2.0944
			High levels of sleep deprivation	2.02	0.64	1.6528
			Moderate levels of depression	1.76	0.52	1.3952
			Extreme levels of poor communication	2.35	0.8	2.08
	Inspect the wrap for damages	0.003	Less importance given to a task	1.4	0.1	1.04	0.098917088
			Improper way to keep track of advances during task	1.4	0.13	1.052
			Lack of time on hand for error recognition and correction	11	0.2	3
			High levels of fatigue	2.52	0.72	2.0944
			High levels of sleep deprivation	2.02	0.64	1.6528
			Moderate levels of depression	1.76	0.52	1.3952
			Extreme levels of poor communication	2.35	0.8	2.08
	Check and clean the brake drum from rust	0.003	Less importance given to a task	1.4	0.1	1.04	0.098917088
			Improper way to keep track of advances during task	1.4	0.13	1.052
			Lack of time on hand for error recognition and correction	11	0.2	3
			High levels of fatigue	2.52	0.72	2.0944
			High levels of sleep deprivation	2.02	0.64	1.6528
			Moderate levels of depression	1.76	0.52	1.3952
			Extreme levels of poor communication	2.35	0.8	2.08
	Check brake linkage	0.003	Less importance given to a task	1.4	0.1	1.04	0.121173433
			Improper way to keep track of advances during task	1.4	0.13	1.052
			Lack of time on hand for error recognition and correction	11	0.2	3
			Inadequate information for validity check	2.5	0.15	1.225
			High levels of fatigue	2.52	0.72	2.0944
			High levels of sleep deprivation	2.02	0.64	1.6528
			Moderate levels of depression	1.76	0.52	1.3952
			Extreme levels of poor communication	2.35	0.8	2.08
	Inspect gears for rust and grease properly	0.003	Less importance given to a task	1.4	0.1	1.04	0.098917088
			Improper way to keep track of advances during task	1.4	0.13	1.052
			Lack of time on hand for error recognition and correction	11	0.2	3
			High levels of fatigue	2.52	0.72	2.0944
			High levels of sleep deprivation	2.02	0.64	1.6528
			Moderate levels of depression	1.76	0.52	1.3952
			Extreme levels of poor communication	2.35	0.8	2.08
	Carry out proper marking and labelling on equipment	0.00002	Less importance given to a task	1.4	0.1	1.04	0.000659447
			Improper way to keep track of advances during task	1.4	0.13	1.052
			Lack of time on hand for error recognition and correction	11	0.2	3
			High levels of fatigue	2.52	0.72	2.0944
			High levels of sleep deprivation	2.02	0.64	1.6528
			Moderate levels of depression	1.76	0.52	1.3952
			Extreme levels of poor communication	2.35	0.8	2.08
Ship mooring fittings	Check all mooring fittings for rust or any heavy damage	0.00002	Less importance given to a task	1.4	0.1	1.04	0.000626851
			Lack of time on hand for error recognition and correction	11	0.2	3
			High levels of fatigue	2.52	0.72	2.0944
			High levels of sleep deprivation	2.02	0.64	1.6528
			Moderate levels of depression	1.76	0.52	1.3952
			Extreme levels of poor communication	2.35	0.8	2.08
Fenders	Check all fenders for any serious damage, in the right position and tacked firmly	0.00002	Less importance given to a task	1.4	0.1	1.04	0.000626851
			Lack of time on hand for error recognition and correction	11	0.2	3
			High levels of fatigue	2.52	0.72	2.0944
			High levels of sleep deprivation	2.02	0.64	1.6528
			Moderate levels of depression	1.76	0.52	1.3952
			Extreme levels of poor communication	2.35	0.8	2.08
Total HEP value for pre-mooring maintenance operation during COVID-19 lockdown							0.619585174

Table 10. Frequency of mooring accidents.

	Frequency of mooring accidents (MAIB)
Year	2021	2020	2019
Number of accidents	23	20	26	23
Number of vessels	1530	900	1332	1254
Frequency				1.834E–2

Figure 10. HEP for mooring equipment maintenance before covid-19.

Figure 11. HEP for mooring equipment maintenance during covid-19.

Figure 12. Event tree showing mooring operation failure before covid-19.

Figure 13. Event tree showing mooring operation failure during covid-19.

Table 11. PLL calculation for fatalities.

Outcome (Accidents)	Frequency	Fatality	Individual risk	Fatalities per parted mooring line	PLL
Rope snap under tension (before covid-19)	1.8281E–4	5%	9.1405E–6	0.25	4.5703E–5
Rope snap under tension (during covid-19)	1.5304E–3	5%	7.6520E–5	0.25	3.8260E–4
			8.5661E–5		4.2830E–4

Hollnagel, E. (2005). Human reliability assessment in context. Retrieved May 29, 2022, from https://www.koreascience.or.kr/article/JAKO200502637315489.pdf

 Google Scholar

Qureshi, Z. (2007). A review of accident modelling approaches for complex socio-technical systems. Australian Computer Society. In The 12th Australian Workshop on Safety Related Programmable Systems (SCS’07), Adelaide. Conf. Res. Pract. Inf. Technol (Vol. 86, pp. 1-14). Retrieved July 18, 2022, from https://doi.org/10.5555/1387040.1387046

 Google Scholar

Reason, J. (2000). Human error: Models and management. British Medical Journal, 320 (7237), 768–770. Retrieved July 6, 2022, from https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJ.320.7237.768

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

U.S. Department of Energy. (2012). Accident and operational safety analysis volume I: Accident analysis techniques introduction-handbook application and scope. Retrieved June 4, 2022, from https://www.standards.doe.gov/standards-documents/1200/1208-bhdbk-2012-v1/@@images/file

 Google Scholar

Underwood, P., & Waterson, P. (2013a). Accident analysis models and methods: Guidance for safety professionals Accident analysis models and methods: Guidance for safety professionals VoR (Version of Record) LICENCE CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 REPOSITORY RECORD. Retrieved July 15, 2022, from http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/lds/PUBLISHER

 Google Scholar

Williams, J. C. (1988) ‘Data-based method for assessing and reducing human error to improve operational performance’, IEEE Conference on Human Factors and Power Plants, pp. 436–450. https://doi.org/10.1109/HFPP.1988.27540 (Retrieved July 17, 2022).

 Google Scholar

Aicrane. (2022). Marine winch for sale - aicrane winch marine. Retrieved October 6, 2022, from https://winchmachines.com/marine-winch/

 Google Scholar