1) A near miss occurred during cargo operations on a platform involving two ABs who were nearly crushed. Communications between the bridge, platform, and crane driver were established but reported as poor by the deck crew. 2) On the third attempt to land a cargo unit, the deck crew approached as it appeared landed, but the crane driver unexpectedly lifted it again. The crew ran to avoid injury. 3) Contributing factors included lack of confirmation the cargo was secured, failure to report erratic lifts, and insufficient communication between all parties. Clear communication is essential for safe cargo operations.

1. The information available on this Safety Flash and our associated web site is provided in good faith and only for the purposes
of enhancing safety and best practice. For the avoidance of doubt no legal liability shall be attached to any guidance and/or
recommendation and/or statement herein contained.
- 1 -
Marine Safety Forum – Safety Flash 13-24
Issued: 18th
June 2013
Subject: High Potential Near Miss during Cargo Operations
Whilst engaged in Cargo Operations alongside a Platform within the North Sea, a high potential Near Miss
occurred which involved 2 AB’s, who were exposed to a potential crushing injury during back loading
operations.
Prior to entry into the 500metre zone, appropriate checks had been completed, standard communications
during the operation were one AB had direct UHF communication with the Bridge, whilst the 2nd AB had
direct VHF communication with the platform and crane driver. The weather was clear with the sea state
approximately 2.5metres.
Nearing the completion of backload operations, the crane driver had been advised by the Bridge Team to
land a cargo unit in Bay 4 on the centreline of the vessel. The crane driver made several attempts to land this
cargo unit, the descent and positioning attempts were made in an uncontrolled manner. On third landing, the
deck crew approached the unit to unhook as they observed the bridle over the cargo unit, and the hook and
wire landed on deck. To approach the unit at this time is normal practice for the deck crew; video footage of
this incident clearly shows that this cargo had been on the deck with the bridle over the cargo unit for an
adequate time for the deck crew to assume this was landed and safe to approach. The deck crew did not see
the swivel moving outboard or then back inboard but were focused on the deck height length of wire which
was more or less stationary. As one deck member went for the wire and the other went to unhook, the bridle
rapidly ascended and the cargo came off the deck and swung. At this point the deck crew ran forward
between back loaded cargo to escape the rising unit and avoid a potentially significant injury.
 Although Communications had been established, it was noted during investigation that the deck crew
had reported that communications with the crane driver were poor
 The option to Stop the Job was not identified, nor was the erratic Crane operations reported
 Deck Crew did not attempt to contact the Crane Driver to confirm cargo was safely landed, after 3
rd
attempt to land.
 Crane Driver did not make any attempt to warn the deck crew by radio communications or sound
signalling
 The vessel’s movement was slight and the location of the cargo was at frame 60 on the centre line
where pitch and roll have very little effect. The vessel was heaving about 1-1.5m which does not
account for the rapid ascent of the cargo unit, therefore it is identified that the lift was heaved after the
deck crew had approached it.
 From Video footage, it is clear that the cargo was landed and had been moved into a suitable position,
with adequate time for the deck crew to approach
 The crane driver stated that he did not see that the deck crew had approached the cargo unit, and
repositioned the cargo unit into Bay 4.
 Deck crew were attired in high visibility jackets and hat covers and the deck was well illuminated
 Due to cargo operations continuing, the Deck crew did not raise this as a concern or near miss incident
to the installation at the time.
 Due to the location on the deck, the Bridge did not witness this incident, however had this been
witnessed or reported a Time out for Safety would have been called and the Platform informed.
Industry guidance states “Adequate communications should be established between the installation, vessel
deck crew and the bridge to stop operations in the event of a dangerous situation”, it was noted through
investigation that the level of communications was insufficient, and was a significant contributor to creating
an extremely hazardous occurrence onboard.
Clear and sufficient communication should be established and maintained throughout cargo operations.