JAPAN P& I CLUBVol.31 June 2014

P&I Loss Prevention Bulletin
The Japan Ship Owners Mutual Protection & Indemnity Association
Loss Prevention and Ship Inspection Department

Preventing Damage to Harbour Facilities andShip Handling in Harbours

PART 1INDEX
1. Introduction ……………………………………… 1
2. Claim Statistics (ocean-going vessels) ……… 1
3. Claim Statistics (coastal vessels) ………… 10
4. Incident Examples …………………………… 17

1. Introduction
In 6 years between February 20th, 2007 and February 20th, 2013, a total of 1,743 claims for damage to harbour
facilities were made by ocean-going vessels entered in this Association. Of these claims, nearly 70% were for damage
to piers (835 claims, 48%) and 20% for damage to fenders (357 claims).
Most damage to harbour facilities is due to mistakes in the handling of vessels by ship navigators such as captains andpilots. The risk of damage is particularly high when approaching piers under rapidly changing weather conditions, and
it is therefore extremely difficult to eliminate such incidents completely.
However, after the pilot has boarded the vessel upon enteringor leaving harbour, damage to harbour facilities can be reduced
by close cooperation between the captain and pilot on shiphandling procedure rather than leaving everything to the pilot. It
is also important to ensure that the bridge crew understand theseprocedures, as required by Bridge Resource Management (BRM).
Furthermore, it is always important to investigate conditions in
the harbour beforehand.
In PART1, we introduce claim statistics and causes of accidents,
and in PART2, we will set out what matters must be understood by the navigator on board, including conditions
within the harbour, and the performance of the ship.

2. Claim Statistics (ocean-going vessels)
2-1 Number of Claims for Damage to Harbour Facilities, and Trends in Insurance Money
Claims for damage to harbour
facilities have decreased graduallyfrom the peak of 322 in 2010PY.
Using the number of entered
vessels at the beginning of each
PY as the denominator, the rateof occurrence of claims is approximately 10%. In other words,
approximately 10% of vessels are
responsible for incidents involving
damage to harbour facilities.

Trends in Number of Claims for Damage to Port Facilities
Contact with Pier/Port Facilitiy etc..
Pier

Fender(Number of claims)
350
303

300

280

250

73

200
150

322
295
77

79

69

21

18

54

63

Total：1,743 claims
288
60

255

24

64

25

23

Others

Buoy

62

50

66

18
62

100
50
0

134

149

145

158

138

111

2007PY 2008PY 2009PY 2010PY 2011PY 2012PY−1−

Insurance claims pay-outs
amounted to approximately $11
million in 2008PY, increasing
by a factor of three in 2009PY,
2010PY, and 2011PY, with asharp increase to $55 million
in 2012PY. This large increase
is attributed to major incidents
in 2009PY and later, and inparticular to one incident in2012PY (approximately $43
million, 78% of the total).

Trends in Insurance Money for Damage to Port Facilities
Claim Amount(USD 1,000)（Amount）

60,00054,700Pier

FenderOthersBuoy

50,00040,00540,00042,36739,73830,00020,00014,251
10,96810,0000

2007PY

2008PY

2009PY

2010PY

2011PY

2012PY

2-2 Analysis of Claims by AmountOver the six-year period, 133 claims (8%) required an insurance pay out of $100 thousand or more, while, insurance
claims amounted to approximately $186 million (92%). Furthermore, nine claims exceeded $5 million in 2009PY andlater, accounting for 55% of the total claims paid over the six-year period, and resulting in a large increase in claims
paid (including estimates) in 2009PY and later. In 2012PY, as described above, a single incident accounted for 78% of
the insurance claims paid for that year.

55%

Claims by AmountInsurance moneyband

USD 1,000

2007PY

2008PY

2009PY

2010PY

2011PY

Total
ota

No. Amount No. Amount No. Amount No. Amount No. Amount No. Amount No.

Over US$ 10mil.

1

13,3501

13,545

US$ 5mil. < US$ 10mil.

2

11,745

2

13,9782

16,235

US$ 1mil. < US$ 5mil.

2012PY1

42,812

Ratio

Amount
nt

Ratio

3

0.2%

69,707

34.5%

6

0.3%

41,958

20.8%

3

5,652

3

4,517

2

5,827

2

5,722

6

15,576

1

4,209

17

1.0%

41,50420.5%

US$ 100 thou. < US$ 1mil. 17

6,307

14

3,758

20

6,251

22

6,288

17

4,978

17

5,701

107

6.1%

33,283

16.5%

More than US$ 100 thou. S.Total 20 11,959 17

8,275

25

37,17327

39,53425

36,7891952,722 133

7.6%

186,452 92.3%

US$ 10 thou. < US$ 100 thou. 58

1,680

74

2,009

68

2,284

64

2,186

66

2,480

49

1,555

379 21.7%

12,194

6.0%

Less than US$ 10 thou.

612

212

683

202

548

231

646

197

469

187

424

1,231 70.6%

3,382

1.7%

Less than US$ 100 thou. S.Total 260 2,292 286 2,692 270 2,832 295 2,832 263 2,949 236 1,979 1,610 92.4% 15,576

7.7%

Total

202

280 14,251 303 10,968 295 40,005 322 42,367 288 39,738 255 54,700 1,743 100.0% 202,028 100.0%−2−

2-3 Large Claims of $5 million Or More (nine claims)① In April 2009, upon leaving the pier and departing the harbour at a port in the Middle East, a vessel wascaught by strong winds while turning with the assistance of two tugs. The stern approached the pier on
the port side, contacting and damaging a gantry crane. A claim was made for the repair costs of the craneand for losses due to the crane being out of action. The incident was due to a mistake in handling thevessel by the pilot.
② In August 2009, while underway in the Yangtze River in China, a steering problem developed in the vicinityof a port, and the vessel contacted a floating crane. While the steering problem was the immediate causeof the incident, the vessel’s speed of 16.5 knots in the narrow waterway exacerbated the problem.
③ In December 2009, a ship in ballast was leaving a Japanese container terminal with the assistance of
two tugs. It was caught by strong winds after leaving the pier and contacted the breakwater, resulting indamage. The external plating of the ship’s hull was holed, resulting in a leakage of 0.8 kiloliters of fuel oil.
The oil reached the tetrapods in the area, penetrating into their interiors. Two years of work was required
to remove the oil from the tetrapods. The incident was due to a mistake in handling the vessel by the pilot.
④ In February 2010, in Chile, a chip loading pier and a shore loader were damaged while a vessel wasapproaching the pier.
⑤ In November 2010, while maneuvering with the assistance of a tug during approach to the pier at acontainer terminal in Japan, a vessel contacted a gantry crane at excessive speed, generating major lossof earnings and repair costs claims.
⑥ In October 2010, while approaching the pier with the assistance of two tugs at an oil terminal in Japan, amistake was made in attitude control of the vessel, and her stern contacted a mooring dolphin on the portside. The collision resulted in a fuel tank on the vessel being holed, with leakage of 46 kiloliters of fuel, andgenerating major costs for repair of the dolphin, cleanup of the spilled oil, and compensation to fishermen.
⑦ In November 2011, while leaving a river port in North America and proceeding towards the sea, a steering
fault developed, resulting in the vessel contacting the pier and a barge. While the steering fault was
the immediate cause of the incident, mistaken shutdown of the steering unit by one of the crew also
contributed to the incident.
⑧ In September 2011, while at anchor outside a port in Japan, a vessel dragged her anchor due to strong
winds associated with a typhoon, contacting the breakwater and grounding, and resulting in a total loss.
⑨ In December 2012, at a port on the west coast of North America, a mistake was made in approaching thepier, resulting in major damage to a coal berth.

2-4 Claims by Country
An analysis of claims during the six years by country shows that Japan (474 claims, 27%) was significantly worse
than China, the US, and South Korea in that order.

Number of claims by country

Japan is the worst for
number of claims

Others (95 Countries )，885 claims，51％Japan，474 claims，27％
P.R.C.，128 claims，7％
USA，105 claims，6％South Korea，79 claims，5％

Total:1,743 Claims
Belgium，72 claims，4％−3−

2-5 Claims by Port
Number of Claims by Port
(Port wise in the World)

Antwerp (BEL)48

Chiba (JPN)

43

Nagoya (JPN)38

Kobe (JPN)32

Osaka (JPN)

27

Grimsby (GBR)

24

Total:1,743 Claims

20

Shanghai (PRC)
Yokohama (JPN)

19

Kawasaki (JPN)

17

Hakata (JPN)
11th 〜 20th Japan

16
56(Kashima,Mizushima,Shimizu,Fukuyama)

76

11th 〜 20th Other than Japan 6 ports

1327

Others 748 ports
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

In terms of incidents by port, Antwerp in Belgium reported the highest number at 48, followed by Chiba, Nagoya,
Kobe, and Osaka. Eleven of the worst 20 ports are located in Japan.
The Port of Antwerp requires passage through a lock before reaching the piers in the inner harbour, increasing theprobability of contact with piers.

Lock

Port of Grimsby(United Kingdom)Port of Antwerp(Belgium)ⓒ OpenStreetMap(openstreetmap.org)

Both ports have a large tidal range,and passage to the confined inner harbour is therefore via locks.

−4−The ports of Chiba, Kobe, Osaka, and Nagoya all have large numbers of slit-type piers. It is considered that maneuvering of large vessels to piers in a comparatively confined operating area such as this is a reason for the large number ofincidents. The Port of Nagoya, in particular, services large number of car carriers, with many incidents of damage topiers.
Port of Nagoya

Port of Chiba

Slits

Ports of Osaka and Kobe

ⓒ OpenStreetMap(openstreetmap.org)

An analysis of the Japanese case (the greatest number of claims) shows that the worst seven ports account for 192
claims - 41% of the total. Within this number, the three ports in Tokyo Bay (Chiba, Yokohama, and Kawasaki)
account for 79 claims (17%).
別件数

Japan - Number of Claims by Port
Port Wise Claims in Japan

Chiba，43 claims，9%Nagoya，38 claims，8%

Kobe，32 claims，7%
Others :94 ports
282 claims
59%

Osaka，27 claims，6%
Yokohama，19 claims，4%Kawasaki，17 claims，4%Total：474 claims

Hakata，16 claims，3%−5−

Comparatively few claims occurred in May-June and October-November, periods in which winds are relatively weak.

Japan - Number of Claims by Month (by Month in Japan)
Inland Sea
50
40(Number of claims)

Tokyo Bay

Osaka BayIse Bay

Others

49

46

44

44

46

46

40

38

31

29

30

31

30

Oct

Nov

20
10
0

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Dec

2-6 Claims by Type of Vessel

Number of Claims by Vessel Type
Others（11 kind）
100 Claims 6％

Large Bulker
81 Claims
5％
CTNR
116 Claims
7％

GC/Bulk
637 Claims
37％

Tanker
399 Claims
23％

PCC
410 Claims
24％

Total：1,743 Claims

GC/Bulk
Pure Car Carriers (PCC)

General cargo vessels/heavy lifters, bulkers less than 50,000 GT, multi-purpose
vessels, reefers
PCC, RO/RO ship

TankerAll types of tankers

CTNR

Container vessels

Large bulkers
Others59％

Bulkers more than 50,000 GT
11 types of ships

Freighter (including PCCs and bulkers of less than 50,000GT) account for 59% of total−6−

An analysis of the number of claims by type of vessel shows that PCC vessels accounted for 410 claims (24%),
freighters including bulkers less than 50,000 GT accounted for 637 claims (37%). These two types of vessels accounted for 59% of the total number of claims.
The parallel body (PB) of PCCs is short, and the difficulty in maintaining control
over the attitude of the vessel while approaching the pier often leads to incidents
in which the bow or stern rides up onto the pier, damaging the pier and car stopper.

R ＝ 1/2（LーPB）× sin1°
Ｌ
PB

Freighters including bulkers less than 50,000 GT have the large hulls. PiersＲ
are relatively narrow in comparison to the hull when the ship is approaching,L ＝ 210m PB ＝ 52m
frequently resulting in damage to the pier.
Conventionally, the total number of each vessel type is used as the denominatorwhen comparing the rate of occurrence of claims, however the number of vessels is not sufficient for statistical data,
and the number of claims is therefore used.
USD 1,000
Over US$ 10mil.
Ship's Kind
No.

AmountTanker

US$ 5mil.
< US$ 10mil.

US$100 thou. <US$ 5mil.

No.

AmountNo.

AmountNo.

AmountNo.

Amount2

13,88140

31,481

357

3,484

399

48,84739

12,252

598

6,578

637

18,830GC/Bulker
PCC
CTNR

2

26,895Large Bulker

1

42,812OthersTotal

369,707< US$ 100 thou.

Total

1

7,061

16

13,650

393

2,966

410

23,676

1

5,825

11

7,979

102

952

116

41,651

7

4,285

73

864

81

47,9602

15,190

11

5,140

87

733

100

21,064

6

41,958124

74,787

1,610

15,576

1,743

202,028

Only one PCC claim exceeded $5 million, with most being less than $100 thousand. A total of 14 container vessel
claims exceeded $100 thousand (14% of container vessel claims).
Of the three claims exceeding $10 million, two were for container vessels. Both involved mistakes in control of theattitude of the vessel while approaching or leaving the pier, with the overhanging flare of the bow damaging gantry
cranes, resulting in major costs for repairs and loss of earning.
One incident occurred with a large bulker in 2012PY, with claims exceeding $10 million accounting for 89% of theclaims paid for this type of vessel.

−7−2-7 Claims for Vessel Types by Port
Vessel types such as PCCs and general cargo/bulkers (less than 50,000 GT) caused incidents at the following ports.
PCC
Port

Whalf

Fender

Buoy

Crane

Others

Total

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

Antwerp

BEL

14

17

1

Grimsby

GBR

14

9

1

3

24

Emden

DEU

5

6

1

12

Nagoya

JPN

11

Kobe

JPN

7

2

Zeebrugge

BEL

5

3

Yokohama

JPN

4

1

Baltimore

USA

4

1

JeddahSAU

2

5

Pyeongtaek

KOR

1
1

35

1

12

2

11

2

11

3

8

1

7
7

2

3

1

6

Top 10 ports S.Total

68

47

4

1

13

133

Others(183 Ports)

165

60

13

3

36

277

G.Total

233

107

17

4

49

410

Of the worst ten ports, four are in Europe, with relatively confined ports compared to vessel size.
GC/Bulker(less than 50,000 GT)
Port

Whalf

Fender

Buoy

Crane

Others

Total

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

Chiba

JPN

11

3

2

1

4

21

Kobe

JPN

13

3

Nagoya

JPN

12

Osaka

JPN

8

Shanghai

PRC

3

5

Mizushima

JPN

6

4

Shimizu

JPN

6

HakataJPN

New Orleans
Kashima

16
1

1

2

1

15

2

12

3

11
10

2

1

9

6

2

8

USA

6

2

8

JPN

6

1

7

Top 10 ports S.Total

77

10

12

5

13

117

Others(351 Ports)

227

93

39

43

118

520

G.Total

304

103

51

48

131

637

Of the worst ten ports, eight are in Japan, and account for 98 claims (15%).

−8−

2-8 Causes of Incidents
Out of all, we have identified the causes of 802 claims as can be seen in the table below.
（Number of Incidents)

Others Other than Ship

Caused by Ship Side

Cause of Incident

Whalf

Fender

Buoy

Crane

Total

Ratio

2

6

0.7%

Lack of Look Out

3

Mis Maneuvering by Crew

179

57

30

10

35

311

38.8%

Mis Maneuvering by Pilot

61

25

5

8

10

109

13.6%

Other Human Error

7

2

1

4

14

28

3.5%

M/E, Gen/Rng. Trouble

4

5

0.6%

Morring Equip. Trouble

3

4

10

1.2%

Cargo Gear Trouble

1

3

6

10

1.2%

Other Ship Equip. Trouble

3

3

3

9

1.1%

Mis Handling by Shore

3

1

6

13

23

2.9%

Mis Maneuvering by Other Ship

10

1

2

8

22

2.7%

Mis Handling by Tug/Others

14

3

2

19

2.4%

Other Shore Equip. Trouble

8

4

1

4

17

2.1%

Weather/Sea Condition

33

24

6

5

8

76

9.5%

Others

70

27

12

10

38

157

19.6%

399

147

57

52

147

802

100.0%

Total

1

Others1
31

Cause of Incidents
Mis handling by On Board personel

157
20%

Ship's Equipment
Mis Handling by Shore

76
9%

454
57%

Shore Equipment
Weather/Sea Condition

17
2%

Others64
8%Total：80234
4%

Approximately half of the incidents were due to mistakes in operation by crew or the pilot.
However, since the ship navigator must consider weather and sea conditions upon maneuvering, if associatedproblems are included, 66% of incidents can be attributed to human error on the vessel.
−9−3. Claim Statistics (coastal vessels)
3-1 Trends in Number of Claims
Trends in Number of Claims for Damage to Port Facilities(Contact with Pier/Fender/Buoy and etc..)（Nunber ofClaims）

200

Pier

FenderBuoy

Total ：915 Claims
Facility

Others Total

190
176
158

65

150

54
5
14

100

17

138
5

35
8

45

27
13

11

127
28

18
3

18

126
35

2
5
15

12

13

1

17

50

0

89

77

66

79

77

61

2007PY

2008PY

2009PY

2010PY

2011PY

2012PYThe number of claims in 2010PY increased slightly over the previous PY, while the general trend since 2007PY has
been a decrease. However, dividing the rate of occurrence of claims by the number of entered vessels at the beginningof the PY shows a trend of approximately 5%, indicating that the incident rate is stable.
Proportion of Incidents by Location of Damage (Damage Wise)

Total：915 claims
Pier
286 claims
31%

449 claims
49%

87 claims
10%
93 claims
10%

FenderBuoy
Others− 10 −

In terms of location of damage, damage to piers accounted for approximately half, with damage to fenders and buoys
each accounting for 10%. The proportion of damage to buoys is high in comparison to ocean-going vessels.

3-2 Trends in Claims Paid
Damage to Harbor Facilities- Trends in Insurance Money (Claim Amount)
Total : JPY 5,308,113 thou.
（Insurance Money）

Pier

2,000,000

FenderBuoy

Facility

Others1,773,359

1,500,000

1,000,000

779,820884,757

917,086
608,634

500,000

0344,457

2007PY

2008PY

2009PY

2010PY

2011PY

2012PY unit：JPY 1,000

The figures for 2010PY are notable due to an incident in which damage to shore facilities (a loader) resulted in a claim
paid of JPY930 million. Apart from this incident, the trend from 2009PY is a decrease in claims paid.

Proportion of Insurance Money(Claim Amount)¥575,15211%¥189,732
3%

Total：JPY5,308,113 thou.
Over ¥100 mil.

¥365,292
7%¥50 mil. 〜 ¥100 mil.
¥10 mil. 〜 ¥50 mil.
¥1,076,884
20%¥2,639,282
50%¥5 mil. 〜 ¥10. mil¥1 mil. 〜 ¥5 mil.
Less than ¥ 1 mil.

¥461,771

unit：JPY 1,000

9%− 11 −

Number of Claims by Insurance Money Band

Unit : JPY1,000

No.

Proportion(%)

AmountProportion(%)

Over ¥100 mil.

12

1.3%

2,639,282

49.7%¥50 mil. 〜 ¥100 mil.

6

0.7%

461,771

8.7%¥10 mil. 〜 ¥50 mil.

52

5.7%

1,076,884

20.3%

Over ¥10 mil. Total

70

7.7%

4,177,937

78.7%¥5 mil. 〜 ¥10. mil

52

5.7%

365,292

6.9%¥1 mil. 〜 ¥5 mil.

256

28.0%

575,152

10.8%

Less than ¥ 1 mil.

537

58.7%

189,732

3.6%

Less than ¥10 mil.

845

92.3%

1,130,176

21.3%

G.Total915

100.0%

5,308,113

100.0%

Insurance money band

The proportion of large claims of JPY100 million or more is 1.3%, while the proportion of claims paid is 50%. While
70 claims (8%) of JPY10 million or more were received, they comprised approximately 80% of the total claims paid.
Unit : JPY1,000
2007PY
2008PY
2009PY
2010PY
2011PY
2012PY
Insurancemoney band No. Amount No. Amount No. Amount No. Amount No. Amount No. Amount No.
Over¥100 mil.

2

266,3343

419,4642

519,346¥50 mil. ＜¥100 mil.
¥10 mil. ＜¥50 mil.

3

1,204,330

1

101,5163

252,3863

209,385

181,2491

128,293

Total%

Amount%12

1%2,639,282 50%6

1%461,7719%

11

278,005

11

198,8788

222,61210

8137,263

4

58,87652

6%1,076,884 20%Over
13¥10 mil. Total

544,33914

618,34310

741,958

16 1,637,966 12

448,1645

187,16870

8%4,177,937 79%¥5 mil. ＜¥10 mil

11

72,285

15

108,827962,025

4

29,085

7

51,726

6

41,34452

6%

365,292

7%¥1 mil. ＜¥5 mil.

62

122,17350

120,46939

85,50433

73,126

34

81,03838

92,842

256 28%575,152

11%

Less than¥ 1 mil.

104

41,024

97

37,11980

27,598105

33,18274

27,707

77

23,103537 59%189,732

4%

Less than¥10 mil.

177 235,482 162 266,415 128 175,128 142 135,393 115 160,470 121 157,289 845 92% 1,130,176 21%

G.Total

190 779,821 176 884,757 138 917,086 158 1,773,359 127 608,634 126 344,457 915 100% 5,308,113 100%

The high figure for 2010PY was due to 16 large claims of JPY10million or more. A total of 18 claims (2%) of JPY50
million or more were received, while the amount of claims paid were JPY3.1 billion (59%).
The same trend was apparent for ocean-going vessels, and while the proportion of claims was small, the proportion ofclaims paid out was more than 80%, indicating the significance of damage to harbour facilities.

As with ocean-going vessels, the high proportion of insurance money
for large vessels is a characteristic of damage to harbour facilities− 12 −

3-3 Claims by Region and Harbour
発生地域別ク

件数

Number of Claims by Region

Number of Claims by Port
Chiba 70claims 8%

Sea of Japan 22claims 3％
Hokkaido 34claims 4％

Yokohama 64claims 7%
Osaka 45claims 5%

Ise Bay
66claims 7％
Osaka Bay
92claims 10％

Tokyo Bay

Kawasaki 38claims 4%

239claims 26％

Paciﬁc Coast
122claims 13％

Tokyo 38claims 4%

Other
530claims
58%

Inland Sea

Mizushima 33claims 4％
Nagoya 33claims 4％

210claims 23％

KyushuKobe 26claims 3％

130claims 14％

Kashima 22claims 2％
Total：915 claims

Total：915 claims

Yokosuka 16claims 2％

A total of 449 claims (almost 50%) occurred in Tokyo Bay and the Inland Sea. Claims occurred in the Kyushu region
and in the Pacific coastal region came next to them.

港別発生件数

Number of Claims by Port

Total：915 claims

Chiba
千葉

70

Yokohama
横浜

64

Osaka
大阪

45

Kawasaki
川崎

38

Tokyo
東京

38

Mizushima
水島

33

Nagoya
名古屋

33

Kobe
神戸

26

Kashima鹿島

22

Yokosuka
横須賀

16

Other
その他

530
0

20

40

60

80

100

The worst ten ports accounted for 385 claims (42%) including the claims in the five ports in Tokyo Bay. As withocean-going vessels, the port of Chiba had the highest number of claims.

− 13 −

3-4 Number of Claims by Month
発生月別クレーム件数

Number of Claims by Month

Total：915 claimsTokyo BayInland Sea

KyushuOsaka BayIse Bay

Hokkaido

Sea of Japan

Paciﬁc Coast(Number of Claims)

120

107

100

97
84

80

83

79

72

72

69

65

64

66

Oct

Nov

57

60
40
20
0

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Dec

Compared to other months, the number of claims regarding ocean-going vessels was slightly less during the relatively
calmer weather in May-June and October-November, however the difference between the months over the year is not great.
On the other hand, the rate of occurrence of claims for coastal vessels is considerable at the end and beginning of the year.
This may be for unique Japanese reasons. It is therefore important to exercise caution to prevent incidents towards the end of
the year.

It is important to exercise caution to prevent incidents towards the end of the year
3-5 Number of Claims by Vessel Type
Number of Claims by Vessel Type
Gravel carrier
78claims 9%

Work boats and special vessels
16claims 2%

Special-purpose vessels
79claims 9%

Ferries
87claims 9%

Tugs and Barges
100claims 11%

Freighters
297claims 32%

Total：915 claims

Tankers
258claims 28%

Freighters andtankers account for

60%

Many of the vessels entered in this Association are freighters and tankers, hence the numbers shown in the diagram− 14 −

above. Conventionally, the total number of each vessel type is used as the denominator when comparing the rate ofoccurrence of incidents, however, as with ocean-going vessels, the number of vessels is not sufficient for statistical
data, and the number of incidents is therefore used.
A comparison by vessel type of ports in which incidents occurred is shown below. As with ocean-going vessels, thenumber of incidents was greatest at the port of Chiba.
船種別 クレ ム件数
Top 5 Ports Number of Claims by Vessel Type
Tankers

Freighters

Tugs and Barges
Chiba

Gravel Carrier
FerriesSpecial-purpose vessels

Work boats and special vessels

25

22

8

8

70

5
1

Yokohama

10

21

Osaka

4

20

10

9
8

19

2

4

1

64
1

45
1

Kawasaki

Tokyo

16
6

9
16

5
4 2

5

3 38

6

4

38

Claims by Vessel Type and Insurance Band

Vessel TypeJPY100,000,000 or
more

JPY50,000,000 JPY100,000,000

JPY10,000,000 JPY50,000,000

unit : JPY1,000

Up to JPY10,000,000

Total

Numberof claims

Insurancemoney

Numberof claims

Insurancemoney

Numberof claims

Insurancemoney

Numberof claims

Insurancemoney

Numberof claims

Insurancemoney

Tankers

3

667,677

4292,16518

385,394233

291,887258

1,637,123

Special-purpose
vessels2

1,047,336

00244,62375

96,86679

1,188,824

Freighters

3384,29700

13

277,723281

332,909297

994,929

Tugs and Barges

2271,133

1

72,406

5

86,57892

123,633100

553,751

Gravel Carriers

1

120,3451

97,2002

59,462

74

108,93578

385,942Ferries

0

0

0

0

11

205,20176

159,92387

365,123Work boats andspecial vessels

1

148,494

00

1

17,90414

16,02316

182,421

Total

12

2,639,282

6

461,77152

1,076,884

845

1,130,176

915

5,308,113

Of the 18 claims for JPY50million or more,

7 (39%) were by tankers
In terms of claims paid by vessel type, many high-value claims relate to tankers, and the amount for claims for damage to shore facilities is considerable.

− 15 −

3-6 Causes of Incidents
Out of all, we have identified the causes of 600 claims as can be seen in the table below.

Nunber of Incidents by Cause

Other

Equipment

Human error

Cause

Piers Fenders Buoys

Loading
Other Total Proportion
equipment

Mistakes in vessel handling

224

49

35

11

119

438

73.0%

Not paying attention

5

1

14

0

6

26

4.3%

Asleep on watch

1

0

0

2

3

0.5%

0

0

1

1

0.2%

0

1

26

43

7.2%

0

0

0

2

0.3%

0

0

1

5

0.8%

0

0

1

1

0.2%

Mistakes in vessel handling by pilot
Human error on vessel

13

Problems with main engine or generator etc.

2

Problems with mooring equipment

3

3

1

Problems with loading equipment
Problems with equipment on vessel

4

1

0

0

0

5

0.8%

Weather and sea conditions

23

6

4

2

7

42

7.0%

Other

20

5

2

1

6

34

5.7%

295

66

55

15

169

600

100.0%

Total

Number of Incidents
by Cause
Numberof Incidents
by Cause

42
7%

34
6%

Total：600

13
2%

Human error
Equipment
Weather and sea conditions

511
85%

Other

Approximately 85% of incidents are attributable to human error. However, since the ship navigator must consider
weather and sea conditions, if associated problems are included, 92% of incidents can be attributed to human error.

− 16 −

4. Incident Examples
The following presents two examples of incidents due to insufficient communication between pilot and captain, andone due to insufficient prior investigation of harbour conditions.

4-1 Example 1

06：55

07：47

07：49

Pilot boards vessel. Presents pilot
FDUG9HULĺHVSULPDU\GHWDLOVRIYHVVHODQGGUDIW
Explains that one tug is taken on
starboard. 1RH[SODQDWLRQRIKDQGOLQJ
procedure.
3ODQQLQJWRWXUQYHVVHOLQIURQWRIEHUWKSDUDOOHOZLWKSLHUDWFRPSOHWLRQRIWXUQDQG
PDQHXYHUYHVVHODVFORVHDVSRVVLEOH

07:47 2.9 Kts
07:49 2.1 Kts

Speed 2.9 knots. Dead slow ahead.
/HHZD\LQOHHZDUGGLUHFWLRQ
6WUDLJKWOLQHGLVWDQFHWRSLHUP/ 

07:51 1.7 Kts

Speed 2.1 knots. Engine stopped.
Tug pushing at stern on starboard
VLGHULJKWWXUQFRPPHQFHGP / WRSLHU

07：51

Speed 1.7 knots. Engine stopped.
&RQWLQXHGWXUQWRVWDUERDUGP/ WRSLHU

07：52&DSWDLQZRUULHG+DOIDVWHUQHQJLQH

07：53

Collided with pier at 1.7 knots.

LOA : 108m
GT : 4,740 G/T
Draft :
F 4.37m
A 4.80m

07:53 1.7 Kts（Collision）

Korean captain with Indonesian Crew
Copyright : Japan Maritime Accident Tribunal●

Cause of incident

Direct cause: Mistake in handling of vessel by pilot.
• Insuﬃcient veriﬁcation of proximity of bow and pier.
• Did not reduce speed at distance of 1L (approximately 100m) from pier.
Indirect cause: Pilot• Did not explain procedure for approaching pier to captain.
• Only took notice of distance reported by tug (tug reported 60m immediately before
collision, but crew reported 35m).
Indirect cause: Captain• Did not report distance at bow to pilot.
• Left maneuvering of vessel up to pilot.

Insuﬃcient communication between crew and pilot. Problems with bridge resource management.
− 17 −

4-2 Example 2

Gantry Crane

06：35 Pilot boarded vessel. Did not explain

procedure for operating the vessel tothe captain.

07：15 Began reducing speed at 600m frombreakwater. Took tug on starboard
quarter. Dead slow ahead engine.

07：18

Passed through breakwater. 5.8 knots
d e a d s l ow a h e a d e n gin e. C o m menced using tug for braking.

07：20 Began starboard turn with rudder.

700m (2.5L) to pier. Speed 4.5 knots.
Engine stopped.

07：22 400m (1.4L) to pier. Speed 4.2 knots.
Engine remained stopped.
Noticed that the rate of turn (ROT)
was not increasing enough.

07：24 100m (0.4L) to corner of pier. Tug prepared only for push. Dead slow ahead
engine to increase ROT. Speed 3.8
knots.

07：25
3.5 kts
07：27
Contact with G.C.

07：24
3.8 kts
100 m

07：26
Contact with pier

07：22
4.2 kts
400 m
07：20
4.5 kts
700 m
West/307：18
5.8 kts
980m

07：25 60m to pier. Speed 3.5 knots. Starboard turn with tug and bow thruster
to bring vessel parallel to pier. Engine
full astern.

07：26 Contact with pier.

CTNR: 22 Indians
Loa : 279m
GT : 66,332G/T
Bow Thruster ：2,000KW

07：15
8.4 kts

07：27 Engine stopped. Contact with gantry
crane at speed of 0.5 knots.

Tug 3,600HP

Copyright : Japan Maritime Accident Tribunal●

Cause of incident

Direct cause: Mistake in handling of vessel by pilot• 07：22 Left unchanged despite no increase in ROT.
• Excessive speed between 07:22 and 07:24 (4 knots at distance of 1.4 ‒ 0.4L from pier).
• 07：25 Excessive speed with no attempt to reduce speed, and forward engine in attempt to increase ROT.
• Inappropriate use of bow thruster and tug. Forward speed reduces the eﬀect of the bow
thruster, and reduces the force available from the tug when turning.
Indirect cause: Pilot• Did not explain handling procedure to captain.

Indirect cause: Captain• Did not report distance between bow and pier to pilot.
• Left steering of vessel up to pilot.

Insufficient communication between crew and pilot. Problems with bridge resource management.
− 18 −

4-3 Example 3

abt 6 m11.0m
G/T : abt 14,000
Loa : abt 145m
Summer Draft : 9.5m
Type : Bulker with Crane
L.Port : KOR
D.Port : PHL
Cargo : Steel Product20.000 K/T
Arr. Draft : 9.0m Even Keel

8.5m
No.1

8.5m

No.2
No.3

8.2m

No.4

9.0m

• This was the ﬁrst time the vessel had entered the port.
• While approaching the pier, the vessel was pushed by the tug, and stopped at approximately 6mfrom the pier.
• Depth measurements at the points shown in the diagram above showed that the vessel had
grounded.
• Soft mud prevented damage to the hull of the vessel.
Error chain
The error chain was as follows. A break in this chain would have prevented the incident.
① When chartering the vessel, the charterer of the vessel received information via the agent that the maximum
permissible allowable draft was 9.0m. It was later found that this was the depth at the pier.
⇒ Insufficient investigation of harbour conditions.
② The vessel owner conveyed the charterer’s information to the vessel without question.
⇒ The conditions in the port were not investigated and verified.
③ The vessel also accepted the charterer’s and owner’s information without question, and did not investigate
the conditions in the port on its own.
⇒ The conditions in the port were not investigated and verified.
④ The local agent received the ETA information that notified the arrival draft was 9.0m at the time the vessel
departed the port of loading, but overlooked it.
⇒ Vessel information not verified.
⑤ After the pilot boarded the vessel, the vessel exchanged draft information on the pilot card, however the pilot
did not verify this information.
⇒ Draft not verified, and incomplete BRM between pilot and vessel.

− 19 −

Capt. Takuzo Okada
日本船主責任相互保険組合

Master Mariner

ロスプリベンション推進部長

General Manager

船長

Loss Prevention and Ship Inspection Dept.

岡田卓三

The Japan Ship Owners Mutual Protection & Indemnity Association

JAPAN P& I CLUB
ホームページ http://www.piclub.or.jp●東京本部〒 103-0013 東京都中央区日本橋人形町 2 丁目 15 番 14 号 ………… Tel：03-3662-7229 Fax：03-3662-7107

Principal Office（Tokyo） 2-15-14, Nihonbashi-Ningyocho Chuoh-ku, Tokyo 103-0013, Japan●神戸支部〒 650-0024 兵庫県神戸市中央区海岸通 5 番地 商船三井ビル 6 階…… Tel：078-321-6886 Fax：078-332-6519

Kobe Branch●福岡支部

Fukuoka Branch●今治支部

6th Floor Shosen-Mitsui Bldg. 5, Kaigandori Chuoh-ku, Kobe, Hyogo 650-0024, Japan〒 812-0027 福岡県福岡市博多区下川端町 1 番 1 号 明治通りビジネスセンター 6 階 … Tel：092-272-1215 Fax：092-281-3317
6th Floor Meiji-Dori Business Center 1-1, Shimokawabata-machi, Hakata-ku, Fukuoka 812-0027, Japan〒 794-0028 愛媛県今治市北宝来町 2 丁目 2 番地 1 ………………… Tel：0898-33-1117 Fax：0898-33-1251

Imabari Branch●シンガポール支部

2-2-1, Kitahorai-cho, Imabari, Ehime 794-0028, Japan
80 Robinson Road #14-01B SINGAPORE 068898 …… Tel：65-6224-6451 Fax：65-6224-1476

Singapore Branch● JPI 英国サービス株式会社 38 Lombard Street, London EC3V 9BS U.K. ……… Tel：44-20-7929-3633 Fax：44-20-7929-7557
Japan P&I Club (UK) Services Ltd− 20 −