Navigare 01-19

news
english translation from page 14
Capsizing and sinking of workboat Målfrid:
Insufficient ship technical
expertise
The risk assessment of the company had not identified the risks associated with
the use of crane while the inspection hatch is open. This is probably due to
insufficiently comprehensive ship technical expertise, the Accident Investigation
Board Norway (AIBN) states in their analysis of the foundering of the workboat
Målfrid outside Karmøy in May 2017.
Bjarte Amble, Journalist of Navigare
The workboat Målfrid foundered during
operation at a fish farm north of Karmøy on
12 May 2017. One of the lines running from
the floating collar of the fish cage to the
bottom ring (bottom ring rope) had entangled
the starboard propeller.
The crew responded by opening the
inspection hatch above the propeller to get a
better picture of the situation. To release the
line from the propeller, the crew attempted to
use the vessel’s crane to lift the next bottom
ring line. The lifting operation led to an
increased draft on the vessel’s starboard side,
which in turn resulted in water flowing freely
through the open inspection hatch. The vessel
sank, but neither crew member was injured.
THE ASSIGNMENT
Two employees of the company NRS Feøy
were about to clean the floating collar and the
bottom ring of one of the fish cages at the
company’s location outside North Karmøy.
The cage was empty, and cleaning was part of
the preparation for releasing new smolt later
that summer.
The work would be undertaken using the
workboat Målfrid, a catamaran (two hulls) of
14,98 metres in overall length. The expected
duration of the task was one to two days.
Before the cleaning operation could start,
the bottom ring had to be lifted. The bottom
ring is located under the floating collar, to
which it is attached by 20 bottom ring lines,
each about 20 metres long. The crew were to
attach Målfrid‘s crane to one bottom ring line
after the other and lift the bottom ring up
under the floating collar, where it would be
locked.
One of the crew members was on board
operating the vessel and crane, while the other
was on the floating collar attaching and
detaching the crane hook from and to the
bottom ring lines as Målfrid was moving along
the floating collar.
THE CASUALTY
As the crew worked their way around the fish
cage, one of the bottom lines entangled the
starboard propeller. The lifting of an adjoining
line had left slack in this line. Subsequently,
the crew moored the vessel with the stern
against the floating collar, opened a deck hatch
and climbed down into the engine room. They
removed the door into the aft engine room
bulkhead and localised the inspection hatch
above the starboard propeller.
After an unsuccessful attempt to loosen the
line, the two agreed to release the entangled
line by lifting the adjoining bottom ring line by
using of the crane. This was done, but the
inspection hatch was still open and the door to
the bulkhead removed.
As the lifting operation began, the crane
moved sideways towards the starboard side,
and after a short while, the person operating
the crane noticed that the freeboard was
reduced and water flowed over the aft
starboard corner of the deck as the listing
increased.
The other crew member then suddenly
started to think of the possibility that the
moment of the crane could allow water to seep
in through the inspection hatch. He instantly
shouted to alert his colleague to what was
about to happen. Several attempts to save the
situation failed and eventually, the person on
board jumped into the sea from the starboard
side. His vest inflated immediately, and with
the assistance of his colleague, he managed to
climb onto the floating collar, from which both
men were rescued by a passing boat.
Målfrid sank to the bottom of the sea, at
approximately 40 metres deep. Neither crew
member was injured or needed medical
attention.
THE CAUSE
In their analysis of the casualty, the AIBN
establishes that the crew conducted a lifting
operation with the vessel’s crane while the
inspection hatch above the starboard propeller
was open. This resulted in flooding of the
starboard hull, which caused Målfrid to
capsize and sink.
Operational barriers could have stopped
the crew from using the crane for lifting
operation while the inspection hatch and the
door to the engine room were open. There
were no instructions or warnings about the use
of the inspection hatch.
“Thorough risk assessments are an
important tool in establishing operational
barriers,” the AIBN concludes in the report.
For Målfrid, relatively extensive risk
58 | Navigare 1 - 2019