Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission
helcom.fi
MARITIME
Shipping
Shipping accidents
in the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017
2
Report on shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017
Published by:
HELCOM – Helsinki CommissionKatajanokanlaituri 6 B FI-00160 Helsinki, Finland
www.helcom.fi
For bibliographic purposes this document should be cited as:“Report on shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017. HELCOM (2018)”
© Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission – Helsinki Commission (2018)
All rights reserved. Information included in this publication or extracts thereof, with the exception of images and graphic elements that are not HELCOM’s own and identified as such, may be reproduced without prior consent on the condition that the complete reference of the publication is given as stated above.
Authors:Florent Nicolas, Alexey Bakhtov, Markus Helavuori, Deborah Shinoda
Layout: Dominik LittfassCover: © TBIT (CC0 Creative Commons)
3
Report on shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017
1. Introduction 4
2. Ship traffic in the Baltic Sea 5
3. Overview of accidents in the Baltic Sea 10
4. Types of accidents 124.1. Collisions 144.2. Groundings 16
5. Types of vessels involved 18
6. Cause of accidents 20
7. Accidents with pollution and response activities 227.1. Accidents with pollution 227.2. Response activities 22
Annexes 24
Contents
4
1. Introduction Report on shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017
Annual reports on shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea area have been com-piled by HELCOM since 2000. According
to an agreed procedure all accidents are reported irrespectively if there was pollution or not. This in-cludes accidents which involved tanker ships over 150 gross tonnage (GT) and/or other ships over 400 GT, both in territorial seas or Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the HELCOM Contracting Parties. Acci-dent types cover i.a. groundings, collisions (striking or being struck by another ship), contacts with fixed or floating objects, pollution accidents (e.g. during fuel transfer) and other types of accidents like fires and explosions, machinery damage and capsizing.
A new reporting format was taken into use in 2004.1 Data collected before 2004 is thus not fully compa-rable with the data collected in 2004 and subse-quent years. In 2012 the HELCOM reporting format was modified in order to harmonize with reporting formats for incidents of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA). Some further fine-tuning was also made to the reporting in 2013.
The report focuses on the shipping accidents data collected for the year 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 as well as for the longer period since 2004. All Baltic Sea coastal states (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russian Fed-eration and Sweden) were requested to provide information on ship accidents. For the period 2014-2017, the HELCOM Secretariat received na-tional reports from all these countries. Attached to this report are the guidelines for the 2013 HELCOM reporting format containing additional information on the categorization used in this report (Annex 1).
The content of the report remains the same as in previous years with an additional chapter on accidents with pollution and response activities in 2015 reported by Denmark and Poland, in 2016: Denmark, and in 2017: Denmark and Estonia. This report was compiled by the HELCOM Secretariat and approved for publication by the HELCOM Maritime Working Group.
1 A major revision of the shipping accidents database of Denmark, maintained by the Danish Maritime Agency, took place in 2013. Denmark has informed that the accidents data of the old database and of the new database can both be considered valid. However, due to the differences in the content and structure of the two databases, care should be taken when presenting regional information on accidents which include Danish data both from the old (before 2009) and new (after 2010) databases. For example, this is the case in the southwestern Baltic Sea, where the relative influence of data from Denmark to overall trends is higher. However, based on HELCOM Secretariat comparisons between regional datasets including either old or new Danish data for the years 2010-2012, the effect of the revision on regional trends can be considered minor Baltic wide, but also within all sub-regions.
1. Introduction
© Powie (CC0 Creative Commons)
5
2. Ship traffic in the Baltic Sea Report on shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017
2. Ship traffic in the Baltic Sea
To get a full picture of the shipping safety in the Bal-tic Sea, basic information on the intensity of ship-ping is of importance. IMO regulations (i.e. SOLAS) require Automatic Identification System (AIS) tran-sponders to be fitted on board all ships of 300 GT and above engaged in international voyages, cargo ships of 500 GT and above not engaged in interna-tional voyages, as well as all IMO registered passen-ger ships irrespective of size. The AIS enables the identification of the name, position, course, speed, draught and main ship types.
In the Baltic Sea area movements of ships are gathered in the regional HELCOM AIS network and database launched in 2005. The intensity of traffic based on the HELCOM AIS data is illustrated in Figure 1.
The ship movements can also be illustrated by the number of ships crossing the pre-defined sta-tistical lines as presented in Figure 2 (according to the ship types).
In the previous HELCOM reports on shipping ac-cidents in the Baltic Sea area, the figures regard-ing the number of ships crossing the lines were generated by a tool made available by the Danish Maritime Authority. The HELCOM Secretariat is now producing these figures, more information and the scripts can be found on the HELCOM GitHub page (https://github.com/helcomsecre-tariat). The data is available on the HELCOM Map and Data Service.
Figure 3 on the two next pages is illustrating the number of ships crossing each line.
The overall ship traffic in 2014-2017 was stable in terms of intensity compared to the previous years with roughly 295 000 visits to the ports of the Baltic Sea region in 2015, defined as entering and exiting a port with at least 10 minutes spent inside the port. While passenger ships make up almost half of the port visits (mainly due to fre-quent connections between cities in the region), about 68 % of the IMO-registered ships navigat-ing in the Baltic Sea are classified in the ship type cargo (3778 cargo ships in 2015). Tankers are rep-resenting 22 % of the fleet operating in the Baltic Sea region, passenger ships - 5.4 %, service ships – 5.2 %, container ships – 4.3 %, fishing ships – 4.1 %, RoRo cargo – 3.1 % and other ships – 7.4 %. The dominance of the cargo ships can also be rep-resented with the distance sailed in the Baltic Sea area (cf. Figure 4).
Shipping in the Baltic Sea based on AIS data, data on shipping accidents and other relevant data collected under the HELCOM framework has been visualized in a movie to be found on the HELCOM web page.
TRAFFIC INTENSITY 2016
All IMO ships travelling in the Baltic Sea in 2016
MORE TRAFFIC
TRAFFICINTENSITY
Source: HELCOM AIS data
Figure 1: Traffic intensity in the Baltic Sea Region in 2016
6
2. Ship traffic in the Baltic Sea Report on shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017
Line Name of the location
1 Skaw
2 The Great Belt East Bridge
3 Sundet Syd
4 Langeland East
5 Kadet Fairway
6 North of Bornholm
7 South of Bornholm
8 West of Gotland
9 East of Gotland
10 Irbe Strait
11 Gulf of Finland
12 Åland West
13 Åland East
14 Bothnian Sea
Umea
Riga
Oulu
Turku
Parnu
Gdynia
Lubeck
Liepaja
Tallinn
Rostock
Klaipeda
Helsinki
Stockholm
Kolobrzeg
Mariehamn
Gothenburg
Copenhagen
Kaliningrad
St.Petersburg
Frederikshavn
Predefined ship traffic crossing lines
Finland
Russia
Poland
Sweden
Norway
Germany
Estonia
Latvia
DenmarkLithuania
line 1
2 3
4 5
67
8 9
10
111213
14
Exclusive Economic Zone Territorial waters
Figure 2: Location of the predefined crossing lines.
7
2. Ship traffic in the Baltic Sea Report on shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber o
f cro
ssin
gs
Aland East
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber o
f cro
ssin
gs
Aland West
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber o
f cro
ssin
gs
Bothnian Sea
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber o
f cro
ssin
gs
East of Gotland
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber o
f cro
ssin
gs
Gulf of Finland
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber o
f cro
ssin
gs
Irbe Strait
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber o
f cro
ssin
gs
Kadet Fairway
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber o
f cro
ssin
gs
Langeland East
Figure 3: Number of ships crossing predefined passage lines based HELCOM AIS data.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber o
f acc
iden
ts
Aland East
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ver o
f acc
iden
ts
Aland West
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber o
f acc
iden
ts
Bothnian Sea
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017N
umbe
r of a
ccid
ents
East of Gotland
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber o
f acc
iden
ts
Gulf of Finland
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber o
f acc
iden
ts
Irbe Strait
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber o
f acc
iden
ts
Kadet Fairway
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber o
f acc
iden
ts
Langeland East
8
2. Ship traffic in the Baltic Sea Report on shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber o
f cro
ssin
gs
North Bornholm
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber o
f cro
ssin
gs
Skaw
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber o
f cro
ssin
gs
South Bornholm
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber o
f cro
ssin
gs
Sundet Syd
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber o
f cro
ssin
gs
The Great Belt East Brigade
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber o
f cro
ssin
gs
West of Gotland
Figure 3 (continued): Number of ships crossing predefined passage lines based HELCOM AIS data.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber o
f acc
iden
ts
Aland East
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ver o
f acc
iden
ts
Aland West
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber o
f acc
iden
ts
Bothnian Sea
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber o
f acc
iden
ts
East of Gotland
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber o
f acc
iden
ts
Gulf of Finland
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber o
f acc
iden
ts
Irbe Strait
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber o
f acc
iden
ts
Kadet Fairway
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber o
f acc
iden
ts
Langeland East
9
2. Ship traffic in the Baltic Sea Report on shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017
Figure 4: Distance sailed in the Baltic Sea per ship type. Monthly figures from July 2006 to July 2016. (Source: HELCOM 2018)
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Approximate ice season from January to March
CARGO
TANKER
PASSENGER
FISHING
SERVICE
ROROCARGO
OTHER
CONTAINER
MILLIONS NM
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
0,5
00
1
2
3
4
51 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 97 100
103
106
109
112
115
118
121
MIL
LIO
N K
M
Distance sailed per shiptype
Series1 Series2 Series3 Series4
Series5 Series6 Series7 Series8
10
3. Overview of accidents in the Baltic Sea Report on shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017
3. Overview of accidents in the Baltic Sea
According to the reports from the HELCOM Con-tracting Parties more than 600 ship accidents oc-curred in the Baltic Sea area between 2014 and 2017: 163 reported in 2014, 184 in 2015, 131 in 2016, 139 in 2017 (cf. Figure 5).
A detailed categorization of the location of the accidents – open sea, port approach and port - was introduced for the reporting in 2012 (cf. Figure 6). Around one third of the accidents between 2014 and 2017 occurred in the ports (226 accidents, 36.7 %). The open sea is the second location where the accidents happened the most with 175 events (28.4 %). However the location was not specified for 18.6 % of the accidents (115 events). The spatial distribution of the reported accidents in 2014-2017 is presented in Figure 7 on the next page.
Figure 5: Number of reported accidents in the Baltic Sea
2 2 1
44
78
37 3359
1228 28
125 133110 114 125
95
76
54
102 111
100
163
85 90
813
5 49
10
1011
10 6
4
9
1821
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber
of a
ccicd
ents
Number of reported accidents in the Baltic Sea
No information No pollution
Figure 6: Location of the accidents or the period 2014 to 2017
0102030405060708090
100
2014 2015 2016 2017 (blank)
Location of accidents in the Baltic Sea
Port approach Open sea No information Port
0102030405060708090
100
2014 2015 2016 2017 (blank)
Location of accidents in the Baltic Sea
Port approach Open sea No information Port
11
3. Overview of accidents in the Baltic Sea Report on shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017
Figure 7: Location of shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea (if no accidents are displayed in certain national waters, the reason can be either no accident occurrence during the period 2014 to 2017, or lack of data).
Umea
Riga
Oulu
Turku
Parnu
Gdynia
Lubeck
Liepaja
Tallinn
Rostock
Klaipeda
Helsinki
Stockholm
Kolobrzeg
Mariehamn
Gothenburg
Copenhagen
Kaliningrad
St.Petersburg
Frederikshavn
Umea
Riga
Oulu
Turku
Parnu
Gdynia
Lubeck
Liepaja
Tallinn
Rostock
Klaipeda
Helsinki
Stockholm
Kolobrzeg
Mariehamn
Gothenburg
Copenhagen
Kaliningrad
St.Petersburg
Frederikshavn
Umea
Riga
Oulu
Turku
Parnu
Gdynia
Lubeck
Liepaja
Tallinn
Rostock
Klaipeda
Helsinki
Stockholm
Kolobrzeg
Mariehamn
Gothenburg
Copenhagen
Kaliningrad
St.Petersburg
Frederikshavn
Umea
Riga
Oulu
Turku
Parnu
Gdynia
Lubeck
Liepaja
Tallinn
Rostock
Klaipeda
Helsinki
Stockholm
Kolobrzeg
Mariehamn
Gothenburg
Copenhagen
Kaliningrad
St.Petersburg
Frederikshavn
Shipping accidents in the Baltic SeaLocation PortPort approach No information
Finland
Russia
Poland
SwedenNorway
Germany
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Finland
Russia
Poland
SwedenNorway
Germany
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Finland
Russia
Poland
SwedenNorway
Germany
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Finland
Russia
Poland
SwedenNorway
Germany
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
20172016
2014 2015
Data from: DK, EE, FI, LV, PL, SEData from: DK, FI, PL, SE
Data from: DE, EE, FI, LT, LV, PL, RU, SEData from: DK, DE, EE, FI, LT, LV, PL, RU, SE
Denmark Denmark
Denmark Denmark
Open sea
12
4. Types of accidents Report on shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017
4. Types of accidents Due to modification of the reporting format in 2012, the category “contact”, as a type of accident, was included in the reporting, defined as striking any fixed or floating object other than ships or un-derwater objects (wrecks etc.). In previous reports “collisions” accounted for both collisions with ships and objects. In order to retain comparability both “collision” and “contact” accidents will be re-ferred to as “collisions” in following text.
Collisions were the main type of accidents in 2014-2017 accounting for almost 32 % of the acci-dents in total (cf. Figure 8). Groundings or strand-ings (hereafter referred to only as groundings) ac-counted for 153 events or 24.8 % of the accidents. Machinery damage caused accidents in 92 cases or 14.9 %. Also other types of accidents such as damage to ship or to the equipment, fires or ex-plosions and other in total made up about one third of all accidents during the period 2014-2017.
The type of accidents qualified as “other” can be defined following the information in Table 1 below.
The spatial distribution of different types of re-ported accidents in the Baltic Sea area is present-ed in Figure 9 on the next page.
Other reasonAccidents with life-saving appliances
Capsizing/listing
Damage to ship or equipment
Door fault / fault in doorways
Flooding/Foundering
Physical damage
Related to the use of rescue equipment
Sunk
Technical failure
Tilt / crash
Hull failure/failure of watertight doors/ports etc.
Loss of control
Other reason
Figure 8: Types of accidents in the Baltic Sea
Table 1: Definition of the accident type “other”
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Num
ber
of a
ccid
ents
Other Contact Collision Fire / explosion Grounding / stranding Machinery damage Pollution
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Num
ber
of a
ccid
ents
Other Contact Collision Fire / explosion Grounding / stranding Machinery damage Pollution
13
4. Types of accidents Report on shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017
Umea
Riga
Oulu
Turku
Parnu
Gdynia
Lubeck
Liepaja
Tallinn
Rostock
Klaipeda
Helsinki
Stockholm
Kolobrzeg
Mariehamn
Gothenburg
Copenhagen
Kaliningrad
St.Petersburg
Frederikshavn
Umea
Riga
Oulu
Turku
Parnu
Gdynia
Lubeck
Liepaja
Tallinn
Rostock
Klaipeda
Helsinki
Stockholm
Kolobrzeg
Mariehamn
Gothenburg
Copenhagen
Kaliningrad
St.Petersburg
Frederikshavn
Umea
Riga
Oulu
Turku
Parnu
Gdynia
Lubeck
Liepaja
Tallinn
Rostock
Klaipeda
Helsinki
Stockholm
Kolobrzeg
Mariehamn
Gothenburg
Copenhagen
Kaliningrad
St.Petersburg
Frederikshavn
Umea
Riga
Oulu
Turku
Parnu
Gdynia
Lubeck
Liepaja
Tallinn
Rostock
Klaipeda
Helsinki
Stockholm
Kolobrzeg
Mariehamn
Gothenburg
Copenhagen
Kaliningrad
St.Petersburg
Frederikshavn
Shipping accidents in the Baltic SeaTypes
Finland
Russia
Poland
SwedenNorway
Germany
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Finland
Russia
Poland
SwedenNorway
Germany
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Finland
Russia
Poland
SwedenNorway
Germany
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Finland
Russia
Poland
SwedenNorway
Germany
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
20172016
2014 2015
Denmark Denmark
Denmark Denmark
Contact Collision Grounding Pollution Machinerydamage Other
Figure 9: Types of shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea (if no accidents are displayed in certain national waters, the reason can be either no accident occurrence during the period 2014 to 2017, or lack of data).
14
4. Types of accidents Report on shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017
4.1. Collisions
Collisions have been the most common type of shipping accidents in 2014-2017. There were 197 collisions in total in this period (cf. Figure 9) or 32 % of all accidents (48 % contact, 52 % collision): 2014 – 52, 2015 – 60, 2016 – 35, 2017 - 50. In 2013 collisions accounted for 38 % of all accidents (57 cases in total: 30 - collision, 27 - contact). There was a slight decrease in the number of collisions in the period 2014-2017 (on average) compared to 2013.
Collisions with vessels and contact with objects accounted for an almost equal share of all collision accidents in the period 2014-2017, 51 % and 49 % respectively. The collisions with objects corre-sponds to the number of accidents categorized as contact accidents (cf. Figure 10). The main types of collisions are: with vessel, with object, with vessel and object, contact and other. Of the total number of collision following were the principal: collisions with pier/quay, contacts, collisions with fixed ob-jects, fires and other types. Of the contact accidents about one two thirds were contacts with an object and one third – contacts with other ship.
Following the shipping accidents information received from the HELCOM Contracting Parties, the merging of some types of collisions was nec-essary in order to produce Figure 11: The detail of the collisions with vessel, with object and other reasons are available in Table 2.
The spatial distribution of the reported colli-sions and contact accidents in the Baltic Sea area is presented in Figure 12 (next page).
Table 2: Definition of the types of collisions
With vessel With object Other reasonsWith another vesselWith multiple vessels
BuoyDry dockFixed objectObjectBridgePier, quaySluiceBreakwaterBerth
Loss of containmentLoss of directional controlOn the fairway slopeother (unsealing the vessel's hull)Ship not underwayDriftExplosionFireFloodingLoss of electrical powerLoss of propulsion powerPower
41
54 54
40 4134
48 48
4 7
17
28 8
7
11
5
8
7 68
14 9
11 3 8
28
2521 39
17
28
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber
of a
ccid
ents
(ac
ciden
ts)
Location of ship collisions
No information
Figure 10: Location of ship collisions in the Baltic Sea
41
54 54
40 41
34
48 48
47
17
2
8 8
7
11
5
8
7 6
8
149
113
8
28
25
2139
17
28
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber
of a
ccid
ents
(ac
ciden
ts)
Location of ship collisions
No information Open sea Port approach Port
Figure 11: Types of collisions
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
With vessel With object With vessel and object Contact Other reasons No informat ion
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
With vessel With object With vessel and object Contact Other reasons No informat ion
15
4. Types of accidents Report on shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017
Umea
Riga
Oulu
Turku
Parnu
Gdynia
Lubeck
Liepaja
Tallinn
Rostock
Klaipeda
Helsinki
Stockholm
Kolobrzeg
Mariehamn
Gothenburg
Copenhagen
Kaliningrad
St.Petersburg
Frederikshavn
Umea
Riga
Oulu
Turku
Parnu
Gdynia
Lubeck
Liepaja
Tallinn
Rostock
Klaipeda
Helsinki
Stockholm
Kolobrzeg
Mariehamn
Gothenburg
Copenhagen
Kaliningrad
St.Petersburg
Frederikshavn
Umea
Riga
Oulu
Turku
Parnu
Gdynia
Lubeck
Liepaja
Tallinn
Rostock
Klaipeda
Helsinki
Stockholm
Kolobrzeg
Mariehamn
Gothenburg
Copenhagen
Kaliningrad
St.Petersburg
Frederikshavn
Umea
Riga
Oulu
Turku
Parnu
Gdynia
Lubeck
Liepaja
Tallinn
Rostock
Klaipeda
Helsinki
Stockholm
Kolobrzeg
Mariehamn
Gothenburg
Copenhagen
Kaliningrad
St.Petersburg
Frederikshavn
Shipping accidents in the Baltic SeaCollision and contact accidents
Finland
Russia
Poland
SwedenNorway
Germany
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Finland
Russia
Poland
SwedenNorway
Germany
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Finland
Russia
Poland
SwedenNorway
Germany
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Finland
Russia
Poland
SwedenNorway
Germany
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Collision Contact
20172016
2014 2015
Denmark Denmark
Denmark Denmark
Figure 12: Collision and contact accidents in the Baltic Sea (if no accidents are displayed in certain national waters, the reason can be either no accident occurrence during the period 2014 to 2017, or lack of data).
16
4. Types of accidents Report on shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017
4.2. Groundings
In the period 2014-2017, there were 153 reported groundings or strandings (hereafter referred to as groundings) in the Baltic Sea area accounting for 24.8 % of the total number of reported accidents in 2014-2017. The groundings are generally occur-ring during when ships are approaching the ports or in open sea (cf. Figure 10).
Figure 14 below illustrates the presence or ab-sence of pilot on board vessels in cases of ground-ing accidents from 2014 to 2017. It is clear that ac-cidents usually happen when there is no pilot on board the ship to assist the crew when approach-ing a port or manoeuvring in the port.
For the period 2014 – 2017, most of the reported groundings occurred with vessels with a draught of less than 7 metres (cf. Figure 15). It is important to note that small vessels are not covered by the IMO's recommendations on the use of pilotage.
The spatial distribution of the reported colli-sions and contact accidents in the Baltic Sea area is presented in Figure 16 (next page).
Figure 13: Location of the grounding accidents
Figure 15: Draught of ships involved in groundings in the Baltic Sea (number of accidents per year)
56 5346
5460
38 3943
2
2216 16
8
26
14
14
13
11
11
9 5 10
7
8
14
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Groundings in the Baltic Sea
No information Open sea - Ope n sea Group3 - Port Port approach
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber
of a
ccicd
ents
(gro
undi
ngs)
Draught size of ships involved in groundings in the Baltic Sea
< 7m 11-13m 13-15m 7-9m 9-11 m 9-11m n.i. No information
Figure 14: Presence of pilots during groundings
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber o
f gro
undi
ng
Presence of pilot during groundings
Exemption certificate No informat ion No Yes
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber
of a
ccicd
ents
(gro
undi
ngs)
Draught size of ships involved in groundings in the Baltic Sea
< 7m 11-13m 13-15m 7-9m 9-11 m 9-11m n.i. No information
17
4. Types of accidents Report on shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017
Umea
Riga
Oulu
Turku
Parnu
Gdynia
Lubeck
Liepaja
Tallinn
Rostock
Klaipeda
Helsinki
Stockholm
Kolobrzeg
Mariehamn
Gothenburg
Copenhagen
Kaliningrad
St.Petersburg
Frederikshavn
Umea
Riga
Oulu
Turku
Parnu
Gdynia
Lubeck
Liepaja
Tallinn
Rostock
Klaipeda
Helsinki
Stockholm
Kolobrzeg
Mariehamn
Gothenburg
Copenhagen
Kaliningrad
St.Petersburg
Frederikshavn
Umea
Riga
Oulu
Turku
Parnu
Gdynia
Lubeck
Liepaja
Tallinn
Rostock
Klaipeda
Helsinki
Stockholm
Kolobrzeg
Mariehamn
Gothenburg
Copenhagen
Kaliningrad
St.Petersburg
Frederikshavn
Umea
Riga
Oulu
Turku
Parnu
Gdynia
Lubeck
Liepaja
Tallinn
Rostock
Klaipeda
Helsinki
Stockholm
Kolobrzeg
Mariehamn
Gothenburg
Copenhagen
Kaliningrad
St.Petersburg
Frederikshavn
Shipping accidents in the Baltic SeaGrounding accidents
Finland
Russia
Poland
SwedenNorway
Germany
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Finland
Russia
Poland
SwedenNorway
Germany
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Finland
Russia
Poland
SwedenNorway
Germany
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Finland
Russia
Poland
SwedenNorway
Germany
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Grounding
20172016
2014 2015
Denmark Denmark
Denmark Denmark
Figure 16: Grounding Accidents in the Baltic Sea (if no accidents are displayed in certain national waters, the reason can be either no acci-dent occurrence during the period 2014 to 2017, or lack of data).
18
5. Types of vessels involved Report on shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017
5. Types of vessels involved
Cargo and passenger vessels were the most common type of ships involved in accidents of all vessels in the period (7). In 2014 cargo vessels accounted for 46.5 % and passenger vessels were involved in 28 % of all reported accidents. In 2015, the number of cargo vessels involved in accidents considerably decrease to 20 % while the number of accidents with passenger vessels increased to 42 %. In 2016 cargo vessel accidents increased to 32 % while accidents involving passenger vessels were reduced to 33 %. Finally, in 2017 the num-ber of accidents with cargo vessels fell slightly to 30 % and passenger vessels also presented a fall of 30 %. Other types of vessels such as ice break-ers, barges, tugboats and research vessels were involved in less than 15 % of all accidents for the period 2014-2017.
Concerning the spatial distribution of the acci-dents by vessel types, Figure 18 on the next page presents the distribution for the years 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017. From the figure it can be observed that the Danish Strait and the area near Stock-holm present a high concentration of accidents in the different analysed years.
81
48
36 38
5
8
3 6
8
22
817
6
7
74
49
102
37 38
2
113 1
6
4 2 4
1742 17 19
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2014 2015 2016 2017
Type of ships involved in accidents in the Baltic Sea
Cargo Container Tanker Fishing Passenger Rorocargo Service Other
Figure 17: Type of ships involved in accidents
19
5. Types of vessels involved Report on shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017
((
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
((
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(((
((
(
(
(
(
(
Umea
Riga
Oulu
Turku
Parnu
Gdynia
Lubeck
Liepaja
Tallinn
Rostock
Klaipeda
Helsinki
Stockholm
Kolobrzeg
Mariehamn
Gothenburg
Copenhagen
Kaliningrad
St.Petersburg
Frederikshavn
((((((
((
((
(((((
(
(
(
(
((
(
((
(
((
(
(
(
Umea
Riga
Oulu
Turku
Parnu
Gdynia
Lubeck
Liepaja
Tallinn
Rostock
Klaipeda
Helsinki
Stockholm
Kolobrzeg
Mariehamn
Gothenburg
Copenhagen
Kaliningrad
St.Petersburg
Frederikshavn
(
(
(
(((
(
(
(
((
(
(
(
(
(
Umea
Riga
Oulu
Turku
Parnu
Gdynia
Lubeck
Liepaja
Tallinn
Rostock
Klaipeda
Helsinki
Stockholm
Kolobrzeg
Mariehamn
Gothenburg
Copenhagen
Kaliningrad
St.Petersburg
Frederikshavn
(
(
(
(
(
(
( (
(((
(
(
(
(((
(
((
( (
(
((
(
(
( ((
(
((
((
(
(
(
Umea
Riga
Oulu
Turku
Parnu
Gdynia
Lubeck
Liepaja
Tallinn
Rostock
Klaipeda
Helsinki
Stockholm
Kolobrzeg
Mariehamn
Gothenburg
Copenhagen
Kaliningrad
St.Petersburg
Frederikshavn
Shipping accidents in the Baltic SeaVessel types
Finland
Russia
Poland
SwedenNorway
Germany
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Finland
Russia
Poland
SwedenNorway
Germany
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Finland
Russia
Poland
SwedenNorway
Germany
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Finland
Russia
Poland
SwedenNorway
Germany
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
20172016
2014 2015
Denmark Denmark
Denmark Denmark
( No informationFishing( Other
TankerService
ContainerRorocargoPassenger
Cargo
Figure 18: Types of vessels involved in accidents (if no accidents are displayed in certain national waters, the reason can be either no accident occurrence during the period 2014 to 2017, or lack of data).
20
6. Cause of accidents Report on shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017
6. Cause of accidents For the period 2014 to 2017, the accidents were mainly caused by human element followed by technical failures, as can be observed in Figure 19. The year 2015 presented the highest recorded number of accidents, with a considerable raise in the following causes: human element, external causes, structural failure and other causes.
The causes of the accidents were reported by the HELCOM Contracting Parties. External causes are related to a factor that is not directly linked to the ship or the crew. For example, environmental conditions and surroundings can be counted as external causes.
The spatial distribution of accidents with indi-cation of the cause of the accidents for the period is presented in 20 per year.
Figure 19: Cause of the shipping accidents
10 10 11 1524
16 11 156
14 11 13 1329
0
58 62
42 38
63
55
37
51 64 42 52
7157
51
0
8
26
6 5
9
8
6
6 0
01
4
1
1
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0 0
2
3
13
4
2
0
31
38
17 24
18
21
25
26 25
28
46
59
35
44
0
26
10
4138
21
5 51
45 5464
50
24
21
11
00
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 (blank)
Cause of accidents in the Baltic Sea
External cause s Human element Other factor Structural failure Technical failure Unknown (blank) - (blank)
21
6. Cause of accidents Report on shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017
((
((
(
(
(
((
(
(
(
(
( (
(
((
(
(
(
Umea
Riga
Oulu
Turku
Parnu
Gdynia
Lubeck
Liepaja
Tallinn
Rostock
Klaipeda
Helsinki
Stockholm
Kolobrzeg
Mariehamn
Gothenburg
Copenhagen
Kaliningrad
St.Petersburg
Frederikshavn
((
((( (
(
(((
(
(
Umea
Riga
Oulu
Turku
Parnu
Gdynia
Lubeck
Liepaja
Tallinn
Rostock
Klaipeda
Helsinki
Stockholm
Kolobrzeg
Mariehamn
Gothenburg
Copenhagen
Kaliningrad
St.Petersburg
Frederikshavn
(((
((
(
(
((((
((
( (
(( ((
(
(
(
(
(
((
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
((
((
(
(
(
((
(
(
(
(
Umea
Riga
Oulu
Turku
Parnu
Gdynia
Lubeck
Liepaja
Tallinn
Rostock
Klaipeda
Helsinki
Stockholm
Kolobrzeg
Mariehamn
Gothenburg
Copenhagen
Kaliningrad
St.Petersburg
Frederikshavn
( (
(
(
(
(
((
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
((
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
Umea
Riga
Oulu
Turku
Parnu
Gdynia
Lubeck
Liepaja
Tallinn
Rostock
Klaipeda
Helsinki
Stockholm
Kolobrzeg
Mariehamn
Gothenburg
Copenhagen
Kaliningrad
St.Petersburg
Frederikshavn
20172016
2014 2015
Shipping accidents in the Baltic SeaCause
Finland
Russia
Poland
SwedenNorway
Germany
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Finland
Russia
Poland
SwedenNorway
Germany
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Finland
Russia
Poland
SwedenNorway
Germany
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Finland
Russia
Poland
SwedenNorway
Germany
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
(Human element Technical failure External causes Structural failure Other factor Unknown
Denmark Denmark
Denmark Denmark
Figure 20: Cause of the accidents in the Baltic Sea (if no accidents are displayed in certain national waters, the reason can be either no accident occurrence during the period 2014 to 2017, or lack of data).
22
7. Accidents with pollution and response activities Report on shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017
7. Accidents with pollution and response activities
7.1. Accidents with pollution
According to the 2014-2017 data, 9,2 % of the re-ported accidents ended up with some kind of pol-lution. The type of vessels involved in pollution accidents in the period varied along the years, as observed in the figure 21. In 2014, the reported accidents were related to passenger ships, tank-ers and other ships, respectively. In 2015, cargo vessels, tankers and other ships were registered. In 2016, accidents involving passenger vessels, tankers, RoRo cargo, cargo and other vessels were observed. Finally, in 2017, accidents resulting in pollution with passenger vessels, tankers, fishing vessels, cargo vessels, containers vessels, service vessels and other classifications were registered.
The main cause of the pollution accidents was hu-man element but also technical failure (cf. Figure 22).
The spatial distribution of the accidents result-ing in pollution for the period is presented in Fig-ure 23 on the next page.
Special characteristics such as low salinity, small water volume, restricted connection to the ocean, seasonality and the ice cover during win-ter make the Baltic Sea highly vulnerable to the effects of oil spills which makes swift response very important. Intensive regional cooperation in the field of response and preparedness to spills in the Baltic Sea has been carried out within HEL-COM since the 1970s (HELCOM Response Working Group). Due to such cooperation efforts the oil recovery rate in the Baltic Sea is generally much higher than the global average and, as proved by previous pollution accidents of regional impor-tance, it can reach as much as 50 %.
7.2. Response activities
Response activities in the Baltic Sea region have been reported by the Baltic Sea states following a request by the Secretariat. Only two countries submitted information for 2017, therefore Table 3 below may not include all response activities that took place in the Baltic Sea area in 2016 and 2017.
Figure 22: Cause of accidents resulting in pollution in the Baltic Sea
Figure 21: Types of ships involved in pollution accidents in the Baltic Sea
5
25
13
25
41
11
32
4
23
8
5
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2014 2015 2016 2017
% o
f acc
iden
ts
Types of ships involved in pollution accidents in the Baltic Sea
Cargo Container Fishing Passenger Rorocargo Service Tanker Other
1 2
24
5
8
1
1
2
2 2
10
9
1 2
0%10%
20%30%
40%50%
60%70%
80%
90%100%
2014 2015 2016 2017
% o
f acc
iden
ts
Cause of accidents resulting in pollution in the Baltic Sea
Cargo related External cause s Human element
Structural failure Technical failure Unknown
23
7. Accidents with pollution and response activities Report on shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017
Umea
Riga
Oulu
Turku
Parnu
Gdynia
Lubeck
Liepaja
Tallinn
Rostock
Klaipeda
Helsinki
Stockholm
Kolobrzeg
Mariehamn
Gothenburg
Copenhagen
Kaliningrad
St.Petersburg
Frederikshavn
Umea
Riga
Oulu
Turku
Parnu
Gdynia
Lubeck
Liepaja
Tallinn
Rostock
Klaipeda
Helsinki
Stockholm
Kolobrzeg
Mariehamn
Gothenburg
Copenhagen
Kaliningrad
St.Petersburg
Frederikshavn
Umea
Riga
Oulu
Turku
Parnu
Gdynia
Lubeck
Liepaja
Tallinn
Rostock
Klaipeda
Helsinki
Stockholm
Kolobrzeg
Mariehamn
Gothenburg
Copenhagen
Kaliningrad
St.Petersburg
Frederikshavn
Umea
Riga
Oulu
Turku
Parnu
Gdynia
Lubeck
Liepaja
Tallinn
Rostock
Klaipeda
Helsinki
Stockholm
Kolobrzeg
Mariehamn
Gothenburg
Copenhagen
Kaliningrad
St.Petersburg
Frederikshavn
Shipping accidents in the Baltic SeaAccidents with pollution
Finland
Russia
Poland
SwedenNorway
Germany
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Finland
Russia
Poland
SwedenNorway
Germany
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Finland
Russia
Poland
SwedenNorway
Germany
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Finland
Russia
Poland
SwedenNorway
Germany
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Yes No informationNo
20172016
2014 2015
Denmark Denmark
Denmark Denmark
Figure 23: Shipping accidents with pollution in the Baltic Sea (if no accidents are displayed in certain national waters, the reason can be either no accident occurrence during the period 2014 to 2017, or lack of data).
24
8. Annexes Report on shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017
8. Annexes
Table 1: Reported response activities in the Baltic Sea area
Country Year Date (dd.mm.yyyy)
Time (hh:mm)
Place Latitude (DD)
Longitude (DD)
Source Type of pollution
Amount of pollution (m3)
Amount recovered at sea (m3)
Responsible organization
Further details
Denmark 2017 03.02.2017 11:18 Odense Fjord
55,4715 10,534667 Shipyard Gasoil 0,3
Odense Port Oil evaporated
25.08.2017 9:15 Kattegat 57,427 11,246167 Vessel aground
Gasoil 0,5
Maritime Assistance Services +45 72850370
Oil evaporated
31.08.2017 18:19 Bandholm Port
54,838333 11,4905 Spil from shore
Rapssead oil
0,5 0,5 Bandholm Port
07.09.2017 10:48 Åbrnrå Port and Ford
55,0385 9,424833 Spil from shore instalation
Gasoil 200 0 Aabenraa Port, Maritime Assistance Services +45 72850370
Oil evaporated and collected
23.11.2017 12:41 Kattegat 57,368333 11,105 Spil from vessel
Heavy fuel
0,5 0,2 Maritime Assistance Services +45 72850370
Estonia 7.2.2017
at sea 58° 38` 21°16` ship oil 0,3 0 0 0 19.3.2017
at sea 59° 30` 23° 48` ship oil 8,3 0 0 0
20.9.2017
at sea 59° 30` 24° 18` ship oil 0,63 0 0 0 27.9.2017
at sea 59° 4` 21° 23` ship oil 0,41 0 0 0
7.11.2017
at sea 57° 54` 21° 17` ship oil 0,27 0 0 0
Annex 1 Guideline for filling-in the HELCOM Reporting Format on Shipping Accidents (as of September 2016).
All accidents including, but not limited to grounding, collision with other vessel or contact with fixed structures (offshore installations, wrecks, etc.), disabled vessel (e.g. machinery and/or structure failure), fire, explosions, etc., which took place in territorial seas or EEZ of the Contracting Party and involved any ships which are required to carry AIS should be reported to the HELCOM Secretariat using the agreed reporting format, irrespectively if there was pollution or not.
The reporting format is provided as an excel file and includes the following information entries. The predefined entries should be used!
Country Country in whose water the accident took place
Year Year of accident
Date (dd.mm.yyyy)
Time (hh:mm)
Latitude (DD) Please provide latitude in decimal degrees, e.g. 57.123
Longitude (DD) Please provide longitude in decimal degrees, e.g. 18.456
Location of accident Fixed answers; please choose from: “Port”, “Port approach”, “Open sea” or ”n.i.” (no information available). The category “Open sea” covers all accidents at sea i.e. not defined as “Port” or “Port approach”. Categories are used only for the purpose of statistics and are too be defined according to national practice of the reporting authority.
Ship 1 Ship 1 name, ID, flag
Ship 1 AIS category Fixed answers; please choose from: “Tanker”, “Cargo”, “Passenger” or “Other”.
Ship 1 type (detail) Please, provide further details on type of ship, e.g. tanker (oil, chemical, gas tanker), cargo ship (general cargo, bulk carrier, etc) and other ships (icebreaker, tug boat, ro-ro, etc).
Hull construction (tankers only)
Fixed answers; please choose from: “Single, hull”, “Double hull”, “Double bottom”, “Double sides”, “Mid deck” or “Other” .
Size (gt)_ship1
Draught (m)_ship1 Fixed answers; please choose from: “< 7m”, “7-9m”, “9-11m”, “11-13m”, “13-15m”, “>15m” or “n.i.”.
Ship 2 (if relevant) Ship 2 name, ID, flag
Fill this in only if accident involved two ships, e.g. in case of a collision
Ship 2 AIS category Fixed answers; please choose from: “Tanker”, “Cargo”, “Passenger” or “Other”.
Ship 2 type (detail) Please, provide further details on type of e.g. tanker (oil, chemical, gas tanker), cargo ship (general cargo, bulk carrier) and other ships (icebreaker, tug boat, ro-ro etc).
Hull construction (tankers only)
Fixed answers; please choose from: “Single, hull”, “Double hull”, “Double bottom”, “Double sides”, “Mid deck” or “Other” .
Size (gt)_ship2
Draught (m)_ship2 Fixed answers; please choose from: “< 7m”, “7-9m”, “9-11m”, “11-13m”, “13-15m”, “>15m” or “n.i.”.
Type of cargo If relevant, please specify amount and type of cargo, e.g. people (passengers and crew), oil, dangerous goods, harmful substances, bunker, ballast and empty, other.
Type of accident Fixed answers; please choose from:
“Collision” (striking or being struck by another ship)
“Stranding/grounding” (being aground, or hitting/touching shore
or sea bottom or underwater objects (wrecks, etc.))
“Contact” (striking any fixed or floating object other than those
included previously)
“Pollution” (e.g. during fuel transfer)
“Fire or explosion”
“Hull failure/ failure of watertight doors/ports etc.”
“Machinery damage”
“Damages to ships or equipment”
“Capsizing/listing”
“Missing (assumed lost)”
“Accidents with life-saving appliances”
“Other”
Type of collision or contact(collision and contact accidents only)
Fixed answers; please choose from: “With vessel”, “With vessel and object”, “With object” or “n.i.”.
Further details about accident
More detailed information, especially if “Other” was selected in the “Type of accident” column.
Cause of accident Fixed answers; please choose from:
“Human element” (violations or error)
“Structural failure”
“Technical failure” (machinery/equipment incl. design errors)
“Cargo related”
“External causes”(including environment, navigational infrastructure, criminal acts etc.)
“Unknown”
Human element subcategories
Please provide further details if “Human element” was selected in the previous column. Fixed answers; please choose from:
“Violation” (deliberate decision to act against a rule or plan)
“Slip” (unintentional action where failure involves attention)
“Lapse” (unintentional action where failure involves memory)
“Mistake” (an intentional action where there is an error in the
planning process; there is no deliberate decision to act against
a rule or procedure):
Accident in ice conditions Fixed answers, please choose from: “Yes”, “No” or “n.i.”.
Crew trained in ice navigation
Fixed answers, please choose from: “Yes”, “No” or “n.i.”.
Further details on cause of accident
Please, provide further details on cause e.g. hard winds, heavy waves, reduced visibility, etc.
Pilot on board Fixed answers, please choose from: “Yes”, “No”, “Exemption certificate” or “n.i.”.
Offence against rules or regulations
Please, specify e.g. use of pilot, routeing, weather restriction, deficiency of the ship, operation of the ship, COLREG, speed limits, max draft, others.
Damage Please specify, e.g. lives (crew and passengers), total loss, leakage, others.
Need of assistance Please specify, e.g. SAR, towing, lightering, salvage, others.
Pollution Fixed answers; please choose from: “Yes”, “No” or “n.i..
Amount of pollution (m3)
Amount of pollution (tonnes)
Type of pollution Please, specify e.g. crude oil, diesel fuel, other.
Consequences/response action
Please, specify e.g. consequences of pollution, response to contamination taken, amount of pollution recovered, etc.
Additional info Any other relevant information, e.g. needed to evaluate the limitation of data, etc.
