Although maritime safety is one of the key terms in regulation, guidelines and recommendations, such as SOLAS (International Convention for the safety of life at sea (IMO, 1974), in the shipping domain, there is, to the best of our knowledge, neither an explanation of this specific type of safety nor any explicit understanding on how it is promoted by those who work on board of merchant vessel. This qualitative study approaches maritime safety from a crew perspective and discusses what constituents should be considered to be part of maritime safety.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmalbertiR. (2001). The paradoxes of almost totally safe transportation systems. Safety Science, 37, 109-126.
2.
DekkerS. (2004). Why we need new accident models. Journal of Human Factors and Aerospace Safety, 2.
3.
HetheringtonC.FlinR.MearnsK. (2006). Safety in shipping: The human element. Journal of Safety Research, 37(4), 401-411.
4.
HockeyG. R. J.HealeyA.CrawshawM.WastellD. G.SauerJ. (2003). Cognitive Demands of Collision Avoidance at in Simulated Ship Control. Human Factors, 45(2), 252-265.
5.
HollnagelE. (2004). Barriers and Accident Prevention. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
6.
HollnagelE. (2009). The ETTO Principle: Efficiency-Thoroughness Trade-Off. Why Things That Go Right Sometimes Go Wrong. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company.
7.
HollnagelE.WoodsD. D. (2005). Joint Cognitive Systems. Foundations of Cognitive Systems Engineering. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
8.
IMO. (1974). SOLAS: International Convention for the safety of life at sea. London: International Maritime Organization.
9.
IMO. (2010). Development of the ISM Code. Retrieved 2011-02-10, 2011
10.
KoesterT.SørensenP. K. (2004, 22-25March2004). Measurement of stress and mental activity among maritime crew members. Paper presented at the Proceedings of Human Performance, Situation Awareness, & Automation (HPSAA) - 2004 Conference, Daytona Beach, Florida.
11.
LützhöftM. (2004). “The technology is great when it works”: Maritime Technology and Human Integration on the Ship’s Bridge. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Linköping University, Linköping. Available at: http://www.diva-portal.org.
12.
LützhöftM.Sherwood JonesB.EarthyJ. V.BergquistC. (2006). Making Safety by Tying the Knot: Examining Resilience in Shipping. Proceedings of The 2nd Symposium on Resilience Engineering. Juan-les-Pins, France, November 8-10.
13.
PerdokJ.WewerinkeP. H. (1995). Nautical safety and efficiency: simulation and reality. Safety Science, 19(2-3), 157-169.
14.
PraetoriusG.BrunoK.LützhöftM. (2010). Enacting Reliability: First Steps To Define Safety in the VTS Domain. Paper presented at the International Conference on Human Performance at Sea, HPAS2010.
15.
RobertsK. H. (1990). Some Characteristics of One Type of High Reliability Organization. Organization Science, 1(2), 160-176.
16.
RochlinG. I. (1999). Safe operation as a social construct. Ergonomics, 42(11), 1549-1560.
17.
SablowskiN. (1989). Effects of Bridge Automation on Mariners’ Performance. In CoblentzA. (Ed.), Vigilance and Performance in Automatized Systems/Vigilance et Performance de l’Homme dans les Systèmes Automatisés (pp. 101-110). London: Kluwer.
18.
SchagerB. (2008). Human error in the maritime industry. How to understand, detect and cope: Breakwater Publishing.
19.
WeickK. E. (1987). Organization culture as a source of high reliability. California Management Review, 29(2), 112–127.
