Fatigue is Maritime’s Inconvenient Truth
Adam Parnell, Director (Maritime) of voluntary near-miss reporting scheme CHIRP Maritime, says fatigue is the maritime industry’s inconvenient truth.
In recent months, CHIRP has received a number of reports in which fatigue was a factor, so Parnell has prepared a special report. “This may be one of the most important documents we have ever published, as the sheer volume of reports we are receiving suggests fatigue may be widespread. In some cases, fatigue was experienced even though the vessel’s working routines complied with hours of work and rest legislation.
“We make the point that fatigue cannot be managed through paperwork alone, and we would hope that caring companies will have procedures in place so that individuals are encouraged to report when they feel fatigued and are permitted to take themselves away from their duties until they recover.”
Fatigue remains one of the most persistent and under-reported risks in maritime operations, states the report. It rarely stems from a single long shift or an isolated, difficult week. More often, it develops gradually through sustained exposure to demanding schedules, insufficient recovery time, staffing pressures, and a culture in which “coping” becomes the norm.
Many safe crewing models were developed using assumptions that no longer reflect modern ship operations, says CHIRP. Crew members are now exposed to increased mental and emotional load, including constant connectivity with shore management, a 24-hour information environment, and rising administrative demands. Port turnarounds are faster, commercial schedules are tighter, and additional tasks are frequently imposed with little or no increase in the number of people or time available.
CHIRP continues to hear from people who are working repeated night shifts, suffering disrupted sleep, elevated stress, and declining alertness. Microsleeps, lapses in concentration, and fatigue-related near misses during routine tasks were reported in several submissions.
CHIRP has previously highlighted the tension between operational safety and commercial efficiency. In some cases, crewing levels appear to be based on minimum legal thresholds or cost benchmarks rather than the workload required for safe operation. Where planning depends on people continually “pushing through”, the system may already be operating beyond safe limits.
