ii a comparison of fatigue levels among malaysian

ii

A COMPARISON OF FATIGUE LEVELS AMONG MALAYSIAN SEAFARERS

OF DIFFERENT MARITIME SECTOR

ZAIMI BIN ZAINAL MUKHTAR

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the award of the degree of

Master of Engineering (Marine Technology)

Faculty of Mechanical Engineering

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

MAY 2009

iv

To my great Father and Mother, my Dear Wife, my son and daughter whose prayers

always afforded me the power to accomplish this work. To all I dedicate this work

with great respect and love.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, I thank God Almighty for the love and strength for me to

overcome the hurdles and predicament in life and made me what I am today.

To Associate Professor Dr. Mohd Zamani Bin Ahmad, from the bottom of

my heart, thank you for your encouragement, guidance, critics and concerns. You

have inspired me in many ways. You made me realize that everything is possible.

Thank you for being a teacher, a father and brother to me.

Next, to my beloved wife Pn. Neirul Nisa, my loving kids Nauffal and

Qaisara and also my friends Kamarul Nasser, Shamsul Effendi and Asmawi, thank

you so much for loving and helping me and always being there for me. You have

refreshed me, comforted me and being by my side, all the way discovering my true

self. I love you all so much.

To my friends, thank you for a beautiful friendship. It was a bittersweet

experience and I hope it will last forever. Last but not least, to every one who

participate and contribute directly or indirectly in completing this study. Thank you.

vi

ABSTRACT

This report is to identify the sources of fatigue and fatigue levels of Malaysian

seafarers for different maritime sectors. The objective is to determine the sources of

fatigue among seafarers from different sectors. Questionnaires are used to collect

field data and then analyze using SPSS and MiniTAB. From the analysis, it was

found that fatigue problem is caused by two main factors which are shift of work

and seafarers’ working environment. The result proves the two factors caused

fatigue to seafarers from different sectors where the score of mean for group of

seafarers who work in Port (Mean=3.52 and 4.12), Coastal Container (Mean=3.80

and 3.61), Foreign-Tanker (Mean = 4.05 and 3.91) and Foreign-LNG (Mean =4.05

and 3.85) were classified as high score. Technology used onboard ship is one of the

factor to take into consideration as a tool to overcome the fatigue problem at sea.

The finding shows that respondents in Port (Mean =3.74), Coastal-Container (Mean

=4.11), Foreign-Tanker (Mean = 4.14) and Foreign-LNG (Mean = 3.87) mostly

agreed on the effect of technology at sea based on the high mean score.

vii

ABSTRAK

Laporan ini adalah mengenai kajian statistik terhadap sumber kepada

kelesuan dan tahap kelesuan yang dihadapi oleh pelayar-pelayar Malaysia di dalam

sector maritim yang berbeza. Objektif kajian adalah untuk menentukan sumber

kelesuan bagi kumpulan pelayar yang berlainan sektor. Kaedah soal selidik telah

digunakan bagi mendapatkan data lapangan dan dianalisa dengan menggunakan

SPSS serta perisian MiniTAB. Daripada analisa yang dijalankan, telah didapati

bahawa kelesuan pelayar-pelayar Malaysia adalah disebabkan oleh dua faktor utama

iaitu kesesuaian masa aturan bekerja dan persekitaran tempat bekerja. Keputusan

membuktikan bahawa masalah kelesuan pelayar berpunca daripada dua faktor utama

tersebut dengan markah skor purata yang diperolehi bagi pelayar-pelayar yang

berkhidmat di sektor Pelabuhan (Mean = 3.52 dan 4.12), Kapal Kontena Persisir

(Mean= 3.80 dan 3.61), Kapal Tangki Antarabangsa (Mean =4.05 dan 3.91) dan

Kapal LNG Antarabangsa (Mean = 4.05 dan 3.85) diklasifikasikan sebagai tahap

skor tinggi. Faktor penggunaan teknologi di atas kapal perlu diambil kira dalam

membantu pelaut bagi mengurangkan kadar lesu di lautan. Dapatan kaji selidik

menunjukkan responden di perkhidmatan pelabuhan (Mean = 3.74), Kapal Kontena

Pesisir (4.11), Kapal Tangki Antarabangsa (4.14) dan Kapal LNG Antarabangsa

(Mean = 3.87) kebanyakannya bersetuju bahawa teknologi memberikan kesan

kepada masalah kelesuan berdasarkan skor purata yang tinggi.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE` PAGE

SUPERVISOR’S DECLARATION i

TITLE PAGE ii

DECLARATION iii

DEDICATION iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT v

ABSTRACT vi

ABSTRAK vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS viii

LIST OF FIGURES xiii

LIST OF TABLES xvi

LIST OF NOMENCLATURE xvii

LIST OF APPENDICES xx

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background of Study 1

1.2 Problem Statement 3

1.3 Objectives of Research 4

1.4 Scope of Research 4

1.5 Problem Identification 5

1.6 Thesis Organisation 5

1.6.1 Chapter 1 5

1.6.2 Chapter 2 6

ix

1.6.3 Chapter 3 6

1.6.4 Chapter 4 6

1.6.5 Chapter 5 7

1.6.6 Chapter 6 7

1.7 Summary 7

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 8

2.1 Introduction to Fatigue 8

2.2 Concept of Fatigue 10

2.3 Source of Fatigue 11

2.3.1 Crew-specific Factors 13

2.3.2 Management Factors (ashore and

aboard ship)

16

2.3.2.1 Organizational Factors 16

2.3.2.2 Voyage and Scheduling

Factors

17

2.3.3 Ship-Specific Factors 17

2.3.4 Environmental Factors 18

2.4 Effect of Fatigue 19

2.4.1 Physically 21

2.4.2 Emotionally 21

2.4.3 Mentally 22

2.4.4 Performance 22

2.5 Measurement of Fatigue 23

2.6 Maritime Sector in Malaysia 25

2.7 Technology at Sea 27

x

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 30

3.1 Introduction 30

3.2 Identification of Fatigue Source among

Malaysia Seafarers and Maritime Sectors

31

3.3 Development of Hypothesis 33

3.4 Research Instrument 34

3.4.1 Development of Questionnaires 34

3.5 Data Collection 35

3.6 Data Analysis 36

3.7 Data Distribution for Pilot Study 38

3.7.1 Consistency reliability with

Cronbach’s Alpha

38

4 RESULT AND ANALYSIS 40

4.1 Introduction 40

4.2 Demographics Study 41

4.2.1 Rank 41

4.2.2 Sector 42

4.2.3 Location of Work 43

4.2.4 Age 44

4.2.5 Fatigue Evidence According to Rank 45

4.3 Association of Fatigue with Demographic 46

4.3.1 Place of Work Assiciation with

Fatigue

47

4.4 Results on Fatigue Analysis among

Seafarers from Different Maritime Sectors

47

4.4.1 Analysis on Shift of Work by

Location of Work

48

xi

4.4.2 Analysis on Working Environment

by Location of Work

51

4.4.3 Analysis on Effect of Technology by

Location of Work

55

4.4.4 Analysis on Shift of Work by Sector 58

4.4.5 Analysis on Working Environment

by Sector

61

4.4.6 Analysis on Effect of Technology by

Sector

65

4.4.7 Comparison of Technology

Perception Among Maritime Sectors

68

4.4.8 Correlation Between Constructs 70

5 DISCUSSION 71

5.1 Validity of Question and Internal

Consistency Reliability with Cronbach’s

Alpha

72

5.2 Data Distribution 72

5.3 Discussion On Place of Work Association

with Fatigue

73

5.4 Discussion on Fatigue Analysis among

Seafarers from different Maritime Sector

73

5.4.1 Evidence of Fatigue of Seafarers 73

5.4.2 Discussion on Shift of Work by

Maritime Sector

75

5.4.3 Discussion on Working

Environment by Sector

75

5.4.4 Discussion on Effect of Technology 77

5.5 Discussion on ANNOVA & Correlation

Test

78

5.5.1 Annova Test 78

5.5.2 Correlation Test 79

xii

6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Overview of the study 80

6.2 Restatement of the objective 81

6.3 Review of the finding 81

6.4 Recommendations and Suggestions 82

7 REFERENCES 81 – 86

8 Appendices 90

A Survey on Fatigue among Malaysian

Seafarers in Different Maritime Sector

B NUMAST Sample of Survey and Report

C Perception of Ship Technology

Questionnaire

xiii LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE

3.1 The flow chart of research methodology 31

4.1 Rank Distribution 42

4.2 Distribution by Sector 43

4.3 Distribution by Location of Work 44

4.4 Distribution by Age 45

4.5 Distribution of Mean Score for different Seafarers

Rank

46

4.6 Graphical Summary for Bridge (Construct 1) 49

4.7 Graphical Summary for Deck (Construct 1) 50

4.8 Graphical Summary for Engine Room (Construct 1) 50

4.9 Graphical Summary for Others (Construct 1) 51




4.13 Graphical Summary for Others(Construct 2) 54




4.17 Graphical Summary for Others (Construct 3) 57

4.18 Graphical Summary for Port (Construct 1) 59

4.19 Graphical Summary for Coastal (Construct 1) 60

4.20 Graphical Summary for Foreign Tanker (Construct 1) 60

xiv

4.21 Graphical Summary for Foreign LNG (Construct 1) 61









4.30 ANOVA Test Result for All Sector 69

4.31 ANOVA Tukey’s Test for Maritime Sectors on Effect

of Technology

69

4.32 Correlation Test Result for All Constructs

70

xv

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE

2.1 Growth of MASA member fleet 26

3.1 Sample of Likert Scale 35

3.2 Level of mean score 37

3.3 Cronbach’s Alpha Value 38

4.1 Association of Location of Work with Fatigue 47

4.2 Mean and Standard Deviations for Construct: Shift of Work

49

4.3 Mean and Standard Deviations for Construct: Working Environment

52

4.4 Mean and Standard Deviations for Construct: Effect of Technology

55

4.5 Mean and Standard Deviations for Construct: Nature of Work / Shift

58

4.6 Mean and Standard Deviations for Construct: Location/Environment

62

4.7 Mean and Standard Deviations for Construct: Effect of Technology

65

xvi

LIST OF NOMENCLATURE

Abbreviation

α - Cronbach’s Alpha

μ - Mean

σ - Standard Deviation

ρ - Spearman’s rho

xvii

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX TITLE PAGE

A Survey on Fatigue among Malaysian Seafarers in

Different Maritime Sector

90

B NUMAST Sample of Survey and Report 90

C Perceptions of Ship Technology Questionnaires 90

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of Study

It is often said in the industry that 70-80% of maritime accidents are attributable to

human error. What is less well known, however, is that in the majority of these cases, the

factor of which has consistently been identified as a major contributory link in the chain

of events leading to an accident, is fatigue. Because of this, it is important to continue

research into the causes and incidence of fatigue in seafarers (Reyner & Baulk, 1998).

Even though the chain of causation in marine accidents is long and complex, fatigue

has recurrently been identified as either the primary cause or a major contributory factor.

The same is true for near-misses and unsafe practices. Too many accidents result in loss

of life (as in the case of Herald of Free Enterprise) or major incidents of pollution (as in

the Exxon Valdez), as well as representing enormous costs to shipowners, shippers and

society in general. Widely publicised accidents, however, give just a small indication of

the many other incidents attributable to fatigue that go unreported (Reyner & Baulk,

1998).

2

From a report by the National Transportation Safety Board (1999) attempting to

address operator fatigue, seafarers were identified out of the occupational groups included

to have the second highest number of maximum work hours in a 30-day period, behind

rail operators. A study by the National Union of Marine Aviation and Shipping Transport

Officers (NUMAST, 1995) surveyed 1,000 officers; 77% felt that fatigue has significantly

risen in the past 3–10 years, 84% felt that stress was also more prevalent. A further study

by (NUMAST, 2001) surveyed 563 seafarers, 50% of whom indicated that they worked

more than 85 hours in a week and 66% felt that extra manning was necessary to reduce

fatigue. Results from a study of Australian seafarers revealed that 70% of seafarers report

poor to very poor sleep (Parker, et al., 2002).

The Nautical Institute represents about 7,000 members from more than 110

countries and it is from these members and others that we hear what a major concern

fatigue is. In the recent President’s questionnaire, 64 percent of respondents (the highest

level) reported that fatigue was their major concern (followed by manning, 60 per cent;

collision avoidance, 60 per cent and leadership, 54 per cent). Within the last year the

Institute has held five major international conferences in Norway, the UK, India (Mumbai

and Delhi) and Singapore, none of which were targeted at fatigue but in all of which

discussions quickly came round to the problem. Further reports come from MARS, letters

to Seaways, meetings and ship visits. Pilots are quick to recognize fatigue in vessels

arriving in port, with one reporting:

‘It is sometimes obvious that the master on a master-plus-one-mate coaster

is exhausted on occasion. This is exacerbated in poor weather. I have

boarded such vessels and it is not uncommon for the master to be resting

when the pilot boards or disappear soon afterwards, blatantly ignoring his

responsibilities. I could, of course, be argued that it is better he rests and is

available at a more critical point in the passage’(Patraiko, 2006).

However, House (1985) proposed that “most offshore accidents are due neither to

unfamiliar technology nor to particular hazardous weather and climatic conditions.

Rather, like accidents in other industries, they are due to human error and faulty

machinery and equipment” (p.32). Given that the advancements in technology offshore

3

has meant less equipment failures, the role of human error has become more apparent,

with safety experts now estimating that 80-90% of all industrial accidents can be

attributed to ‘human factors’ (Hoyos, 1995).

Early on, (Sutherland & Flin, 1989) proposed that the high offshore accident rate is

due to the conditions and pressures associated with offshore employment. Therefore, it

can be proposed that given the long working hours and demanding shift schedules, fatigue

is a major factor in the cause of many incidents in the offshore oil industry attributed to

human error (Collins, et al., 2000).

The desk study reported above suggests that fatigue may be a causal factor in

collisions and groundings in up to 11 to 23 percent of the cases. In 2003 the Ministry

commissioned an analysis of the reports by the Shipping Council. In this study it was

found that 'fatigue' was third (14%), after 'no watch' (22%) and 'no proper watch' (21%)

when main causes of groundings and collisions were concerned (Houtman, et al., 2005).

The MAIB (Marine Accident Investigation Branch; 2005) concluded in their annual

report that in 2004 there have been a worrying number of merchant ships involved in

collisions or near misses. It was stated that '…while the details of the accidents may vary,

the fundamentals remain depressingly consistent: fatigued crews, due to undermanning;

falsified hours of work records; no dedicated lookout on the bridge; and poor situational

awareness/anticipation/judgement by officers of the watch – classic symptoms of fatigue’

(Houtman, et. al, 2005).

1.2 Problem Statement

Previous researches on fatigue are only carried out in a worldwide range and

there has not been a research focusing on Malaysian seafarers. If there is one, it is not

systematically studying on the Malaysian seafarers’ fatigue. The study conducted by

Osman (2004) that discussed the issues and challenges of Malaysian Seafarers. But

4

his focal point is about the lack of human resource to cope with the expansion of

maritime industry, which is generally related to fatigue problem.

There’re also haven’t any study conducted in identifying the existence of fatigue

and its differences among Malaysian seafarers in different maritime sectors. Hence it is

appropriate to conduct this kind of study knowing the fact that Malaysia is in the track of

becoming one of a well known maritime country.

1.3 Objectives of Research

This study is conducted to accomplish these following objectives:-

i. To identify the sources of fatigue and fatigue level among Malaysian

seafarers

ii. To confirm the effect of technology to fatigue among seafarers.

1.4 Scope of Research

This research is carried out under these scopes:-

i. Analyses are based on demographic

ii. Research on various types of maritime sectors including offshore

sector, deep sea sector (container ships, tankers, bulkers) and near

coastal sectors including passenger liners.

iii. Research on implementation of technology onboard ships and the

effect to the fatigue issues.

5

1.5 Problem Identification

In order to ensure that this project can be carried out smoothly and finally

achieves its objectives, certain problems which are part of the project itself would have

to be identified. These are the problems, which require consideration of various

problems solving methodology in order to produce a reliable solution. The major

problems in this project have been identified as follows:

• The suitable approach to process and analyze the data and also the

suitable software to be used later.

• Obtaining the suitable sector to be surveyed for this project.

Consideration should be given to the fact that shipping industry in

Malaysia now is monopolizing by one or two major player. So that,

networking to this company must be initiated from the beginning of

the project to ensure the survey can be carried out.

• Identifying the right time to get the respondents which are very

difficult. It’s because of the unpredictable and tight schedule of the

Malaysian ship.

1.6 Thesis Organization

This report consists of six main chapters where each chapter will focus on the

relevant topics as follows:

1.6.1 Chapter 1

This is an introduction section where the background of the study will be

elaborated briefly. The objectives and the scope of research also will be stated clearly in

this chapter.

6

1.6.2 Chapter 2

For the purpose of understanding and knowing on the topic of the project in

details, this chapter will focus on theoretical and any findings which related to the

research topic. It is called as literature review. Clear information on fatigue such as

definition, concept, effect, sources, measurement and etc can be read in this chapter. For

better understanding, there are also a lot of readings on the maritime sector and brief

information on technologies at sea had been added in this chapter.

1.6.3 Chapter 3

This chapter presents the details of the research methodology where will be

focused on the processes of executing the project or study from drafting the

questionnaires, data collection, result processing and method of analysis. At the end of

this chapter, the analysis of pilot study also will be presented.

1.6.4 Chapter 4

In chapter 4, the final result where the evidence of the sources of fatigue is

shown. The details of analysis of the data and result will be presented in details. All

the figures, tables and chart which represent the analysis of the data will be shown and

the details description of the analysis will be given clearly in this chapter.

7

1.6.5 Chapter 5

Chapter 5 discusses the result which shown in previous chapter in detail. The

discussion to be made based on the result obtained in chapter 4. The arguments and

evidences on the results also will be discussed further in this chapter as well.

1.6.6 Chapter 6

Chapter 6 presents the overall conclusion and some recommendations for future

research. This chapter will formulate the findings and the objectives of the project. At

first, the objectives of the project will be reviewed and conclusions will be made based

on the outcomes of study. To reinforce the outcome of this project, some

recommendations were made at the end of this chapter where the proposed future

studies to be carried out.

1.7 Summary

This chapter actually presents of the need of this study. The objectives and the

scope of the study also clearly stated at the beginning of write up and it gives clearer

direction what sort of expected outcome to be achieved at the end of the project. The

scope of the study is also important as a direction to complete the study. The result must

be relevance and significant to the overall topic and objectives.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction to Fatigue

What is “fatigue”? In order to be scientifically sound, we will use the definition

found in the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) March 1999 policy statement on

fatigue: “a complex state characterized by a lack of alertness and reduced mental and

physical performance, often accompanied by drowsiness.” Fatigue certainly includes

lack of alertness (i.e., sleepiness), but also involves compromised attention to detail and

diminished ability to reason rapidly and clearly in order to respond to changing

circumstances (Boardman, 2007).

The technical use of the term fatigue is imprecise. Indeed, the variety of fatigue

inducing situations, time courses and outcomes suggests that it unlikely that we are

considering a single set of processes leading to a specific underlying state. This makes

integration of the existing literature very difficult. A person may feel fatigued,

performance may deteriorate and the body’s physiological functioning may be affected.

9

These three outcomes, subjective perceptions, performance and physiological

change are usually recognised as the core symptoms of acute fatigue. The condition is

usually recognised by the reporting of fatigue and the objective outcomes then assessed.

Estimates of the prevalence of fatigue will vary depending on which aspect of the

fatigue process one uses as the indicator of fatigue. For example, if one assumes that

doing shift work is a risk factor for fatigue one might simply use the number of workers

doing shift work as an indicator of prevalence.

However, this is based on the assumption that shift work automatically leads to

fatigue which one finds is not always the case. Similarly, fatigue may be measured by

the presence of negative outcomes, but the extent of the problem will often depend on

the indicator chosen. There is no single “right” approach: all aspects of the fatigue

process must be assessed and considered.

`Fatigue' is a generic term used to encompass a range of experiences described

as anything from `sleepy,' `tired,' or `exhausted' to `beat.' There are two major

physiological phenomena that have clearly been demonstrated to create `fatigue:' sleep

loss and circadian rhythm disruption (Transportation Safety Board of Canada, 1997).

There is no universally accepted technical definition for fatigue. However,

common to all the definitions is degradation of human performance (IMO, 2001).

“A reduction in physical and/or mental capability as the result of

physical, mental or emotional exertion which may impair nearly all

physical abilities including: strength; speed; reaction time;

coordination; decision making; or balance” (IMO, 2001).

According to the Patraiko (2006), a simple definition of fatigue could be: long

hours plus stress. If we accept that the seafaring profession has traditionally required

long hours to be worked, the causes of stress in our current environment need to be

examined.

10

Definitions of fatigue usually include the inability or disinclination to continue

an activity, generally because the activity has, in some way, been going on for “too

long”. This may be due to an earlier activity, exhausting resources that normally

recover. One can conceive of different kinds of fatigue, such as local physical fatigue

(e.g. in a skeletal muscle), general physical fatigue, mental fatigue (e.g. following

sustained attention due to a long-lasting high mental workload) or “central nervous”

fatigue (sleepiness). Thus, fatigue is often considered to be a generic term of which

sleepiness is one of the major sub-components. In a driving context, sleepiness and

mental fatigue are the most relevant fatigue components (Lützhöft et al., 2007).

2.2 Concept of Fatigue

Underlying this Project is a conceptualization of fatigue as a process. This

process begins with risk factors for fatigue (i.e. work characteristics and conditions

associated with fatigue), moves on to subjective perceptions of fatigue (i.e. how and

when an individual experiences and reports fatigue), and concludes with the

consequences of fatigue both in the short (symptoms of fatigue such as loss of

concentration; poor performance) and longer term (e.g. ill health). This process

approach has been suggested elsewhere in relation to work characteristics, fatigue and

ill health, and is analogous to the approach to stress widely used in studies of the

general working population. The work described here approached fatigue in this way

(Smith et al., 2006).

Both subjective and objective measures of fatigue were used, and these

measures have been compared. In terms of health, however, only subjective measures

were possible as seafarers identified at their medicals as having a chronic illness or

condition cannot continue to work at sea. The World Health Organization (WHO)

defines health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not

merely the absence of disease or infirmity” (WHO). The measures used in this research

11

fit within this definition of health, and in this report the term “health” has been used in

this WHO defined sense. Furthermore, this focus on perceived ill health and well being

is supported by clear findings showing that reduced psychological well being can

increase the risk of some physical illness (Smith et al., 2006).

2.3 Source of Fatigue

Sleep is a vital physiological function. Like food and water, sleep is necessary

for survival. Sleepiness results when sleep loss occurs. Sleepiness is the brain's signal,

analogous to hunger or thirst, that sleep is needed. Sleep loss, as the term implies,

describes the phenomenon of getting less sleep than is needed for maximal waking

performance and alertness. If an individual normally needs 8 hr of sleep to feel

completely alert, and gets only 6 hr of sleep, 2 hr of sleep loss has been incurred. Sleep

loss over successive days accumulates into a sleep debt. If the individual needing 8 hr of

sleep gets only 6 hr a night for 4 nights in a row, an 8-hr sleep debt has been

accumulated (Transportation Safety Board of Canada, 1997).

Circadian rhythms are physiological and behavioral processes (e.g., sleep/wake,

digestion, hormone secretion, and activity) that oscillate on a 24-hour basis. Each

rhythm has a peak and a low point (nadir) during every 24-hr period. Time cues, called

zeitgebers, keep the circadian/body clock "set" to the appropriate time of day. Common

zeitgebers include bright light (e.g., sunlight) and work/rest schedules. If the circadian

clock is moved to a different schedule, for example when crossing time zones or

changing from a day- to a night-shift, the clock requires a certain amount of time to

adjust to the new schedule. This amount of time depends on many variables; for

example, the number of hours the schedule is shifted. During this transition, the

circadian rhythm disruption can produce effects similar to those of sleep loss. When

circadian disruption and sleep loss occur together, they can interact to compound their

adverse effects (Transportation Safety Board of Canada, 1997).

12

Fatigue can be hard to define and measure; it can incorporate many issues such

as work, boredom, circadian rhythms and the quality and quantity of rest. Lack of rest

and fatigue can accumulate; in fact long-term fatigue even within recommended work

hours is becoming more prevalent. Our manpower shortage in some sectors is leading to

longer sea terms due to the inability to find reliefs. Too many mariners, however, a

simple definition of fatigue could be: long hours plus stress. If we accept that the

seafaring profession has traditionally required long hours to be worked, the causes of

stress in our current environment need to be examined (Patraiko, 2006).

Fatigue may be caused or exacerbated by any or all of the following: lack of

sleep, disruptive work/rest cycles, neurological conditions, excess mental or physical

workload, exposure to extreme physical conditions, emotional stress, the use of drugs or

alcohol, illness, and/or monotony (Boardman, 2007). The most common causes of

fatigue known to seafarers are lack of sleep, poor quality of rest, stress and excessive

workload. There are many other contributors as well, and each will vary depending on

the circumstance (i.e. operational, environmental) (IMO, 2001).

The results of the research show that the potential for fatigue at sea is high due

to seafarers' exposure to a large number of recognizable risk factors, both operational

(E.g. port frequency), organisational (e.g. job support), and environmental (e.g. physical

hazards). But, it is the combined effect of these risk factors that is most strongly

associated with fatigue and its both short and long term consequences (fatigue

symptoms, personal risk and reduced health and well-being) (Smith et al., 2006).

There are many ways to categorize the causes of fatigue. To ensure

thoroughness and to provide good coverage of most causes, they have been categorized

into 4 general factors (IMO, 2001):

Crew-specific Factors

Management Factors (ashore and aboard ship)

Ship-specific Factors

Environmental Factors

13

2.3.1 Crew-specific Factors

The crew-specific factors are related to lifestyle behavior, personal habits and

individual attributes. However, fatigue varies from one person to another and its effects

are often dependent on the particular activity being performed (IMO, 2001).

The Crew-specific factors include the following (IMO, 2001):

Sleep and Rest

- Quality, Quantity and Duration of Sleep

• Only sleep can maintain or restore your performance level. When you do

not get enough sleep, fatigue will set in and your alertness will be

impaired (IMO, 2001).

- Sleep Disorders/Disturbances

• Fatigue may be caused by poor quality of sleep. This occurs when you

are unable to sleep without interruptions and/or you are unable to fall

asleep when your body tells you to (IMO, 2001).

• Disturbances while resting such as being woken up unexpectedly, on call

(during port operations), or unpredictable work hours (when arriving in

port) can cause fatigue (IMO, 2001).

- Rest Breaks

• Apart from sleep, rest (taking a break) between work periods can

contribute to restoring your performance levels. Insufficient rest periods

or postponing assigned rest times (to finish the job early) can cause

fatigue (IMO, 2001).

Biological Clock/Circadian Rhythms

Food (timing, frequency, content and quality)

14

• Refined sugars (sweets, doughnuts, chocolates, etc.) can cause your

blood sugar to rise rapidly to a high level. The downside of such short-

term energy is that a rapid drop in blood sugar can follow it. Low blood

sugar levels can cause weakness, instability and difficulty in

concentrating and in the extreme case unconsciousness. Eating large

meals prior to a sleep period may disrupt your sleep (IMO, 2001).

Psychological and Emotional Factors, including stress

- Fear

- Monotony and Boredom

• Boredom can cause fatigue. You may become bored to the point of

fatigue when your work is too easy, repetitive and monotonous and/or

bodily movement is restricted (IMO, 2001).

Health

- Diet

- Illness

• Medical conditions (i.e. heart problems) and illnesses, such as the

common cold, can cause or aggravate fatigue. The effect depends on the

nature of the illness or medical condition, but also the type of work being

carried out. For example, common colds slow response time and affect

hand-eye coordination (IMO, 2001).

Stress

• Stress can be caused by personal problems (family), problems with other

shipmates, long work hours, work in general, etc. A build up of stress

will cause or increase fatigue (IMO, 2001).

- Skill, knowledge and training as it relates to the job

- Personal problems

- Interpersonal relationships

15

Ingested Chemicals

• Alcohol, caffeine, Drugs and some over-the-counter medications disrupt

sleep. Caffeine consumption can also cause other side effects such as

hypertension, headaches, mood swings or anxiety (IMO, 2001).

Age

Shiftwork and Work Schedules

Workload (mental/physical)

• Working consistently “heavy” workloads can cause fatigue. Workload is

considered heavy when one works excessive hours or performs

physically demanding or mentally stressful tasks (IMO, 2001).

Jet Lag

• Jet-lag occurs following long flights through several time zones. It is a

condition that causes fatigue in addition to sleep-deprivation and

irritability. It is easier to adjust to time zones while crossing from east to

west as opposed to west to east. The greatest difficulty in adjustment

results from crossing 12 time zones, the least from crossing one time

zone. Our bodies adjust at the rate of approximately one-hour per day

(IMO, 2001).

• Everybody has peaks and low points during the 24-hour biological body

clock known as the circadian rhythm. There are two periods of low

alertness (low points) in each 24-hour time frame and they commonly

occur between 3-5am and 3-5pm. These lowest alertness periods are

followed by maximum alertness periods (peaks). The body clock is a tiny

cluster of nerve cells in the centre of the brain which relies on sunlight to

keep it synchronised with planetary time. It releases appropriate

hormones at the correct time of the day to keep you ‘alert’ in the daytime

and ‘sleepy’ at night. Body rhythms can become out of kilter because of

16

travel across multiple time zones and shift work schedules. It usually

takes one day for every time zone crossed for the body to adjust to the

new cues. The body is in a state of disrupted rhythm, until it catches up.

Some literature said 8 hours uninterrupted of sleep provides 100%

recovery (Folkard & Barton, 1993) but only seafarers at deck have a high

mean score meanwhile seafarers at bridge and engine room get medium

mean score for 6 hours uninterrupted rest while at sea.

2.3.2 Management Factors (ashore and aboard ship)

The Management Factors relate to how ships are managed and operated. These

factors can potentially cause stress and an increased workload, ultimately resulting in

fatigue. These factors include:

2.3.2.1 Organizational Factors

Staffing policies and Retention

Role of riders and shore personnel

Paperwork requirements

Economics

Schedules-shift, Overtime, Breaks

Company culture and Management style

Rules and Regulations

Resources

Upkeep of vessel

Training and Selection of crew

17

2.3.2.2 Voyage and Scheduling Factors

Frequency of port calls

Time between ports

Routing

Weather and Sea condition on route

Traffic density on route

Nature of duties/workload while in port

Some maritime watch scheduling systems have been found to increase fatigue

and therefore accidents, more than others. A common shift system is the 6 hours on, 6

hours off schedule used on board the ill-fated oil tanker Exxon Valdez that ran aground

in 1989. It has been estimated that during the 24 hours prior to the accident, the

watchkeeper only obtained approximately 5 or 6 hours sleep, taken in two separate

periods: fatigue was therefore suggested to be a contributory factor in the incident

(Collins et al., 2000).

2.3.3 Ship-specific Factors

These factors include ship design features that can affect/cause fatigue. Some

ship design features affect workload (i.e. automation, equipment reliability), some affect

the crew’s ability to sleep, and others affect the level of physical stress on the crew (i.e.

noise, vibration, accommodation spaces, etc.). The following list details ship-specific

factors (IMO, 2001):

Ship design

Level of Automation

Level of Redundancy

Equipment reliability

18

Inspection and Maintenance

Age of vessel

Physical comfort in work spaces

Location of quarters

Ship motion

The ship’s movement affects your ability to maintain physical balance.

Maintaining balance requires extra energy, which can then cause fatigue. A ship’s

pitching and rolling motions mean you might have to use 15-20% extra effort to

maintain your balance. (IMO, 2001)

2.3.4 Environmental Factors

Exposure to excess levels of environmental factors, e.g. temperature, humidity,

excessive noise levels, can cause or affect fatigue. Long-term exposure may even cause

harm to a person’s health. Furthermore, considering that environmental factors may

produce physical discomfort, they can also cause or contribute to the disruption of sleep

(IMO, 2001).

Ship motion is also considered an environmental factor. Motion affects a

person’s ability to maintain physical balance. This is due to the extra energy expended

to maintain balance while moving, especially during harsh sea conditions. There is a

direct relation between a ship’s motion and a person’s ability to work. Excessive ship

movement can also cause nausea and motion sickness (IMO, 2001).

Environmental factors can also be divided into factors external to the ship and

those internal to the ship. Within the ship, the crew is faced with elements such as noise,

19

vibration and temperature (heat, cold, and humidity). External factors include port and

weather condition and vessel traffic (IMO, 2001).

Noise or vibration can affect your ability to sleep/rest, and it can affect your

level of physical stress, thus causing fatigue (IMO, 2001).

There are a number of things that can be done to address these causes. Some

contributors are more manageable than others. Opportunities for implementing

countermeasures vary from one factor to another (noise can be better addressed during

the vessel design stage, breaks can be addressed by the individual crew member,

training and selection of the crew can be addressed during the hiring process, etc.)

(IMO, 2001).

2.4 Effect of Fatigue

When extreme, fatigue can cause uncontrolled and involuntary shutdown of the

brain. That is, regardless of motivation, professionalism, training, or pay, an individual

who is extremely sleepy can lapse into sleep at any time, despite the potential

consequences of inattention. Transportation incidents and accidents involving fatigue

provide dramatic examples of this fact (Transportation Safety Board of Canada, 1997).

Alertness is the optimum state of the brain that enables us to make conscious

decisions. Fatigue has a proven detrimental effect on alertness this can be readily seen

when a person is required to maintain a period of concentrated and sustained attention,

such as looking out for the unexpected (e.g. night watch) (Sandquist et al., 1996).

The negative effects of one night of sleep loss are compounded by subsequent

sleep loss. Sleep loss and the resultant sleepiness can degrade most aspects of human

performance. In the laboratory, it has been demonstrated that losing as little as 2 hr of

20

sleep can negatively affect alertness and performance. Performance effects can include:

degraded judgment, decision-making, and memory; slowed reaction time; lack of

concentration; fixation; and worsened mood. The brain is programmed for two periods

of maximal sleepiness every 24 hr: (about) 3-5 am and 3-5 p.m (Transportation Safety

Board of Canada, 1997).

The research has also shown that the consequences of fatigue are not only felt in

terms of impaired performance and reduced safety but decreased wellbeing and

increased risk of mental health problems, also known to be risk factors for future

chronic disease (Smith et al., 2006).

You may suffer some of these symptoms if you were affected by Jet lag

(Malawwethanthri, 2003):

Inability to sleep at night (insomnia)

Urge to sleep at inappropriate times

General lethargy and fatigue, lasting days after the trip

Lack of concentration

Decreased judgement, decision making and memory

Slowed reflexes

Fixation

Gastrointestinal problems

Irritability

Seafarer may exhibit one or more changes in behavior when experiencing

fatigue. However, one very important fact to remember is that people who are

experiencing fatigue have a very difficult time recognizing the signs of fatigue

themselves. It is difficult for a number of reasons, but largely because fatigue can affect

your ability to make judgements or solve complex problems. The following list

describes how fatigue affects your mind, emotions and body; you may recognize some

of these changes in others (IMO, 2001).

21

2.4.1 Physically

The following is a sample of fatigue’s known effect on Physical (IMO, 2001),

Inability to stay awake (an example is head nodding or falling asleep against

your will)

Difficulty with hand-eye coordination skills (such as, switch selection)

Speech difficulties (it may be slurred, slowed or garbled)

Heaviness in the arms and legs or sluggish feeling

Decreased ability to exert force while lifting, pushing or pulling

Increased frequency of dropping objects like tools or parts

Non-specific physical discomfort

Headaches

Giddiness

Heart palpitations / irregular heart beats

Rapid breathing

Loss of appetite

Insomnia

Sudden sweating fits

Leg pains or cramps

Digestion problems

2.4.2 Emotionally

The following is a sample of fatigue’s known effect on Emotional (IMO, 2001),

Increased willingness to take risks

Increased intolerance and anti-social behaviour

Needless worry

Reduced motivation to work well

Increased mood changes (examples are irritability, tiredness and depression)

22

2.4.3 Mentally

The following is a sample of fatigue’s known effect on mental (IMO, 2001),

Poor judgement of distance, speed, time, etc.

Inaccurate interpretation of a situation (examples are focusing on a simple

problem or failing to anticipate the gravity of the situation or failing to anticipate

danger)

Slow or no response to normal, abnormal or emergency situations

Reduced attention span

Difficulty concentrating and thinking clearly

Decreased ability to pay attention

2.4.4 Performance

Fatigue is dangerous in that people are poor judges of their level of fatigue. The

following is a sample of fatigue’s known effect on performance (IMO, 2001).

Fatigued individuals become more susceptible to errors of attention and memory

(for example, it is not uncommon for fatigued individuals to omit steps in a

sequence).

Chronically fatigued individuals will often select strategies that have a high

degree of risk on the basis that they require less effort to execute.

Fatigue can affect an individual's ability to respond to stimuli, perceive stimuli,

interpret or understand stimuli, and it can take longer to react to them once they

have been identified.

Fatigue also affects problem solving which is an integral part of handling new or

novel tasks.

Fatigue is known to detrimentally affect a person’s performance and may reduce

individual and crew effectiveness and efficiency; decrease productivity; lower standards

23

of work and may lead to errors being made. Unless steps are taken to alleviate the

fatigue, it will remain long after the period of sustained attention, posing a hazard to

ship safety (IMO, 2001).

Excessive work hours and fatigue can result in negative effects such as the

following (IMO, 2001):

Increased accident and fatality rates

Increased dependence upon drugs, tobacco or alcohol

Poor quality and disrupted sleep patterns

Higher frequency of cardiovascular, respiratory or digestive disorders

Increased risk of infection

Loss of appetite

2.5 Measurement of Fatigue

Fatigue questionnaires in the form of self-report scales are the most widely used

methods of measuring fatigue, and have been the tools employed in most clinical

investigations. These scales, all of which measure the patients’ perceive level of fatigue,

have a number of advantages that make them useful for clinical practice. They are

generally short, are widely available, are easily understandable by the patient, and

require little prior training by the health care provider and staff. The results can be

expressed as a summary score or the mean of the individual question scores (Krupp,

2001).

With respects to scaling methods, the most common approach is to use a Likert

format in which subject are asked to report the degree to which they endorse a particular

item (e.g., “feeling exhausted”) on an ordered scale (e.g., ranging from 0 = not at all to

5 = completely) as a way of gauging the symptom’s severity and intensity (see FSS,

Table 1). Alternatively, subjects can be asked to bisect the line of visual analogue scale

24

(VAS) for the same purpose. The advantages of the Likert scale include its ease of

scoring and better accessibility for respondents (Krupp, 2001).

However, there are few other published results of field studies of maritime

watchkeepers where physiological variables have been measured, except the almost 20-

year old studies performed by Colquhoun and colleagues (Colquhoun et al., 1988).

Methods which have been used earlier used range from questionnaires, sleep

logs and observations to accident analyses. Nonetheless, some issues have not been

resolved – firstly there are indications that data collected through subjective methods

such as questionnaires or interviews are not convincing enough as they may be

perceived as biased or not entirely accurate. Secondly, recommendations for changes

have not been effective. The shipping community may not be fully aware of the risks. In

a closed voting session at a Swedish maritime day 73% of the participants (all maritime

officers) admitted to having fallen asleep one or more times on watch (Lützhöft &

Kiviloog, 2003). This shows that careful study planning with methods that guarantee

confidentiality can gain disturbing, but accurate, results (Lützhöft et al, 2007).

Questions addressing issues which are experienced by most workers involved in

unconventional work hours were based on the ‘Shiftwork Index’ developed by Barton

(1995) and colleagues. Industry specific questions relating to pilotage work were based

on previous studies of Great Barrier Reef pilots (Parker et al.1997) and other seafaring

and marine pilot groups (Berger 1987; Sanquist et al.1996). A draft copy of the

questionnaire was circulated to Pilot Advisory Group members, and then modified on

the basis of their feedback (Parker et al., 1998).

The questionnaire was trialed by administration to two recently retired Great

Barrier Reef pilots. The pilots completed the document and commented on content,

suitability and acceptability. Their comments were incorporated into the questionnaire

before it was distributed to the pilot group (Parker et al., 1998).

25

The final questionnaire totalled 211 items and explored the broad nature of

fatigue in marine pilots. It sought information on (Parker et al., 1998):

demographic characteristics (age, marital status and number of children under

18 years of age)

industry experience and recent work history

sleep patterns at sea, ashore and at home

ratings of health, fitness and chronic fatigue

illnesses, sleep apnea and sea sickness

lifestyle habits (smoking, caffeine and alcohol consumption)

circadian characteristics and morningness / eveningness

feelings while working on the bridge (tension, fatigue, performance levels,

vulnerability to performance decrements, impact of performance decrements)

factors contributing to fatigue

strategies to combat fatigue

pilotage specific experiences

job satisfaction

Dyadic adjustment.

From the study conducted by Anna et al. (1999), the alpha values of her study

are in the range of 0.83 to 0.92. Her study stated that the value seems to be good. Her

study is about the validity of a questionnaire in measuring fatigue among working

people, which is quite similar to this study. In comparison to her study, we can see the

comparison of the value to this study whether it good and reliable. And also the internal

consistency reliability for each item can be accepted or not.

2.6 Maritime Sector in Malaysia

Malaysia’s economic trade is powered by sea borne transportation. For at least the

last 30 years, the Malaysian Government has supported the expansion of national

26

shipping capacity, as evident by the creation and continued encouragement of the

Malaysia International Shipping Corporation Bhd (MISC) since 1968. Although the

Malaysian merchant fleet has grown over the years, much of the demand for shipping

services is still met by foreign shipping lines.

Currently, there are more than 100 foreign and local shipping lines calling at

Malaysian ports to provide a worldwide network of services. Of these, there are 63

foreign shipping lines calling at local ports, which have a link to about 200 ports

worldwide. The Malaysian Ship-owners’ Association (MASA) aims to promote and

protect the interest of Malaysian ship-owners, and to represent members of the

association in dealings with the Government and its agencies on matters of relevant

interest. MASA members account for two-thirds of the country’s merchant fleet

tonnage. Table 2.1 below illustrates the growth of the MASA members’ fleet.

Table 2.1: Growth of MASA Member Fleet

In 2001, the Maritime Institute of Malaysia (MIMA) conducted a study on the

human resource requirements of Malaysian seafarers. The study concluded that

Malaysia relies on the services of foreign seafarers to fulfill approximately 44% of the

manning requirements for Malaysian registered vessels. Some factors that inhibit

growth in the supply of Malaysian seafarers are: a decline in sponsorship for cadets;

limited berths for training; and difficulty in obtaining employment on ships. The

Source: Malaysian Shipowners’ Association (2007)

27

difficulty to secure berths for training poses an obstacle particularly for non-shipowning

sponsors and self-sponsored trainees. Those unable to obtain a berth for training at sea

are unable to continue their certification process.

In 2004, MIMA conducted another study as a follow up to that conducted in

2001. A total of 49 Malaysian shipping companies participated in the survey, which

represents 70% of total GRT recorded in the Malaysian registry. The findings of the

second study largely reconfirmed those of the former, with no trend of improvement or

deterioration of employment for Malaysian seafarers evident. Other issues that have

reportedly caused seafarers to leave their jobs were relatively low wages, a lack of

training, and insufficient shore-leave. Captain Sapuan Sarpan, the President of the

Malaysian Maritime Association has stated that local seafarers are not paid in

accordance with the salary scale and training for seafarers because to do so would be

expensive. Low wage rates do not attract people to pursue a career as a seafarer.

The Malaysian International Shipping Corporation Berhad (MISC) does invest in

the training of seafarers for its vessels, but has difficulty in recruiting capable Malaysian

crews. MISC also grapples with a steady loss of trained personnel to alternative land-

based employment. These factors lead ship-owners to employ certified foreigners to

make up for crew shortages. By doing so, they are able to avoid the cost of training

local seafarers and, at the same time can hire the required manpower at lower costs than

they would incur by hiring Malaysians.

2.7 Technology at Sea and its Relation to Fatigue

How can technology best serve seafarers, to improve safety, quality of life and

operational efficiency on board? IMO's aims are safer shipping and cleaner oceans. It

works toward meeting those aims through agreeing minimum international technical

and operational standards which are implemented by Governments, the shipping

28

industry and seafarers. This research looks at some of the technical and related

operational developments that have been introduced through IMO over the recent past,

particularly with respect to navigation and communications, and seeks to identify the

benefits and disbenefits from the seafarer's perspective.

A survey by Omdal (Omdal, 2003) of 11 Norwegian vessels aimed to identify

factors potentially harmful to health and found that 44% of respondents reported noise

as a problem. Only 8% of crew onboard a noise-reduced vessel reported stress and such

evidence suggests that through technology and improved design some traditional

hardships associated with the maritime life can be overcome.

If developments in navigation and communications technology have affected the

quality of life of the seafarer, what of the increasing integration of computers into

everyday shipboard operations? No office ashore (or children's bedroom!) of today

would be complete without a computer and the same now applies to ships. The days of

the analogue loading and stress calculator to aid the Mate in his task of safely stowing

the cargo have been replaced by computer programs that not only make the calculations,

keep the records and make the stowage plans but also give advice on best practice and

allow many `what if s' to be considered at the touch of a button. The responsibility for

the loading plan may be retained on board (although in the container trades this too is a

shore task) but the responsibility for the mathematics now lies with the programmer and

many seafarers will be grateful for the improvements in operational efficiency and

reduction of worry that brings.

Technological developments significantly aid that aim and operational efficiency

on board and ashore. But we must not allow these developments to by-pass the seafarer

as, if we are to reap the benefits of his knowledge and professionalism, we must also

make sure that technology also enhances the seafarer's quality of life too. (Nautilus,

2008)

29

The development of computer-based training, and the advantages which are surely

to accrue for seafarers through delivery of training to ships via the internet, is likely to

be a fruitful area of development in the future. As with all technologies, there are

advantages and disadvantages to CBT but, with some thoughtful development of this

technology with the seafarer in mind, there are surely some significant benefits to be

had in improving operational efficiency and the quality of life for seafarers on board.

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

There are six key steps in the methodology used to complete this pilot study.

The steps are explained into Figure 3.1 below:

31

Figure 3.1: The flow chart of research methodology

3.2 Identification of Fatigue Source among Malaysian Seafarers and Maritime

Sectors

As stated in Chapter 2, there are various variables that affecting fatigue. These

variables are identified to be affecting seafarers’ working manner which in the negative

way can lead to the worst effect in maritime industry, vessel collisions and groundings.

Through the study of IMO (2001), the basics or fundamentals of fatigue are sleep,

biological clock/ circadian rhythm and stress. The variables mentioned earlier are

categorized in 4 factors.

Identifying Fatigue Sources

Development of Research Hypothesis

Research and Interview Questionnaires Development

Processing of Data

Identifying Maritime Sector

Data Collection

32

The variables that have been categorized are of general terms and don’t really

represent Malaysian seafarers’ fatigue. Due to the reason, the variables affecting

Malaysian seafarers’ fatigue need to be identified first to further develop this study. In

order to do this, a review of previous literatures has to be made and then the

identification of fatigue variables of Malaysian seafarers can be done.

According to previous research which done by Abdullah (2007), the sources of

fatigue among Malaysian seafarers are:

i. Lack of quantity and quality of sleep with 0.05 level of confident at

Bridge and Engine Room while 0.01 level of confident at Deck

ii. Noise and ship vibration with 0.05 level of confident at Bridge, Engine

Room and Deck

iii. Irregular working hour with 0.05 level of confident at Bridge, Engine

Room and Deck

iv. Boredom with 0.05 level of confident at Bridge only

v. Long working hours and unpredictable task with 0.05 level of confident

at Bridge while 0.01 level of confident at Engine Room

Meanwhile, according to research which had been done by Mohd (2007), fatigue

is different at different time of a working period among different group of seafarers.

Older groups of seafarers are more fatigue than younger group, experienced at different

session in working period where younger groups felt fatigue earlier than older groups,

fatigue level is higher for older groups of seafarers. Engineers are found out to be more

fatigue than deck officers, experienced within the same session in a working period,

fatigue level is higher than deck officers.

These two researches told us about the sources of fatigue among the seafarers

and also the group which felt more fatigue than the other onboard ships. This project

will focus on the fatigue level of the seafarers in various maritime sectors in Malaysia

as per listed below :

33

i) Port/Tug Sector

ii) Short Sea/Near Coastal sector.

iii) Deep sea/Foreign Going sector

3.3 Development of Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an early prediction of the outcome of a study. In this study, it is

recognized that the prediction of Malaysian seafarers’ fatigue level is too wide because

there are no comprehensible study that have been made in the mean on identifying

Malaysian seafarers’ fatigue level. Therefore, the hypothesis is narrowed to a much

better prediction based on the objectives of the study.

There are clearly 3 objectives recognized in Chapter 1. Based on these

objectives, the hypotheses are:-

i. There are various sources of fatigue and different fatigue level

among seafarers in different maritime sectors

ii. The technology used onboard ship can help or overcome the fatigue

issues among the seafarers.

First, the hypothesis is developed according to the objectives of the study.

Variables of fatigue are identified to further develop the questionnaire. It is

understandable that fatigue is different among different seafarers for various type of

maritime sector. These differences depend on various reasons that can affect fatigue to a

person. Through this study, the differences are observed by categorizing seafarers into

different group depending on their age, rank and place of work. There is a need to

compare the fatigue levels among seafarers of different maritime sector in Malaysia.

34

3.4 Research Instrument

With the intention of gaining quantitative information from the respondents, a

set of questionnaire was used as the instrument to collect data (Questionnaires as

attached in Appendix A). The entire questions were uniquely designed to collect

information from the respondent. Some questions were adapted from Fatigue, Health

and Injury among Seafarers in Cardiff University and Great Barrier Reef Pilots

Questionnaire which were globally used to identify sources of fatigue among seafarers

and also from The Technology Perception at Sea Questionnaires which had been

developed by NUMAST 2006. (Questionnaires as attached in Appendix B and C)

3.4.1 Development of Questionnaire

This study investigates seafarers’ perception on the sources of fatigue level in

various maritime sectors. In order to extract information from respondents, the

researcher used a structured questionnaire. Nunan (1992) points out that questionnaire

are one of the good methods in order to obtain information from respondents.

Krupp (2001), in his study declared that questionnaires in the form of self-report

are the most common method that has been used by previous researchers to measure

fatigue. As in this study, questionnaires are going to be used to accomplish the

objectives.

The questionnaire items are based on constructs that have been developed as

follows:-

i. Construct 1 - Personnel Particular & Health (Demography)

ii. Construct 2 – Nature of Work (Work Shift)

iii. Construct 3 – Location of Work

iv. Construct 4 – Effect of Technology

35

The questionnaire consisted of structured questions as well as closed-

ended questions. Wallen and Franken (2000) believe those structured questions

are able to enhance consistency or responses across respondents. It also provides

a set of possible responses to make it easier for respondents (Nunan, 1992) and

the responses can be straightforwardly analyzed (Munn and Drever, 1993).

Likert scale (Table 3.1) below was used to measure the outcome of the results.

Table 3.1: Sample of Likert Scale

Scale Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always

Score 1 2 3 4 5

The homogeneity or internal consistency of this questionnaire is checked

by Cronbach’s Alpha (α) calculation for all items. Using the SPSS, to ensure

reliability of the questions, Cronbach’s Alpha α value must be in range 0.75 to 1

(Chua, 2006). The validity of this questionnaire is tested first by conducting a

mock study to identified questionnaire. If it is valid, the questionnaire is

complete and ready to be distributed to the real respondents and if not, it needs

to be altered and tested again until it is completed.

3.5 Data Collection

The questionnaire developed and distributed to the respondents who is serving at

various type of maritime sectors as follows:

• Port/Tug sector

• Short sea and near coastal sector

• Deep sea sector

36

Respondents are accounted to be just a little portion of the population of Malaysian

seafarers. The identified respondents are differentiated according to their work

category:-

i. Pilots

ii. Officers

iii. Engine Crews

iv. Deck Crews

Each of the categories stated above is given 5 questionnaires to 5 different

persons. After certain of time, the questionnaires are collected back and the data

analysis can be made. In this survey, it is purposely done to the various ranks and

location of workplace and also the nature and shift of work to check the critical area and

nature of shift which contribute more to fatigue problem.

3.6 Data Analysis

As usual, the first raw data are analysed using Statistical Package for Social

Science (SPSS) and MiniTab. This software will automatically calculate the desired

outcome. This software has enhanced the speed of data analysis by cutting the amount

of time required if conventionally doing it by manual calculations. Furthermore, this

will reduce errors in calculations. However, MiniTAB software, which function is

almost the same to SPSS also will be used to cross check the statistical value calculated.

For first time study, the value of Cronbach’s Alpha (α) must be determined to

check the reliability of the data and result. The most common measure for reliability

which is based on a correlation matrix. It is used to assess the internal consistency

reliability of several item or score. The value of α must be ranged at 0.75 to 1.0 (Chua,

2006). Items should be deleting if the value of α below than 0.6. Only one question can

37

be deleted at one time. This procedure is done repeatedly until the desired value is

obtained.

Demographic analysis is done to view the background of the respondents. The

data will be shown in the form of bar chart or pie chart. Background information will be

briefly explained one by one according to their percentage. Association of this

information with the constructs are determined using either Spearman’s Rho (ρ) or

Kendall’s Tau (τ). By Richard (1994), these methods are used to assess how close the

relationship between two variables is to being monotonous. Monotonous is a

relationship of one that is consistently increase or decrease, but not necessarily in a

linear fashion. Either one of this value can be used to represent the association’s

strength. To show persistence of associations, both of this value is calculated in this

chapter. The value of ρ and τ must be significant. Strong associations of variables can

be seen if the value is closer to -1 or +1.

For the next analysis, mean score was determined depending on Likert’s scale.

A set of mean score will be used to identify level of scoring for every primary location

of works for each construct whether it was low, medium or high. Table 3.2 shows the

range of mean score and it level.

Table 3.2 Level of mean score Level Score Mean

Low

Medium

High

1.00 – 2.33

2.34 – 3.66

3.67 – 5.00

Each primary location of work will be compare by mean score whether it was

high, low or medium.

38

3.7 Data Distribution for Pilot Study

The data of each construct is analyzed to know the general overview of their

distribution. Through the distribution, we can know the mean and standard deviation of

every item in the construct. Before proceeding to these analyses, the homogeneity or the

internal consistency of items need to be calculated first. SPSS software has been used to

check and analyze the reliability and correctness of the result.

3.7.1 Consistency Reliability with Cronbach’s Alpha

From current approaches that normally used for statistical analysis, there are 5

common reliability models for reliability analysis. Each reliability model has their own

pattern and it based on the questionnaire feedback. The Cronbach’s Alpha method is the

most common measure for reliability which is based on a correlation matrix. It is used

to assess the internal consistency reliability of several result or score. First step, the

value of the Cronbach’s Alpha for every construct must be determined. Ten (10)

questions have been designed for each construct and the values of Cronbach Alpha are

as per listed below:

Table 3.3: Cronbach’s Alpha Value

Cronbach’s Alpha, α

Construct 1: Nature of work / Shift of

work

0.757

Construct 2: Location / Environment

of work

0.806

Construct 3: Effect of Technology

0.856

39

Table 3.3 shows the result for Cronbach’s Alpha for all primary location of

works for each construct. Internal consistency reliability for each location and construct

was accepted because Cronbach’s Alpha value ought to be ranged 0.6 to 1 and that

means the items in the questionnaire was reliable because Cronbach’s Alpha value was

at that range for all items. Outcome of the result can be accepted for the study and can

be passing on for the further study or research.

CHAPTER 4

RESULT AND ANALYSIS

4.1 Introduction

A total of 60 candidates have been given the questionnaires. However, only 34

respondents replied. These respondents are Malaysian seafarers who were sailing in

various type of ship in different maritime sector. They were asked to answer all the

questions in the questionnaires provided. The results that have been finalized and

analyzed are briefly explained in this chapter.

This chapter presents the finding based on survey conducted via questionnaires.

It aims to focus on respondents’ feedback about their perception in the sources and level

of fatigue among Malaysians seafarers for 3 different maritime sectors. The results

collected are analyzed and arranged according to the research question.

The data are organized as follow:

i. Demographics of the Malaysian Seafarers

ii. Malaysian seafarers perceptions on the seafarer nature of work are the source of

fatigue

41

iii. Malaysian seafarer’s perceptions on the location of work are the source of

fatigue.

iv. Comparison of level of fatigue for different maritime sector

v. Malaysian seafarers perceptions on the technology installed onboard ship and

it’s effect to the fatigue

The chapter begins by describing the data obtained based on the objective of the

study. Then, a thorough discussion of the finding would be included later in chapter 5.

4.2 Demographics Study

The first section in the questionnaire is the demographic background of the respondents.

Information regarding their background is needed to evaluate the overall percentage of

backgrounds out of 100%.

4.2.1 Demographics Distribution by Seafarer Rank

The Figure 4.1 below is about ranking proportion. 34 numbers of Malaysian

seafarers were playing a part in this survey. More than half of the volunteer was deck

officers and engineers. 23% of them came from the 5th Engineer followed by 18% of

Third Deck Officer and Engineers. There are 2 or 6% of senior officers and engineers

participated for this survey. They are 2 Master and 2 Chief Engineers from various

sectors. 15% or the respondents are now working as a Cadet engineer and Cadet

Officers for foreign going ship. It is believed that most of the respondents are working

onboard ship in various maritime sectors for more than 6 months.

42

RANK

15%

23%

12%18%

20%

6% 6% Cadet

5th

4th

3rd

2nd

Chief

Master

Figure 4.1: Rank Distribution

4.2.2 Demographic Distribution According to Maritime Sector

Figure 4.2 shows the proportion of respondents again their maritime sector. For

this study, we focused on 4 different maritime sectors which are Port or Tug operator,

Coastal Container, Foreign Tanker and Foreign LNG ship. 24% of the respondents

were coming from Port and 26% were Coastal Container. If was followed by Foreign

Tanker with 32% and Foreign LNG 18%. All the four (4) maritime sectors were

examined as the major sectors in Malaysia.

43

SECTOR

24%

26%32%

18%Port

Coastal-Container

Foreign-Tanker

Foreign-LNG

Figure 4.2: Distribution by Sector

4.2.3 Demographics Distribution by Location of Work

Figure 4.3 shows proportion of candidate again their location of workplaces.

More than 50 percent of candidate work at Deck and Engine (10 seafarers for each

location) while the remaining candidate work at Bridge (7 persons). Seafarers who work

at Bridge are Deck Officers while who work at engine are Engineering Officers

meanwhile at Deck are mixed from both Officers. All the three location of work were

examined as the major location of work according two major Officers (Deck Officer

and Engineering Officers) was working at that workplace. All of candidates have

shipboard experienced at least than one year. Most of the respondents had first hand

experience in fatigue occurs during onboard.

44

PLACE OF WORK

56%29%

9% 6%

Engine RoomBridgeDeckOther

Figure 4.3: Distribution by Location of Work

4.2.4 Demographics Distribution by Age

Figure 4.4 shows the distribution of scores across the items comprising the

demographics of the sample. There are 34 respondents from various types of maritime

sector who responded to the questionnaire. It also shows the range of ages of

respondents who answer the questionnaire. 38 percent of seafarers were aged between

18-25 years, approximately 44% were between 26 and 35 years of age and 9% were

between 36 and 45 years of age while the remaining 9% were aged between 46 and 55

years. It is believed that the age of seafarers can be a source of fatigue according it can

affect seafarers emotional, mental and physical.

LOCATION OF WORK

45

AGE

38%

44%

9%9%

18 - 25

26 - 35

36 - 45

46 - 55

Figure 4.4: Distribution by Age

4.2.5 Fatigue Evidence According to Rank

From the demographic study and mean of the fatigue evidence for all questions

at every construct, the distribution of mean score against fatigue evidence for every rank

of seafarers can be shown as per Figure 4.5. All groups of seafarers agreed that they

have experienced fatigue from the same sources which are shift of work and working

experience. The highest mean score are from Cadet at 4.20 followed by 2nd Engineer at

3.91. The Master groups’ mean score is at 3.00 which can be rated as medium mean

score together with The Chief Engineer/Officers at mean score of 3.38. Meanwhile, for

the groups of 3rd, 4th and 5th engineers/Officers, the mean score are at 3.82, 3.69 and

3.71 which up to high level of mean score. It shows the evidence that the groups who

are getting high level of mean score experience fatigue and highly agreed that problem

is caused by the shift of work and working environment.

46

Distribution of Mean of Fatigue Level with Rank

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Master ChiefEng/Off

2nd 3rd 4th 5th Cadet

Master

ChiefEng/Off

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

Cadet

Figure 4.5: Distribution of Mean Score for Different Seafarers Rank

4.3 Association of Fatigue with Demographic

The strength association between two categorical variables can be measured

using Kendal’s tau (τ) or Spearman’s rho (ρ). Either one of this value can be used to

represent the association’s strength. A strong value of Kendal’s tau (τ) or Spearman’s

rho (ρ) could be closed to +1.00 while one close to -1.00 would indicate no relationship.

However, only place of work will be analyze because it very common in causing

fatigue.

Distribution of Mean Score by Seafarers Rank

47

4.3.1 Place of Work Association with Fatigue

Table 4.1 shows the values of Spearman’s rho ρ are over zero value for location

of work. Thus location of work like bridge, deck and engine room have a strong

association to rest and sleep behaviour, nature of work, location and health of

Malaysian Seafarers. Thus, for further analysis, each construct will be examined

through location of work. From the value of rho, ρ, the seafarers who are working at the

deck (ρ = 0.469) experienced fatigue caused by the working shift factor. Meanwhile, the

seafarers located at engine room (ρ = 0.298) experienced fatigue more because of

working environment.

Table 4.1 : Association of Location of Work with Fatigue

Construct Location of Work Spearman’s rho (ρ)

Bridge 0.345

Deck 0.469

Engine Room 0.375

Shift of Work

Others 0.221

Bridge 0.246

Deck 0.211

Engine Room 0.298

Working

Environment

Others 0.135

4.4 Results on Fatigue Analysis among Seafarers from Different Maritime

Sectors

The following are the data analyzed based on the response obtained from

questionnaire. The questionnaire will analyzed based on seafarers location of works. In

this section, they are organized in construct.

48

On this section, mean score was determined depending on Likert’s scale. A set

of mean score will be used to identify level of scoring for every primary location of

works for each construct whether it was low, medium or high. The ranged of mean

score can be revise in Chapter 3 on the Table 3.2- level of mean score.

4.4.1 Analysis on Shift of Work by Location of Work

Table 4.2 is evidence for mean and standard deviation for construct “shift of

work”. In shipping industry, unpredictable working hours and work long hours are

common in this industry. By referring to Table 4.3, it is clearly show that the average

value of mean for seafarers in charge at engine room is 4.09 which can be categorized

as highly affected fatigue problem because of the shift or working hours. Meanwhile,

people who work at the deck and bridge recorded average mean value at 3.69 and 3.62

and rated as medium and followed by others at 3.55.

By referring to the Figure 4.6, Figure 4.7, Figure 4.8 and Figure 4.9 below, it

shows graphical plot of the analysis of the question block by group of seafarers’

location onboard ship. The level of Confident Interval used for this analysis is 95%. P-

value for each location is 0.194 (Bridge), 0.383 (Deck), 0.177 (Engine Room) and 0.067

(Others). And the skewness values are from 0.1920 to 1.0137, where the distribution

graphs will be right-skewed.

49

Table 4.2: Mean and Standard Deviations for Construct: Shift of Work

Bridge Deck Engine Room Others

Question

Mea

n

Std

Dev

iatio

n

Mea

n

Std

Dev

iatio

n

Mea

n

Std

Dev

iatio

n

Mea

n

Std

Dev

iatio

n

Question 1 3.80 0.79 4.10 0.99 4.05 0.62 4.00 1.41

Question 2 4.00 0.84 3.60 0.84 4.00 0.75 4.50 0.71

Question 3 3.60 0.97 3.40 0.69 3.89 0.66 3.00 0.00

Question 4 3.50 0.67 3.60 1.07 3.95 0.62 3.00 1.41

Question 5 3.40 0.53 3.50 0.96 3.95 0.62 3.50 0.71

Question 6 3.40 0.96 3.80 0.97 4.21 0.71 3.00 1.41

Question 7 3.20 0.53 3.80 0.92 3.95 0.41 3.00 1.41

Question 8 4.00 1.05 3.80 0.84 4.47 0.61 4.00 0.00

Question 9 4.00 0.94 3.60 1.14 4.26 0.65 4.00 0.00

Question 10 3.30 1.15 3.70 1.16 4.17 0.69 3.50 0.71

Average 3.62 0.308 3.69 0.196 4.09 0.18 3.55 0.55

Figure 4.6: Graphical Summary for Bridge

50

Figure 4.7: Graphical Summary for Deck

Figure 4.8: Graphical Summary for Engine Room

51

Figure 4.9: Graphical Summary for Others

4.4.2 Analysis on Environmental of Work by Location of Work

Table 4.3 illustrates the mean and standard deviation for construct “working

environment”. Vibrations and noise be able to disturb seafarers’ concentration and

performance at engine rooms with the mean over 3 follow by seafarers at bridge and it

doesn’t affect seafarers at deck. If we look into the value of mean for question 6 and 7,

it very clear that for engine room and bridge, the person in charge rate at 4 and 5 value

during the survey. By overall analysis, again engine room is the highly affected area on

fatigue. The average mean value for this location is 4.10 and followed by others with

3.80 and Bridge area at 3.77. In the meantime, Deck area is rated as medium with

average mean value of 3.55.

By referring to the Figure 4.10, the p value for the bridge group is 0.446 and the

skewness indicate that 0.0683 score. That mean the graph will be right-skewed. Figure

52

4.11 shows the p-value for group of deck is 0.097 and skewness is -0.7344. That’s

mean; the distribution of the graph will be left-skewed. However, for Figure 4.12 the p-

value is 0.295 and skewness value is 0.1603 where it indicates that the distribution of

the graph will be right-skewed. Lastly, according to the Figure 4.13, the p-value is small

(0.006) which is less than 0.05. Meanwhile the value of skewness is 0.7801 which the

graph of distribution will be also right-skewed.

Table 4.3: Mean and Standard Deviations for Construct: Working Environment


Question

Mea

n

Std

Dev

iatio

n

Mea

n

Std

Dev

iatio

n

Mea

n

Std

Dev

iatio

n

Mea

n

Std

Dev

iatio

n

Question 1 4.30 0.48 3.33 0.58 3.95 0.71 4.00 0.00

Question 2 3.60 0.63 3.33 0.58 4.20 0.60 3.50 0.71

Question 3 4.10 0.58 2.67 1.15 4.10 0.61 3.50 0.71

Question 4 3.80 0.79 3.33 1.52 4.00 0.67 3.50 0.71

Question 5 4.00 0.47 4.00 1.00 3.95 0.58 4.00 0.00

Question 6 3.33 0.92 4.00 1.73 4.20 0.52 3.50 0.71

Question 7 3.60 0.48 3.83 0.58 4.30 0.67 4.00 0.00

Question 8 3.30 0.67 3.67 0.58 4.00 0.82 3.50 0.71

Question 9 3.60 0.52 4.00 1.00 4.10 0.60 4.00 1.41

Question 10 4.10 0.58 3.33 1.53 4.21 0.71 4.50 0.71

Average 3.77 0.34 3.55 0.43 4.10 0.12 3.80 0.35

53



54



55

4.4.3 Analysis on Effect of Technology by Location of Work

Table 4.4 gives you an idea about mean and standard deviation for construct

“effect of technology” onboard ship. Generally, Malaysian seafarers feel more

comfortable to work or deal with technology during their shift. From the mean that we

can see from the table below, most of the respondents rated 4 or 5 to support that

technology is one of the factor to reduce fatigue onboard ship. By referring to the Table

4.5 below, seafarers who work at the engine room and bridge were highly accepted and

realized that technology is part of reason which cause fatigue to them. It clearly shows

that engine room and bridge area recorded the highest score of average mean by 4.13

and 3.90. It is followed by others and deck with 3.75 and 3.43.

Table 4.4: Mean and Standard Deviations for Construct: Effect of Technology


Question

Mea

n

Std

Dev

iatio

n

Mea

n

Std

Dev

iatio

ec

ted

byM

ean

Std

Dev

iatio

n

Mea

n

Std

Dev

iatio

n

Question 1 4.00 0.00 3.67 0.58 4.32 0.48 3.50 0.00

Question 2 4.50 0.71 3.33 1.15 4.05 0.71 4.50 0.71

Question 3 4.00 1.41 3.33 0.58 3.95 0.71 3.00 1.41

Question 4 3.50 0.71 3.33 0.58 4.16 0.69 3.50 0.71

Question 5 3.50 0.71 3.33 0.58 3.84 0.50 3.50 0.71

Question 6 4.00 0.00 3.33 1.15 3.95 0.50 4.00 0.00

Question 7 4.00 1.41 4.00 1.00 4.11 0.46 4.00 1.41

Question 8 3.50 0.71 3.33 0.58 4.42 0.61 3.50 0.71

Question 9 3.50 0.71 3.33 0.58 4.11 0.74 3.50 0.71

Question 10 4.50 0.71 3.33 0.58 4.37 0.76 4.50 0.71

Average 3.90 0.39 3.43 0.23 4.13 0.19 3.75 0.49

By referring to the Figure 4.14, Figure 4.15, Figure 4.16 and Figure 4.17 below,

it shows graphical plot of the analysis of the question block of effect of technology by

group of seafarers’ location onboard ship. P-value for each location is 0.028 (Bridge),

56

0.005 (Deck), 0.635 (Engine Room) and 0.043 (Others). Most of the p-values are less

than 0.05 and only engine room shows it higher than 0.05. And the skewness values are

from 0.203 to 2.260, where the distribution graphs will be right-skewed.



57



58

4.4.4 Analysis on Shift of Work by Sector


“shift of work”. However, this time we look at different types of maritime sectors.

Generally, we know that onboard ship shift of work is most important to seafarers to

follow. At this time we will look in details the real practice from various sectors. And

also, we expect to know the preferred practice from the seafarers itself according to

their nature of works. For Port / Tug operator in Malaysia, seafarers feel that the shift

of work is not one of the important factors which contribute to the fatigue. The average

mean value from this sector is less than 3.52 which consider medium and not so

impressive. But, for the other 3 sectors, Foreign Tanker and Foreign LNG recorded the

average mean value of 4.05 and it is considered highly acceptable that seafarers

consider that shift or nature of work is one of the important factors which contribute to

fatigue. Meanwhile, Coastal sector is also at the high group with 3.80 of average mean

value.

Table 4.5: Mean and Standard Deviations for Construct: Shift of Work

Port Coastal Foreign Tanker Foreign LNG

Question

Mea

n

Std

Dev

iatio

n

Mea

n

Std

Dev

iatio

n

Mea

n

Std

Dev

iatio

n

Mea

n

Std

Dev

iatio

n Question 1 3.25 0.71 3.67 0.71 4.18 0.75 4.00 0.63

Question 2 3.30 0.76 3.55 0.53 4.18 0.87 4.17 0.75

Question 3 3.25 0.71 3.22 0.97 4.09 0.70 4.00 0.00

Question 4 3.50 1.19 3.78 0.83 3.82 0.87 3.67 0.52

Question 5 3.37 0.71 3.67 0.71 3.91 1.04 3.67 0.52

Question 6 3.37 0.74 3.67 1.12 4.27 0.79 4.17 0.75

Question 7 3.62 0.74 3.89 0.33 3.82 0.60 3.67 0.52

Question 8 4.10 0.64 4.11 0.78 4.27 0.90 4.50 0.84

Question 9 4.00 0.93 4.11 0.78 4.18 0.75 4.33 0.52

Question 10 3.50 0.93 4.34 0.88 3.76 0.92 4.33 1.03

Average 3.52 0.30 3.80 0.32 4.05 0.19 4.05 0.30

59

Below are the analyses of questions block by sector. It shows graphical plot of

the analysis for construct shift of work. From Figure 4.18, the p-value for the bridge

group is 0.044 and the skewness indicate that the score is1.1957. That mean the graph

of distribution will be right-skewed. Figure 4.19 shows the p-value for group of deck is

0.575 and skewness is -0.0097. That’s mean; the distribution of the graph will be left-

skewed. However, for Figure 4.20 the p-value is 0.070 and skewness value is -0.3731

where it indicates that the distribution of the graph will be left-skewed. Lastly,

according to the Figure 4.21, the p-value is 0.253. Meanwhile the value of skewness is

-0.1440 which the graph of distribution will be also left-skewed.

Figure 4.18: Graphical Summary for Port

60

Figure 4.19: Graphical Summary for Coastal

Figure 4.20: Graphical Summary for Foreign Tanker

61

Figure 4.21: Graphical Summary for Foreign LNG

4.4.5 Analysis on Working Environment by Sector

Table 4.6 illustrate about mean and standard deviation for construct location at

various maritime sector. Vibrations and noise be able to disturb seafarers’ concentration

and performance at all sectors. However, from the average value of mean Port recorded

at value of 4.12, Foreign Tanker and Foreign LNG at 3.91 and 3.85 which higher than

Coastal Container sector at 3.61 as a medium score. It’s mean that, seafarers onboard

ship for coastal container sector thought that location or environment of workplace is

not the important factor which leads to the fatigue problem. For foreign tanker and

LNG, it shows very high average mean value, it was predicted from the beginning of

the survey because it is close related to the time factor during their long period journey

of work.

62

Table 4.6: Mean and Standard Deviations for Construct: Location/Environment


Question

Mea

n

Std

Dev

iatio

n

Mea

n

Std

Dev

iatio

n

Mea

n

Std

Dev

iatio

n

Mea

n

Std

Dev

iatio

n

Question 1 4.50 0.53 3.38 0.67 3.91 0.54 4.00 0.63

Question 2 3.87 0.35 3.67 0.87 3.82 0.60 3.67 0.82

Question 3 3.75 0.71 3.44 0.53 3.91 0.54 3.67 0.82

Question 4 4.00 0.76 4.00 0.50 3.73 0.79 3.67 0.82

Question 5 4.12 0.35 3.56 0.53 3.91 0.70 4.00 0.00

Question 6 4.25 0.71 3.38 0.83 4.09 0.54 3.83 0.98

Question 7 4.25 0.46 3.66 0.87 4.18 0.60 3.83 0.41

Question 8 4.12 0.83 4.00 0.87 3.91 0.70 4.00 0.89

Question 9 3.87 0.64 3.67 0.50 3.64 0.67 3.83 0.75

Question 10 4.50 0.53 3.38 0.78 4.09 0.70 4.00 0.63

Average 4.12 0.26 3.61 0.24 3.91 0.17 3.85 0.14

By referring to Figure 4.22, the p-value for the bridge group is 0.608 and the

skewness indicates that the score is 0.2032. That mean the graph of distribution will be

right-skewed. Figure 4.23 shows the p-value for group of deck is 0.093 and skewness is

0.7508. That’s mean; the distribution of the graph will be right-skewed. For Figure 4.24

the p-value is 0.373 and skewness value is -0.0497 where it indicates that the

distribution of the graph will be left-skewed. Lastly, according to the Figure 4.25, the p-

value is 0.026. Meanwhile the value of skewness is -0.1843 which the graph of

distribution will be also left-skewed.

63



64



65

4.4.6 Analysis on Effect of Technology by Sector


effect of technology. This time we will consider from view of maritime sectors

identified. Generally, Malaysian seafarers from selected sectors as per mention below

(Table 4.7) feel that the technology installed onboard ship is very useful and it can help

them to minimize their fatigue problem. If we can see from the table, we know that all

the sectors contributed very high average value of mean. The average value for Foreign

Tanker is 4.14 followed by Coastal 4.11. Meanwhile, Foreign LNG recorded 3.87 and

Port sector with 3.74 for average mean score. It is clear that all sector agreed that

technology is part of the factors which contribute to fatigue among the seafarer at

various sector.

Table 4.7: Mean and Standard Deviations for Construct: Effect of Technology


Question

Mea

n

Std

Dev

iatio

n

Mea

n

Std

Dev

iatio

n

Mea

n

Std

Dev

iatio

n

Mea

n

Std

Dev

iatio

n

Question 1 3.87 0.64 4.44 0.53 4.54 0.69 4.00 0.63

Question 2 4.00 0.93 4.11 0.60 3.91 0.70 3.83 0.98

Question 3 3.87 0.83 4.11 0.78 3.73 0.65 3.67 1.03

Question 4 3.63 0.52 4.22 0.67 4.18 0.75 3.67 1.37

Question 5 3.63 0.52 3.78 0.67 3.82 0.87 4.00 0.63

Question 6 3.63 0.52 4.00 0.50 3.73 0.79 3.67 0.82

Question 7 4.00 1.06 4.11 0.33 4.09 0.54 3.67 0.52

Question 8 3.63 0.52 3.89 0.60 4.64 0.50 3.83 1.16

Question 9 3.50 0.93 4.00 1.00 4.18 0.60 4.33 0.82

Question 10 3.62 1.06 4.44 0.72 4.55 0.69 4.00 1.09

Average 3.74 0.18 4.11 0.21 4.14 0.34 3.87 0.22

66

By referring to the Figure 4.26, Figure 4.27, Figure 4.28 and Figure 4.29 below,

it shows graphical plot of the analysis of the question block of effect of technology by

maritime sector. P-value for each location is 0.020 (Port), 0.443 (Coastal-Container),

0.293 (Foreign-Tanker) and 0.066 (Foreign-LNG). Meanwhile, the skewness values are

0.4916 (Port), 0.0457 (Coastal-Container), 0.2853 (Foreign-Tanker) and 1.0221

(Foreign-LNG). As a result, the distribution graph for all sectors will be right-skewed.


67



68


4.4.7 Comparison of Technology Perception Among Maritime Sectors

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) method has been used to check the

correlation effect of technology among the seafarers from different maritime sectors.

Figure 4.30 below shows how the ANOVA obtained the average value for mean and

standard deviation from various groups or sector. It shows the perception of seafarers

from each group or sector on effect of technology onboard ship. The sample means of

3.902 for Port, 3.878 for Coastal Container, 4.120 for Foreign Tanker and 3.983 for

Foreign LNG. The pooled of standard deviation for this analysis is 0.2608 for all

sectors. The group’s p-value is 0.174 at alpha-level 0.05 and standard deviation for all

sectors is 0.2608. There is very closed different between the score of mean between Port

and Costal-Container. As a result, the group’s p-value can be determine at 0.174 where

it shows the similarity of perception between this two sectors on effect of technology

onboard ship. Afterthat, the Tukey’s Test took place by doing the ANOVA test

including subtraction of group at every step of analysis as shown in figure 4.31.

69

Figure 4.30: ANOVA Test Result for All Sectors

Figure 4.31: ANOVA Tukey Test for Maritime Sectors on Effect of

Technology

70

4.4.8 Correlation Between Constructs

Using MiniTAB software, the correlation between the 3 constructs or block of

questions can be determined as follows (Figure 4.32). It shows that the correlation

between 3 constructs working environment, shift of work and effect of technology. The

Pearson correlation between environment and shift is 0.101. Beside, the Pearson

correlation between Technology and shift is about 0.367 and between Technology and

environment is 0.001. Meanwhile, P-value for correlation between technology and shift

is small (0.033) and for the others are 0.568 and 0.995.

T

Figure 4.32: Correlation Test Result for All Constructs

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

Fatigue is a common problem for seafarer in maritime industry and has been

recognized as a potential factor which may contribute to accidents at sea. Many

international researches has been conducted and suggest that the shift of work,

environment of work and ship motion experienced at sea contribute to stress and

fatigue. This chapter will elaborate and discussing the results and finding in Chapter 4.

In chapter 4, the results from the analysis have been presented in the form of pie

charts, tables and bar graphs. This chapter discusses the results within the context of the

objectives of the research.

72

5.1 Validity of Question and Internal Consistency Reliability with Cronbach’s

Alpha

The values of Cronbach’s Alpha,α shown in Table 3.2 (pilot study) for each

construct ranged 0.757 to 0.856, showing the validity of the questions asked in this

survey. From the study conducted by Anna et al. (1999), the alpha values of her study

are in the range of 0.83 to 0.92. Her study is about the validity of a questionnaire in

measuring fatigue among working people, which is quite similar to this study. However,

according to Chua (2005) to ensure reliability of the questions, Cronbach’s Alpha α

value must be in range 0.75 to 1.00. In comparison to be made between the Cronbach’s

Alpha α from this study and Anna’s study and also the SPSS requirement, the alpha

values can be concluded as in the range of a good and reliable. Internal consistency

reliability for each item and construct can be accepted.

5.2 Data Distribution

Data distributions are viewed in terms of means and standard deviations. The

standard deviations of items in each constructs are relatively small showing the

consistency of answers. As shown in Table 4.2 and 4.3 in chapter 4. The value of mean

for each question can be analyzed in details. Most of the question had been rated

between 3 to 5. The average mean value for the construct on shift of work, engine room

recorded the highest mean value of 4.05. This result can be categorized as high mean

score. Meanwhile for the construct on environment of work, engine room still lead the

average mean value of 4.10. This result also can be categorized as high mean score.

73

5.3 Discussion On Place of Work Association with Fatigue

The result and findings for association between location of work with fatigue

can be found in Table 4.1 on page 45. The association between these two dependents

has been shown using SPSS correlation test. The Spearman’s rhos values obtained are

greater than zero. It indicates that the existence of correlations between fatigue do

represented by three constructs to the various place of works.

5.4 Discussion on Fatigue Analysis among Seafarers from Different Maritime

Sectors

This section is divided into 4 sub-groups and each subgroup represents each

sector where the result from seafarers from selected maritime sectors had been

analyzed. The sectors are Port/Tug Operator, Coastal Container, Foreign-Tanker and

Foreign-LNG. The findings in Chapter 4 have been grouped according to construct.

Discussion in this section will be categorized as such. However, in order to confirm that

there are fatigues among the seafarers in different maritime sector, the results are also

analysed by sector we have to look into the detail of the result for each sector. After

that, we will see the finding on the analysis of result on the technology effect to the

fatigue problem.

5.4.1 Evidence of Fatigue of Seafarer

Place of work are very much effecting fatigue in a seafarer. IMO (2001) stated

this as a ship-specific factor which detailed by physical comfort in workspaces, location

of quarters and ship motions apart from other details. IMO (2001) also confirm that

74

working environment is one of the most significant factors of fatigue causation, which

this factor is related with temperature, noise, etc.

From the result (refer to table 4.2 and 4.3) the evidence of fatigue among

seafarers working at different locations. The relatively high average means and small

standard deviations. Correspond to strong evidence of fatigue experienced by seafarers

working in the respective locations.

Generally, seafarers agreed that their work places are contributing to fatigue

occurrence in a working period. Engine room can make the seafarers to feel fatigue

earlier than bridge and deck. Thus proofing the factor of working environment does

affect seafarers’ fatigue. The level of noise, vibrations and exposure to high and low

temperatures felt by seafarers working in the engine room are much higher than the

level felt by those who work on bridge and deck. These factors can increase the level of

stress suffered by engine room workers, reflecting the easiness to feel fatigue.

Furthermore, engine room is rather situated in the lowest part of a ship and can restrict

interpersonal relationship with other crewmembers, reflecting the crew-specific factor

for fatigue as stated by IMO, (2001). Compared to bridge and deck environment, they

are much more comfortable and less exposure to environmental threat that engine room

workers have to cope with.

All groups of seafarers agree that they have experienced fatigue. The highest

means are from higher ranked of work are known to be dealing with less stress but high

job responsibilities, leading to the increase of work load. As for example, higher ranked

deck officers are much more related to the management of ships, including the welfare

of their crew. However, the lower is the person who are doing the work onboard ship.

They are not the management team. This factor, increase the fatigue effect experienced

by the lower rank. Sometime the tight schedules of work for lower rank seafarers make

them feel fatigue due to the shift of work factor.

75

5.4.2 Discussion on Shift of Work by Maritime Sector

Marine nature well known as long of duties period hours plus at irregular hours,

and substantial amount of night work. This in turn may manifest in impaired

performance capabilities and reduce levels of safety. Some literature said 8 hours

uninterrupted of sleep provides 100% recovery.

By referring to the result (Table 4.5), it can be seen that the pattern of the mean

and standard deviation value for different maritime sectors. It shows that all sectors

agree on the issue of fatigue among seafarers. Average mean for Port/Tug is 3.52, mean

for Foreign-Tanker and Foreign-LNG is 4.05 and mean for Coastal-Container is 3.78. A

potential source of stress for seafarers is the irregular timing of their work. Work

undertaken during unconventional hours of day places greater demands on employees

than work performed during normal daytime hours. Mean score value was high for

Malaysian seafarers that working at three main location on ship for unpredictable

working hours and work for long period or unsociable hours.

5.4.3 Discussion on Environment of Work by Maritime Sector

As we know, there was difference level of noise, quality of bed and ship motion

for the locations and environment of work. Normally, bridge seafarers were disturbed

by noise and quality of bed while the others was no disturbances with those two.

Meanwhile, ship motion was disturbed sleep of seafarers at engine and deck while no

sleep disturbance for bridge. Both of these factors have been associated with increasing

levels of discomfort and fatigue as a function of exposure time. Noise and vibration also

contribute to poor sleep and interfere with communication. Additionally, in the long

term there may be detrimental effect on the person’s health. These conditions also

contribute to quantity and quality of sleep that may lead into fatigue to Malaysian

seafarers.

76

In order to determine whether respondents felt that the location and environment

of their workplace will effect their focus while doing their works and increase their

fatigue, an item was included asking Malaysian seafarers to indicate whether they

obtained ‘too little’, ‘enough’ or ‘too much’ break. Ninety percent of respondents

indicated they obtained ‘enough’ break and sleep. From Table 4.6 it is evident that a

significant location effect existed. The mean score for all locations and environment of

work was medium and indicated that seafarers were affected by fatigue because of

environment and location of their workplace during at sea for any selected maritime

sector.

The average mean value for Coastal Container is 3.61 which is lower than the

other three (3) sectors and rated as medium score. It’s mean that, for Coastal-Container

sector, the influence of fatigue to their seafarers is mediumly rated. However, the value

of average mean for Foreign-Tanker and Foreign-LNG is quite high at 3.91 and 3.85.

However the highest average mean value is for Port sector with 4.12. That means, this

sector agrees strongly on the location-related onboard ship. It caused by the location and

environment of work. Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they

experienced sea sickness, and if so, whether this occurs during the on the pilot launch or

on the ship. As detailed in Table 4.3(Question 4 and 5), all Malaysian seafarers at

bridge (mean = 3.80 & 4.00), deck (mean = 3.33 & 4.00) and engine room (4.00 &

3.95) indicated they experienced sea sickness moderately to the both situation. This

finding is reasonable given the constant pitching and rolling of vessels such as those

used during launch trip.

Overall, Malaysian seafarers was enjoyed doing their job but sometime need to

performing alight exercise and stretching, taking a quick shower and just walk around

the ship to combating fatigue and to stay awake. The normal action taken by Malaysian

seafarers actually considering that they boredom with their workplace and location and

sometimes need to get fresh air because their work is too easy, repetitive and bodily

movement is restricted. Studies have shown that situation of work underload typically

result in reduced levels of awakening and boredom. The high levels of vigilance,

77

watchkeeping, and monitoring required of seafarers requires their constant attention but

these functions may provide minimal task variety. Consequently, additional effort by

the seafarer is required to maintain appropriate level of awakening and fell fresh at all

time.

5.4.4 Discussion on Effect of Technology

In modern era, the usage of technology can be assumed as one of the concrete

solution in order to minimize fatigue in doing our work. It is similar to the ship

operation. From this survey, we are trying to prove that the technology also can be

installed and it can help the seafarers in completing their task. It is also as a tool to

reduce their fatigue while at sea. According to the result obtained various place of work

onboard ship (Table 4.4), it was found that from various locations of work onboard

ship, the seafarers from bridge and engine room highly agree that technology is needed

but it also can cause fatigue to the seafarer. The average mean value for these two

locations is about 3.90 and 4.13 respectively. The deck crew agrees too but the average

mean is only 3.43.

From the result in Table 4.7, it can be said that between the different maritime

sectors, Foreign-Tanker sector agrees that the existence of technology onboard ship will

cause fatigue to their seafarers and it follows by coastal container sector which average

mean score is 4.11. The mean score for Foreign-Tanker sector is 4.14 and it proves that

this kind of respondent who work in this sector knows that technology is one of the

source which cause fatigue to their seafarers. It also supported by the other two sectors,

where the average mean score for Port is 3.74 and Foreign-LNG is 3.87. The average

mean score for these two sectors are highly rated. It proves that the effect of technology

onboard ship will contribute to fatigue problem to the seafarers in various sectors.

78

In considering technological developments it is something that important to the

seafarers and shipping industry, it is the time to see that any possibility to the ship

owner to install high technology machinery and equipment onboard ship. Integrated

systems and increased automation do much to relieve the watchkeeper from the

mechanical tasks of keeping a watch, setting courses, plotting positions and altering

course but they do not relieve him (or her) of his responsibility to act diligently and in a

seamanlike manner. The ship owner have seeks and identify the benefits and disbenefits

of technology onboard ship from the seafarer's perspective.

5.5 Discussion on ANOVA & Correlation Test

5.5.1 ANNOVA Test

In order to perform ANNOVA test, it was decided to run the test for construct of

effect of technology only. It is because to check the correlation between the maritime

sectors. It is to confirm on their perception on effect of technology which first time to

be introduce and take into consideration in fatigue issues among the seafarers. The

hypothesis for the test is that all population means (level means) are the same. From the

Figure 4.30 and Figure 4.31 the ANOVA obtained for the Groups P-value is 0.174

which is higher than alpha-level value (0.05). This mean that one or more means value

are significantly similar from one group to the other. This shows that every group has

the same perception on the issue of fatigue.

The individual statistics of 34 respondents included for each group of sector.

The sample means of 3.9020 for Port, 3.8780 for Coastal, 4.1200 for Foreign Tanker

and 3.9830 for Foreign LNG. The pooled standard deviation is 0.2608 for all sectors.

79

This is the main reason why there is the P-value is 0.174. Therefore, this indicates that

the perception of all sectors to effect of technology is much similar.

5.5.2 Correlation Test

From the result, we also can check on the correlation between constructs or

question blocks. The correlation test is done by using Pearson correlation and the result

generated is Pearson correlation value. If the Pearson value is 0.00, there is no

correlation, there is very weak correlation if the value in the range of 0.01 to 0.30. weak

correlation in between 0.31 to 0.50, moderate correlation in the range of 0.51 to 0.70,

strong correlation if it falls into 0.71 to 0.90. Finally, very strong correlation is

established when the value falls in the range of 0.91 to 1.0 as in Chua (2006).

The first case is the construct “shift of work” and construct “working

environment”, the result shows that there is very weak correlation between these two

constructs (Pearson = 0.101). Weak correlation status appears in the construct “Shift of

work” and construct “technology (Pearson = 0.367). There is almost no correlation

between construct “technology” and construct “working environment” (Pearson =

0.001) where the value of Pearson is nearly to 0.00. The detail result can be referred to

Figure 4.32 in Chapter 4.

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

This chapter will summarize the findings of this study and explores

implications that can be drawn from the finding of the study. Recommendations are

given in the hope to assist future researcher to gain more information for the benefit

of Malaysian seafarers and nation shipping industry.

6.1 Overview of the study.

This study was carried out to investigate Malaysians Seafarers perceptions

on the locational source of fatigue, and effect of technology onboard ship for

different maritime sectors. The respondents are from various rank and types of ship.

They came from various ranges of ages, years of experience and different location of

work on ship such as deck, engine room and bridge. They had shipboard

experienced at least one year and experienced fatigue during the voyage. This study

only covers 4 types of maritime sectors Port/Tug operator, Coastal-Container,

Foreign-Tanker and Foreign-LNG.

81

Questionnaires were distributed and analyzed using SPSS and MiniTAB

software. Suggestion and recommendations were included to improve this research

for the sake of Malaysians seafarer.

6.2 Restatement of the objective

This study examines the following objectives:

i. To identify the sources of fatigue among Malaysian seafarers

ii. To confirm the contribution of technology onboard to seafarers

fatigue.

6.3 Review of the finding

Fatigue was synonym with marine industry. Many researches have been done

to identify fatigue among seafarers. Unfortunately, not even a single study has been

done to identify sources of fatigue among Malaysian seafarers and focusing on

different maritime sector. Therefore, this study was conducted to identify the sources

of fatigue among Malaysian seafarers in different maritime sector because the

greater effect of fatigue has been recognized as a potential factor which may

contribute to accident at sea which will be a great loss for shipping company and

even can be fatal to Malaysian seafarers.

The study confirms that Malaysian seafarers also experiencing fatigue while

onboard. Several items were identified as the sources of fatigue among Malaysian

seafarers. From this study, we proved that there is different level of fatigue

experienced by seafarers for various rank onboard ships. From the result, we know

that higher rank officer will experience less fatigue during their duty but it is not for

other rank.

82

The study also confirm, there are two (2) main sources of fatigue among

Malaysian seafarers. The result showed the consistency of respondents saying that

their time and work environment, ship motion and etc are the main factor which

cause fatigue. Then, the construction of questionnaires was based on these criteria.

Finally, the two constructs which had been design from the combination of the said

criteria. There are as follows:

i. Nature or Shift of Work

ii. Location and Environment of Work

The final part of this study is to confirm on the effect of technology onboard

ship to the fatigue problem among seafarers in different sectors. Most of the

respondents agree that technology onboard ship has been used for long time in daily

task. However, there are also high possibilities that technology itself contribute to

the seafarers fatigue problem at sea. According to the finding of this study, we can

conclude that, all the maritime sectors which participate in this survey agreed that

their daily ship operation mostly depend on the technology installed. However, from

the result, it is evident that technology also is part of the source of fatigue to

seafarers in various sectors.

Finally, we are perhaps now starting to think about the capability and

reliability of technology to aid the seafarers and overcome the fatigue at sea and also

think how technology best can serve seafarers, to improve safety, quality of life and

operational efficiency on board ship

6.4 Recommendations and Suggestions

Based on the finding of the study, here are some recommendation and

suggestion in the hope to assist future researcher and for the benefit of all Malaysian

seafarers. Based on the intended setting of the study, it would be fruitful for future

researcher to get the real view of fatigue by increase the number of respondent and

increase the number of sector to be involved. It can be done with collaboration with

83

national companies like MISC, GAGASAN CARRIER, PETRONAS, SHELL and

etc to get onboard to the one of the ship itself. From there, researcher can get a full

view of Malaysian seafarers’ activity while onboard and get the real experience of

fatigue. Other than that, this research also can be carried out by sector itself one by

one and I believe the data will be more accurate.

For the development of questionnaire, researcher needs to consider the types

of ship or background operation (i.e period of journey, propulsion system, port of

operation and etc) because different types of ship have different nature. Researcher

need to see all item while at sea, home and onshore and can make comparison on

item of Malaysian seafarers can be drawn. Researcher also needs to address the

unique combinations of potential stressors, which may interact in various ways to

produce fatigue, poor health and increased accident risk. For future study, other

demographic background can be included to have a wider view of fatigue level

among Malaysian seafarers such as health status and other demographic factors

Future researchers need to look into the possibility to search types of technology

installed onboard and types of ship used. Detail study need to be done on the usage of

technology and how it was implemented and the optimization of the usage to the

assisting the seafarers. And also how effective the technology helps the seafarers and

how it can improve their quality of life.

CHAPTER 7

REFERENCES

Abdullah, M., (2007), A Pilot Study To Identify The Source Of Fatigue Among Malaysia

Seafarer, Fakulti Kejuruteraan Mekanikal, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,

Malaysia.

Akerstedt, T., (1995), ‘Work hours, Sleepiness and the Underlying Mechanisms’,

Journal of Sleep Research, 4(Suppl. 2): 15-22.

Anna, J., H., M., Bultmann, U.,(1999), Fatigue Among Working People: Validity of A

Questionnaire Measure. Occup Environ Med 2000. 57:353–357 Downloaded

from http://oem.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/57/5/353 on 2nd February 2009.

Barton, J., (1995), ‘Choosing to Work at Night: A Moderating Influence on Individual

Tolerance to Shift Work’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(3): 449-454.

85

Boardman H., J., (2007), Issue of fatigue and its relationship to the safety of railroad

operations, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. Department of

Transportation.

Berger, Y., (1987), Sea Pilots: The Problem of Irregular Hours. Seaways, January,

7 - 10.

Chua, Y.,P., (2006), Asas Statistik Untuk Penyelidikan Buku 2, McGraw-Hill,

Singapore.

Collins, A., Matthews,V., & McNamara, R., (2000), Fatigue, Health & Injury Among

Seafarers & Workers On Offshore Installations: A Review, SIRC/Centre for

Occupational & Health Psychology, Cardiff, University, UK

Colquhoun, W, P, Rutenfranz, J, Goethe, H., Neidhart, B., Condon, R., Plett, R., And

Knauth, P., (1988), Work at Sea: A Study of Sleep and of Circadian Rhythms

in Physiological and Psychological Functions, in Watchkeepers on Merchant

vessel I. Watchkeeping on Board Ships: A Methodological Approach.

International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 60, 321-

329.

Couper, A.,D., (1996), Understanding Some of the More Difficult Research Problems in

Maritime Human Factor Research. Proceedings of a Research Workshop on

Fatigue in the Maritime Industry. Seafarers International Research Centre for

Safety and Occupational Health. University of Wales, Cardiff.

Folkard, S, & Barton, J, (1993), ‘Does the ‘Forbidden Zone’ for Sleep Onset influence

Morning Shift Sleep Duration?’, Ergonomics, 36(1-3): 85-91.

86

Houtman, I., Miedema, M., Jettinghoff, K., Starren, A., Heinrich, J., Gort, J., (2005),

Fatigue In The Shipping Industry, Work and Employment, Hoofddorp, The

Netherlands.

House, J.,D., (1985), Working offshore: The other price of Newfoundland’s oil.

Institute of Social and Economic Research, Memorial University of

Newfoundland.

Hoyos, C.,G., (1995), Occupational safety: Progress in understanding the basic aspects

of safe and unsafe behaviour. Applied Psychology: An International Review,

44(3), 235-250.

IMO, (2001), International Maritime Organization, Guidance on Fatigue Mitigation and

Management, MSC/CIRC. 1014, London: IMO, p.1

IMO, (2002), International Maritime Organization, MSC/Circ.813/MEPC/Circ.330

Krupp, A, L, (2001), Fatigue in Multiple Sclerosis: A Guide to Diagnosis and

Management, Demos Medical Publishing, LLC, Downloaded on 4 August

2007.

Linington, A, (2008), The regulation of seafarers’ working hours. Nautilus Federation

Report. UK

Lützhöft, M., & Kiviloog, L., (2003), Sjöfartsdagen 2003: Kommenterade

voteringsresultat. Ångfartygsbefälhavare-sällskapet i Stockholm (In Swedish).

Available: http://www.ikp.liu.se/usr/marlu/ [2008, Nov].

Main Accident Investigation Branch, (2005), Department of Transport. Safety Digest.

Lessons from Marine Accident Reports 1/2005.

87

Malawwethanthri, K., (2003). Fatigue and Jet Lag In search of Sound Sleep. Seaways.

November.

Malaysian Shipowner Association (MASSA)., Annual Report 2007.

Mohd. Hasrul, H., (2007), A Pilot Study To Identify Fatigue Level Among Malaysian

Seafarers, Fakulti Kejuruteraan Mekanikal, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,

Malaysia.

Munn, P, and Drever, E, (1993), Using Questionnaires in small-Scale Research. A

Teacher’s Guide, rev.ed. Edinburgh: Scottish Council for Research in

Education

NUMAST, (2006), Fatigue: IMO Must Act, NUMAST Telegraph, March 2006, p.40

NUMAST, (1995), All in Good Time. London, NUMAST, UK

NUMAST, (2001), Seafarers’ Hours: Time to Act. London, NUMAST,UK

NUMAST, (2002), Conditions for change: A NUMAST survey on working conditions in

today’s shipping industry, London: National Union of Marine, Aviation and

Shipping Transport Officers

Nunan, D., (1992), Research Methods in Language Learning, Cambridge: Cambridge

United Press

Omdal, K., A., (2003), A survey of health and work environment onboard Norwegian

ships 7th International Symposium on Maritime Health.

Osman., N., A., (2001), Study on Malaysia’s manpower requirements: The seafarer’s

dimension. Kuala Lumpur: Maritime Institute of Malaysia

88

Osman, N.,A.,(2004), MIMA - HRD for Malaysian Seafarers: Issues and Challenges.

Maritime Institute of Malaysia, Martec, Johor Bahru

Parker, A.,W., Hubinger, L., Green, S., Sargent, L., & Boyd, R., (1997), A Survey of the

Health, Stress and Fatigue of Australian Seafarers, Australian Maritime

Safety Authority, Canberra.

Parker, A.,W., Balanda, K., Briggs, L., And Hubinger, L.,M., (1998), A Survey of the

Work and Sleep Patterns of Great Barrier Reef Pilots. Australian Maritime

Safety Authority (AMSA)

Patraiko, D., (2006), Fatigue onboard Raising awareness: The Nautical Institute

reporting plan, 202 Lambeth Road, London SE1 7LQ, UK.

Razif.,M., (2004), HRD for Malaysian Seafarers: Issues and Challenges. Presented at

Seminar on HRD for Malaysian Seafarers: Issues and Challenges. Kuala

Lumpur: Maritime Institute of Malaysia

Reyner, L., Baulk, S., (1998), Fatigue In Ferry Crews: A Pilot Study, Sleep Research

Group, Loughborough, University, UK.

Sutherland, K.,M., And Flin, R.,H., (1989), Stress at sea: a review of working

conditions in the offshore oil and fishing industries. Work Stress, 3: 269-285

Sanquist, T., F., Raby, M., Maloney A.,L., Carvalhais, T., (1997), Work Hours, Sleep

Patterns and Fatigue Among Merchant Marine Personnel. Journal of Sleep

Research, 6: 245-251

Smith, A., Allen, P., & Wadsworth, E.,(2006), Seafarer Fatigue: The Cardiff Research

Programme Centre for Occupational and Health Psychology, Cardiff

University, 63 Park Place, Cardiff.

89

Transportation Safety Board of Canada, (1997), Fatigue resource Directory : Fatigue in

Transportation -A Guide for Investigating for Fatigue.

Wallen, J., and Franken, S., (2000), Doing Your Research Project: A Guide for First-

time Researchers in Education and Social Science, second edition, Milton

Keynes: Open University Press.

.

SURVEY ON

FATIGUE AMONG

MALAYSIAN

SEAFARER IN

DIFFERENT

MARITIME SECTOR

The questionnaire is voluntary and strictly confidential. We are only interested in groups of workers and therefore no individual will be identified in connection with any of the research findings. Your identity and responses to the questionnaire will be completely protected.

THE BACKGROUND OF RESEARCH This questionnaire marks the independent studies aimed at investigating the source of Malaysian seafarers’ fatigue in different maritime sectors. However, lately there so many technological expansions have been used onboard ship and it helps seafarers to improve their quality of life during at sea. There has been little research into the effects of work and rest schedules of seafarers, although maritime regulators, ship owners and trade unions alike are becoming increasingly aware that working conditions at sea almost certainly generate fatigue in crew members. This has potentially disastrous consequences both for the individual in terms of reduced performance and poor health, and for the environment, if accidents occur as a result of lowered alertness. With the introduction of better working practices you and your groups will benefit the most, as you will feel more willing and able to perform tasks to the best of your ability. By providing strategies to increase the safety and efficiency of marine operations in general, the environment will also be protected from potentially harmful incidents occurring as a result of fatigue.

The Questionnaire

The questionnaire is voluntary and strictly confidential. No individual will be identified in connection with any of the research findings. Your identity is not required in the questionnaire and responses to the questionnaire will be completely protected. Your responses are valuable to provide a safer and more productive work environment for yourself and fellow crewmembers. Your participation is greatly appreciated!

If you have any questions or queries about the study or the questionnaire, please do not hesitate to contact us either by e-mail or on the number/s below.

SECTION 1: DEMOGRAPHICS

1. Please tick your age group.

18 – 25 years old 26 – 35 years old 36 – 45 years old 46 – 55 years old Above 55 years old

2. Please tick your gender.

Male Female

3. Education Completed: (Please tick ONE box only corresponding to your highest level of formal education achieved)

SPM Certificate GCSE/ ‘O’ Level (or equivalent) A' Level/SCE Higher/Matriculation BA/BSc Higher degree (e.g. MA, MSc, PhD)

4. Current Status: (Please tick ONE box only) Single Living with Partner Married Separated Divorced Widowed

5. You work as a (your position?) (Please tick ONE box only) Deck Officers Master Chief 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Cadet Engineering Officers - Chief 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Cadet

6. For how long have you had your present position? Approximately (Please tick ONE box only)

Less than 1 year 2 - 5 years 6 - 10 years 11 - 15 years More than 15 years

7. Where is your primary place of work? (Please tick ONE box only) Bridge

Galley Deck Cabin Engine Room Other

8. Operation of ship: Foreign Going

Short Sea/Coastal Port Others (Please Specify : ____________________________)

SECTION 2 : SOURCES AND LEVEL OF FATIGUE

PART A : NATURE OF WORK

Please circle one number for each item

Nev

er

Alm

ost

Nev

er

Som

etim

e

Alm

ost

Alw

ays

Alw

ays

1. Do you do shift work? 1 2 3 4 5

2. Do you have unpredictable working hours? 1 2 3 4 5

3. Do you have to work long or unsociable hours? 1 2 3 4 5

4.

Do you ever consider your working hours to present a danger to your personal health and safety?

1 2 3 4 5

5. How do you explain your beliefs that the effects of fatigue increase the longer you are at sea?

1 2 3 4 5

6. Do you feel sleepier (exhausted/tired) at all the time by end of your working shift?

1 2 3 4 5

7. Do you ever consider switching night shift with your teammates?

1 2 3 4 5

8.

Do you ever consider that short shift system is generally a better option to reduce source of fatigue?

1 2 3 4 5

9. Do you experience feelings of nausea brought on by motion effects?

1 2 3 4 5

4 O

n 4

Off

6 O

n 6

Off

8 O

n 8

Off

12 O

n 12

Off

Oth

er

10. What should be the most common shift schedule in a 24-hour period?(Hours)

1 2 3 4 5

PART B: LOCATION OF WORK

Please circle one number for each item

Nev

er

Alm

ost

Nev

er

Som

etim

e

Alm

ost

Alw

ays

Alw

ays

1. Do you work in an environment where the level of background noise disturbs your concentration?

1 2 3 4 5

2. Does the level of vibration in your workplace affect your work performance?

1 2 3 4 5

3. How often do you exchange work with a colleague from other location in a month?

1 2 3 4 5

4. Do you always walking out from your work place during work do to stress?

1 2 3 4 5

5. Do you enjoy doing your work at present location?

1 2 3 4 5

6. How often do you think your working space is enough?

1 2 3 4 5

7.

Do you agree that exposure to high level of noise from ship main engine or system will cause fatigue?

1 2 3 4 5

8.

Do you think that the design of ship also will affect your comfort ness during your working period?

1 2 3 4 5

9.

Do you feel that vessel motion at your present workplace will also will disturb your performance?

1 2 3 4 5

10. Does the weather condition also will affect your performance of work at your present location of work?

1 2 3 4 5

PART C: TECHNOLOGY ONBOARD SHIP

Please circle one number for each item.

Nev

er

Alm

ost

Nev

er

Som

etim

e

Alm

ost

Alw

ays

Alw

ays

1.

How do you describe the usage of technology? Do you enjoy doing your work with help of technology?

1 2 3 4 5

2. In completing your task, does your job ever require you to get the technology assistance?

1 2 3 4 5

3. How often do you experience feeling tension while using technology?

1 2 3 4 5

4.

When you operate the technology, how often do you feel tired and yawn?

1 2 3 4 5

5.

Have you experience feeling weak and shaky while performing task by using high technology equipment onboard ship?

1 2 3 4 5

6. Do you think that the application of technology will decrease crew alertness?

1 2 3 4 5

7.

Do you ever experience the situation when you are not sure of the action taken while you are operating any hi-tech equipment or system onboard ship?

1 2 3 4 5

8.

Do you think the technology onboard ship will reduce an effect of fatigue during your duty period and improve the seafarer‘s quality of life?

1 2 3 4 5

Not

at a

ll

A li

ttle

Som

etim

e

Usu

ally

Alw

ays

9. Do you think the technology will simplify your job/task?

1 2 3 4 5

10. Do you think technology onboard ship will help the ship safety and operation of overall ship?

1 2 3 4 5

Conditionsfor change

A NUMAST surveyand report on

working conditions intoday’s shipping

industry

‘Life at sea isn’t what it was…’ If members had a poundfor every time they heard that statement, many wouldnow be extremely wealthy.

The shipping industry has changed dramatically in thepast 25 years. It has always been international in its nature, but in recent years globalisation has beenexploited to the full. There has been a marked exodus from traditional maritime nations — often toconvenience registers.

This exodus has been accompanied by the growing use of low cost seafaring labour and a massivereduction in the level of maritime recruitment and training in countries such as the UK. According toa study commissioned by the International Labour Organisation, two-thirds of the world’s merchantfleet is now operated by multinational crews and one ship in every 10 is crewed by more than fivedifferent seafarer nationalities.

At the same time, there have been marked changes in technology at sea, with the introduction ofnew equipment, new technology and new systems such as GMDSS having a profound impact onworking practices and employment.

How have these changes impacted on officers today? NUMAST has conducted a major researchproject to update earlier work carried out over the past decade.

The results — which are based on returns from around 10% of NUMAST’s seagoing membership —must act as a catalyst for change by shipowners, managers, regulators and all those concerned withsetting standards for the industry.

Brian OrrellGeneral secretary

1Social conditions survey

Foreword

2 Social conditions survey


Executive summary

‘Human factor’ issues are increasingly recognised as being of fundamental importance to the safeand efficient operation of ships.

A great deal of work is being undertaken at international level to address long-standing concernsabout the social conditions experienced by seafarers in the world merchant fleet.

However, it is clear that there are still many issues in need of serious attention. A recent survey byLloyd’s Ship Manager, for example, showed that almost 80% of shipowners and managers have problems in attracting ‘quality seafarers’.

Similarly, there is a strong consensus within the industry that shipping needs to do much more toimprove its image to attract intelligent, motivated and committed young people.

This NUMAST report provides a unique insight into the issues that the industry needs to address.Based on detailed survey forms completed by some 10% of the Union’s seagoing membership, itupdates previous research projects undertaken by NUMAST in 1991 and ITF and MORI in 1996.

The report contains the feedback obtained from senior professional staff at the sharp end of operations in today’s shipping industry. It shows their views and perceptions of important elementsof their job, their role and their responsibilities.

Key findings include:

✪ between 60-80% consider that workloads, stress, fatigue,morale and company loyalty have declined over the past decade

✪ almost 50% say job satisfaction has deteriorated over the past 10 years and only 8% say it has improved

✪ fewer than one-third consider they are provided with sufficient opportunity to influence fleet company policy

✪ almost 20% believe that they do not have sufficient seafarers onboard to safely operate their vessel

These are findings of immense importance to a vital international industry and NUMAST concludesits report with a series of recommendations intended to improve the situation.


When asked how he coped with a spell in prisonfollowing the Exxon Valdez disaster (facing chargeson which he was subsequently cleared), CaptainJoseph Hazelwood was reported as saying that it hadbeen no problem — as a seafarer he was used tounpleasant and cramped conditions, shared withother men.

Seafaring has always been a distinctive and ademanding profession. Shipboard work is literally adifferent world from that ashore. Lengthy periodsaway from home and family, high levels ofresponsibility, testing conditions, inherent dangersand demanding workloads make exceptionaldemands upon those who serve at sea.

Yet despite those pressures and demands, the past25 years have witnessed radical changes in theinternational shipping industry that have had ahighly negative impact on seafarers’ lives andworking conditions.

In an unrelenting quest for cost-savings, the hugeexodus of shipowners from traditional maritimenations to flags of convenience andsecond/international registers has beenaccompanied by the creation of a largely unregulatedglobal labour market, with low cost often being thedominant factor in the shipowners’ choice of crew.

The process of ‘flagging out’ has resulted in drasticchanges to seafarers’ terms and conditions ofemployment. There has been a pronounced shift fromtraditional contracts with shipowners to employmentthrough crewing agencies. This has served to increasethe ‘casualisation’ of seagoing employment and hasalso eroded company loyalty, training and morale.

Over the same period the average crewcomplement on most ship types has been almosthalved, with technological changes such as thedevelopment of containerisation, the introduction ofGMDSS, automated enginerooms and gearless drycargo ships having a significant impact. Technologyand ship design have also revolutionised workingpatterns. Three decades ago, only 1% of ships spent

less than 12 hours in port. Today, around one-third ofships complete their turn-rounds within this periodand the average ship’s turn-round is just 17.4 hours.

As the International Labour Organisation pointedout in its report, published in 2001, few, if any, aspectsof the occupational structure of seafaring have beenleft unaffected by the flight to FoCs since the later1970s. Career paths and employment patterns,nationality composition of crews, conditions of workand shipboard social life, education and training,participation in the political processes ofoccupational regulation have all been transformedand in most of these aspects, for the worse. Factorssuch as the remoteness of ports and terminals fromtowns and cities, the use of mixed nationality crews,the limited access to cheap and affordablecommunications with home, and reduced time inport have increased the inherent isolation ofseafaring. It is perhaps no coincidence that someresearch studies have indicated higher-than-averagesuicide rates for seafarers.

However, the huge reductions in officer training ofthe past two decades are now feeding through into agrowing shortfall in the supply of skilled andexperienced maritime professionals. The average ageof British officers has risen from 34 years at the startof the 1980s to over 47 today. A succession of researchprojects has demonstrated the scale of the deepeningcrisis, with insufficient numbers of new cadets beingtaken on to replace the increasingly aged seniorofficer workforce.

Despite more than a decade of reliable warningsabout the serious implications of this shortage, thereis still no coherent response to address the problem— either by shipowners or flag states.

As the crisis mounts, questions have been raisedabout the industry’s capability to recruit and retainthe suitably qualified and motivated personnel itneeds. This in turn poses serious implications, not justfor sustainable maritime transport but also for themany shore-based positions that require well-trained

Introduction‘Morale is lowand job securitynil. It would helpgreatly if somefeedback to theofficers was givenabout thedirection thecompany isgoing.’Master

‘No longer are wejudged on ourprofessionalability but ourpaperwork.’Master

‘Companies mustrealise andreward the valueof experience andgenuinecertification.’Second engineer

and experienced former seafarers.If the industry and flag states are to respond to

this crisis in a meaningful way, they must look beyondthe basic need to provide suitable training facilitiesand cadetships. Seafarers must be recruited properly,well trained throughout their career, given decent payand working conditions and reasonable workinghours, given access to good recreation and welfarefacilities at sea and in port, and provided with a careerpath that encourages them to stay in the industry.

NUMAST believes that shipowners have to start totreat their professional seafarers as the increasinglyscarce resource that they undoubtedly are, and endthe destructive and short-termist policies that havedone so much damage to maritime employmentconditions.

In his 1975 book, The Human Element in Shipping,Professor David Moreby reminded the industry of theimportance of appreciating and understanding theattitudes of seafarers. Pointing out that seafaring isnot just another job but rather a way of life, he argued— over a quarter of a century ago — that: ‘We mayneed to pay some attention to taking positive stepsto upgrading the prestige of seafaring in the countryat large.’

Shipping is one of the world’s most importantindustries. The world merchant fleet transports morethan 90 per cent of global trade and modern societyhas an increasing reliance upon the commodities —particularly hazardous and dangerous cargoes — thatare carried by ships. It is therefore essential thatinternational shipping is crewed by seafarers who arewell-trained, highly skilled, adequately rewarded, andhighly motivated. This research suggests that, inmany key areas, the industry and those who regulateit, are presently failing to pursue policies that fulfilthose goals.

THE FINDINGS

AGE

NUMAST’s survey resultsreflect the increasinglyhigh average age ofofficers from traditionalmaritime nations such asthe UK. Almost three-quarters of those takingpart in the research wereaged over 40 and onlyone-eighth were under 30. This contrasts with theITF/MORI survey, in which 60% of those taking partwere aged 40 or under and 36% were aged between31 and 40. Interestingly, the ITF/MORI study found thatNew Zealand and UK flag vessels had the longestserving crews.

NATIONALITYAgain, the survey results reflect the nature ofNUMAST membership. Just over 94% of those takingpart were British, 2.3% Irish and all but 0.7% of theremainder being from Common-wealth countries.

CERTIFICATESSimilarly, the overwhelming majority of those takingpart (more than 85%) possessed certificates issued inthe UK. A significant number also had certificatesissued by the authorities in Australia, New Zealand,Canada, Ireland, Liberia and Panama.

LENGTH OF SERVICE

Not surprisingly,given the age profileof those surveyed,the results showextensive sea service,More than 86% havebeen a seafarer forover a decade(compared with 51% in the ITF/MORI survey) andfewer than 8% have five years’ or less seagoingexperience.

RANK

In line with the age, experience and certification ofthe survey respondents, a significant proportion werehigh ranking: almost one-third were masters; one-fifth chief engineer officers and 12.5% were chiefofficers/mates. The survey also covered a wide rangeof other ranks and roles, including: superintendents;cadets; marine pilots; communications and radioofficers; electrotechnical officers; systems engineers;dynamic positioning officers; refrigeration andautomation engineers; purser/catering officers;supply and administration officers; medical officers;and ships’ security officers.

5

The findings

‘I would, all thingsconsidered, preferto be working athome. Thecompany I workfor tends to treatseafarers asnumbers ratherthan names.’Third engineer

‘So long as we areglorified clerksworking excessivehours at the beckand call ofaccountants,young people willhave no desire togo to sea unlessthey are so stupidthat they wouldnot be able topass the requiredexams.’Master

‘Standards ofaccommodationin my industryhave declineddramatically.Cabin sharing isbecoming morecommon andsizes of cabins areshrinking. Weseem to havegone back 50years.’Chief engineer

No of years %

< 6 months 1.16–12 months 1.71–5 years 5.05–10 years 5.5> 10 years 86.6

Age %

16–20 1.921–30 10.731–40 14.141–50 37.851–60 32.6> 60 2.9

How old are you?

How long have you been aseafarer/served at sea?

Social conditions survey

Rank Totals

Eng:35.9%

Masters: 32.7%Deck:

24.5%

Other:6.9%

PAY

More than 80% of those in the survey receiveconsolidated payments, including overtime — slightlyhigher than the 68% figure from the ITF/MORI survey,but very much in line with the 79% finding forseafarers serving on UK flag vessels.

Wide fluctuations in pay rates were uncovered inthe survey. The best paid masters and officersreceived salaries three times above the median fortheir rank, while the worst paid received as little asone-third the salaries of the highest paid.

The highest monthly salary uncovered in thesurvey was £8,500 for a chief engineer officer, whilethe lowest was £392 for a first-year cadet.

High levels of dissatisfaction with pay wereevident in the survey, and the wide disparities in ratesfor various ranks (cadets in particular) were cited as afrequent cause for concern.

Almost 90% of those in the survey were paid inSterling, 9% were paid in US$, and the remainder (indescending order) in DM, NK, Irish £, dinar and ringits.

Almost 40% received additional payments, mostcommonly including profit shares, performance-

related payments, pilotage payments, and anchorhandling and towing bonuses.

Just over 89% had pension plans. Of these, almost40% were MNOPF members, 5.1% MNOPP and 4.8% inthe NUMAST PPP. Just over one-third were membersof private pension plans and almost 17% had otherarrangements. There was a virtual 50-50 splitbetween those whose employers contributed topension plans and those who did not.

Shipping is, of course, a highly competitiveglobalised industry and one in which labour costshave faced unrelenting pressures for several decadesnow. However, the complex relationships betweenthe perceptions of maritime professionals comparingtheir work and responsibilities with similaroccupational groups means that such pressures are indanger of creating deep and damagingdisillusionment.

EMPLOYMENT

6

The findings

‘After 28 years atsea I am Master ofa British shipwhere the Polishofficers and creware employedunder a contractof employmentthat I envy. I haveno contract ofemployment,sickpay or pension.’Ferry master

‘To attract smartstaff capable ofmanaging themselves,others and theship as a business,perhaps officersshould be seen asmanagers andequipped withthe required tools,status and motivation toachieve such.’ReliefMaster/chiefofficer

‘It is becomingincreasinglyapparent thatMasters are seenpurely as shipdrivers.’Captain

Yes 39.6%No 60.4%

Are you entitled to receive anyadditional payments beyond those

identified above, such as profitshare or bonus payments?

How are you employed?Type %

By the shipowner/manager 68.1By a private manning agency 25.6Other 6.3

Duration %

Upto 2 months 49.22–6 months 44.96–12 months 4.1> 12 months 1.8

How long is your normal tour of duty?

Do you have a pension plan?Yes 89.3%No 10.7%

If you have a pension plan, whichdo you belong to?

Pension %

MNOPF 39.2MNOPP 5.1NUMAST PPP 4.8Private pension plan 34.2Other 16.7

Does your employer contribute toyour pension plan?

Yes 49.5%No 50.5% Are you on a continuous contract?

Yes 86.3%No 13.7%

Duration %

Upto 2 months 22.32–6 months 51.16–12 months 14.912–24 months 6.9Over 24 months 4.8

Are you serving on an ‘offshore’contract?

Yes 59.4%No 40.6%

If no, how long is your currentcontract?


How are you paid?Type %

Basic pay excluding overtime 18Consolidated pay inc. overtime 82

‘Despite recentcampaigns toincrease theamount of cadets,being trained andencouraged tojoin the MerchantNavy as a career, Ipersonally woulddiscourageanyone from joining what isstill an insecureprofession.’Chief engineer

‘I am dismayed atthe ever increasingamount of paperworkbrought about byISM. It allows lesstime to do “real”maintenance andendless hours usedpushing paperaround and fillingin hundreds ofpointless andmeaninglessforms,checklistsand even checklists ofchecklists. It doesnot make shipsany safer and Ibelieve all this candistract the OOWfrom his primefunction “keepinga proper lookout.’Chief officer (Snr DPO)

One-third of respond-ents were employedby shipowners/-managers and 45%by private manningagencies — almostthe identical proport-ions reported bythose taking part in the ITF/MORI survey.

Just over 54% had their conditions determined byNUMAST collective bargaining agreements, 4% by ITFagreements and 28.5% through individual contractterms.

Nearly half those surveyed had a normal tour ofduty of up to two months, 44% two to six months, 4%six to 12 months and 1.8% over 12 months. Just over86% were on continuous contracts. Of those whowere not on continuous contracts, 22% said theircurrent contract was for up to two months, 51% fortwo to six months, 15% for six to 12 months, 7% for 12to 24 months and 5% over 24 months.

Almost 60% were serving on ‘offshore’ contracts.Read in conjunction with the perceptions about

company loyalty and job satisfaction, it is clear thatchanges in the patterns of employment, the waningof ‘benevolent paternalism’ from shipping companyemployers, and the more casualised nature of agencywork are creating fundamental shifts in attitudeamong masters and officers, and perceptions aboutself-esteem and standing in the community that maybe in conflict with the need to recruit and retainhighly motivated, intelligent professional seastaff.

CREWING

One-third of the sample were serving on ships withbetween 1-15 crew, 28.5% with 16-25 crew, 16.5% with26-40 crew and one-fifth with more than 40.

Just over three-quarters of those surveyed saidthey considered there were sufficient seafarersonboard to safely operate their vessel. However, many

added comments to indicate that this was only innormal operating conditions and not in the event ofan emergency or sufficient to maintain the vessel tothe desired standards.

Of the 21% who statedthat extra crew memberswere needed, 30%indicated the need forone additional seafarer,36% two, 20% three, and14.5% four or more. Thedepartment most frequently cited as needingadditional manning was the engineroom.

Almost one-quarter ofthe respondents wereserving on singlenationality crewed ships,26% with twonationalities, 19% withthree, 11% with four, 7%with five and 12.5% withsix or more.

SATISFACTION WITH SHIPBOARDCONDITIONSThe survey results suggest that officers are generallysatisfied with many of their conditions, and a largenumber of the replies are broadly in line with theITF/MORI research. The highest levels of satisfaction(over 80%) were reported for: onboard medical care;tour lengths; contact with home and family; and food.The lowest levels of satisfaction (60-50%) wererecorded on: workload; stress levels; shore leave; pay;


The findings

Area %

Deepsea 46.9Shortsea 27.3Coastal 16.2Other 9.6

What type of vessel are youworking on?

What is your trading area?

Type %

Bulk carrier 3.6Chemical carrier 3.0General cargo 3.2Container 10.4Crude oil tanker 8.8Cruise ship 6.6Gas carrier 4.8Offshore support vessel 17.9Roay Fleet Auxiliary 4.9Reefer (refrigerated cargo) 1.5Freight ferry 6.1Passenger ferry 10.2Other 19.1

1-15: 34.2%

16-25:28.6%

26-40:16.6%

Over 40:20.6%

Yes:78.6%

No:21.4%

How many seafarers are

onboard your ship?

Do you feel you have sufficient persons onboard

to safely operate the vessel?

Number %

1 29.72 36.13 19.64 or more 14.5

If no, how many extra persons doyou think are needed?

Number %

1 24.22 26.03 19.14 11.15 7.06 or more 12.6

How many different nationalitiesare there onboard your ship?

Aspect Better Same Worse n/a

Opportunities for promotion 17.7 54.2 19.4 8.8

Morale generally 4.5 33.4 61.6 0.5Support/help

with problems 12.6 58.0 27.8 1.6Job satisfaction 8.1 41.6 49.5 0.8

and job security. Thetwo fields with amajority expressingdissatisfaction wererecreational facilitiesonboard and morale.

Whilst the surveyresults indicate that,overall, officers aregenerally satisfied withshipboard conditions, many of the accompanyingcomments demonstrate an underlying dissatisfactionwith key aspects of their profession.

The answers to questions about changes over thepast decade also indicate that many officers believethat conditions have declined in this period. Between60-80% considered that workloads, fatigue, stresslevels, working hours, company loyalty and moralehad worsened over the past 10 years or so. A majorityof those expressing views also considered thatmanning levels, shore leave, pay and job satisfactionhad also deteriorated. The only elements which wereperceived to have improved over the past decadewere health and safety and contact with home andfamily.

Once again, many of the results in the NUMASTresearch are in line with those obtained during theITF/MORI study five years previously. Compared withthe NUMAST Conditions for Change report, of adecade ago, the results show a slight reduction in theproportions considering that working hours, fatigueand stress have worsened in the past 10 years. Theproportions reporting an improvement in workinghours have increased from 1% in 1992 to 8% today andmore than 52% now consider health and safety tohave improved in the past decade, compared with32% in the Conditions for Change survey.

However, there has been a marked decline in theproportions noting an improvement in jobsatisfaction and a small reduction in the numbersconsidering that company loyalty has got better.

It is clear from the study and comments made insurvey reports that elements of these trends, as notedearlier, have an adverse impact on the seafarers’perceptions of their roles and responsibilities, and ontheir attitudes towards their profession. Moretransient employment patterns and reducedcompany loyalty often mean a substantial change inthe relationship of masters and officers to theiremployers and to their colleagues, as well as reducedunderstanding of the ships and the trades in whichthey serve.


Satisfaction

Although the shipis new and safetystandards arefairly high, thecompany treatsseastaff verypoorly. 12% isadded to sat-phonecharges,and creware not allowed touse e-mail.Tanker master

‘Accommodationlevels andcommon roomsvery basic,withshore leave all butimpossible.Thewhole trip is spentonboard,soimprovementwould bewelcome.’Master

‘Shipownersshould providemore onboardleisure activities.For too long it hasbeen thoughtthat a box ofvideos is sufficient. It isn’t!’Master

30 40 50 60 70 80 90

% satisfaction with specific aspects of shipboard life

Working hours

Workload

Stress levels

Manning levels

Time for sleep/rest

Shore leave

Tour lengths

Recreationalfacilities onboard

Travel to/from ship

On board medical care

Contact with home/family

Accommodation

Food

Pay

Job security

Provision of training

Opportunities for promotion

Morale generally

Support/help with problems

67.6%

55.8%

52.8%

68.7%

67.5%

56.1%

81.5%

48.3%

74.1%

82.1%

80.7%

75.2%

80.1%

51.9%

59.1%

64.7%

68.9%

49.3%

61.3%

%

0 20 40 60 80 100

Working hours

Fatigue

Workload

Stress levels

Health & safety

Morale

Company loyalty

Manning levels

Time for sleep/rest

Shore leave

Tour lengths

Recreational facilities onboard

Travel to/from ship

Onboard medical care

Contact withhome/family

Accommodation

Food

Pay

Job security

Provision of traiing

Opportunities for promotion

Morale generally

Support/help with problems

Job satisfaction

How, if at all, have the following aspects of life onboard changed in the last 10 years

Better Same Worse Not applicable

%

Method %

Under NUMAST collective bargaining agreement 54.3Under ITF agreement 4.0Under individual contract terms 28.5None of the above 13.2

How are your conditionsdetermined?

Yes:67.1%

No:32.9%

Do you consider the conditions on your ship reflect your status as

an experienced professional seafarer?

Do yougiven ththe respo

SAFETYSeafaring has always been adangerous occupation, andthe survey results underlinethe scale of shipboardaccidents — even though alarge majority rate theirvessels as safe. One-quarter ofofficers rated the overallsafety condition of their ship asexcellent, almost 55% described itas good, almost 18% average and only 1.1% poor. Thesefigures are markedly higher than those reported bythe participants in the ITF/MORI survey – althoughthat report noted that masters and senior officers aremore likely to give a high safety rating to their shipsthan other ranks.

However, as with the ITF/MORI study, it appearsthat accidents are a frequent occurrence onboard.Accidents involving crew members slipping or fallingdominate, reported by more than 73% of those in thesurvey as having occurred on their ship. Just over 40%reported incidents involving fire, almost 35% accidentsduring loading or unloading in port, almost one-thirdcollapse of equipment or structures, and just under30% rope-related accidents. All these figures aresignificantly higher than the accident rates reportedby those taking part in the ITF/MORI survey.

More than 12% of thosesurveyed said the mostrecent accident onboardtheir ship had taken placewithin the previous monthand more than 40%reported an accident ontheir vessel within theprevious two to six months— slightly higher than the general ITF/MORI rates, butin line with that survey’s findings for UK seafarers (ofwhom 44% reported at least one accident onboardtheir ship in the previous six months). Only 6.3% ofthose in the NUMAST survey said there had been noaccidents onboard their ships in recent years,compared with 22% in the ITF/MORI report.

More than 80% said the accidents had beenproperly recorded in an official book — significantlyhigher than the numbers reported to ITF/MORI, andperhaps indicating that UK seafarers are well-disciplined in reporting accidents and incidents.

The frequency of safety training appears high, withmore than one-third reporting some safety trainingin the past month and 70% having received someform of safety training in the previous year.

In terms of shipboard safety, respondents weremost likely to rate lifeboats as being in poor condition,followed by structure/hull and deck/other surfaces.The highest safety ratings were given to fire-fightingequipment,enginerooms and ladders and railings.

RESPONSIBILITY/RESOURCES

Almost two-thirds of officers said the conditionsonboard their ship reflected their status as a profes-sional seafarer,and around 60% said the were given theresources and the authority to meet the responsibilitiesexpected of them as skilled professionals. These resultsare a marked change from the Conditions for Changequestionnaire carried out a decade earlier, whichshowed figures almost the complete reverse.Could it be


Safety

‘Safetyinspections, safetydrills and safetytraining alwayshave been anintegral part oflife at sea, but asmore and more ofthe officers onany ship are beingdragged underthe flood of ISMpaperwork thenthe time availableto physically lookafter the vesseland itscomplement isbecoming severelylimited and willonly improve ifminimummanningcertificates areamended to takeaccount of thishuge extraworkload… Thesafety has alwaysbeen there. It isthe paperworkwhich could beputting lives atrisk.’Chief engineer

0 20 40 60 80 100

Thinking about safety on board your ship,how would you rate each of the following?

Good Average Poor

Firefighting equipment

Lifeboats

Engine room

Structure/hull

Ladders/railings

Deck/other surfaces

Work supervision

Excellent:25.4%

Good:55.5%

Average:18.0%

Poor: 1.1%

How would you rate theoverall safety of your vessel?

0 20 40 60 80

Fire

Collapse of equipment/structure

Crew member slipping/falling

Rope accident

Incident duringon/off loading in port

Other

Have any of the following accidentsoccurred onboard your ship?

42.4%

32.4%

73.4%

29.3%

34.6%

20.9%

<1 month:12.8%

2–6 months:40.1%

6–12 months:17.5%

1–2 years:10.2%

Over 2 years: 8.2%

No accidents: 6.3%

Don'tknow: 4.8%

How long ago did the most recent accident onboard occur?

Yes 87.4%No 4.4%Don’t know 8.2%

Was this accident properly recorded in an official book?

When were you lastgiven safety training?

<1 month:35.7%

2–6 months:22.9%

6–12 months:

11.5%

1–2 years:10.0%

Over 2 years:15.8%

Never:4.4%

When were you last givenany other kind of training?

<1 month:29.4%

2–6 months:23.1%

6–12 months:13.6%

1–2 years:13.2%

Over 2 years:15.8%

Never: 4.4%

Do you consider you are provided with sufficient opportunity to influence

fleet company policy as it affects your employment?

Yes:27.9%

No:72.1%

Do you consider that you should be?

Yes:93.2%

No:6.8%

that the ISM Code has had the desired effect?However, it remains very clear that masters and

officers feel seriously divorced from the managementand direction of their companies’ fleet policies. Morethan 70% said they do not have sufficient opportunityto influence such policies, and almost half said theydid not consider their employers regarded them as anintegral member of the company’s managementstructure. Less than half were involved in finance andpolicy-making decisions on matters related to theirship, even though 90% considered that they should be.

IMPROVING CONDITIONSThe survey shows very clearly the factors consideredto be most important in improving life at sea: morepay, more leave and improved shipboard facilities.Compared with the results of the Conditions forChange report in 1992, the figures show that reducedworking hours and shorter tour lengths have becomeless important as issues to improve. Telephone and e-mail services are clearly viewed as the mostimportant issues in terms of shipboard facilities, withinternational telephone services, transport to andfrom the ship, port-based medical clinics and postalservices ranked among the most important port-based welfare facilities. The trend to reducing or evenremoving the opportunity for shore leave also creates

a pressure for improved shipboard social conditions,clearer work/life divisions and better mechanisms forcontact with home and family.

10

Responsibility/resources

‘Most managersand supervisorshere managewith intimidationand threats (oreven corruption).People are scaredto talk for fear ofbeing “fixed”(eg. demotion) oreven losing their job.’Training officer

‘During recentyears the responsibilitieshave increased,while the level ofmanagementsupport hasdecreased and theculture of blameis becoming moreand more thenorm.’Chief engineer

‘I would like to betreated with thecommon decencythat should beaccorded to allhuman beings.Are MN personnelappreciated onlyin wartime?’Master

Do you consider you are given the authority to meet the responsibilities expected

of you as a skilled professional?

Yes:71.1%

No:28.9%

e t

ceit Do you

Do you consider you are given the resources to meet

the responsibilities expected of you as a skilled professional?

Yes:62.4%

No:37.6%

ou are to meet

0 20 40 60 80 100

Reduced working hours

Reduced workload/responsibilities

Shorter tour lengths

Better accommodation

Improvedshipboard facilities

More leave

More pay

Better training

Better communicationswith home

What changes would most improveyour life at sea?

Essential Signficant Not much

%

0 20 40 60 80 100%

International telephone services

Internet cafe

Money changing

Postal services

Shore side accommodation

Personal counselling services

Sports facilities

Organised sightseeing

Reading room/library

Video/book exchange

Transport to and from ship

Port-based medical clinic

Social meeting place

Place of worship

Essential Important Not important

How important is each of the followingport-based welfare services to you?

Are you regarded by your employeras an integral member of the

company’s management structure?Yes 50.3%No 49.7%

Yes 87.8%No 12.2%

Do you consider you are provided with sufficient opportunity to influence

fleet company policy as it affects your employment?

Yes:27.9%

No:72.1%

Do you consider that you should be?

Yes:82.8%

No:17.2%


Do you consider that you should be? 0 20 40 60 80 100%

Officers' lounge

Video

Library

Gym

Pool

Education/distance learning

Telephone

E-mail

Essential Important Not important

How important is each of thefollowing facilities to you?

MEMBERS’ COMMENTSThe survey form concluded with an open-ended invi-tation for officers to make any comments they wished.More than half the respondents took this opportunity,and many of their comments are included in thisreport. The problems caused by excessive workloads,increased paperwork and reduced crewing were mostfrequently raised. The other points most often bymembers were:✪ Poor standards of training✪ Inexperienced junior officers and crew✪ Poor management/lack of proper consultation

and negotiation✪ High turnover of crew✪ Language problems among multinational

crews✪ Poor standards of accommodation✪ Poor onboard social life✪ No opportunities to go ashore✪ High costs of personal communications ✪ Fraudulent certificates✪ Insecurity of employment✪ Noise/vibration in cabin✪ Alcohol bans✪ The need for business class seats on long

flights to join ships✪ Fear of victimisation and legal ‘scapegoating’

after accidents✪ Deteriorating quality of food

BUT IT’S NOT ALL BAD…

‘I work for a small Bahamas based company. Iam on a 1:1 contract (4 months on/4 off). Thework is hard, being an independent companyon the spot market. I am paid well. I am welltreated.The company operates a performancebonus awarded annually. The company is nottop-heavy with management compared withsome major companies I have worked for. I amperfectly content with my present position.’

Chief Officer

‘I work on a well-found cruise ship with excellent facilities.We are continually trying toimprove crew conditions on board and arewell supported by the company in our efforts.’

Captain

‘I’m generally happy working for a small,emerging company. I like my ship, despite herage (28 years) and I like working with the flexible bunch of men I have as crew. You’vemade me realise that I actually have a goodjob despite the lack of a proper contract!’

Master

‘My present terms and conditions are the best Ihave experienced in 24 years at sea.This is duein a large part to a workforce who are very welltrained, mostly union members and to thebest support from NUMAST that I have everknown.The union works!’

Chief Officer

‘I am happy with my conditions. I am fed upwith people moaning.You have to put somethingin to get satisfaction out.’

Master


Members’ comments

‘I have decided tostart shoreemployment after19 years at sea.My main reasonfor leaving seaemployment isthat if the changesof the last 20 yearscontinue, then I donot wish to beemployed onships.’Master

‘The vast majorityof people I knowat sea are therebecause theyhave to be andnot because theyenjoy it.’Second officer(Deck)

‘Working formanagementcompanies meansthey will alwaysput the client firstand not theseafarer.Generally,nobodyhas any companyloyalty nowadays;because nobodyworks for companies/owners any more.’Master

CONCLUSIONSNUMAST has welcomed the impetus to addressmaritime safety issues provided in recent years byaccidents such as the Erika. However, we continue tobelieve that such responses – though well motivated –repeatedly fail to tackle the fundamental core issuesthat undermine critical areas of safe operation,concentrating on immediate causes rather thandevoting deeper scrutiny to underlying issues. In fact,the case of the Erika demonstrated once again thatthe response to an accident is so often to detain,charge and incarcerate shipmasters and officers.

Successive studies have emphasised theimportance of the human element in safe shipping.Research has demonstrated that ‘human factors’ arecritical in as much as 90% of accidents at sea, so it iscrucial that we address the issues that underminehuman performance. Last year, IMO secretary-generalWilliam O’Neil spoke of his ‘gnawing concern’ aboutthe reasons why ‘intelligent, well-trained, highly-skilled and experienced seafarers make criticalmistakes despite the advances in technology whichhave been designed to make them more efficient and,by inference, safer in the way they operate.’ Hesuggested that a ‘combination of elements’ could beat the root of such incidents, including fatigue,boredom, health, familiarity, carelessness, familyproblems, pressure to meet schedules and shipboardliving conditions.

At its 20th session in November 1997, the IMOAssembly adopted Resolution A.850(20)on thehuman element vision, principles and goals. Thishighlighted the need for governments to encouragethose responsible for the management and operationof ships to develop, implement and assess safety andpollution prevention management systems. Theresolution acknowledged the need for increasedfocus on human-related activities in the safeoperation of ships, and the need to achieve andmaintain high standards of safety and environmentalprotection for the purpose of significantly reducingmaritime casualties. It pointed out: ‘The humanelement is a complex multi-dimensional issue thataffects maritime safety and marine environmentalprotection. It involves the entire spectrum of human

activities performed by ships’ crews, shore basedmanagement, regulatory bodies, recognisedorganisations, shipyards, legislators, and otherrelevant parties, all of whom need to cooperate toaddress human element issues.’

Despite such high-level initiatives, the shippingindustry and flag states have been slow to respond tothe repeated evidence of seriously adverse effects onthe human element created by destructive crewingpolicies. NUMAST believes that the increasedglobalisation of the shipping industry and the trendto use multinational crews, largely selected on thebasis of low cost, has created huge problems forseafarers — many of whom are effectivelydisenfranchised in terms of the social and welfareprotection that is extended to workers ashore. Even incountries such as the UK, seafarers are routinelyexcluded from domestic legislation coveringemployment, safety and welfare issues, and thisposition has been exacerbated by flagging out tocountries that lack either the political will or theresources to enforce international regulations andcodes.

NUMAST believes this survey has provided furtherevidence of the problems that create extensivedemoralisation and demotivation among seafarers.The findings from this latest survey underline onceagain how, despite this acknowledgement at thehighest level, the importance of the human factorcontinues to be ignored. It demonstrates how those‘at the sharp end’, with high levels of responsibilityand safety-critical duties, feel under-valued, over-worked and demotivated.

At a time when the shipping industry is facingever-increasing demands for safe and efficientoperations, the evidence that those with immediateresponsibility for discharging those duties are sodissatisfied is of immense concern.

Similarly, at a time when the industry is facing agrowing skills crisis, the levels of dissatisfaction withkey elements of work and conditions at sea are also ofconcern. Research conducted by London GuildhallUniversity shows that, on current trends, UK officernumbers will decline by more than 40% over the next


Conclusions

‘Manning, lack ofsupport fromhead office andincrease inpaperwork mademe leave my lastChief Engineer’sposition. Thestress levels hadbuilt up to suchan extent that Iwas makingmyself ill at thethought ofanother trip.’Second engineer

‘Officers at seawere once importantmembers of society,now weare less than meretechnicians,whilemore cargo iscarried at morerisk to the environment wetry to protect.A once nobleoccupation is nowto be avoided atall costs (look atpay levels andnew recruits).’Third engineerofficer

12 years. Cadet recruitment in the UK, and othertraditional maritime nations such as Greece andNorway, is at barely one-third the level acknowledgedas necessary to meet future needs. Internationally,the research suggests the world will be short of some46,000 officers by the end of this decade — or asmuch as 90,000 if world trade grows faster thanexpected. However, the shipping industryindisputably suffers from a negative public image,and the first-hand perceptions of senior staffreflected in this survey further fuel a poor perceptionof conditions that presents a serious obstacle to therecruitment and retention of properly skilled andqualified staff.

There is an urgent and increasing need forregulatory measures and changes in shippingcompany policies to end the continued downwardspiral in the nature of the seafaring profession. Thedecline of terms and conditions and the casualisationof the working environment have fosteredfundamental problems affecting the recruitment andretention of skilled professional staff, creating aserious long-term problem that exacerbates theinternational industry’s growing labour crisis.

NUMAST also believes that port state controlpolicies need to be developed far more extensively inthe area of ‘human factors’ and the social, workingand living conditions of the crew, including elementssuch as wages, working hours, communications,personal safety and welfare.

More work is also required to ensure that flagstates effectively monitor the operation of ships ontheir registries — including the social and welfareconditions of seafarers. It is clear, as was noted in2002 by the ILO panel of experts consideringmaritime working conditions in 2002, that manyseafarers are now essential ‘migrant’ workers, withlittle or no relationship between the flag of the shipson which they serve and their own nationality. In suchcircumstances, it is essential that ship registries andmaritime administrations have the necessarycommitment and resources to ensure that they cancomply with their responsibilities for theenforcement of international labour standards. In this

context, it is disturbing that even some ‘traditional’maritime nations seem reluctant to embrace the 10principles proposed by the ILO as part of its ongoingwork to achieve the enforcement of ‘decent work’policies.

In its report on seafarers’ working conditionspublished in 2001, the ILO concluded: ‘The industryhas a powerful need for a self-confident, proud andhighly-skilled workforce; however more coherenceand quality in training will not in itself be sufficient.There are also the pressing social and human rightsissues associated with crew composition and size,wage levels, continuity of employment, health andsafety, the quality of shipboard life, and, above all andquite fundamentally, an unfailing recognition of theseafarer’s need for dignity and respect.’

At present, it appears that the industry is unwillingor unable to respond in a sophisticated way to thesometimes conflicting demands and requirementsarising from its ‘human element’. There appears to belittle effort expended to assess and respond to thedrastic changes of the nature of shipping andseafaring employment and to formulate constructivepolicies to address such challenges as the socialimpact of reduced crew levels, less time in port,multinational crew complements and theintroduction of technological aids to ship operationand navigation. There are profound psychological andsocial issues to be considered here, but the shippingindustry’s constant quest for economies seems topreclude a rational approach to these.

NUMAST presents this report to the industry andto those who regulate and control it, in the hope thatit will provide an insight into the ways in which thatdignity and respect is often currently being denied tothose at the sharp end. It is essential, for the future ofsafe and efficient shipping operations, that theseissues are dealt with and that shipmasters andofficers are treated in a way that fosters confidenceand pride, and encourages recruitment, retention andprogression of the skilled and experienced personnelthat the industry so desperately needs.


Conclusions

‘The single, mostimportant factorto improving lifeat sea is toincrease manningin the areaswhere a shortageof personnel hasreduced manningto levels wherewe, who still workat sea, are nolonger able toperform ourduties fully andsafely.’Electrotechnicalofficer

‘Modern management onlygive limited accessto decisionmaking within thecompany.Shipboardmanagement isonly there to takethe blame.Accountants rulethe waves.’Master

‘My workload hasmore thandoubled in the last10 years,with bothcompany andstatutory paperwork beingthe reason.’Chief engineer

RECOMMENDATIONS

✪ shipowners, flag states and others shoulddemonstrate by regulations and policies thatseafarers are considered as valued professionals,afforded suitable employment security andcontinuous training

✪ codes of practice should be developed by theindustry to prevent unfair and damagingcompetition caused by inadequate manninglevels, unfair or substandard employmentpolicies, and the avoidance of training byshipowners/operators

✪ shipping companies should committhemselves to the development of ‘partnershipat work’ agreements and similar concepts forimproved dialogue and consultation with theirmasters and officers

✪ shipmasters and officers need regulatory protection from unnecessary and/or prolongeddetention in wider disputes over liability ordamages

✪ shipmasters and officers must be givengreater protection against victimisation and/orcommercial pressures in the exercise of their professional judgement on safety issues

✪ new regulatory mechanisms are essential toprotect the basic social, welfare andemployment rights of seafarers employed under‘globalised’ conditions

✪ the industry and the authorities mustcompile and disseminate detailed internationalrecords on seafarer health and safety statistics.

✪ flag states must fully investigate allcasualties, incidents and complaints and publishtheir findings as soon as practicable and

accident investigations must make a full andsystematic assessment of the role of the humanelement in accident causation. Action must betaken against flag states that consistently failto investigate, or publish the results ofinvestigations into accidents involving shipsusing their registers

✪ revision of the principles used to assess thesafe manning of ships must be accompanied byconcerted efforts to enforce adequate crewcomplements and to prevent unfair competition through relaxed interpretation of international standards

✪ urgent action is needed to implementproposals to create a ‘safety net’ of insuranceprovision to provide financial security forabandoned seafarers. This should create asystem of financial security, together with aforum such as an international seafarers’ court,to which seafarers can have ready and easyaccess to guarantee payment of wages whichare due and owing and to guarantee thepayment of compensation where seafarers areinjured or killed in work related incidents;

✪ the industry and flag states must developnew mechanisms to promote maritimetraining, to curtail wastage rates and to reversethe growing global shortage of skilled andexperienced seafarers

✪ concentrated programmes of PSC inspections should be undertaken to focus on ‘humanelement issues and onboard social and workingconditions. Port state control procedures shouldbe refined to place greater emphasis upon STCWand ILO Convention requirements

✪ full support should be given to thedevelopment and adoption of the new ILOconsolidated maritime convention, allowing theenforcement and application of minimumsocial standards via port state control.


Recommendations

‘After more than30 years as a MNofficer I feel that,whilst there havebeenimprovements in safety andother relatedareas, the statusand standing ofthe MerchantNavy officer is atan all-time low.’Electro-technicalofficer

‘Basically feel I amoverworked,underpaid andunder valued bymy employer…The above,pluslack of job security,createshigh stress levels.Technology hasnot reduced workloads, it hasonly provided anexcuse to reducemanning or lesscompetentpersonnel.Thefew professionalsleft carry themain burden tosafely operate theship.’Master

Oceanair House750-760 High RoadLeytonstone London E11 3BB

t 020 8989 6677f 020 8530 [email protected]

Nautilus HouseMariners’ParkWallasey CH45 7PH

t 0151 639 8454f 0151 346 8801

General SecretaryBrian Orrell LLB (HONS)

We are asking people to fill in this questionnaire as part of a large scale study looking at people's experiences of using technology at sea. Your help would be greatly appreciated.

This questionnaire is voluntary and strictly confidential. We are only interested in groups of workers and therefore no individual will be identified in connection with any of the research findings. Your identity and responses to the questionnaire will be completely protected. You do not have to complete any of the questions if you do not want to and can stop at any time. Equally, if you feel you cannot answer a question just leave it blank. Once you move forward a page you will not be able to go back, so please make sure you are comfortable with your answers before moving on. It is not possible to save this questionnaire half way through and therefore please leave at least 15 minutes to complete it.

If you have any questions about the study, please contact Paul Allen E-mail: [email protected]. Tel: +44 (0)29 20876454

Technology is increasing onboard ships. In order to improve safety, reduce costs and maximise efficiency, technology is being brought in to all areas of seafarer life. No one has asked seafarers or people in the industry, however, what they feel about what is happening and how they find working with the technology being introduced. Is technology always a good thing, what do seafarers really value and how should things change? These are the questions we want to ask.

Introduction

General Perceptions of Technology

In this section we will ask you a number of questions relating to technology. Where ship systems used to be monitored directly, seafarers are now often faced with computer screens reporting back from parts of the ship remotely. We are particularly interested in your experience with such Information Communication Technology (ICT) in this questionnaire.

Computer LiteracyFor each of these areas please indicate your level of confidence. 1 = N o t a t a l l c o n f i d e n t, 5 = V e r y c o n f i d e n t

5. To what extent do you generally feel resistant, for whatever reason, to the introduction of new technology onboard ships?

Not at all

A little

Moderately

Quite a lot

A great deal

6. SHIP SECURITY

Not at all

A little

Moderately

Quite a lot

A great deal

1. E-mail 1 2 3 4 5

2. Word Processing (e.g. Microsoft Word)

1 2 3 4 5

3. Spreadsheets (e.g. Microsoft Excel)

1 2 3 4 5

4. Searching the internet (e.g. Microsoft Explorer)

1 2 3 4 5

7. OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY

Not at all

A little

Moderately

Quite a lot

A great deal

8. SHIP HEALTH AND SAFETY

Not at all

A little

Moderately

Quite a lot

A great deal

In your experience, to what extent do you feel Technology has helped in the following areas:

Below is a list of reasons why technology may cause problems onboard ships. Please indicate to what extent you have had any of these thoughts yourself:

11. I feel technology is putting seafarers out of work

Not thought this at all

Thought this a little

Thought this occasionally

Thought this quite a lot

Thought this a great deal

12. I feel technology tends to be introduced without sufficient training






13. I feel the introduction of technology undervalues the skills of the seafarer






14. I feel technology is often too unreliable to be of practical use






15. I feel cadets and new seafarers rely on technology too much






16. I feel timed watch alarms to keep watch keepers alert cause more harm than good






9. If you were given money to improve the usefulness of technology onboard ship where would you consider the best place to spend it?

Introduction of New Technology and the most up to date equipment

Increased Integration of different pieces of existing technology

Better Training of crew in terms of how to use ship technology

Other

10. If 'Other', please specify

Your opinion on specific pieces of technology

We want to know your opinions on some specific pieces of Information and Communication Technology (ICT). Please mark your opinions on the pieces of equipment listed below. You may not have necessarily used the equipment, but if you are familiar with what it does then please give us your opinion.

RADAR / ARPA

Machinery Space Monitoring Equipment

17. How familiar are you with this technology?

(a) I frequently use this technology

(b) I occasionally use this technology

(c) I know what this technology is, but have not used it

(d) I know very little/nothing about this technology [Skip to Question 21]






18. Level of Reliability

1 2 3 4 5

19. How User Friendly?

1 2 3 4 5

20. Standardisation across ships

1 2 3 4 5

Please rate this technology [1= Low/Bad. 5= High/Good]


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5

















AIS

ECDIS / Electronic Chart Systems

GPS (Satellite positioning for navigation)


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5



1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5



1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


37. Which best describes your work?

I am a seafarer

I am involved in ship support and logistics based onshore

I work for a shipping company (but not onboard ship)

I am involved in the design of ships and/or ship equipment

Other


What you do

You and your Vessel

41. Approximately how many crew are there on your present or most recent ship in total?

43. What is the flag or your current / most recent ship?

44. Please state the a p p r o x i m a t e size of you present or most recent vessel (State whether DWT or GT. Leave blank if size not known)

42. How many bridge watchkeeping officers are there on your present / most recent vessel?

39. Which of the following categories most closely matches the vessel you presently work on?

Passenger Ferry

High-Speed Ferry

Freight Ro-Ro

Products Tanker

Shuttle Tanker

Crude Tanker

Chemical Tanker

Gas Tanker

Car Carrier

Cruise Ship

Bulker

General Cargo

Reefer

Offshore Support

Supply Vessel

Standby Vessel

Dredger

Container Ship

Tug

Pilot Boat

Tanker (Other)

Other


46. Which of the following classifications best describes your present or most recent tour of duty?

Deep Sea

Short Sea and Coastal

Middle Sea (Baltic and Med) / Middle trade

Offshore

Other


45. Please state the a p p r o x i m a t e age of you present or most recent vessel (leave blank if age not known)

48. What is your official job title?

49. Which of the following Ranks best describes your role onboard ship?

Officer

Petty Officer

Rating

Other


51. Which Department would you most closely associate yourself with?

Deck

Engineering

Hotel / Catering

Integrated (Deck & Engineering)

Other


Technology and Your Ship

53. Different vessels have different amounts of technology on them. Thinking about your present / most recent ship, what was your g e n e r a l perception of the level of technology installed?

I would class it as a fairly 'High Tech' ship

I would class it as a fairly Average Technology ship

I would class it as a fairly 'Low Tech' ship

55. Have you ever had any training in terms of handling multiple alarms in the work place?

Yes No

57. On what basis do you feel you are most likely to decide an alarm is important?

Volume

Tone (e.g. siren versus bell)

Pitch (i.e. high versus low)

Other

58. If 'OTHER' please specify

56. Have you ever had any serious incidents as a result of problems with alarm handling?

Yes No

59. Do you have any access to e-mail for personal use onboard ship?

Yes No

61. Do you have any access to the internet for personal use onboard ship?

Yes No

60. How much value do you put on having access to e-mail for personal use onboard ship?

Very low value Low value Average value High value Very high value

54. Is your vessel certified as UMS (Unmanned Machinery Space)?

Yes No Don't know

62. How much value do you put on having access to internet for personal use onboard ship?

Very low value Low value Average value High value Very high value

63. Do you have any comments on the issue of e-mail or internet access for crew? If so, please use the space below to discuss

General Comments

To finish we just need some very basic information about you. This is just to help make our analyses as meaningful as possible...

66. Age

67. SexMale Female

68. Current status Single Living with partner

Married Separated

Widowed Divorced

70. Do you have any children?Yes No

69. What Nationality / citizenship are you?

Please click on 'Submit' below to return your responses to us. Thank You.

We would greatly value any more general comments from you to help guide our research. If you have any comments or thoughts on the issue of technology onboard ship please use the space below to tell us about them

65. General thoughts on ship technology

64. Would you generally like to see more or less technology onboard the ships you work with?

Would like to see more About right Would like to see less

ii a comparison of fatigue levels among malaysian

Documents