It reveals patterns and weaknesses that are overlooked in daily operations.
Near misses, deficiencies, technical findings and root cause clusters.
It only becomes effective when it feeds back into decision-making.
Structure by topic and fleet cluster, and review regularly.
Safety data in shipping encompasses a broad spectrum: accident and incident reports, near-miss notifications, PSC inspection results, internal audit findings, technical condition reports and crew feedback. The problem rarely lies in a lack of data – it lies in the absence of systematic analysis.
Most shipping companies collect safety data primarily to fulfil ISM Code requirements (Chapter 9: Reports and Analysis of Non-Conformities, Accidents and Hazardous Occurrences). The result is statistics that appear in quarterly reports: number of near misses, lost time injuries (LTI), PSC detentions. These figures satisfy the reporting obligation but rarely deliver the insights necessary for actual prevention.
The difference between compliance reporting and valuable data analysis lies in depth. Rather than merely counting how many near misses were reported, the analysis should ask: which systems or areas are affected? Are there seasonal patterns? Do certain incidents correlate with crew changes, specific trade routes or vessel age brackets? Only when data is organised into categories and time series do actionable patterns emerge.
Root-cause analyses are particularly valuable. A single engine room casualty is an incident. Ten engine room casualties across a fleet, all traceable to inadequate maintenance of fuel booster pumps, represent a systemic problem requiring a targeted PMS amendment and training measure. Without root-cause analysis, every incident remains an isolated event.
The Paris MoU database provides an example of the value of aggregated safety data. Operators can query the most common deficiency categories for their vessel type and flag, and derive targeted preventive measures from the results. If, for instance, “Fire Safety” and “Life-Saving Appliances” are the top findings for bulkers under a certain flag, the superintendent can focus the next internal inspection precisely on those areas.
The practical value of safety data only materialises when it is integrated into the decision-making process. This means: data must not only be collected and reported but regularly discussed in management meetings and translated into concrete measures.
A proven format is the monthly safety review, in which the DPA (Designated Person Ashore) together with technical management reviews the most significant incidents, trends and open actions. The aim is not another statistics presentation but answering three questions: What has changed? What requires a response? What can we do preventively?
Fleet cluster analyses are particularly powerful. If three out of five vessels of the same type show similar life-saving appliance findings within a year, this points to a systemic issue – not three individual cases. The response should be a fleet-wide PMS adjustment, not three separate corrections.
Feedback to the crew on board is equally critical. Crew members who report near misses rarely receive information about what happened as a result of their report. This undermines reporting culture. When the crew sees, however, that their report led to a concrete improvement – such as a revised work instruction or an additional safety notice – reporting willingness increases significantly.
A mid-sized tanker company with 15 vessels identified a conspicuous concentration of PSC findings in the “Fire Fighting Equipment” category over a two-year period. The individual findings appeared minor – expired fire extinguishers, missing markings, non-functional fire dampers.
Only systematic analysis revealed the pattern: the affected vessels were all of the same age (12-15 years) and all followed the same PMS maintenance cycle for fire-fighting equipment. The cycle had been designed for newer vessels and did not account for the increased wear on older systems. After adjusting the PMS cycle and conducting targeted crew training, findings in the following year dropped by over 60 per cent.
This example illustrates: the value of the data lay not in the individual finding but in the aggregation and correlation with vessel age and maintenance schedule. Without this analysis, each finding would have been treated as an isolated case and corrected individually – without resolving the underlying problem.
Three steps for better utilisation of safety data:
Categorise: Classify every report, finding and PSC deficiency by system, vessel type, age and region. Standardised categories enable subsequent comparison.
Aggregate: Search for patterns monthly or quarterly. The total number is not what matters; rather the distribution across categories and the change over time.
Act: Every identified pattern must lead to a concrete measure – whether a PMS amendment, a training session, a procurement decision or a revised inspection routine. Measures without a timeframe and a responsible person are worthless.
Free initial consultation – we analyze your situation and find the best path forward.
Request Consulting