Tag Archives: safety

Root Cause Analysis - Incident Investigation

Olympic Track Worker Hit By Bobsled

By Kim Smiley

A worker at the bobsled track for the Sochi Winter Olympics was hit by a bobsled on February 13, 2014.  The worker suffered two broken legs and a possible concussion, but is reported to be stable after undergoing surgery.  There was also minor damage done to the track.  Part of a lighting system suspended from the ceiling was replaced and time was needed to clean small plastic shards off the ice.

Investigation into this accident is still underway, but the information that is available in the media can be used to build an initial Cause Map. One of the advantages of using Excel to build Cause Maps is that they can be easily modified to incorporate additional information once the investigation is complete.

When beginning the Cause Mapping process, the first step is to fill in an Outline with the basic background information for an issue.  How an incident impacted the overall organizational goals is also documented on the bottom half of the Outline.  Once the Outline is completed, the Cause Map is built by asking “why” questions. (Click on “Download PDF” above to view a high level Cause Map and Outline for this accident.)

So why was the worker hit by a bobsled?  This occurred because a forerunner sled was sent down the track while the worker was on the track.  The forerunner sled was on the track because they are used to test the track prior to training runs and competitions, and training was scheduled later that day.  Forerunner sleds ensure that ice conditions are good and that all systems, like the timing system, are functional.  People at the top of the track can’t see the entire track so there wasn’t an easy way for them to identify the position of the worker prior to running the sled.  Initial reports are that the normal announcements were made to the workers prior to running the forerunner sled so it doesn’t appear that the people on the top of the track had any reason to suspect a problem.

The worker was on the track doing work to prepare it for the training runs and competition scheduled that day.  We can safely assume that he was unaware that the forerunner sled was running the track at the same time.  Investigators have determined that the worker was using a loud motorized air blower and believe he was unable to hear both the announcement and the approaching bobsled.  Two other workers were also working on the track, but they were able to scramble out of danger as the bobsled approached.  Until the investigation is complete, it won’t be clear if other factors were involved, but it seems the use of loud equipment played a role in the accident.

The final step in the Cause Mapping process is to find solutions to reduce the risk of a problem reccurring.  It appears that the current method of letting workers know to clear the track isn’t adequate in all situations.  Officials will need to modify the process, especially when loud equipment is in use, to ensure the safety of all workers.  Workers need to be on the track at times in order to do their jobs and there needs to be a way to ensure they have moved to a safe location prior to any sled running the track.

It’s worth noting this is not the first time someone has been hit by a bobsled. In 2005, recent silver medalist skeleton racer Noelle Pikus-Pace was hit by a bobsled.  She shattered a leg and ended up missing the 2006 Turin Olympics as a result.  This accident occurred on a different track, but it highlights the dangers of bobsled tracks and the important of ensuring safety.

Root Cause Analysis - Incident Investigation

Concerns Raised About Safety of Olympic Slopestyle Course

By Kim Smiley 

One of the stories making headlines leading up to the start of the 2014 Winter Olympics was concern about the safety of the slopestyle course.  There were early rumblings about the slopestyle course, especially after a few falls during training runs, but the media interest intensified after well-known snowboarder Shaun White withdrew from the event.   There is also a heighten sensitivity to safety concerns after the death of a luger during the last Winter Olympics , which was the first  death in Olympic training or competition since 1964.

Safety of the athletes involved in the Olympics is obviously paramount, but media coverage of slopestyle course safety concerns is also an issue because it created negative press for both the Olympics and the host country.  A Cause Map can be built to help analyze this issue and illustrate all the factors involved with the controversy surrounding the Olympic slopestyle course. (To see a high level Cause Map of this issue, click on “Download PDF”.)

Several athletes fell during training runs on the slopestyle course, which led to questions about course safety.   There were some injuries on the course, the most notable being Torstein Horgmo of Norway who broke his collarbone during a practice run.  Horgmo was a favorite to medal in the event and was unable to compete after his injury, which has to be heartbreaking.

The course is different from the typical slopestyle course, partly because this is the Olympics and the designer wanted an exciting course.   Athletes are getting more air time from the jumps on the course because they are large step-down jumps where the landing zones are below the ramps.  Designing the first Olympic slopestyle course was a unique challenge and there was no precedent.

The weather has been an added challenge for the course designer.  The jumps were created intentionally oversized with plans to modify them as needed to help accommodate melting concerns in the above freezing weather.  It’s much easier to make a jump smaller, as opposed to larger, so designers would rather err on the size of too big.  Rain and warm weather also played havoc with plans to test the course.  A test event scheduled for last February was canceled because of weather.  Tests were scheduled to allow for more time to groom the course prior to the Olympics, but six days of massive rains pushed course completion past schedule.

It’s also worth noting that there is inherent danger in slopestyle.  Slopestyle is an extreme sport with snowboarders performing high intensity tricks in the air.  Factor in the pressure to bring the goods in an Olympic event and snowboarders are going to be pushing their limits.  The falls don’t all happen on the jumps, despite media focus on the large jumps on this course.  Torstein Horgmo’s Olympic-ending crash occurred on the stair set on top of the course.   While a course can be made too dangerous, there will never be a completely safe slopestyle course because of the nature of the sport.

Snowboarder Shaun White made headlines when he pulled out of slopestyle because of injury concerns, but it’s also important to remember that slopestyle isn’t White’s main event.  Although White failed to reach the podium this Olympics, he was the defending gold medalist on the halfpipe and wasn’t willing to risk his chance to compete in that event.  White suffered minor injuries from a crash on the slopestyle course and he didn’t want to impact his halfpipe chances by getting hurt worse.  Halfpipe came after slopestyle so the consequences of a potential injury were high for White.  I’m willing to bet he would have been much more likely to compete in slopestyle if it occurred after the halfpipe event.

The slopestyle course was modified after training runs, which is typical for an untested slopestyle course.  Forty to fifty centimeters were removed from the top deck of the jumps and snow was added to the knuckles of each landing.  The course crew has been credited for listening to athletes’ concerns and being responsive to issues. Lessons learned from the experience with the first Olympics slopestyle course will hopefully help things go smoother next time.  I hope the focus during the next Olympics is on the amazing athletes and not so much on the course.

Root Cause Analysis - Incident Investigation

Ceiling Collapse in London’s 112-year-old Apollo Theatre Injures Dozens

By Kim Smiley

On December 19, 2013, 76 people were injured when a large section of plaster fell from the ceiling of London’s historic Apollo Theatre.  Luckily there were no fatalities as a result, but six people were seriously injured in the accident.

The investigation is still underway, but an initial Cause Map can be built to begin analyzing the incident.  The first step in the Cause Mapping process is to fill in an Outline with the basic background information as well as formally list how the incident impacts the goals so that no part of a multifaceted problem is neglected.  It’s important to understand how an issue impacts all goals, such has safety issues, financial considerations, schedule delays, etc. There are times when different solutions can help mitigate risks to separate goals so it is useful to list all impacted goals for clarity.   Listing the impacted goals will also help focus the investigation on the most important elements.

Another very important part of the Outline is a space where any relevant differences are listed.  Anything that was different at the time an incident occurred is usually a good place to start digging during an investigation.  For this example, there was heavy rain during the hour preceding the ceiling collapse.  It’s also worth noting that the Apollo Theatre is 112 years old.

Investigators have not announced what led to the ceiling collapse, but early speculation is that rain water leaked through the roof and settled onto the plaster.  The theory is that the additional weight from the water was more than the ceiling could handle and it fell, taking a lighting rig and part of a balcony with it.   If this was the case, there will need to be hard questions asked about the adequacy of current building codes and inspection requirements.  Currently, the roof on the Apollo Theatre was only required to be inspected every 3 years.  It appears that the Theatre was up to date on and had passed all required inspections so the required periodicity may need to be re-evaluated in light of the recent failure.

Any suspected causes that haven’t been proven yet can be included on the Cause Map, but are marked with a “?” to indicated that they need additional evidence.  This helps document what has been considered during an investigation and questions that still need to be answered.

To view an Outline and the initial Cause Map of the Apollo Theatre ceiling collapse, click on “Download PDF” above.

 

Root Cause Analysis - Incident Investigation

Rules on Inflight Electronics May be Changing Soon

By Kim Smiley

In welcome news to many airline passengers, it looks like the FAA may soon allow the use of personal electronic devices during the entire duration of flights, including takeoff and landing.  The current restrictions on the use of personal electronics are being reviewed following a recent recommendation by an aviation advisory committee made of up pilots, mechanics, engineers and other aviation experts.

A Cause Map, a visual format for performing a root cause analysis, can be used to analyze this issue.  A Cause Map is built by asking “why” questions and intuitively laying out the many causes that contributed to an issue to show the cause-and-effect relationships.  The first step in the Cause Mapping process is to document the basic background information as well as list how the issue impacts the goals in the an Outline.

One of the major impacts for this example is that there is concern that use of personal electronic devices onboard aircraft may be dangerous and increase the risk of a plane crash.  Currently, the use of personal electronics is allowed once a plane is above 10,000 feet, which is basically the whole flight except landing and takeoff which are considered the most critical portions of the flight.   These restrictions are in place because pilots depend on electronic systems, such as navigation and communications systems, to safely do their job and there is concern about the potential for interference with these vital systems.

How likely it is that dangerous interference could be an actual issue is debated.  There were 75 reports by pilots of suspected electronic device interference between 2003 and 2009, according to the International Air Transport Association.  However, it’s difficult to reproduce interference and it has never been cited as a cause in any airplane accident.  The current ban on the use of electronics also seems to be loosely enforced, raising questions about its necessity and effectiveness.  (A survey by the Consumer Electronics Association also found that nearly a third of airplane passengers said they left on a portable electronic device on a flight during the previous year.)  There seems to be a general consensus that this is low risk issue, but the potentially high consequences if it occurs has made some reluctant to reduce the restrictions.

There are also some non-technical issues that need to be considered with the onboard use of electronics.  There is concern that passengers enthralled with their devices will be distracted and miss important information during preflight safety briefs.  There is also a concern that larger devices, such as laptops, could become a missile hazard and hurt passengers if the plane moves unexpectedly.

If the new recommendations are approved, passengers will be able to use any device that doesn’t transfer data the entire flight, including takeoff and landing.  Passengers would be able to leave all devices turned on, but they would need to set them to airplane mode so that no data is transmitted.  So you won’t be able to make calls on your smartphone or stream video, but you would be able to rock out to music already downloaded or read a book on a kindle.  Larger devices will still need to be stowed during takeoff and landing because nobody wants to be hit with a laptop, but smaller gadgets will be fair game if the new recommendations are adopted.

To see a Cause Map of this issue, click on “Download PDF” above.

 

 

 

Root Cause Analysis - Incident Investigation

The loss of the Steamship General Slocum, June 15, 1904

By ThinkReliability Staff

On June 15, 1904, a church group headed out for an excursion through New York City’s East River on the Steamship General Slocum.  Approximately half an hour after the ship left the pier, it caught fire.  Despite being only hundreds of yards from shore, the Captain continued to go full speed ahead in hopes of beaching at North Brother Island, where a hospital was located.  This served to fan the flames quickly over the entire highly flammable ship, killing many in the inferno.  Most of those who were not killed by the fire drowned, even though the Captain did successfully beach the ship at North Brother Island, due to the depth of the water and lack of safety equipment.

To perform a root cause analysis of the General Slocum tragedy, we can use a Cause Map.  A thorough root cause analysis built as a Cause Map can capture all of the causes in a simple, intuitive format that fits on one page.  First we look at the impact to the goals.  On the General Slocum there were at least 1,021 fatalities of the passengers and crew that were aboard.  (However, only two of the crew were killed.)  Additionally, 180 were injured.  There were other goals that were affected but the loss of life makes any other goals insignificant.  The deaths and injuries are impacts to the safety goals.

Passengers drowned because they were in water over their heads with inadequate help or safety equipment.  Passengers were either in the water because they fell when the deck collapsed, or because they jumped into the water trying to avoid the fire.  The water was too deep to stand because only the bow was in shallow water and the passengers could not reach the bow.  This was due to a poor decision on the Master’s part (namely his decision to beach the ship at a severe angle, with the bow in towards the island, instead of parallel to the island, where passengers would have been able to wade to shore.)  Note that the Master himself (and most of the crew) were on the bow side of the ship and were able to (and did) jump off and wade to shore.  The safety equipment, including life preservers, life boats, and life rafts, was mostly unusable due to inadequate upkeep and inadequate inspections.

Passengers (and two crewmembers) were also killed by fire.  Once the fire was started, it spread rapidly and was not put out.    The fire spread rapidly because the ship was highly flammable.  When this ship was constructed, there was no consideration of flammability.  Additionally, the current of air created by the vessel speeding ahead drove the fire across the ship.  The fact that an experienced Master would have allowed this situation was considered misconduct, negligence and inattention to duty – charges for which the Master was later convicted.   The fire was not put out because of inadequate crew effort and insufficient fire-fighting equipment.  The crew effort was inadequate because of a lack of training.  The fire-fighting equipment was insufficient because of inadequate upkeep and inadequate inspections.  (Possibly you are noticing a theme here?)

Although many people have not heard of the General Slocum tragedy, many of its lessons learned have been implemented to make ship travel safer today.  However, many of the solutions were not implemented widely enough or in time to prevent the Titanic disaster from occurring eight years later.  (Although there were nearly as many people killed on the General Slocum, it is believed that the Titanic disaster is more well known because the passengers on Titanic were wealthy, as opposed to the working class passengers on General Slocum.  It is also surmised that sympathy for the highly German population aboard General Slocum was diminished as World War I began.)

In a macabre ending to a gruesome story, ships began replacing their outdated, decrepit life preservers after the investigation on General Slocum.  It was later found that the company selling these new life preservers had hidden iron bars within the buoyant material, in a dastardly attempt to raise their apparent weight.  Unfortunately there were no adequate laws (then) against selling defective life-saving equipment.

Root Cause Analysis - Incident Investigation

Deadly Plane Crash at San Francisco Airport

By Kim Smiley

On July 6, 2013, Asiana Airlines Flight 214 crashed while attempting to land at the San Francisco International Airport. Three people have died as a result of the crash and around 180 others were injured, 13 critically. The cause of the crash is currently under investigation, but there were no obvious mechanical issues and the weather was near perfect.

Even though the investigation is still in its infancy, an initial Cause Map can be built to document what is known now about the accident and it can easily be expanded later as more information becomes available. A Cause Map is a visual format for performing a root cause analysis that intuitively lays out the different causes for an accident. The first step in the Cause Mapping process is to fill in an Outline with the basic background information for an issue. On the bottom half of the Outline there is space to document how the problem impacts the overall goals. This is useful because it helps everyone involved in the process understand the big picture and the issues with the more significant impacts can be prioritized first.

There is also space on the Outline to list anything that was different or unusual at the time the problem occurred. It’s important to note any differences because they are usually worth exploring during an investigation because they may have played a role in the accident. In this specific example, this was the first time the pilots had worked together and the two main pilots were both in unfamiliar roles. The pilot landing the plane had limited experience with Boeing 777s even though he was an experienced pilot and this was his first time landing this type of aircraft at the San Francisco airport. There was another pilot instructing him, but it was his first flight as an instructor.

Once the Outline is completed, the next step is to ask “why” question and add the answers to the Cause Map. In this example, we know that the airplane was coming in too low and too slow to land safely, but it isn’t known why that happened. The NTSB has initiated an investigation and the results will reported when the analysis is complete. Some of the early speculation is that there may have been an equipment failure, mismanagement of automated systems or ineffective communication in the cockpit. The fact that this crew was different than the typical staffing has been a focus of investigators, but it isn’t known what role they may have played in the crash.

Another piece of this puzzle is that one of the passengers who died at the crash scene appears to have been killed when she was run over by a fire engine. She was covered in foam on the ground and the firefighters were unaware of her location. Emergency response procedures will need to be reviewed as part of the investigation into this accident to ensure that first responders can do their jobs in the safest way possible.

To view an initial Cause Map of this issue, click on “Download PDF” above.

 

Root Cause Analysis - Incident Investigation

50 Presumed Dead in Canadian Train Disaster

2 Comments

By ThinkReliability Staff

A tragic accident devastated the Canadian town of Lac-Mégantic, Quebec on July 6, 2013.  Much about the issue is still unknown.  When investigating an incident such as this, it can be helpful to identify what is known and information that still needs to be determined.

What is known: a 73-car train was parked in Nantes, Quebec, uphill from Lac-Mégantic.  Of the cars, 72 contained crude oil.  The train was left unattended and late the evening of July 5, 2013, a fire broke out in the locomotive.  While the fire department of Nantes was putting out the fire, they turned off the train’s main engine.  Less than two hours later, the train rolled down the track and derailed in Lac-Mégantic.  After subsequent explosions and long-burning fires, 24 people have been confirmed dead.  26 more are missing.   Much of the town and the train – and the evidence in it – is destroyed.

What is not known: The cause of the initial fire on the train is not known.  Whether or not the fire department should have explicitly notified the train engineer that the main engine had been shut off is not known.  What happened that allowed the train to roll downhill is unknown.

With this number of unknowns, it is helpful to visually lay out the cause-and-effect relationships that occurred, and what impact they had on those affected.  This can allow us to see the holes in our analysis and identify where more evidence is needed.  Once as much evidence as possible has been obtained, additional detail can be added to the cause-and-effect relationships.  Ensuring that all causes related to the incident are included will provide the largest number of solutions, allowing us to choose the most effective.  We can do all this in a Cause Map, or visual root cause analysis.

The first step in using any problem solving methodology is to determine the impact caused by the incident.  In this case, the deaths (and assumed deaths) are our most significant impact.  Also addressed should be the crude oil leakage (though much of it was likely burned off), the high potential for lawsuits, the possible impact on rail shipments, the destruction of the town and the train, and the response and cleanup efforts.  These form the initial “effects” for our cause-and-effect analysis.

Asking “Why” questions allows us to further develop the cause-and-effect relationships.  We know that for the train to roll backwards down the hill, both sets of brakes had to be ineffective.  The railway company has stated that the air brakes released because the main engine had been shutdown.  However, according to the New York Times, “since the 19th century, railways in North America have used an air-braking system that applies, rather than releases, freight car brakes as a safety measure when it loses pressure.”  This certainly makes more sense than having brakes be dependent on engine power.

The hand brakes functioned as backup brakes.  The number of cars (which, when on a hill, affects the force pulling on the train) determines the number of handbrakes required.  In this case, the engineer claims to have set 11 handbrakes, but the rail company has now stated that they no longer believe this.  No other information – or evidence that could help demonstrate what happened to either sets of brakes – has been released.

Also of concern are the style of train cars – believed to be the same that the NTSB identified in a report on a previous train accident as “subject to damage and catastrophic loss of hazardous materials”.

In a tragedy such as this one, the first priority is to save and preserve human lives in every way possible.  However, once that mission is complete, evidence-gathering to determine what happened is the next priority.  As evidence becomes available it is added directly to the Cause Map, below the cause it supports or refutes.  Additional causes are added as necessary with the goal of determining all the cause-and-effect relationships to provide the largest supply of possible solutions to choose from.

The company involved has already stated it will no longer leave trains unattended.  That should be a big help but, given the consequences of this event, other solutions should be considered as well.

To view the Outline and Cause Map, please click “Download PDF” above.  Or click here to read more.

Root Cause Analysis - Incident Investigation

Contaminated Water Issues Remain at Fukushima

by ThinkReliability Staff

High levels of contaminated water leaving the highly damaged reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan are creating issues for the personnel on site, who are working frantically to keep the reactor safe and working towards decommissioning and closing down the site.  Additionally, there is continued concern for the ongoing safety of the site, as the high volume of water could potentially threaten the safety of the reactors.

We can look at these issues in a Cause Map, or visual root cause analysis.  With a Cause Map, the first step is to determine how the issue impacts the organization’s goals.  In this case, we can consider the goals from the perspective of the utility company that owns the power plant.  There is an impact to the safety goal because of the potential risk for another accident, according to the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Authority.  The leakage of contaminated water is an impact to the environmental goal.  There is concern about the lack of a comprehensive plan by the utility, which can be considered an impact to the customer service goal.  The massive construction efforts required to install tanks to store the water are an impact to the property goal and the efforts by the workers to control the flow are an impact to the labor goal.

Once the impacts to the goals have been determined, the next step is asking “Why” questions to determine the cause-and-effect relationships that led to the incident.  In this case, the issues resulting in the high rate of contaminated water needing to be stored are that high rates of water are entering the reactor, becoming contaminated due to the damage inside the buildings from the earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011, and the water has to be removed from the building.

The water is entering the buildings because the plant is in the groundwater flow path from the mountains to the ocean and there is insufficient protection to prevent the water accessing the plant.   Severe cracking in the reactor buildings from the earthquake/tsunami are unable to be repaired due to the high residual levels of radioactivity.  The utility rejected plans to build a wall to protect the reactor.  It is believed this is because the utility had planned to dump the water into the ocean.   Additionally, according to the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, the issues from the water weren’t something that were thought of, as the focus was on the nuclear issues.  All involved in the cleanup, including the utility, have had their hands full, so it’s likely something as benign-seeming as water just wasn’t on the list of immediate concerns.

The contaminated water must be pumped out of the building to avoid swamping the cooling systems, which are still needed to remove decay heat that continues to be produced even after the reactors are shut down.  It appears that the original plan was to filter the water and dump it into the ocean, but even after filtering, a high level (about one hundred times the level released from a healthy plant) of tritium would remain.  Public outcry has ended the possibility of being able to dispose of the water that way.  Wastewater pits originally built for this purpose were found last month to be leaking, necessitating the installation of hundreds of tanks for water storage.

For now, the utility workers continue to install tanks to hold the radioactive water.  The task is so overwhelming, it’s not clear if there are any other plans to try and slow the tide of contaminated water.  However, outside experts are attempting to provide assistance.  The International Atomic Energy Agency completed its initial review of the decommissioning plans last month.  The final team report is expected later this month.

To view the Outline and Cause Map, please click “Download PDF” above.  Or click here to read more.

Root Cause Analysis - Incident Investigation

Hundreds of Garment Workers Killed in Building Collapse

By ThinkReliability Staff

Hundreds are confirmed dead – with hundreds more still missing – as a result of a building collapse in Bangladesh.  The number of people who were in the building when it collapsed is unclear, due to spotty records.  Some sources have suggested the death toll may surpass 1,000.

We can examine the causes that led to the deaths in a Cause Map, which visually diagrams the cause-and-effect relationships that led to the tragedy.  First, we capture the impacts to the goals, which includes the extremely significant impact to the safety goal due to the high number of deaths as well as many other goals, including compliance, production and the impact to the labor goal resulting from the rescue and recovery operations.

The deaths were caused by the collapse of a building which was partially occupied at the time. The building housed five garment factories, as well as a bank and other shops.  Even though cracks appeared in the building   and inspectors requested evacuation and closure of the building, garment workers were ordered back to work.    The bank was evacuated, and the shops were already closed.  Despite deplorable conditions (brought to the attention first by a building fire last November and now by this tragic collapse),  workers (mainly young women)   can still be found to work in the garment industry because the average wages in the country are so low.  Eight people, including the building owner and engineers, have been charged as a result of the collapse.

The building, which was illegally built 3 stories too high, was not up to code and not approved by the government.  The building was built on wetland and used substandard materials for construction. As a result of this collapse, the government has said it will form a committee to ensure the safety of buildings and workers.  Shops in the US and Europe that sell garments produced in Bangladesh have distanced themselves from the companies housed in the buildings while many consumers call for more oversight from these companies, who utilize cheap labor in Bangladesh to create their goods.  The garment industry accounts for 77% of Bangladesh’s exports.

It is hoped that this recent tragedy will increase the attention paid to worker safety by the government within Bangladesh as well as consumers who buy the end product abroad.

To view the Outline and Cause Map, please click “Download PDF ” above.

Root Cause Analysis - Incident Investigation

Engine Room Fire Results in Cruise Ship Nightmare

By Kim Smiley

On February 10, 2013, an engine room fire on the Carnival Triumph cruise ship knocked out a significant portion of the ship’s electricity and crippled the propulsion system.  Passenger descriptions of the rest of their “vacation” have included the words hellish and nightmare.

This incident can be reviewed by building a Cause Map, a visual format for preparing a root cause analysis.  A Cause Map intuitively lays out the causes that contributed to an issue to visually show cause-and-effect relationships.  The first step in building a Cause Map is to fill in an Outline which includes the basic background information for an issue as well as the ways that the problem impacts the goals.  In this example, a number of goals are impacted such as the customer service because of the many unhappy passengers and negative media coverage; the schedule goal because the delay of the return of the ship; and the safety goal because of there was a potential for illness.    Once the impacts to the goals are determined, the Cause Map is built by asking “why” questions.

Starting with the safety goal, the first step would be to ask “why” there was a potential for illness.  Illness was a very real possibility because of the unsanitary conditions that existed onboard the ship.  The toilets in the aft portion of the ship couldn’t be flushed because the sewage system was inoperable after the fire.  Full toilets and the rolling motion of the ship made a disgusting and unhealthy combination.  There have been many reports of human waste on floors and even leaking between levels onboard the ship which is probably not anybody’s idea of an ideal vacation setting.  Add in the limited electricity available after the fire and passengers faced filthy cabins without lighting or air conditioning.  Food also became an issue because the limited electricity made preparation of hot meals difficult and the supplies diminishing as the ship remained at sea longer than planned.  The ship’s return was delayed because it had to be towed back to port after the fire wiped out its propulsion.

Investigators are working to determine what caused the fire that started this mess.  They have determined that a leak in a fuel oil return line was part of the problem, but it may be months before the details are known.

What is known is that cruise ship fires aren’t as rare as might be expected.  There were reports of 79 fires onboard cruise ships from 1990 to 2011.   While more information is needed to understand the details of this particular fire, there has been speculation that lack of adequate preventative maintenance may contribute to this issue across the cruise industry.  Keeping a cruise ship in port for a week’s worth of maintenance costs tens of millions of dollars and companies have to try to balance this cost with the risk of an issue during operation.  And the risk is big.  If something goes wrong during operation, like it did in this example,  it can be very expensive.   The total cost of the fire onboard Carnival Triumph is estimated to be $80 billion, including 12 cruises that have already been canceled to allow time for repairs.  In addition the negative press isn’t exactly helping entice potential customers into booking a cruise.  Balancing the cost of maintenance with the risk of not performing it is an issue that many industries face.  No one wants to spend money on unnecessary maintenance, but no company wants to make headlines that have the word nightmare in them either.

To view a high level Cause Map of this issue, click on “Download PDF” above.

Check out our previous blog about  the Costa Allegra , another cruise ship that lost power.