Sea Golf (2015)

Classification

• Incident Type: Other
• Severity: Medium

Vessel Details

Incident Details

Key facts

• Sea Golf was moored in Stavanger on 15 November 2015. The Dutch Safety Board classified the occurrence as a serious injury. (Printed p. 11.)
• The disciplinary tribunal found that the officer used a modified cable with exposed male plugs to power a heater through its 220 V output, then picked up the energized plug without gloves. (Judgment, printed pp. 7-8.)
• The electric shock stopped the officer's circulation and breathing. The crew disconnected the power, began resuscitation, and arranged ambulance transport; the tribunal found that this response and hospital treatment saved his life. (Judgment, printed p. 8.)
• The shipping company conducted an internal investigation. The tribunal relied on its factual account only where the officer did not dispute it; the Dutch Safety Board summary gives no separate causal determination. (Judgment, printed pp. 3-4; DSB, printed p. 11.)

Narrative

On 15 November 2015, the Dutch tug Sea Golf was moored in Stavanger, Norway. The chief engineer was preparing to use a fan heater while the crew prepared the after deck for painting. The Dutch Safety Board's occurrence summary says the engineer suffered a serious electric shock while connecting a self-made power cable to the heater and could not release it. The master disconnected the cable; the crew began resuscitation and called for an ambulance. (DSB, printed p. 11; disciplinary judgment, printed pp. 3-4.)

The Maritime Disciplinary Tribunal reviewed the incident in a case concerning the chief engineer's conduct. It found that the heater was normally intended for a 380 V supply, but the officer used its 220 V output as an input and made a cable with unprotected male plugs at both ends. After energizing the setup, he picked up the exposed plug without gloves and was electrocuted. His circulation and breathing stopped. The other crew members disconnected the power, began CPR, and summoned an ambulance; the tribunal found that their response and hospital treatment saved his life. It considered the company's investigation report only for factual information the officer did not dispute. The tribunal found the officer's actions endangered him and the other crew, and upheld the disciplinary complaint. (Judgment, printed pp. 7-9.)

The Dutch Safety Board separately lists the occurrence as a serious injury and says the shipping company conducted an internal investigation, but its short summary does not set out a separate safety investigation finding. No vessel damage or economic loss is reported.

Sequence of events

Contributing factors

Investigation

The Dutch Safety Board included the occurrence in its 2015–2016 Shipping Occurrences Report, classifying it as a serious injury. The Maritime Disciplinary Tribunal issued a separate judgment on 30 November 2016 concerning the chief engineer's conduct. The judgment states which facts from the company's investigation report it treated as undisputed, and concludes that the officer's conduct endangered the crew; it is a disciplinary ruling rather than a Dutch Safety Board causal investigation. (DSB, printed p. 11; judgment, printed pp. 3-4, 7-9.)

References

• Dutch Safety Board, Shipping Occurrences Report November 2015 - April 2016
• Maritime Disciplinary Tribunal, Judgment 6 of 2016: Sea Golf

Related

• North Sea
• Dutch Safety Board
• Sea Golf
• Tug Incident Classification

Similar incidents

• 2016-12-23: Sea Bronco (2016)
• 2016-12-21: Multratug 27 (2016)
• 2016-08-16: Multratug 4 (2016)
• 2011-12-19: RT Leader (2011)
• 2016-01-27: Amber II (2016)