Maritime safety has never been more advanced, measured or regulated.
Yet the same incidents continue to repeat.

Across this year’s Safety Culture Conference in Glasgow, one message surfaced consistently: safety failures rarely happen because people do not know the rules. They happen because reality reshapes behaviour faster than systems adapt.

Hosted by the UK Chamber of Shipping, the conference brought together regulators, operators, insurers, legal experts, human factors specialists, and seafarers to explore what safety culture looks like in practice: onboard vessels, under pressure and in the small decisions made every day.

Several sessions reflected on the industry’s ongoing challenge in fully embedding lessons learned. Issues such as enclosed space fatalities, fatigue, communication breakdowns, and operational drift remain recurring themes despite years of guidance and regulation.

One of the most striking statistics presented was that approximately 81% of fatalities in maritime casualties involve crew members, reinforcing the need to maintain focus on operational safety and crew wellbeing.

A central theme throughout the conference was the gap between “work as imagined” and “work as done.” Discussions challenged the assumption that incidents occur simply because procedures are not followed. Instead, speakers highlighted how pressure, workload, hierarchy, and operational realities shape behaviour in complex and predictable ways.

The Hearts & Minds session reframed safety not as compliance, but as lived behaviour — the instinct to follow rules when they make sense, and work around them when they do not.

It is rarely a choice between “safe” and “unsafe” — more often, it is a choice about what feels workable in the moment.

The conference’s mock trial reinforced that incidents are seldom the result of a single failure, but of wider systems of pressure, assumptions, and missed opportunities to intervene.

Ultimately, the message was clear:

Safety culture is not what is written down.
It is what happens when rules meet reality.

Recent discussions across Chamber working groups have reinforced this same theme, highlighting the growing gap between regulatory frameworks and operational reality.

• The Fatigue Working Group, which is responsible for advancing industry guidance on fatigue management, recently considered whether existing regulations on hours of rest were fit for purpose. 

  While compliance with hours of rest is generally achievable, members highlighted that operating at the limits of these rules does not necessarily result in safe outcomes in practice. Fatigue was also noted as being consistently underreported, reflecting a culture where individuals may not recognise or acknowledge it as a safety risk.

• The Lithium-ion Battery Working Group, tasked with overseeing the development of guidance for the carriage of battery electric vehicles, has made good progress in this area. 

  A key concern identified was the challenge of identifying higher-risk vehicles, particularly where damage or defects are not declared. The group emphasised the importance of early detection, improved information flow, and response strategies focused on containment.

• The Vehicle Deck Safety Working Group, which was established to support the development of a joint industry code of practice with Port Skills and Safety following MAIB recommendations, has focused its recent discussions on passenger safety during loading and discharge operations. 

  Members highlighted the unpredictable nature of passenger behaviour and the risks associated with interactions between people and moving vehicles. The importance of proportionate, practical controls — rather than prescriptive requirements — was reinforced.

Across all three groups, a consistent direction is emerging:
guidance must reflect how work is actually carried out, not how it is assumed to take place.

Recent MAIB investigations span a broad range of incident types, including man overboard events, fires, groundings, and operational accidents involving both crew and passengers.

While varied in nature, many of these incidents share a common feature: they occur during routine or familiar operations rather than during abnormal situations.

A current investigation into a fatal passenger injury during vehicle discharge highlights the risks associated with environments where pedestrians and moving vehicles interact. Other cases continue to reinforce vulnerabilities in safe systems of work, situational awareness, and the practical application of procedures.

Taken together, these investigations reinforce a familiar conclusion: 

systems that appear sufficient in principle can still break down in practice.

None of these themes are new. What is clear, however, is that they remain unresolved.

A routine toolbox talk was nearing its conclusion when the supervisor asked if there were any questions.

After a brief pause, one crew member asked:
“Do we actually need to fill in the checklist if everything is fine?”

The supervisor paused and replied:
“Well, how would we know everything is fine?”

The discussion that followed was longer than the toolbox talk itself.

It was a useful reminder that safety processes are rarely there to confirm that things are normal — but to give us a chance to recognise when they are not.

Safety does not start and end at the gangway.

As we move into the summer months, many of the same principles discussed in this issue apply equally outside of work — particularly where familiarity and routine can lead to risk being underestimated.

Seasonal activities such as barbecuing, open water swimming, and time spent around the coast or inland waterways all introduce potential hazards that are often taken for granted. In many cases, these risks are well understood, but are not always actively considered in the moment.

Simple precautions can make a significant difference. Ensuring barbecues are positioned safely and fully extinguished after use, being aware of changing water conditions, and recognising the risks associated with cold water shock are all practical measures that can reduce the likelihood of incidents occurring.

Unlike the workplace, there are often fewer formal controls and limited opportunity for intervention, placing greater reliance on individual awareness and judgement.

A consistent approach to safety — at work and beyond — remains one of the most effective ways of reducing harm.