Reconstructing Maritime Incidents and Accidents Using Causal Models for Safety Improvement: Based on a Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think that all my concerns from the last round of review have been addressed, and I have no more comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much, indeed for your time in reviewing our article and your positive response.

Yours Sincerely,

assist. prof. dr. Marko Perkovič

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper analyses the marine incident that could have developed in a marine casualty under different circumstances. The topic is always actual, and there is a need for papers aiming to improve understanding of accidents causality and propose measures for their reduction and elimination. Although the research subject is very interesting and important, I have a few comments and suggestions given below.

1. Line 38: the word "overturning" is used; I suggest using the word "capsizing".
2. Line 42: Appendix 1 is mentioned, but it is not included in the text.
3. In the Introduction section, there is a subsection numerated 1.1, but there is no subsection 1.2 or more; I suggest removing the subsection title.
4. Lines 53-57: the marine casualty is not a marine incident; in the context of this paper, the marine casualty would be a marine accident.
5. Although some accident investigation models are mentioned briefly, there is no literature review on the topic.
6. Lines 112-119: I suggest mentioning the incident itself briefly, what happened, and how it ended (engine failure is mentioned in the text earlier, but besides that, the reader does not have other important information; also on the basis that this was an incident, one might conclude that no harm occurred).
7. Line 113: It is stated that the incident occurred in 2019, but in the Abstract, it is stated 2018; please check and rectify.
8. Line 118: It is stated, "but the anchor did not hold"; however, later in the text, it is noted that the ferry used both anchors (both placed on one side).
9. Line 244: "H/T" ratio is mentioned but not explained.
10. Table 1 "Source" column; maybe it would be a good idea to mention the source below the Table (since it is only one source and only one row)?
11. Line 291: It is stated, "The anchor holding force (Fk) is expressed as: Fk=K·Wk." However, in line 282 (Equation 7), another expression is given. This is a bit confusing for the readers.
12. How were the data in Table 2 calculated? Why is the AC-14 anchor type introduced in Table 2 (anchor type on case study ferry was Hall type)?
13. Lines 316-319: The sentence might be confusing.
14. Table 3: How were the forces calculated?
15. Lines 394-398: The sentence might be confusing.
16. Lines 400-403: It is stated: "accident reconstruction"; however, it was an incident (or at least it was said so at the beginning of the paper).
17. Are there any limitations of the study?

I hope that my comments will help to improve your paper.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript entitled Reconstructing Maritime Incidents and Accidents using Causal Models for Safety Improvement: Based on a Case Study to JMSE. Thank you for your time and effort in providing valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful for your insightful comments on our paper. We have been able to incorporate most of the suggestions into our work. Please find attached our report.

Yours sincerely,

assist. prof. dr. Marko Perkovič

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors addressed all my comments and suggestions, and in my opinion, the paper is improved.

 

 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The major concern is that this research is so case-oriented, which will weaken the theoretical contributions of this study as a research paper. Some comments and suggestions are listed below, which are believed to be able to further improve the quality of the paper.

1) Could the authors further clarify the differences between accidents and incidents in maritime safety?

2) It is suggested to highlight the main contributions of this research from both theoretical and practical perspectives.

3) Please highlight the novelties of this research?

4) It seems that the topic of this research is not that new and popular because most of the references cited in this research were published more than 5 years ago (with only one paper in 2020). Is there any updated related research?

5) It would be better if some general managerial implications for maritime safety improvement can be generated from this research.

Author Response

PROPOSED ANSWERS TO REV 1:

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much, indeed for your valuable comments and for your time in reviewing our article. We have tried our best to take your suggestion into consideration in order to upgrade the article. We sincerely hope that we have succeeded in improving our work in accordance with your expectations. Changes in the article are marked with track changes:

1) In relation to clarification of the differences between accidents and incidents in maritime safety: We inserted an clear explanation and reference 5.

2) The main contributions of this research from both theoretical and practical perspectives were highlighted in Chapter 4 as required.

3) To highlight the novelties of this research: The paper is mostly practical. The novelty is limited to figure 13 and finding this link between conditions and operators and classification societyies.

4) In relation to the popularity of such research and updated references:  The incident occurred in January of 2019, all circumstances oblivous to the status of research into such problems as have been made evident in this paper. Nonetheless we added two references, and, to be frank, this seems an odd remark as we are clearly finding it necessary to add a reference currently, here, in this paper. The lack of references is also appalling to us. Yet, where we stray from the strictly scientific confines of our case study, we arrive at territory which is covered by abundant references: in philosophy, political science, economics, history, etc. However, shipping companies and other stakeholders that profit immensely from their essential control of the industry continue to create new problems, so that old techniques need to be examined yet again: see anchoring.

5) In realtion to comment that some general managerial implications for maritime safety improvement can be generated from this research: Text amended as required.

Yours Sincerely,

Prof. Lucjan Gucma (et.al.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROPOSED ANSWERS TO REV 2:

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much, indeed for your valuable and positive comments. We have tried our best to take your suggestion into consideration in order to upgrade the article. We sincerely hope that we have succeeded in improving our work in accordance with your expectations. Changes in the article are marked with track changes:

1)In relation to model presentation: Thank you for your excellent remark. In fact, we have proposed only minor changes to the existing models based on the case study conducted. We are aware that the timeliness of the paper is limited to enhancing our practical knowledge of accident investigation models and the missing link between the design assumptions and the changed operating conditions (in this case the deeper water domain). However, we believe that this missing link could enhance our practical approach and improve the safety of navigation. We changed the text slightly to point out this issue.

2) This manuscript only conduct a case study for a dragging anchor incident: We agree. The case study is important, but only serves as a technical example to illustrate the missing point in accident investigation and design procedures.

3) Figure 1 cannot provide enough information: Thanks for this comment in particular. We added text and information to the figure. We hope it is sufficient now.

Yours Sincerely,

Prof. Lucjan Gucma (et.al.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROPOSED ANSWERS TO REV 3:

Thank you very much, indeed for your valuable comments and for your time in reviewing our article. We have tried our best to take your suggestion into consideration in order to upgrade the article. We sincerely hope that we have succeeded in improving our work in accordance with your expectations. Changes in the article are marked with track changes:

1) In relation to the position the ship in fig. 5:  In fact, the wind probably changed direction and gusts, which was not measured during the incident, so that the ferry constantly changed its course and position due to the anchor dragging.

2) Referring to anchors in fig. 5: The ferry is designed to have anchors on one side only. This could also contribute to the postulates for a change in the design. However, such a change would mean a major intervention in the structure of the ferry and was not proposed in our accident report. But of course, adding the anchor position on opposite sides of the ferry would increase the ferry's anchoring capacity.

3) In line 185 water density is replaced with wind density. It was typo mistake. Thank you for pointing out.

4) In relation to eqs. 5 and 6: amended as required.  

5) Term ‘discharged surface’ is replaced with ‘exposed area’ as recommended.

6) In relation to recommendation of haveing the anchor chain lengthened to some 80 m: The chain functions here as shown in Figs. 11 and 12. So the extra length of chain is needed to hold the ship. The old sailor says (and this is only partly true) that the chain holds the ship and not the anchor. This is not entirely true, but the chain can exert a considerable force through friction and weight, plus the long chain lying on the bottom does not tilt the anchor shaft and reduce the holding force, as in this case. You might also consider that every ship has extra chain length at some point near the pier.

7) Table 1: amended as required.

8) On language: In relation to the English used, this article was proof-read by a professional. Mr Rick Harsh (Master in Fine Arts, in English) is a professional editor, author and has edited hundreds of papers written in the maritime field. He reviewed this paper, and some changes were unfortunatelly, made in previous version by authors before it was submitted.

 9)  Reference list: amended as required.

10) In relation to your recommendations on the research metods: Thank you very much, indeed for your recommendations. We could assert that the more technical case study leads to broader conclusions about socio-technical aspects that were neglected in the safe operation of the ferry and led to the incident that ended almost catastrophically; the lessons learned from the accident investigation models presented could enhance our practical knowledge in this area. This may well be true, but to fully accommodate your objection would require a vast paper, particularly if you are reading and sensing balance/impalance. That is also a literary concept more than a scientific one in terms of reporting. So, yes, you are right, but our goal is to begin to include what we identify as important points outside the purview of the typical scientific paper.

11) Abot the the discussion in previous line 336: Amended to one key finding, but that may not satisfy the reviewer's objection. The response to that is that this paper was modest in its objectives--though not without import as actual lives are involved. Therefore, it seemed in the discussion section there was more need and opportunity to discuss 'broader' issues.

 12) Related to fig. 13: Text amended as required.

13) In relation to your comments about previous line 379 (now 398): Very good point, and to our general frustration. We referred to Rasmussen but did not use that methodology: in this regard this study is more a commentary on what is being used and what isn't; to what effect any method is pertinent given the interests of stakeholders. In a sense, Rasmussen can be read as a prediction of this very conundrum. The paper has limited goals, but saving lives is included, and to that extent important. But if you believe removal of this source would yield a more accurate overall paper, we shall remove it.

 

Yours Sincerely,

Prof. Lucjan Gucma (et.al.)

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer comments

Title: Reconstructing Maritime Incidents and Accidents using Causal Models for Safety Improvement: Based on a Case Study

ID: jmse-1419648

 

General

 

The manuscript entitled “Reconstructing Maritime Incidents and Accidents using Causal Models for Safety Improvement: Based on a Case Study” restored a dragging anchor incident and analyzed the reason of the incident.

 

Major comments:

 

1. In section 1, casual models are introduced, and the authors mentioned that this manuscript proposed a model for accident reconstruction, but such a model is not found in the following sections.
2. In general, this manuscript only conduct a case study for a dragging anchor incident.

 

Minor comments:

 

3. Figure 1 cannot provide enough information.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

PROPOSED ANSWERS TO REV 2:

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much, indeed for your valuable and positive comments. We have tried our best to take your suggestion into consideration in order to upgrade the article. We sincerely hope that we have succeeded in improving our work in accordance with your expectations. Changes in the article are marked with track changes:

1)In relation to model presentation: Thank you for your excellent remark. In fact, we have proposed only minor changes to the existing models based on the case study conducted. We are aware that the timeliness of the paper is limited to enhancing our practical knowledge of accident investigation models and the missing link between the design assumptions and the changed operating conditions (in this case the deeper water domain). However, we believe that this missing link could enhance our practical approach and improve the safety of navigation. We changed the text slightly to point out this issue.

2) This manuscript only conduct a case study for a dragging anchor incident: We agree. The case study is important, but only serves as a technical example to illustrate the missing point in accident investigation and design procedures.

3) Figure 1 cannot provide enough information: Thanks for this comment in particular. We added text and information to the figure. We hope it is sufficient now.

Yours Sincerely,

Prof. Lucjan Gucma (et.al.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROPOSED ANSWERS TO REV 1:

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much, indeed for your valuable comments and for your time in reviewing our article. We have tried our best to take your suggestion into consideration in order to upgrade the article. We sincerely hope that we have succeeded in improving our work in accordance with your expectations. Changes in the article are marked with track changes:

1) In relation to clarification of the differences between accidents and incidents in maritime safety: We inserted an clear explanation and reference 5.

2) The main contributions of this research from both theoretical and practical perspectives were highlighted in Chapter 4 as required.

3) To highlight the novelties of this research: The paper is mostly practical. The novelty is limited to figure 13 and finding this link between conditions and operators and classification societyies.

4) In relation to the popularity of such research and updated references:  The incident occurred in January of 2019, all circumstances oblivous to the status of research into such problems as have been made evident in this paper. Nonetheless we added two references, and, to be frank, this seems an odd remark as we are clearly finding it necessary to add a reference currently, here, in this paper. The lack of references is also appalling to us. Yet, where we stray from the strictly scientific confines of our case study, we arrive at territory which is covered by abundant references: in philosophy, political science, economics, history, etc. However, shipping companies and other stakeholders that profit immensely from their essential control of the industry continue to create new problems, so that old techniques need to be examined yet again: see anchoring.

5) In realtion to comment that some general managerial implications for maritime safety improvement can be generated from this research: Text amended as required.

Yours Sincerely,

Prof. Lucjan Gucma (et.al.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROPOSED ANSWERS TO REV 3:

Thank you very much, indeed for your valuable comments and for your time in reviewing our article. We have tried our best to take your suggestion into consideration in order to upgrade the article. We sincerely hope that we have succeeded in improving our work in accordance with your expectations. Changes in the article are marked with track changes:

1) In relation to the position the ship in fig. 5:  In fact, the wind probably changed direction and gusts, which was not measured during the incident, so that the ferry constantly changed its course and position due to the anchor dragging.

2) Referring to anchors in fig. 5: The ferry is designed to have anchors on one side only. This could also contribute to the postulates for a change in the design. However, such a change would mean a major intervention in the structure of the ferry and was not proposed in our accident report. But of course, adding the anchor position on opposite sides of the ferry would increase the ferry's anchoring capacity.

3) In line 185 water density is replaced with wind density. It was typo mistake. Thank you for pointing out.

4) In relation to eqs. 5 and 6: amended as required.  

5) Term ‘discharged surface’ is replaced with ‘exposed area’ as recommended.

6) In relation to recommendation of haveing the anchor chain lengthened to some 80 m: The chain functions here as shown in Figs. 11 and 12. So the extra length of chain is needed to hold the ship. The old sailor says (and this is only partly true) that the chain holds the ship and not the anchor. This is not entirely true, but the chain can exert a considerable force through friction and weight, plus the long chain lying on the bottom does not tilt the anchor shaft and reduce the holding force, as in this case. You might also consider that every ship has extra chain length at some point near the pier.

7) Table 1: amended as required.

8) On language: In relation to the English used, this article was proof-read by a professional. Mr Rick Harsh (Master in Fine Arts, in English) is a professional editor, author and has edited hundreds of papers written in the maritime field. He reviewed this paper, and some changes were unfortunatelly, made in previous version by authors before it was submitted.

 9)  Reference list: amended as required.

10) In relation to your recommendations on the research metods: Thank you very much, indeed for your recommendations. We could assert that the more technical case study leads to broader conclusions about socio-technical aspects that were neglected in the safe operation of the ferry and led to the incident that ended almost catastrophically; the lessons learned from the accident investigation models presented could enhance our practical knowledge in this area. This may well be true, but to fully accommodate your objection would require a vast paper, particularly if you are reading and sensing balance/impalance. That is also a literary concept more than a scientific one in terms of reporting. So, yes, you are right, but our goal is to begin to include what we identify as important points outside the purview of the typical scientific paper.

11) Abot the the discussion in previous line 336: Amended to one key finding, but that may not satisfy the reviewer's objection. The response to that is that this paper was modest in its objectives--though not without import as actual lives are involved. Therefore, it seemed in the discussion section there was more need and opportunity to discuss 'broader' issues.

 12) Related to fig. 13: Text amended as required.

13) In relation to your comments about previous line 379 (now 398): Very good point, and to our general frustration. We referred to Rasmussen but did not use that methodology: in this regard this study is more a commentary on what is being used and what isn't; to what effect any method is pertinent given the interests of stakeholders. In a sense, Rasmussen can be read as a prediction of this very conundrum. The paper has limited goals, but saving lives is included, and to that extent important. But if you believe removal of this source would yield a more accurate overall paper, we shall remove it.

 

Yours Sincerely,

Prof. Lucjan Gucma (et.al.)

Reviewer 3 Report

See attached Wordfile

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

PROPOSED ANSWERS TO REV 3:

Thank you very much, indeed for your valuable comments and for your time in reviewing our article. We have tried our best to take your suggestion into consideration in order to upgrade the article. We sincerely hope that we have succeeded in improving our work in accordance with your expectations. Changes in the article are marked with track changes:

1) In relation to the position the ship in fig. 5:  In fact, the wind probably changed direction and gusts, which was not measured during the incident, so that the ferry constantly changed its course and position due to the anchor dragging.

2) Referring to anchors in fig. 5: The ferry is designed to have anchors on one side only. This could also contribute to the postulates for a change in the design. However, such a change would mean a major intervention in the structure of the ferry and was not proposed in our accident report. But of course, adding the anchor position on opposite sides of the ferry would increase the ferry's anchoring capacity.

3) In line 185 water density is replaced with wind density. It was typo mistake. Thank you for pointing out.

4) In relation to eqs. 5 and 6: amended as required. 

5) Term ‘discharged surface’ is replaced with ‘exposed area’ as recommended.

6) In relation to recommendation of haveing the anchor chain lengthened to some 80 m: The chain functions here as shown in Figs. 11 and 12. So the extra length of chain is needed to hold the ship. The old sailor says (and this is only partly true) that the chain holds the ship and not the anchor. This is not entirely true, but the chain can exert a considerable force through friction and weight, plus the long chain lying on the bottom does not tilt the anchor shaft and reduce the holding force, as in this case. You might also consider that every ship has extra chain length at some point near the pier.

7) Table 1: amended as required.

8) On language: In relation to the English used, this article was proof-read by a professional. Mr Rick Harsh (Master in Fine Arts, in English) is a professional editor, author and has edited hundreds of papers written in the maritime field. He reviewed this paper, and some changes were unfortunatelly, made in previous version by authors before it was submitted.

 9)  Reference list: amended as required.

10) In relation to your recommendations on the research metods: Thank you very much, indeed for your recommendations. We could assert that the more technical case study leads to broader conclusions about socio-technical aspects that were neglected in the safe operation of the ferry and led to the incident that ended almost catastrophically; the lessons learned from the accident investigation models presented could enhance our practical knowledge in this area. This may well be true, but to fully accommodate your objection would require a vast paper, particularly if you are reading and sensing balance/impalance. That is also a literary concept more than a scientific one in terms of reporting. So, yes, you are right, but our goal is to begin to include what we identify as important points outside the purview of the typical scientific paper.

11) Abot the the discussion in previous line 336: Amended to one key finding, but that may not satisfy the reviewer's objection. The response to that is that this paper was modest in its objectives--though not without import as actual lives are involved. Therefore, it seemed in the discussion section there was more need and opportunity to discuss 'broader' issues.

 12) Related to fig. 13: Text amended as required.

13) In relation to your comments about previous line 379 (now 398): Very good point, and to our general frustration. We referred to Rasmussen but did not use that methodology: in this regard this study is more a commentary on what is being used and what isn't; to what effect any method is pertinent given the interests of stakeholders. In a sense, Rasmussen can be read as a prediction of this very conundrum. The paper has limited goals, but saving lives is included, and to that extent important. But if you believe removal of this source would yield a more accurate overall paper, we shall remove it.

 

Yours Sincerely,

Prof. Lucjan Gucma (et.al.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROPOSED ANSWERS TO REV 2:

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much, indeed for your valuable and positive comments. We have tried our best to take your suggestion into consideration in order to upgrade the article. We sincerely hope that we have succeeded in improving our work in accordance with your expectations. Changes in the article are marked with track changes:

1)In relation to model presentation: Thank you for your excellent remark. In fact, we have proposed only minor changes to the existing models based on the case study conducted. We are aware that the timeliness of the paper is limited to enhancing our practical knowledge of accident investigation models and the missing link between the design assumptions and the changed operating conditions (in this case the deeper water domain). However, we believe that this missing link could enhance our practical approach and improve the safety of navigation. We changed the text slightly to point out this issue.

2) This manuscript only conduct a case study for a dragging anchor incident: We agree. The case study is important, but only serves as a technical example to illustrate the missing point in accident investigation and design procedures.

3) Figure 1 cannot provide enough information: Thanks for this comment in particular. We added text and information to the figure. We hope it is sufficient now.

Yours Sincerely,

Prof. Lucjan Gucma (et.al.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROPOSED ANSWERS TO REV 1:

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much, indeed for your valuable comments and for your time in reviewing our article. We have tried our best to take your suggestion into consideration in order to upgrade the article. We sincerely hope that we have succeeded in improving our work in accordance with your expectations. Changes in the article are marked with track changes:

1) In relation to clarification of the differences between accidents and incidents in maritime safety: We inserted an clear explanation and reference 5.

2) The main contributions of this research from both theoretical and practical perspectives were highlighted in Chapter 4 as required.

3) To highlight the novelties of this research: The paper is mostly practical. The novelty is limited to figure 13 and finding this link between conditions and operators and classification societyies.

4) In relation to the popularity of such research and updated references:  The incident occurred in January of 2019, all circumstances oblivous to the status of research into such problems as have been made evident in this paper. Nonetheless we added two references, and, to be frank, this seems an odd remark as we are clearly finding it necessary to add a reference currently, here, in this paper. The lack of references is also appalling to us. Yet, where we stray from the strictly scientific confines of our case study, we arrive at territory which is covered by abundant references: in philosophy, political science, economics, history, etc. However, shipping companies and other stakeholders that profit immensely from their essential control of the industry continue to create new problems, so that old techniques need to be examined yet again: see anchoring.

5) In realtion to comment that some general managerial implications for maritime safety improvement can be generated from this research: Text amended as required.

Yours Sincerely,

Prof. Lucjan Gucma (et.al.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All my concerns from the last round of review have been addressed. As a practical research, I have no more comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for the time you have invested in reviewing our paper, for your insightful comments and for your positive response to the editor. 

Yours sincerely  

The authors

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors revised manuscript based reviewers' comments. I have no further suggestions ans comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for the time you have invested in reviewing our paper, for your insightful comments and for your positive response to the editor. 

Yours sincerely  

The authors

Reviewer 3 Report

I have advised the editor not to publish this paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript entitled Reconstructing Maritime Incidents and Accidents using Causal Models for Safety Improvement: Based on a Case Study to JMSE. Thank you for your time and effort in providing valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful for your insightful comments on our paper. We have been able to incorporate most of the suggestions into our work. We acknowledge the possibility that we may not have covered what you had in mind on some questions. If this was the case, we would ask you to explain this to us in more detail so that this error can also be rectified.  

We have highlighted the changes in the change tracking in the manuscript. Here is a point-by-point response to your comments and concerns:

 

Comment 1: On the investigation I have the impression that the position the ship in fig. 5 is not stable, i.e. the sum of forces is not zero. If we assume that wind and current forces have the same magnitude, then the vessel will be pushed to the left, until it will find a stable position above the anchors. Right below this figure it is derived that wind forces are of a higher magnitude than current, which will even enhance this trend.

Response:  Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. In fact, the wind probably changed direction and gusts, which was not measured during the incident, so that the ferry constantly changed its course and position due to the anchor dragging.

 

Comment 2: Again referring to fig. 5; did the ferry not have anchors at the opposite (windward) side?

Response: That is a very good point. The ferry is designed to have anchors on one side only. This could also contribute to the postulates for a change in the design. However, such a change would mean a major intervention in the structure of the ferry and was not proposed in our accident report. But of course, adding the anchor position on opposite sides of the ferry would increase the ferry's anchoring capacity.

 

Comment 3: In line 185 water density is mentioned, should be wind density.

Response: Thank you for pointing out. It was typo mistake. Water density is replaced with wind density.

 

Comment 4: In eqs. 5 and 6 the computation of what the authors call ‘discharged surface’ appears to be incorrect because L and B are interchanged. Please check if this is only a typo, or that it will also affect your computation and analysis.

Response: We do not know how this happened and we are very sorry. It was a typo (copy/paste).

 

Comment 5: By the way, a more common expression for ‘discharged surface’ is ‘exposed area’.

Response: Term ‘discharged surface’ is replaced with ‘exposed area’ as recommended in lines 204 and 218.

 

Comment 6: Your recommendation is to have the anchor chain lengthened to some 80 m, however in line 108 it is mentioned that the ferry is situated at only 50 meter from the leeway shore. So, I image the is ample room for longer chains? If I misunderstood please clarify in the paper.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. The chain functions are presented in Figs. 11 and 12. So the extra length of chain is needed to hold the ship (lines 429-433). The chain can exert a considerable force through friction and weight, plus the long chain lying on the bottom does not tilt the anchor shaft and reduce the holding force, as in this case. We might also consider that every ship has extra chain length at some point near the pier.

 

Comment 7: On table1, the last line, contains the component “Pa[KM] D[Cal}” without explanation.

Response: Agree. We have, accordingly modified Table 1.

 

Comment 8: Although the paper is clearly written, en well legible, the paper could benefit from a final proof reading. Not only on a syntactical level, but also to verify the appropriateness of the wording. For instance these line have been commented by me further below…

Response: We agree with this comment. Some changes were unfortunately, made in previous version by authors before it was submitted. This revision of article was proof-read by a professional. Mr Rick Harsh (Master in Fine Arts, in English) is a professional editor, author and has edited hundreds of papers written in the maritime field.

 

Comment 9: Please also scrutinize the reference list, because some of the links are underlined (and probably hyperlinked) while others are not.

Response: Agree. We have, accordingly amended the Reference list. There are no underlined and neither hyperlinked references.

 

Comment 10: On the research method and the recommendation: A disbalance in the paper that on the one hand quite some formal methods and concepts are referred to (such as the notion ‘socio-technical’ and the enumerations in lines 71-76) while on the other hand these are not used or elaborated in the paper. In its essence the research is from a technical nature (with anchors, engines and forces), while in the end the role of the wider environment is postulated.

Response: Thank you very much, indeed for your recommendations. We could assert that the more technical case study leads to broader conclusions about socio-technical aspects that were neglected in the safe operation of the ferry and led to the incident that ended almost catastrophically; the lessons learned from the accident investigation models presented could enhance our practical knowledge in this area. This may well be true, but to fully accommodate your objection would require a vast paper, particularly if you are reading and sensing balance/impalance. That is also a literary concept more than a scientific one in terms of reporting. So, yes, you are right, but our goal is to begin to include what we identify as important points outside the purview of the typical scientific paper.

 

Comment 11: The discussion (line 336) start with the words “The key findings”, however, the statement following these words has not been corroborated.

Response: Thank you for your comment. Agree. Amended to one key finding. This paper was modest in its objectives--though not without import as actual lives are involved. Therefore, it seemed in the discussion section there was more need and opportunity to discuss 'broader' issues.

 

Comment 12: In fig. 13 it is mentioned that the link between design and classification should be present but is missing. That statement is not founded. Was the vessel classified for worldwide operation or for restricted service? If the latter, what are those restrictions? Are they related to the incident?

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. The ferry is not designed for emergency anchoring since anchors are only on one side and for shallow water (which is usually the case with this type of cross-service ferry). The missing link in the information flow between the operating body (owner) and the classification society, which focused on the condition of the ferry, which has a direct impact on safety, rather than on the operating conditions, which are different from the design, could present a relatively simple error that could have cost dozens of lives. Text amended from line 425 to 431.

 

Comment 13: In line 379 it is mentioned that the method of [19] should be improved. Indeed this method is introduced in lines around 88, which gives the impression that [19] is the method applied for this research. However, the method is not explained, neither are the technical findings evaluated in the context of this research method. Or was [19] not actually used in the research? How can then improvements (line 379) be suggested? By the way, [19] seems quite seminal, Sciencedirect mentions 1731 citing articles. It might be that the same (or other) improvements have been proposed by the other citing authors, in the 24 years that have passed since the publication of [19].

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. Very good point, and to our general frustration. In line 379 (now 398) we referred to Rasmussen but did not use that methodology: in this regard this study is more a commentary on what is being used and what isn't; to what effect any method is pertinent given the interests of stakeholders. In a sense, Rasmussen can be read as a prediction of this very conundrum. The paper has limited goals, but saving lives is included, and to that extent important. But if you believe removal of this source would yield a more accurate overall paper, we shall remove it. Two references (5 and 21) were added.

 

Comment 14: While the paper gives a good insight in the ferry’s incident and the related dangers, before being fit for publication the posed questions should be addressed with a major revision of this paper.

Response: We have made all possible changes and improved the paper, but we intended to raise questions outside the reach of the strictest scientific aspects of the paper, which would require a very different paper and a different approach. Essentially, the paper now provides what we intended to regarding the case study, but also asks what does it mean that this case study was important, or was even necessary. We cannot answer that in this paper.

 

We sincerely thank you for the time you put in reviewing our paper and look forward to meeting your expectations.

 

Yours sincerely,

The authors’