Posted By Ron Hunter Of course you cannot stop this and therefore this is effectively outwith a proper "risk assessment" process. Your maritime "man overboard" arrangements are all that can be sensibly applied, perhaps along with some expert help from the Ship's Doctor for those who may have been traumatised by witnessing the incident?

Posted By Ian Blenkharn I note the above, but if it is likely to happen would you not question the suitability of edge barriers at those most risky locations? Issues such as height, the ease of climbing over rails, and inward sloping rather than vertical barrier and perhaps better lighting? If there is a predictable risk these are perhaps the sort of adjustments you might consider, at least in future design if retrofit cost would be prohibitive

Posted By SBC Rail sector might provide a comparison. They do a fair bit in this regard- also worth thinking of how you deal with such incidents if they happen- consider the crew who might have to deal with the aftermath.

Posted By Adam Worth Just some ideas - not sure of usefulness mind :) "looking to see if anyone has ever done this type of RA previously" Have you tried contacting London underground or similar, they may be willing to share? I was also thinking of this from a COMAH emergency plan approach to RA. Try contacting your local councils Emergency planning department (Their websites usually have RA examples). I would imagine response to this type of incident will involve multiple emergency services? Things to consider are coordination of rescue, handling of press, contacting next of kin, drills for rescue teams etc etc. my point is this may sit as part of a 'disaster RA'? As stated in the first post you may alredy have procedures in palce for similar. As for stopping it - I thinks that's been well covered above.

Posted By Alan Haynes The Railways Standards Board [RSSB] have some documentation that could assist you. Preventing suicides at stations - http://www.samaritans.or...ReducingSuicideTrain.pdf Minimising the impact of suicides on staff - http://www.rssb.co.uk/pd...earch/T317_rpt_final.pdf Also, from elsewhere – action to be taken at suicides hotspots - http://www.nmhdu.org.uk/...-at-suicide-hotspots.pdf These might help you

Posted By Bob Youel people are asking for things without really understanding what they are asking for nor know about the behind the scenes situation Ships are bad enough but trying to manage bridges and similar are very much harder to manage You can only do what is reasonable and for evey 1 person who may want to harm themselves millions do not and like to look out at sea from the rail without hindrance so again many people asking the questions / wanting such answers do not appear to understand reality and are prepared to ruin the happiness of millions to protect the odd 1 Use common sense and tackle the questioner head on

Posted By H Klinkenberg Your risk assessment should also consider the impact on employees who have to deal with the consequences of the suicides. This should follow the standard stress risk assessment process for working in high stress risk areas where contact with stressful situations cannot be avoided. Risk minimisation should include appropriate coping skills training, first aid measures and post incident reviews. Similar to those applied by the police to help their staff cope with high stress risk incidents.

Posted By Kieran J Duignan andhum Unlike a slip, trip, fall or musculoskeletal injury, suicide is a voluntary action that follows particular psychological conditions. A competetent assessment of risks addresses these conditions and is part of the stock in trade of a qualified psychologist, counsellor or psychotherapist. To omit thorough investigation of psychological factors that predisposse an ship-based employee to suicide is to design a very flawed process of risk assessment

Posted By Kieran J Duignan andrum Under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regs, you have a responsbility to customers as well as employees on ship. Exactly the same providsions about a competent risk assessment apply.

Posted By Ron Hunter Keiran: Volenti non fit injuria!

Posted By Kieran J Duignan Ron's observation 'Violenti non fit injuria!' appears to be a sound one; it applies to every act of suicide in every circumstance, but is actually somewhat spurious. The relevant issue here, on the basis of the information presented, is that there are grounds for predicting that a proportion of customers are apt to carry out an act of suicide, willingly. Whether an individual is 'willing' or 'ill' depends on the circumstances, a factor that Ron overlooks but that should not be overlooked in making a policy decision and designing appropriate risk controls. An organisation's liability for a customer (or employee) who commits suicide is limited by the predictability of such an event. To control the risk of suicide by a cusotmer on a ship at sea, the same basic model of risk control arises as in the case of physical injury to a customer or employee on land: a. where the likelihood of suicide is predictable (as in the situation cited), provide information well in advance to all customers and staff about the availability of a qualified practitioner, in this case a psychologist or counsellor, as distinct from a doctor b. make the professional promptly available to chose disposed to suicide who wish to consult him or her, either instead of or before the act of suicide. As regards jurisdiction, while the MHSW Regs 1999 may not apply, the associated European Directive from which it derives applies except perhaps with modification in countries such as The Netherlands which explicitly suicide. The point at issue is simply the need for much, much greater understanding by safety practitioners of the value of the modest level of psychological understanding to control the foreseeable risk where pscyhological factors are the root source of injury.

Posted By andhum Thanks a million to everybody and for your kind words Mike. Nobody wants this sort of thing to happen but every single contribution is valued and has helped me with the way forward. I have not ignored any of the advice offered. Kind Regards - Andhum

Posted By Phil Rose For interest only I note that the TUC Risks e bulletin reports that there has been a big leap in suicides at work in the USA! http://www.tuc.org.uk/h_...16895-f0.cfm#tuc-16895-9

Posted By martinw I think that it is difficult to remain objective in this situation. Not about this particular topic, rather when you are in a work situation and also having to try to predict the behaviour of non-employees who are on property under your control, whether that is a ship, a building or a field. Then you introduce the effect of people not behaving as they normally would due to children playing or adults drinking alcohol, in a situation which would in any other circumstances be rated as being potentially dangerous. It is unusual in that most passenger ships and ferries have a rail which is low enough to lean on and therefore easy to climb over should you wish to. How would the deck look if you had to apply working at height standards? After all, at the front of a ship, while leaning over the rail, you are at risk of falling. The court of appeal have been relatively clear over the last few years: if someone's behaviour is out of the ordinary and beyond the remit of any risk controls, then their acts are not necessarily to be judged as a failure of your H&S. What do you do? It is unreasonable to require psychiatric profiles of passengers; it would not be financially viable to have so many crew that they would be on deck at all times and therefore able to catch people before they go overboard for whatever reason. This is one of those situations where health and safety is not as clear cut as in normal employment situations, as passengers are not at work while on your place of work, so effectively you have a crossover of health and safety requirements. Never easy.