Hand and Finger Safety at Sea: What P&I Clubs, the MCA and Flag States Say

The Number That Should Shock the Industry

Around 40% of all personal injury claims reported to P&I clubs involve hands and fingers. Gard — one of the world's largest marine mutual insurers — has cited this figure consistently across multiple loss prevention publications. UK P&I Club data shows hand and finger injuries are the most frequent single injury category by body part across all vessel types. NorthStandard (formed from Standard Club and North P&I) published dedicated “Hands On” guidance specifically because the frequency remained stubbornly high despite widespread industry awareness. West P&I and Skuld have issued similar alerts, noting that hand injuries account for a disproportionate share of crew personal injury claims relative to other injury types.

In May 2026, Liberia's Maritime Administration issued Marine Advisory 14/2026 on the prevention of finger and hand injuries, covering safe handling practices, pinch point awareness, and compliance with SMS requirements. That a flag state responsible for over 4,500 vessels felt it necessary to issue a dedicated advisory on this specific injury type reflects how persistent the problem remains across every vessel type and trade route.

The MCA's Code of Safe Working Practices for Merchant Seafarers (COSWP) addresses hand and finger injury prevention across its sections covering PPE, mooring operations, deck machinery, and permit-to-work systems. The regulatory framework, P&I guidance, and flag state advisories are consistent: these injuries are predictable, well-understood, and almost entirely preventable. The gap is between the written procedures and actual practice on board.

Where the Injuries Happen: P&I Claims Data

Gard and UK P&I Club claims data, analysed across multiple reporting years, consistently points to the same high-risk activities.

1. Mooring and Unmooring Operations

The single highest-risk activity for hand and finger injuries across all vessel types. Synthetic fibre ropes under load can part without warning — the energy released by a parting mooring line is violent and fast. Wire rope tails are rigid and can penetrate a glove and skin. Winch drums, fairleads, bitts, and capstans all create severe pinch points capable of removing fingers in a fraction of a second.

COSWP is explicit on mooring operations: never take a turn of line around your hand or any part of your body. Never stand in the bight of a rope under load. Never reach across a line that has tension on it. These are absolute prohibitions, not guidelines, and they appear in COSWP because the consequence of ignoring them is invariably serious injury.

P&I clubs identify a consistent factor in mooring incident reports: time pressure. Port turnarounds are timed, pilots are waiting, the Master is watching. The culture around mooring operations often normalises speed over safe practice in ways that do not occur elsewhere on the vessel. If you are being rushed in a way that removes your ability to work safely at the mooring station, you have the right — and the SMS obligation — to say so.

2. Wire Rope and Deck Machinery

NorthStandard guidance specifically highlights “birdcaging” — where wire rope strands spring outward under a sudden change of load — as a mechanism that traps fingers before the crew member can react. Worn, kinked, or damaged wire has unpredictable failure characteristics that even experienced deck crew cannot fully anticipate.

Deck winches and cranes create pinch points that Class and Flag State auditors specifically check for guard compliance. COSWP requires guarding on all machinery with accessible moving parts. If guarding has been removed, damaged, or bypassed on any deck machinery, this is a stop-work condition under your SMS before any operation begins.

3. Engine Room Maintenance

Engineering crew account for a significant proportion of hand injuries during maintenance work. The specific risk factors cited across Gard and UK P&I Club guidance are: rotating machinery not fully isolated before work begins, valve handwheels that shift under residual pressure, and hydraulic systems where pressure has not been fully bled before breaking a connection.

Lockout/Tagout (LOTO) — physically isolating and locking the energy source before any maintenance begins — is the primary control. COSWP's permit-to-work section requires that all energy isolation is verified before maintenance on equipment with moving parts. The most common failure mode in P&I claims is not a missing procedure: it is a procedure that exists but is skipped because the task is considered “quick.” There is no job quick enough to justify a working hand near an unguarded moving part.

4. Hatch Covers and Watertight Doors

Heavy steel hatch covers and watertight doors are a consistent source of crush injuries to fingers in hinges, dogs, and sealing surfaces. The risk increases in rough weather when vessel motion makes timing unpredictable. On hydraulic hatch cover systems, the forces involved make this a potential fatality risk, not merely a finger injury. COSWP requires that fingers are clear of all pivot and sealing points before any hatch or door is operated.

5. Galley and Catering

UK P&I Club guidance notes that galley operations produce a consistent stream of hand injury claims: cuts from knives and slicing equipment, and burns from hot surfaces. The absence of cut-resistant gloves where appropriate and the use of wrong gloves near hot equipment are the most common contributory factors. Galley risk assessments should specifically address knife handling, slicing equipment, and glove selection for each task separately.

What COSWP Says About Gloves — Including When NOT to Wear Them

The MCA's Code of Safe Working Practices for Merchant Seafarers addresses PPE selection in detail, and the guidance on gloves is more nuanced than the “always wear gloves” instruction that many safety briefings reduce it to.

COSWP explicitly warns against wearing gloves near rotating machinery where there is a risk of entanglement. A glove caught on a rotating shaft, drill chuck, or lathe creates a dragging force that can pull the entire hand in before the wearer can respond. In these situations, bare hands are the safer choice. This is a risk-based decision, not a safety shortcut, and it is what COSWP and P&I guidance both recommend.

Where gloves are appropriate, COSWP and P&I clubs recommend matching glove type to the specific hazard:

• Wire rope and heavy deck work: Cut-resistant gloves rated to EN388 for both cut and abrasion. Standard work gloves do not protect adequately against wire rope.
• Chemical handling: Chemical-resistant gloves rated to the specific substance. General-purpose rubber gloves are not adequate for many industrial cleaning agents or cargo residues.
• High-temperature work: Heat-resistant gloves rated to the relevant temperature range. Standard work gloves provide negligible thermal protection.
• Anti-vibration: For extended impact tool use. Not appropriate for mooring operations where grip feedback is critical.
• Galley knife work: Cut-resistant (EN388). Heat-resistant for oven and hot equipment handling. The two are not interchangeable.

The P&I Club Prevention Framework: What Works

Across Gard, UK P&I Club, NorthStandard, West P&I, and Skuld loss prevention guidance, the same prevention framework appears consistently. Vessels that implement it have measurably fewer hand injury claims.

Written Task Risk Assessment Before High-Risk Operations

A written risk assessment — not a verbal briefing — that specifically names hand and finger hazards for the task, the applicable PPE, and the stop-work trigger. Gard notes that task-specific risk assessments are far more effective than generic ones: an assessment written for the specific mooring configuration being used in this port today is more useful than a generic “deck operations” checklist.

Toolbox Talks That Name Hands Specifically

Pre-task briefings that explicitly cover hand positioning, identified pinch points, and correct PPE for the operation. NorthStandard guidance notes that generic safety reminders have diminishing effect — the briefing needs to be specific to the task and the actual hazards present, not a recitation of general safety principles that crew have heard hundreds of times.

Near-Miss Reporting Without Blame

UK P&I Club data shows that vessels with a strong near-miss reporting culture have measurably lower hand injury claim rates than vessels where near-misses are managed informally. Every hand that was almost caught is a warning about a systemic hazard. Reporting it through your SMS near-miss system is the mechanism by which the hazard gets fixed before the next person is actually injured. Treat near-miss reports as the most valuable safety data on board.

Liberia Advisory 14/2026: SMS Compliance Is a Legal Obligation

Liberia's advisory is explicit: where an SMS contains procedures for PPE use, mooring operations, or permit-to-work, non-compliance creates personal liability for the individual bypassing the procedure and for the Master who permitted it. Documented compliance with your SMS is your protection in any accident investigation. Non-compliance with a written SMS procedure is the most common single contributory factor cited in P&I hand injury investigation reports.

The Career Reality of a Serious Hand Injury

A significant hand or finger injury can permanently end a seafarer's ability to hold an ENG1 medical certificate. The medical standard requires physical fitness adequate for the role, including hand function sufficient for watchkeeping, emergency response, and vessel operation. Amputation, severe crush injury, or significant tendon damage can create permanent limitations that make re-certification impossible.

A broken leg heals. Many serious hand injuries do not fully recover to pre-injury function. The P&I guidance, the COSWP requirements, and the Liberia advisory all describe the same preventable scenarios. The habits described in this article are not bureaucratic overhead. They are what keeps you certificated, employed, and whole.