The job that requires getting close: pedestrian detection for ports and container terminals
Most pedestrian-vehicle safety problems are about someone being too close. A hatchman working in close proximity to a suspended container is part of the job itself. That distinction changes the requirements for a workable safety proximity solution on port.
42
Real longshoring fatality case files documented by OSHA (US) in its own "Fatal Facts" guide
2
Repeat OSHA (US) citations issued to one stevedoring firm for the same crane-visibility hazard, three years apart
6
Sensor positions typically used to keep a crane spreader's exclusion zone consistent, whatever the container length
The Role
The person the crane operator most needs to see is the one hardest to see
Hatchmen work directly beside suspended containers as a matter of course — fitting and releasing twist locks, guiding a load into a cell guide, checking a stow before the next lift. Standard crane safety practice is unambiguous that no one should ever be positioned directly underneath a suspended load, a principle codified in crane safety regulation itself, but the job still requires working close enough beside it that the margin for error is genuinely small. It's also frequently performed by port contractors and labour-hire crews rather than direct terminal employees, which adds a familiarity gap on top of a proximity one. Unlike a warehouse aisle, where the goal is keeping a person and a vehicle apart, the goal here can't be separation at all — the work requires exactly the closeness a typical pedestrian safety system is built to prevent, within a boundary the worker must never cross.
A Genuinely Different Problem
This isn't a partially obstructed view. It's often no view at all.
A forklift operator with a raised load has a restricted sightline. A crane operator lifting a container from a vessel's hold frequently has none whatsoever — the load itself, the vessel's structure, or simply the geometry of looking down into a hold from height means the person working the load is completely outside the operator's field of view for parts of the lift. Communication happens by radio or by hand signal, following the protocols each site has in place. When either of those breaks down, there is no second channel to catch it.
What The Record Shows
These aren't isolated incidents
OSHA (US) Fatal Facts — Working Beneath a Suspended Load
One of OSHA's own 42 documented longshoring fatality case files describes a worker struck by a suspended container during a load-out operation, where the crane operator had to direct lifts by radio with no visual contact with the crew below.
Premier Bulk Stevedoring · Alabama, US · repeat citation
The US regulator OSHA fined the firm for exposing workers to "struck-by and caught-between hazards from swinging loads" after finding the crane operator had no clear view of stevedores in the hold — the second such citation for the same company in three years. OSHA's own recommendation: establish safety zones around the hoisting area.
What stands out across these cases isn't a lack of awareness of the risk. Each of these sites had procedures, radio protocols and briefings in place. Where they fell short was in having no way to confirm, in the moment, that reality still matched the plan.
When The Policy Exists But Doesn't Hold
When a written policy isn't matched by real enforcement
Maritime New Zealand v Gibson [2024] NZDC 27975 is the clearest illustration of this gap in a port setting specifically. Following the death of stevedore Pala’amo Kalati at the Ports of Auckland in 2020, the court's findings centred on how the exclusion zone around active crane operations was managed day to day: a documented policy existed, but the evidence showed it was inconsistently communicated and inconsistently enforced, and a supervisory role connected to lashing operations had been removed from the site. The case turned on whether a written policy, unsupported by a system that reliably enforces it in real time, satisfies an officer's due diligence duty.
The Real Fix
Detecting someone the operator can't see at all
Because visual contact often isn't available as a backup, the alert itself has to reach both people through channels that don't depend on eyesight. A worker's tag can alert them directly — audibly and visually — the moment they're inside a zone the load is about to occupy. The operator, who may have no way to see the worker directly, still needs their own clear signal: a distinct light or indicator on the load-handling equipment itself, visible from the cab regardless of what's blocking the view of the person below. Neither channel depends on the other working, and neither depends on radio discipline holding up under time pressure.
Configuring For A Role, Not Just A Zone
A job that requires proximity needs a zone built for that job
A single fixed exclusion radius doesn't fit this role well in either direction. Too generous, and it fires constantly for work the role legitimately requires, which is exactly the kind of pattern that teaches people to work around a system rather than trust it. Too tight, and it fails to catch the scenario that actually matters — a load descending onto a position faster than expected, or moving laterally into a person who hasn't moved.
Detection fixed to the load-handling equipment itself, rather than to a single point, keeps the zone consistent regardless of what's being lifted — a twenty-foot container and a forty-foot container create the same protected boundary, rather than a boundary that has to be reconfigured load by load. Getting that balance right, in practice, usually means testing the zone against the specific ways a load actually moves while a worker is positioned legitimately beside it: descending, ascending, moving laterally, and in close proximity throughout, not just one static scenario.
Distance alone doesn't fully solve this problem. Although standard operating procedure prohibits a Hatchman from ever standing directly underneath a suspended load, a Hatchman working legitimately close beside a container, and a Hatchman who has strayed into the space beneath a container, can appear at similar distances from a sensor despite being in significantly different levels of danger. A proximity detection system based purely on distance cannot separate those two positions apart.
A more useful requirement is triangulating a worker's actual position relative to the load, not just their distance from it — by distinguishing beside the container from beneath it, and adjusting the alert accordingly. That's a meaningfully higher bar than a simple radius, and it's the kind of capability the industry is only beginning to trial in live crane environments. Once proven in real operating environments, it means a genuine underneath-the-load position can trigger an earlier, more urgent alert, while a Hatchman working legitimately close beside the load doesn't generate an alert at all — keeping unwanted alerts to a minimum without giving up protection exactly where it matters most.
THE PATTERN
What this means for how ports approach this role
Proximity is part of the job
A system built purely around keeping distance risks working against the reality of the role. A more useful approach looks for ways to support smarter, proximity detection aligned to job roles and operating procedures.
Visual contact isn't always there to rely on
When an operator genuinely cannot see the person they're working around, radio and procedure become the only backstop. The cases referenced above are a reminder of the risks associated with procedures that are dependent solely on traditional communication methods.
A plan is only as strong as its everyday enforcement
Each of the cases referenced involved a site that had a plan in place. What they share is that there was no way to confirm, moment to moment, whether that plan was actually being followed day-to-day.
Configuring For A Role, Not Just A Zone
A job that requires proximity needs a zone built for that job
SonaSafe's Tagged deployment options are designed for: non-line-of-sight detection that works in all weather conditions. Where there is visual obstruction such as a container hold on a vessel, SonaSafe provides real-time alerts reaching both the worker and the equipment operator, regardless of if they can see each other. Because every terminal's crane operations differ, getting the configuration right is exactly what a properly run pilot is for — testing the zone against how loads actually move on that specific piece of equipment, before it's introduced as an additional safety layer for your port operations.
A single fixed exclusion radius doesn't fit this role well in either direction. Too generous, and it fires constantly for work the role legitimately requires, which is exactly the kind of pattern that teaches people to work around a system rather than trust it. Too tight, and it fails to catch the scenario that actually matters — a load descending onto a position faster than expected, or moving laterally into a person who hasn't moved.
Detection fixed to the load-handling equipment itself, rather than to a single point, keeps the zone consistent regardless of what's being lifted — a twenty-foot container and a forty-foot container create the same protected boundary, rather than a boundary that has to be reconfigured load by load. Getting that balance right, in practice, usually means testing the zone against the specific ways a load actually moves while a worker is positioned legitimately beside it: descending, ascending, moving laterally, and in close proximity throughout, not just one static scenario.
Maritime New Zealand v Gibson [2024] NZDC 27975 is the clearest illustration of this gap in a port setting specifically. Following the death of stevedore Pala’amo Kalati at the Ports of Auckland in 2020, the court's findings centred on how the exclusion zone around active crane operations was managed day to day: a documented policy existed, but the evidence showed it was inconsistently communicated and inconsistently enforced, and a supervisory role connected to lashing operations had been removed from the site. The case turned on whether a written policy, unsupported by a system that reliably enforces it in real time, satisfies an officer's due diligence duty.
Sources
- OSHA (US) — Longshoring and Marine Terminals: Fatal Facts (42 case file summaries)
- OSHA (US) — Section III, Material Handling Accidents, Summary No. 12 (Working Beneath a Suspended Load) and Summary No. 13 (Container Falling from Ship)
- OSHA (US) — 29 CFR 1926.1425, Keeping clear of the load
- Maritime Executive — OSHA (US) citation of Premier Bulk Stevedoring, Alabama
- Maritime New Zealand v Gibson [2024] NZDC 27975
What would a trial show on your own crane operations?
Every terminal's lifts, spreaders and lashing workflows are a little different. A site assessment maps what a properly configured zone would need to look like on your own equipment.
Talk to our team
