Finding Solutions

Research at the Workers Compensation Board

1150-20 U 1998 (98FS-40)

FISHING VESSEL STABILITY PROVING THE PRINCIPLES

Captain Barb Howe, M.Ed.

 2000 Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia. All rights reserved. The Workers Compensation Board of B.C. encourages the copying, reproduction, and distribution of this document to promote health and safety in the workplace, provided that the Workers Compensation Board of B.C. is acknowledged. However, no part of this publication may be copied, reproduced, or distributed for profit or other commercial enterprise or may be incorporated into any other publication without written permission of the Workers Compensation Board of B.C.

Additional copies of this publication may be obtained by contacting: Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia Publications & Videos Department 6711 Elmbridge Way Richmond, BC V7C 4N1 Phone (604) 276-3068 / Fax (604) 279-7406 Toll-free within BC 1-800-661-2112

Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles Issue: Agency: Representative: Funding: Knowledge of vessel stability within the B.C. fishing fleet Universal Marine Consultants, West Coast, Ltd. Captain Barb Howe, M.Ed., Quinte Marine Services Ltd. $50,000

Fishing vessels often founder or capsize for reasons related to the loss of transverse stability. In most cases a series of events lead to the incident. Fishermen need to be able to recognize and respond appropriately to signs that the stability of their vessel may be, or is in jeopardy. Information needs to be accessible to fishermen about common threats to vessel stability related to work practices and gear modification. Captain Barb Howe has been a fisherman and a nautical instructor at the Pacific Marine Training Campus of BCIT. She used a free floating 1/16th scale model of a west coast seine boat to demonstrate a variety of stability conditions to fishermen. The model and stability demonstration was taken to fishing communities on the B.C. coast over a six month period. Findings indicated that the danger of free surface of water collected on board a fishing vessel, and the seriousness of reduced freeboard were the two areas of fishing vessel stability least understood by fishermen. Investigative authorities frequently cite these two stability issues as causes of fishing vessel capsize. Recommendations regarding the continued use of the model to demonstrate stability principles are made within the context of other educational programs for fishermen conducted by the Workers Compensation Board.

Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles

Final Report

Captain Barb Howe, M.Ed.

1998 Finding Solutions

Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia

Table of Contents
Acknowledgments Chapter 1 Project Inception Chapter 2 Overview: the Problem Chapter 3 Overview: Stability Explained with the Model Chapter 4 Principles of Adult Education Chapter 5 Methodology Chapter 6 Evaluation Chapter 7 Limitations Chapter 8 Recommendations Bibliography page 4 6 7 11 18 24 32 39 44 46

Acknowledgments
The success of Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles was dependent on many people, including the participants. The first person I would like to thank is Murdoch Matheson, Universal Marine Consultants (West Coast) Ltd. As a marine surveyor specializing in fishing vessels, his first hand knowledge of stability problems and patterns was a source of valuable information for me. I gratefully acknowledge the assistance that Universal Marine Consultants (West Coast) Ltd. provided as my sponsoring agency for Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles. I would also like to thank the many individuals and groups who offered support in a variety of ways. The following list is in no particular order.

Jim Blair, Safety Officer, United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union (UFAWU) Dan McGreer, P. Eng., Kvaerner Masa Marine Ken Bassam, Model Shipyard, North Vancouver Lieutenant Tom Miller, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington D.C. Captain John Clarkson, Marine Safety, Transport Canada The Pacific Gillnetters Association The Vessel Owners Association David Rahn, Editor, Westcoast Fisherman Sean Griffith, Editor, The Fisherman (UFAWU) Tony Thompson, General Manager, Pacific Coast Fishermens Mutual Marine Insurance Company Beth Davies, Ed. D., Northwest Community College, Prince Rupert Pat Fricker, Community Activist, Queen Charlotte City Hank Munroe, UFAWU Representative, Sointula Kathy Reimer, Community Activist, Salt Spring Island The Institute of Ocean Sciences, Sydney, B.C. George Turnball, North Island Community College, Comox Steve Pitman, North Island Fisheries Initiative, Campbell River Chris Cue, Seine Operations Manager, Canadian Fishing Company, Vancouver Bill Fitzgerald, Canadian Fishing Company, Campbell River James Walkuss, Seafoods, Port Hardy Russell Cameron, fisherman, Pender Harbour Joe Bauer, Fisherman and Community Activist, Steveston

Dennis Chalmers, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Harbour Chandlers Ltd., Nanaimo Charlie Medlicott, Fishing Vessel Safety, USCG, Anchorage Don Heron, Fisherman, Vancouver John Secord for the model name - the Miff Lynn

This list does not include the many individuals who helped me pack the tank and model in and out of my truck at presentation sites, who provided liason assistance with community activists or concerned fishermen, or who in some way or another made Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles happen. My final acknowledgement is to the Workers Compensation Board of B.C. who funded the project. The WCB recognized that there is a safety problem with regard to fishing vessel stability and took a proactive position by providing funding under their 1998 Finding Solutions grant program for Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles.

Project Inception
Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles has a history. It started when gillnetting I sank in the early 1980s due to overloading and the subsequent loss of stability. Mr. Murdoch Matheson, Universal Marine Consultants (West Coast) Ltd. was the marine surveyor who investigated the incident. Over more than 15 years Mr. Matheson and I have kept in touch on a professional basis. We shared a common interest in fishing vessel stability, and inevitably conversation would come to what can be done to keep fishing vessels from capsizing for stability reasons. We considered independently producing a video, or writing readable and useful information about stability and stability data books for fishermen and in particular skippers. I learned of the 1998 Finding Solutions Workers Compensation Board grant program at about the same time I learned that the United States Coast Guard (USCG) had invested in ten free floating 1/16th scale models of a B.C. west coast seine boat to train fishermen about fishing vessel stability. models were constructed in North Vancouver at the Model Shipyard. I conceived of a training program for B.C. fishermen using the model, and described it to Mr. Matheson. Universal Marine Consultants (West Coast) Ltd. agreed to be the sponsoring agency in my application for a WCB Finding Solutions grant. Further details about the USCG training program were obtained from Lieutenant Tom Miller of the USCG, Washington D.C. Ken Bassam at the Model Shipyard spoke with me about construction cost and a time frame for the model delivery. Together, this information allowed me to put together a Stage One Proposal for a 1998 Finding Solutions grant. Stage One was followed by a Stage Two Proposal, which was funded for the amount of $50,000. This Final Report is written in the first person. As Champion of Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles my experiences with and observations of the project, form the basis of this report. The

Overview The Problem

Fishing as an occupation has existed for centuries. The men and women on fishing vessels need to understand and be able to address stability issues through all phases of their enterprise. This includes assuring that the vessel itself is seaworthy and stable before and after taking on fuel, water, stores, gear, and fish. The loading and working processes of the enterprise must not compromise or threaten the stability of the vessel, which is constantly changing while fishing at sea.

Background Issues A Labour Canada study published in 1985 identified fishing as the most dangerous occupation in Canada. The high fatality rate in the fishing industry was not reduced over the years 1975-1992 (WCB, Secretariat for Regulation Review, 1993). The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) has been concerned with the loss rate of fishing vessels, and has placed this issue on an annual list of high risk safety issues (TSB Statistical Summary, Marine Occurrences, 1996). In the July 1995 issue of Reflexions, published by the TSB, it is reported that the effect on a fishing vessels stability of overloading or modifying its design is too often ignored by vessel owners and operators. Statistically the TSB reports that since 1985 there have been at least 36 occurrences that resulted in 63 fatalities where the stability of fishing vessels was compromised by unauthorized modifications, and 57 occurrences resulting in 41 fatalities where overloading was a factor. The TSB attributed the sinking of the Pacific Bandit off Barkley Sound to stability problems (TSB Report No. M95W005). From that report the TSB recommended that:

The Department of Transport, in conjunction with other government departments, agencies, and organizations immediately undertake a national safety promotion program for operators and crews of small fishing vessels to increase their awareness of the effects of unsafe operating practices on vessel stability (TSB, M96-13, December 1996). The Department of Transport conduct a study to identify the extent of unsafe loading and operating practices used by fishermen on fishing vessels, with a view to developing guidelines for the safe operation of fishing vessels (TSB, M96-14, December 1996). Transport Canada replied to these recommendations that they believed that the guidelines on the safe operation of fishing vessels were adequate. They did, however, undertake in 1994 an independent evaluation study of NonRegulatory Marine Occurrence Prevention Programs (NRMOPP) aimed at fishing vessels of less than 15 gross registered tons. Phase 1 of that study recognized the relationship between education, awareness, positive safety attitudes and changed behaviors. Phase 2 of that study was to determine and substantiate the relevance and effectiveness of existing safety promotion programs and their delivery (TSB Report No. M96L0037). I have been unable to locate that document. It is relevant to note that the TSB, in response to the above undertaking of Transport Canada, believes that the safety message of some Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) programs is not getting through to those who are actually operating and crewing fishing vessels. The TSB made it clear that although Transport Canada was attempting to look at weak areas and suggest corrective measures, they were concerned that without specific action in the interim, unsafe loading and operating practices will continue to put fishing vessels and their crews at risk (TSB Report No. M96L0037). The TSB Report on the sinking of the B.C. trawler Pacific Charmer on December 2nd, 1997 with the loss of two lives has not yet been released as a public document. However, reports from the inquest suggest that lifting a nine tonne load of herring onto the vessel raised the centre of gravity. Along with the extra weight of fish nets and gear stored on the vessel, the further raising of the

centre of gravity by the nine tonne lift resulted in instability. When the fish were dumped on the deck the centre of gravity fluctuated and the vessel took on a list to one side. This allowed water to wash onto the deck and into the hold. Watertight doors had been tied open which allowed for further ingress of water into the vessel. A Vancouver Sun headline read Shipbuilding expert details series of events that caused fatal sinking (October 13, 1998). Findings indicated that the cummulative effect of several stability factaors led to the vessels capsize. The skipper and crew of the Pacific Charmer were experienced fishermen, the former having 20 years experience. This incident appears to have developed through unsafe loading and operating practices by an experienced crew. Although the TSB has expressed concern about skipper and crew knowledge of fishing vessel stability, their mandate is only to investigate accidents and incidents, not to undertake any training or educational programs. Government sanctioned training and education certificate programs for seafarers of all levels, including fishermen, is under Transport Canada, Marine Safety. On July 30th, 1997 a new certificate structure and training curriculum came into effect. The seatime requirements and curriculum for the Fishing Master Certificates of Competency, particularly with regard to fishing vessel stability, remain unchanged from the previous requirements and training syllabus. The WCB has identified Fish Harvesting, Subclass 0911 to have the highest claim duration of all B.C. industrial accidents. The Board is confronted with serious financial difficulties regarding claims in Subclass 0911, and is challenged to collect sufficient premiums to cover these rising costs from an industry whose revenue base is declining (Workers Compensation Board of B.C., Subclass 0911: Fish Harvesting, Stakeholder Executive Summary, Fall 1998). Although a restructuring of premium assessment is under review, the WCB can also address the problem through prevention education focused on training and education for fishermen in the area of vessel stability. In funding Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles, the WCB took a proactive lead in trying to reduce stability related incidents through a new approach to education and training. Indeed, in a letter of support written by

Captain J.A. Clarkson, Principal Examiner and Manager Nautical Certification, Marine Safety, Transport Canada he endorses the great practical merit to the fishing community of the WCB program Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles.

Conclusion The WCB, in taking a proactive position towards safety and training for the fishing industry, particularly fishing vessel stability, is filling a substantially needed educational gap for fishermen and the fish harvesting community in general. The rest of this Final Report on Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles looks at the capabilities of the 1/16th scale model to demonstrate basic stability principles, principles of adult education that guided the project, a description of how training sessions were conducted, evaluation, limitations, recommendations and a general discussion of the program. The term fisherman is used in this Final Report to mean both men and women engaged in commercial fishing.

Overview Stability Explained with the Model

Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles used a 16th scale free floating model of a Westcoast seine boat in a tank to demonstrate several principles of stability that should be understood by all fishermen, particularly skippers. The model can demonstrate: Fishing vessel righting energy in various conditions of load The free surface effect of water on deck and liquids in holds and tanks which results in the virtual rise of G The effect of unintentional flooding in the lazarette or engine room The angle of loll as opposed to a list The effect of lifting weights over the stern or over the side The effect of carrying traps on deck How structural modifications can effect vessel stability How trim and reduced freeboard effect the ability of the vessel to return to the upright when heeled by an external force

Kvaerner Masa Marine who designed the model, compiled an operators manual which contains general particulars of the model including full scale equivalents and a description of the key systems. The manual also includes stability information for six different load conditions, hydrostatic data at various levels of trim, tank capacities of the forward and aft fish holds, and detailed information on how to conduct an incline test with the model to determine the lightship vertical centre of gravity (VCG). The operators manual included a great deal of useful information for someone working with the model who had in depth prior knowledge of fishing vessel stability. However it did not provide any step by step guidelines for conducting a presentation with the model. The model came with two inclining weights and one lifting weight equivalent to slightly over 2000 pounds. From the information contained in the operators manual and experimentation with the model I created a series of stability scenarios. The scenarios depicted the stability principles noted above. My intent was to bridge the gap between overly

simplified stability explanations (often contained in fishing safety literature), and explanations that require complex mathematical calculations. I wanted the demonstration of stability principles to be as visual as possible, and to also clarify misconceptions about fishing vessel stability. At Fish Expo, Seattle 1998 I watched how the USCG used the model to demonstrate stability principles which generated some ideas for my own concept of a presentation. This chapter describes how the model was able to demonstrate the principles of stability identified above.

Fishing vessel righting energy in various conditions of load Righting energy refers to the vessels ability to return to the upright when heeled by an external force. The difference between heel and list, which is caused by the off centre line loading of weight, was clarified. A vessels ability to return to the upright depends on the condition of load, which changes where the vertical centre of gravity (VCG) of the ship is located. The position of the VCG moves toward weights added and away from weights discharged. I assembled a variety of weights that represented things that would be found on board a typical fishing vessel. Boxes that represented gear lockers, and a freezer could be positioned on the top of the wheelhouse, a practice found frequently on larger fishing vessels. Forty five gallon drums of fuel oil were stored on deck (tins of tomato paste with weight added to bring them to scale). Weights that represented a full catch could be loaded in the holds, and there was a seine skiff that could be placed on the stern. Adding or removing weight simulated several different conditions of load. The vessel was forcibly heeled and visually it was clear that when the centre of gravity was high, the ability to return to the upright was not as positive as when the centre of gravity was lowered in the vessel. The terms stiff and tender ship were introduced. Different load conditions also made it possible to discuss what is meant by range of stability, that is to what angle can a vessel be heeled and still return to the upright.

10

When the model was extremely tender, and further imprudent loading practices were effected, it would capsize. The point could be made that usually it is the cummulative effect of imprudent loading that leads to instability and eventual capsize.

The free surface effect of water on deck and liquids in holds and tanks which results in the virtual rise of G The effect of free surface of water on deck and liquids in holds and tanks results in what is called the virtual rise of G. This is frequently the cause of vessels capsizing, and yet is probably the least well understood aspect of fishing vessel stability. The reason for this is because depending on the area of free surface liquid, the weight of the liquid free to move about will act as if it were considerably higher in the vessel than it actually is (hence the term virtual). This raises the centre of gravity dramatically, and can produce disasterous results. Fuel and fresh water tanks are baffled, and in newer vessels hatches fore and aft have permanent longitudinal bulkheads to break up the possibility of free surface. However, many older vessels are still in service where the aft hatch does not have a longitudinal bulkhead, and hence is vulnerable to the effect of free surface. The model has removable longitudinal bulkheads. I could fill the fore and aft hatches half full of water with the bulkheads in place. When I removed the bulkheads it was clear that righting energy was reduced as a result of free surface. Water trapped on deck is often cited as a cause of capsize. I was able to plug the freeing ports on the model and flood the deck with slightly more than a coffee mug full of water. If the vessel was in lightship condition it would capsize. The addition of weight below made the model more stable, but by adding more water on deck it could still be made to capsize. It could be demonstrated that if the vessel did not have longitudinal bulkheads in the holds, pressing the tanks all the way up to the hatch covers reduced the effect of free surface.

11

The effect of unintentional flooding in the lazarette or engine room This is another demonstration of the effect of free surface. I presented it seperately from the previous free surface considerations because flooding in the lazarette or engine room often goes unnoticed until the accumulated water has started to cause serious stability problems which can alert crew to the fact that something is wrong. By then it may be too late. It can be mathematically shown that a lazarette twenty feet wide from port to starboard which has two feet of salt water in it will cause the vessel to react as though the weight of the water is 16.6 feet higher than it actually is. If the lazarette is 10 feet fore and aft, then the volume of salt water is 400 cubic feet. Salt water weights 64.2 pounds per cubic foot, which means the weight of the water is approximately 11 tons acting as though it were 16.6 feet higher than it really is. The engine room is often vulnerable when sea cocks are inadvertantly opened. Isolating these two areas for a discussion of free surface allowed me to raise other good safety practices like high water alarms and written instructions for the vessels pumping system. Flooding the lazarette or engine room of the model effectively demonstrated that free surface in those compartments had an adverse effect on stability.

The angle of loll as opposed to list An angle of loll will generally only occur when the presence of free surface raises the centre of gravity significantly. In an angle of loll the vertical drawn up from the centre of bouyancy cuts the ships centre line coincident with the centre of gravity and thus there is no GZ righting lever to return the vessel to the upright. The vessel will flop from side to side taking up what is called an angle of loll, either to port or starboard. This is an extremely dangerous situation, as the corrective measures require a solid understanding of stability somewhat beyond basic principles. However, the model is capable of showing an angle of loll where it flops from one side to the other when forcibly heeled. In order to create an angle of loll with the model, introducing free surface was necessary. The

12

demonstration of the angle of loll and the incorrect way of dealing with it caused the model to capsize.

The effect of lifting weights over the stern or over the side When a weight is lifted with the boom, as soon as it comes clear of the deck the weight is transferred to the head of the boom. Depending on the height to which the boom is topped, this can result in a dramatic rise in the centre of gravity of the vessel, and possibly result in capsize. This was easily demonstrated with the model. I used a weight equivalent to about 8000 pounds that looked like a bag of fish. That the weight was transferred to the head of the boom was quite obvious given the reaction of the model. Without significant weight down below this lift capsized the model. Although the original model design did not have a tilt stern, I asked that one be put on. Tilt sterns are extremely common in the seine fleet and have on occasion been cited as the cause of capsize, for example when a bag of fish has shifted to one side. Because tilt sterns allow heavier loads to be lifted, when a bag of fish shifts to one side it can cause a serious enough list that downflooding may occur. This could be demonstrated with the model.

The effect of carrying traps on deck I made a deckload of crab traps that were stacked in a manner so that I could cause them to shift which resulted in a serious list on the model. Without significant weight down below, the traps on deck effectively raised the centre of gravity of the model and it became visibly unstable, especially if further top weight was added. When the traps shifted the model become vulnerable to capsize. This particular demonstration was important because many vessels which have retired their salmon license are now crab fishing. A change in the gear type for which the vessel was designed can result in reduced stability. Modifications to the vessel can raise the initial VCG and the vessels stability may already be decreased before fishing begins.

13

How structural modifications can effect vessel stability Changing gear type often requires structural modifications to the vessel. I built a removable bait shack that fits on the stern and is appropriately weighted to represent a vessel that has been modified for a fishery not considered in the original design. The addition of the bait shack raised the models centre of gravity and reduced stability. The bait shack along with drums of fuel on deck is not unlike vessels that go off shore for tuna. This scenario showed that modifications may change the initial lightship VCG. Vessel modifications are becoming more common, and this demonstration connected principles of stability with real life situations. How trim and reduced freeboard effect the ability of the vessel to return to the upright when heeled by an external force Although Ive indicated that this could be demonstrated with the model it was quite difficult to do so. This is because the model is inherently an extremely stable vessel with substantial freeboard. What could be demonstrated was exactly what is meant by freeboard. This could introduce a general discussion about freeboard, and I could ask the participants why does a vessel return to the upright when heeled by an external force. Usually no one in the group could really answer the question. Through the use of simple sketches I was able to show why a reduction in freeboard generally results in a loss of righting energy. If the participants fished on larger vessels that carried a stability data book, I would show them a stability data book where the worst operating condition was usually in bound with a full load of fish, and 35% fuel, stores and fresh water. With a full load of fish the vessel has the least amount of freeboard. Common in the fleet is the misconception that in bound with a full catch the vessel is the most stable. Generally this is not the case. Even though the effect of loss of freeboard on stability could not directly be shown with the model reducing the freeboard of the model provided a smooth transition into the aforementioned discussion.

14

Conclusion This has presented an overview of the stability principles that the model is capable of demonstrating. Chapter 5, Methodology, offers a more precise description of how the demonstrations were actually presented. I saw the model not only as being capable of demonstrating basic stability principles, but that participants would be able to flood compartments, lift weights, and change the models condition of load and prove the principles to themselves the idea was that everyone would work with the model in an interactive manner. This interactive perspective on how Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles, and knowing what the model was capable of demonstrating was the beginning of the program development. The interactive nature of the program was intended to encourage participant focused learning, facilitated by myself. Participant focused learning is discussed in the literature on adult learning and education. The next chapter will examine, from that literature, the theoretical perspectives I considered when developing Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles.

15

Principles of Adult Education

My primary consideration was to have a clear vision of what I wanted to accomplish with the model and Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles. After my objectives were clear I turned to adult education literature for teaching and learning theories, and principles that would support my objectives.

Objectives First, I wanted participants to learn that fishing vessel stability does not have to be a complex subject. I believed the model would provide an authentic or simulated context in which to demonstrate principles of stability that traditional training does not provide. Second, it seemed to me that if participants proved principles of stability to themselves through interaction with the model, that learning transfer would be more likely to occur. Third, I wanted to engender a forum where discussion and questions fundamentally defined the learning experience through social exchange. Fourth I wanted participants to be able to relate their own fishing vessel experiences to the principles of stability the model could demonstrate, and to understand that a fishing vessels stability is every crew members concern. It has been suggested that What is learned is intimately linked to where, when, how, and with who it is learned (Pratt, 1996, p. 68). My concerns were located in the where, when, how, and who as they served as anchors for Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles. I shall briefly discuss some of my considerations with regard to authenticity of the learning activity, knowledge transfer, learning as a social process, and the importance of prior experience to learning.

The Model and Authentic Activity When I was instructing fishermen at the Pacific Marine Training Campus of BCIT (PMTC) it became apparent that in an effort to avoid the complexities of

16

fishing vessel stability, the Ministry of Transport (MOT) curriculum for Fishing Master Certificates tended to err in the opposite direction by oversimplifying stability. Perhaps the best example of this is the emphasis on having lots of weight low in the vessel. This is important because it keeps the VCG low in the vessel. However, without further explanation it can lead to the misconception that in bound with a full load of fish the vessel is the most stable. Mention generally isnt made that with the addition of weight to the vessel there is a loss of freeboard which can be dangerous. Traditional formal training is classroom based where principles of stability are presented in one dimension on a chalkboard, and learning is evaluated by multiple choice questions. Efforts to inform fishermen about stability, outside of the formal setting, are found in safety pamphlets or booklets. The Small Fishing Vessel Safety Manual (CCG) tells the reader that fishing vessel stability is a very complex subject. The WCB publication Gearing up for Safety only says that the vessel should be seaworthy with weights down low and booms down but does not explain why this is good practice. Both of these examples exemplify how safety literature has grappled with stability in an effort to impart safe loading and operating practices. Neither of the instructional approaches described above involve any authentic activity, i.e. actually on a vessel, nor do they make use of any type of simulation activity. Fishing vessels are in constant motion and the stability profile changes during the trip. I believed that the three dimensional free floating model with its movable weights would more closely resemble the real life experience of fishing than one dimension drawings on a chalkboard, or verbal descriptions. The model could give stability a more authentic or simulated context in which to introduce stability principles. In order to be truly authentic, learning should take place in a setting where knowledge and skills are fully transparent to a learner (it is unthinkable to imagine teaching driving without ever getting into a car). Realistically it is not prudent nor viable to take a fishing vessel out and actually make it capsize. It appeared as if stability simulated with the model might be

17

able to bridge the gap between the truly authentic activity, and one dimension drawings in a classroom, by imparting a sense of realism to the learning activity. Whereas Ive suggested that the model is authentic or realistic in its contribution to learning, some theorists would refer to it as a type of simulation. From the literature Knox offers a sound argument for simulation activities: Simulations have proven utility in helping adults learnenable learners to be active, learn from experience without the price of wrong decisions, compress real-life events into short time periods, receive rapid feedback, engage in realistic discussion, obtain a more comprehensive perspective, become more receptive to new ideas and viewpoints by virtue of personal involvement, and develop human relations skills (1986, p. 92). The model simulated a real vessels responses to loading, free surface, suspended weights, traps on deck, and structural modifications. Feedback was immediate, there was no price to pay for capsizing the model, activity was compressed, and personal involvement could encourage investigation of new ideas presented by other fishermen working with the model.

Learning Transfer There is a great deal of theoretical literature on how transfer of knowledge and learning takes place. The notion of change still underlies most definitions of learning, although it has been modified to include the potential for change (Merriam and Caffarella, 1991, p. 124). The notion of change is rooted in behaviourist theory as described by Thorndike, Tolman, Guthrie, and Hull (Sahakian, 1984). From the behaviorist perspective, changed behavior is an indication that learning has occurred. It is certainly true that most safety education training is embedded in behaviorist thinking (Heinrich, 1931; Heinrich & Peterson, 1980; and Skinner, 1974). Ideally some of the principles of stability that the model is capable of demonstrating, prudent loading of weights for example, would be practiced on participants own fishing vessels. Knowledge about the dangers of free surface would lead to work behaviors on board that avoid the accumulation of free surface. Clearly whether learning has occurred, from a behaviorist perspective,

18

is hard to determine in the case of Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles where changed behavior is not immediately measurable. However, it was my hope that by proving some of the stability principles to themselves, participants were at least more likely to remember the principles when next on a fishing vessel. Stated another way, the potential for change would be seeded by a better understanding of stability principles. I felt that in proving certain stability principles to themselves, participants would feel a sense of ownership of that knowledge, and the likelihood of learning transfer would be enhanced by the visual and tactile nature of the interactive work with the model. Learning by doing that the learning experience was active rather than passive, bouyed the possibility that learning transfer would occur.

Learning, a Social Perspective Social learning theory, described in the writing of Bandura, Lefrancois, Jarvis, Rotter, and Daloz is a break from a purely behaviorist orientation (Merriam and Caffarella, 1991, p. 135). This perspective focuses on the social setting where learning occurs and views learning as a function of social interaction. Social learning theories contribute to adult learning by highlighting the importance of the social context in which learning takes place (p. 139). Because Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles was a program for fishermen, I believed that the social context surrounding the program would have cohesion. Fishing has often been described as a culture, sub-culture, community, or way of life. Because the participants were for the most part all fishermen, learning would be within a cultural context. The level of education that fishermen possess falls below male B.C. workers in either the blue-collar labour force or workers in primary occupations (Marchak, Guppy & McMullan, 1987, p. 177). This raises the issue of how well fishermen do in the training that is available to them. Success in traditional formal training settings may be more a matter of memorizing facts to pass a test than fully comprehending the facts themselves. My rationale was that working

19

with the model to prove stability principles would result in a better comprehension of the facts of stability in a non-threatening or intimidating social environment and learning could originate from the interactive nature of the model. Learning principles of stability by working with the model was designed as a social activity where questions and discussion fundamentally defined the learning experience. From my experience teaching fishermen at PMTC I came to learn that most fishermen have a stability story to tell and I felt that the relaxed social atmosphere surrounding Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles would encourage those stories to come out. I felt that the discussion of stability experiences with other fishermen would help foster learning. Malcolm Knowles has suggested that Adults learn more effectively through experiential techniques of education such as discussion or problemsolving (1980, pp. 43-44). I believed that Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles would include discussion and problem solving in a group setting. The program was perceived to be very much a social activity.

Prior Experience and Learning Adult education theorists present a broad array of postulates regarding how adults learn. However there does seem to be some concensus that a persons prior life experiences act as a foundation on which learning takes place. Malcolm Knowles assumptions about adult learning, which he called andragogy, include his observation that adults experiences are a rich resource for learning. It is a persons prior knowledge through experience that allows them to link new information to old knowledge gained from experience. There is a need for learners to interpret what they are being exposed to in terms of their past experiences or to trace connections between new ideas and perspectives and their already evolved structures of understanding (Brookfield, 1990, p. 50). It would be difficult to dispute that a fisherman has a colourful and complex experiential biography. Ausubel (1967) distinguishes between meaningful learning and rote learning. He suggests that learning is meaningful only when it can be related to

20

concepts that already exist in a persons cognitive structure. Rote learning, common in traditional marine training programs, may not link soundly to a persons cognitive structure that relies on prior experience. Encouraging participants to talk about their prior experiences with fishing and vessel stability would be a way of bringing that experience to the surface where it could more easily be linked with the stability principles demonstrated and proven with the model.

Conclusion This chapter looked briefly at some of the theories and principles that emerge from the literature on adult education. The purpose of this exploration was to ground my objectives within some of the accepted theoretical perspectives that guide adult education today. Pratts suggestion that what is learned is intimately linked to where, when, how and with who it is learned is predicated by a variety of learning theories and perspectives. As an educational endeavour, my approach to Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles was to ensure that my objectives and the associated activities were grounded in theories and principles evident in the literature.

21

Methodology
The two previous chapters described the capabilities of the model, and the guiding theoretical perspectives underpinning Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles. From these two aspects I was able to draft a methodolgy for the program. This chapter will explain publicity that preceded my arrival in a community to offer the program, the conceptual methodology I envisioned for the delivery of the program, and a discussion of what actually happened. In reality the methodology evolved as I went along and appeared to be determined by two main factors; who the participants were and their past experiences in the industry, and the venue or presentation site for the program.

Publicity While the model was being constructed at the Model Shipyard in North Vancouver, I started publicizing the program. The two major avenues for making the WCB funded program Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles known throughout the fishing community in general were The Westcoast Fisherman and the UFAWU newspaper call The Fisherman. The Editors of both publications were interested in the program and provided coverage. Initially, because I did not have dates for when I would be where, The Westcoast Fisherman gave me space in the Letters to the Editor section and mentioned the WCB program in an article on the model. The Fisherman came to the Model Shipyard and interviewed me. Their article on the program was also descriptive and included a photograph of the model under construction. The Pacific Coast Fishermens Mutual Marine Insurance Company (hereafter referred to as Mutual Marine) invited me to give a presentation to their Board of Directors about Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles. Following my presentation they agreed to include a flyer describing the program in their December 1998 membership mailing which went to over 1000 fishermen.

22

This was a major factor in getting word out about the program to the fishing community. When I designed the flyer for Mutual Marine an important consideration was that the general format I selected be reproduced in all other flyers and publicity. The rationale for this was that if the format was consistent, fishermen would be more likely to look at a flyer posted months later in their community and say to themselves oh yes, Ive seen this before The Editor of The Fisherman attended one of the sessions in Steveston and wrote an article with a photograph. Aside from this, further publicity for the project was community specific except. I obtained community contact names from a variety of sources, and after establishing a date when I would be in a community, relied on my contact to advertise and publicize the program, or I contacted the local paper directly. In many cases the community contact also arranged for the venue (community hall, school, net left etc.). After the date, time and venue for a program was established, I would print up the standard flyer with the correct information on it and mail or fax it to the community contact. They would reproduce the flyer and post it around town. In one instance the community contact delivered the flyers door to door by hand. In two instances the program announcement went out over the local television wheel that advertised upcoming calendar events.

Conceptual Methodology The conceptual methodology for the program Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles was derived from the stability principles that the model was capable of demonstrating, blended with adult education theory and practices (Chapter 3 and Chapter 4). It was essential that I had some sense of how to go about presenting the program before taking it on the road. What I anticipated was that a venue would have been established before my arrival. I would unload the tank, model, pump, hoses and miscellaneous equipment and set up prior to participants arriving. Once the group assembled I would introduce the program and myself, and let everyone introduce themselves

23

and identify what type of fishing they were involved in. Then I would talk about stability in general terms, i.e. that it is a vessels ability to return to the upright when heeled by an external force. This discussion would allow people to volunteer information about their own experiences with stability. Following this general discussion about stability, I would encourage participants to load the model using the different weights provided to simulate loading during a fishing operation. My role was as facilitator to keep the activities focused, encourage discussion, answer questions and keep participants working hands on with the model. For example, one way I could keep the activities focused would be to ask someone to flood the lazarette and then heel the model. When it could be seen that the model was having difficulty recovering from the heel I would talk about free surface and the virtual rise of G. After everyone had a chance to work extensively with the model, and I knew that everything the model was capable of demonstrating had been simulated and discussed as a group, I would pose the question why do boats return to the upright when heeled by an external force? The easiest way to answer the question is with several simple sketches of the GZ righting lever that develops when a vessel is heeled. The length of the lever is dependent on such things as the condition of load and freeboard. With these sketches I could provide enough stability theory to explain the principles that people had demonstrated with the model. It was also a chance to show participants a stability data book, and how the sketches I had made to illustrate theory were replicated in the stability data book in tables and graphs. I could show fishermen that the worst operating condition as determined by the naval architect is usually when the vessel is heading home at the end of a trip with a full load of fish. Following the activity and discussion described above I would show a video. I had a small portable television/video machine and two videos on stability. If most of the participants were large vessel operators with stability data books one video was preferable. If participants were from the smaller fleet the other video was more appropriate.

24

After the video I had several TSB Casualty Reports available for reading. The TSB Reports used the stability vocabulary that as a group we would have used during the activities with the model. I had effectively used TSB Reports in the past at PMTC as an activity for emphasizing that generally it is a combination of events that lead to capsize. It is important that fishermen understand this and always ensure that threats to a vessels stability are minimized. I would construct a casualty report table on brown paper taped to a wall or on a chalkboard if one was available. Along the horizontal axis I would identify each vessel for which there was a casualty report. On the vertical axis I would list 10 or 12 stability related events that cummulatively can lead to capsize. Those who read TSB Casualty Reports would come up to the casualty report table described, and tick the events in the report they read that led to capsize. My experience showed that usually about half way through this activity someone would say, hey, all these Reports sort of sound the same. That is precisely the point. After finishing the TSB Casualty Report activity the evaluation questionnaires would be handed out and Id be available for individual questions, or to explain a fishermans specific stability book. Prior to presenting Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles the foregoing was my conceptual methodology for how a session would take shape. Much to my surprise what I have described above did not happen in all the sessions I conducted. The next section will describe in both general and specific detail what actually happened.

What Actually Happened More often than not none of the participants showed an inclination to work hands on with the model! I suspect this was in part because of unfamiliarity with it. But the more sessions I facilitated the more clear it became that the majority of participants, regardless of how aggressive they might be as fishermen, and some were known highliners, as learners they became passive and expected me to teach them about fishing vessel stability. Many of the principles of adult education Id considered, such as adult learners wanting to learn by doing, and

25

the importance of prior experience, did not seem particularly important. Most participants did not volunteer any of their own stability stories as students had while I was teaching at PMTC. At PMTC by the time we were studying fishing vessel stability the class had gotten to know each other. Whereas with Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles many of the participants did not know each other, or only knew one another casually through industry connections. This may have inhibited social interaction. Thus, in most of the presentations I assumed the traditional role of teacher. I did the talking, I posed the questions, and I responded to the questions using the model to demonstrate my answers. With some groups there would be more discussion and questions from participants, and in others there would be very little input from the group. This should not be misinterpreted as disinterest. Participants almost without exception claimed that the stability presentation was valuable and that they learned from it. In most cases I did not use the TSB Casualty Reports because reading skills as a whole did not make the Reports a positive activity. My initial evaluation form had to be simplified so participants could answer the questions, and still provide useful formative and summative information for me. Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles took on its own life somewhat removed from my conceptual methodology. I believe two factors strongly effected this fact. The first was who the participants were and what their experience in the industry was, and the actual venue or presentation site for the program.

The Participants Although no data was collected, I suspect that many participants were not high school graduates. Something resembling a learning situation was perceived to be more what they remembered school to be like, that is the teacher came in and taught them. My presentation in Prince Rupert was advertised as a free workshop. People were invited to drop in and work with a free floating model in a tank to prove stability principles. A workshop may have been an unfamiliar concept. Fortunately I was in Prince Rupert long enough so that newspaper

26

coverage described the program and through word of mouth there was an increase in participant numbers the last two days I was first in Prince Rupert. My experience in Prince Rupert led me to change the description of the next presentation (in Pender Harbour) from a work shop to a course. Im not sure that this change was so much responsible for the turnout in Pender Harbour as it was the enthusiasm of the community contact. This was the best attended session with 34 participants. Almost all were fishermen, which was not necessarily the case in other communities. The community contact in Pender Harbour had hand delivered flyers to every fishermans door in town. When I described the presentation as a course people started wanting to know if they would receive a certificate for attending. Also by calling Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles a course, it became more structured and I was a teacher more than facilitator. As a teacher rather than a facilitator, I had to reassess my methodology. I directed the activities of the course and it seemed uninspiring to simply state a stability principle and then prove it with the model that approach lacked natural flow and continuity. What happened was that each session was slightly different, and I really had no fixed plan as to where I was going. If it was a group of small vessel operators I would talk as if the model was a gillnet or crab boat. My running commentary started with an empty or lightship vessel and I would get ready to go fishing. This meant adding ice, spare gear, and perhaps extra fuel. The scenario differed each time but what was consistent was that my commentary replicated the continuity and cummulative nature of events on board a fishing vessel. In most instances I continued to show one of the videos, but did not use the TSB Casualty Reports. I revised the evaluation sheet so that at least I was able to determine what aspects of the course participants found the most enlightening. The other factor that impacted how Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles took shape was the actual venue or presentation site, usually chosen and organized by the community contact.

27

The Venue The venues for the program were as diverse as the participants. Venues included a formal auditorium at the Institute of Ocean Sciences in Sydney, parking lots at a dock or next to a marine chandlery, net lofts at B.C. Packers, Delta Sea Food Products, Seafoods, and Canadian Fish, community halls, Legions, schools, private backyards, dockside, and as an adjunct to some other activity. The nature of the venue had an impact on how the presentation developed. The indoor presentations tended to be more detailed. This may have been related to the physical comfort of the participants and myself. The auditorium in Sydney, though very accommodating was a bit sterile and I believe resulted in participants being more reticent to actively participate. Although perhaps less detailed in content, the less structured presentations in net lofts or dockside may have made more of an impression on participants. This seemed to be particularly the case in net loft presentations, where participants were working on their gear when I arrived. They stopped to help me set up which allowed us to talk about fishing and stability. Also in net lofts the participants knew one another. The less formal presentations may have had more impact, but they were difficult to evaluate because distributing an evaluation questionnaire would have been an anachronism. The presentations in more formal settings covered more material and discussed stability in greater depth they were more of a course and an evaluation process was appropriate. The methodology for all of the venues still followed a free running commentary style that showed the cummulative effect of factors effecting stability. The most difficult venues were where I set up the model and tank as an adjunct to some other event. These presentations were almost incidental learning events, but had their own value both for the information provided and for exposure. The first time I did this was at the Richmond Inn for the Department of Fisheries (DFO) Herring Pool School. Here I was only able to quickly show casual observers one or two very quick points about fishing vessel stability. Free

28

surface was the stability issue I focused on in this type of presentation. This was not unlike dockside or parking lot venues that simply attracted passersby, some of whom would pass along the word to friends who would come up and say, my buddy said I should come look at this

Working with a Translator There is a fairly large Vietnamese fleet out of Steveston. A community activist/advocate for that fleet contacted me regarding Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles. As well as sessions for fishermen and people working in the area of marine safety, two additional sessions were offered for Vietnamese fishermen and they were presented through a translator. I asked the translator to attend one session just as a participant/listener to ensure that they had a grasp of the content. The two translated sessions generated a lot of questions and conversation. Debriefing with the translator indicated that the questions and conversation were definitely stability related, and generated by the presentation. Although I did not use the TSB Casualty Reports, I did show one of the videos and participants appeared attentive. The video I showed is fairly basic and the visual graphics speak for themselves independent from the commentary.

Conclusion Whereas I started out with a conceptual methodology based on an interactive hands on activity, it quickly became apparent that my methodology needed to be adjusted to meet the expectations of the participants and the venue of the presentation. Although as described above, each presentation was different, what participants reported they learned about stability that they didnt know before seemed to be quite consistent. The next chapter will look at the evaluation process for Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles. The participants and the venues played an important part in the evaluation process.

29

Evaluation and Findings

A common approach prior to offering training or educational programs is to start with a needs assessment who needs what training and why. Once a need for training is established the program is developed and delivered. The final overture to the program is an evaluation component to assess the merit or worth of the program. The merit or worth of the program generally includes trying to assess whether the participants learned specific information or whether behavior modification to some degree may be an outcome. The latter is particularly true with safety training where changed behavior is usually the desired outcome. Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles did not begin with a formal needs assessment. The need was established from existing literature, the perception of several government bodies, and the Workers Compensation Board who funded the program. Although fishermen, the target audience, were not directly consulted as part of the needs assessment, several interest groups representing fishermen wrote letters of support for the program. Mutual Marine, whose Board of Directors is made up of fishermen, also supported the program. Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles was evaluated using a single page questionnaire. The previous chapter discussed the different venues where the program was offered. In some venues it was inappropriate to ask participants to fill out an evaluation questionnaire because of the informal nature of the presentation. For example, presentations offered in net lofts were casual and often interrupted net mending work or preparations to go fishing. Where the stability model was an adjunct to some other event, contact with the model was not long enough to warrant an evaluation questionnaire. Because not all participants filled out an evaluation questionnaire, it is difficult to ascertain exactly how many people participated in Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles whether as a course, or on a less formal basis. The total number of completed questionnaires was 247, although I would

30

estimate that around 500 people either formally or informally came in contact with Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles. This chapter will discuss the evaluation process from a formative and a summative perspective. There is a discussion about the long range effectiveness of the program. Next, some of the responses to particular questions on the evaluation questionnaire are discussed. In conclusion, some general observations related to the evaluation of Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles are given.

Formative Evaluation A formative evaluation is generally some sort of evaluation process to determine areas where a program shows strengths and also areas that need improvement. The questionnaire was designed for this purpose. If the responses to the question that asked a participant to rate the course as excellent, good, fair, poor, or lousy had been consistently poor or lousy, clearly I would have needed to reconsider my presentation with the model. This was not the case. Overall response indicated that participants found the presentation with the model informative. The other question that had a formative function was whether or not a participant would recommend the course to friends. Again, if consistently the response had been no, then I would have had to rethink presenting stability principles with the model. Everyone who completed the questionnaire indicated that they would recommend the course to others. The formative feedback that I derived from the questionnaire was valuable in that it affirmed that the program was being well received. My recognition early on that different audiences and different venues called for program modification was a formative evaluation that I made without participant feedback. As I discussed in the chapter on Methodology, somewhat to my surprise I had to completely rethink the stability presentation when I discovered that participants appeared to prefer having me be the teacher. This was a formative evaluation that was strongly guided by non-written participant feedback.

31

When I used the TSB Casualty Reports participants indicated that they found them interesting. Consistency wasnt so strong with responses to the video. A few people found the video boring and a minority of others simply said they did not think that it particularly helped them understand stability. From a formative perspective I found this information useful. If I felt that participant response and attention to the model was keen and particularly up beat I wouldnt show the video feeling that it might detract from the impact the model had made.

Summative Evaluation A summative evaluation is an examination of the value or merit of a program, often used for accountability and to justify program costs. From that perspective, the information gathered from the questionnaires was favorable. All of the rating responses were either excellent (78%) or good (12%). Everyone (100%) said they would recommend the course to friends - some put exclamation marks after yes, and others boldly underlined or circled yes. Nearly everyone indicated that the model helped them to understand the principles of stability. Less than half a percent did not respond to the question, one response was negative, and one person wrote to a certain degree on a minute scale. Although there were no questions on the evaluation form that had to do with stability data books, I was surprised at the number of fishermen who came to Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles with their vessels stability book, asking for help in how to read it. This led me to create a four page handout called Information Found in a Fishing Vessel Stability Data Book. It described some of the important information in a stability book that a skipper would want to know (fuel transfer procedures, worst operating condition etc.). My conclusion, based on watching and working with participants and the nature of the questions that I was asked, was that the model proved to be an extremely effective way of presenting basic stability principles. More often after a presentation rather than during it, a fishermen would come and ask me specific

32

questions about their boat. This indicated to me that some people had stability concerns about their vessel, which may or may not have been generated by the session with the model. Frequently I was asked about vessel modifications and how they would effect a persons fishing vessel. These were difficult questions to answer without specific stability data from a naval architect. Fishermen would remark on the cost of hiring a naval architect. I suggested that they contact the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of British Columbia that has an extensive naval architecture program. That program includes a tank testing facility for determining stability characteristics for vessel design. The model used in Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles was tested in that tank facility, and filmed in the wave action tank for a program on weather produced for the Discovery Channel. It was my thought that perhaps a graduate student might be able to provide guidance to a fisherman with regard to vessel modifications. Although Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles targeted fishermen, a noticeable number of participants were people who were thinking of buying a fishing vessel that no longer had a license on it, to turn into a live aboard. One couple brought pictures and drawings of their planned conversion. Within the context of summative evaluation, I believe that this program not only informed people about fishing vessel stability, but also got people talking about stability using the correct terminology, and recognizing that stability does not have to be a complex subject. This is important, because all too often the subject of fishing vessel stability only surfaces following a stability related incident within the fleet, particularly if there was loss of life.

Long Range Effectiveness Long range effectiveness of Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles is difficult to assess. My Second Stage Proposal addressed the possibility of long range tracking of fishermen who attended the program to determine if there was any correlation between those involved in stability

33

incidents and whether they had participated in the program. My suggestion was that perhaps the WCB database could be used to do this. Unfortunately the nature of the program (discussed in Chapter 5) turned out to be that the presentations with the model varied, which altered the amount and depth of content. Also I was unable to get the names of everyone that had contact with the model because not all venues warranted an evaluation component. Long term effectiveness ideally would manifest itself in behavior changes on board as they relate to vessel stability. Behavior change is generally the goal of most safety training programs. However, this clearly will be difficult to assess because not all the presentations were the same. I had cited the study done by The Alaska Marine Safety Education Association (AMSEA) that tracked graduates of their intensive 18-24 hour course on emergency preparedness, emergency response, and survival training. They determined that over a four year period none of the 114 fishermen who died were graduated from the course, and none of the 64 vessels on which a death occurred had a coursetrained person on board (Perkins, Public Health Reports, November/December, 1995, Volume 110, p. 701). It is apparent that the AMSEA training course is having an effect in reducing drownings among commercial fishermen (p. 702). This conclusion, it is pointed out, could be confounded by the possibility that those fishermen who chose to take the course might have simply been more safety conscious than others, and practiced safety behavior before as well as after the course.

Questionnaire Responses When I designed the evaluation questionnaire I included two questions that looked for general information. The questions asked if the participant had ever lost a family member or friend in a stability related incident, or if they had ever been involved in such an incident. In assessing the responses I found that 32% of the respondents indicated yes to one or both of these questions. There is no way to tell if these respondents attended the stability presentation because of

34

stability incidents in their past, or from general interest. It seems to me that this is a high percentage, in other words, a third of the participants had either lost someone in a stability related incident, or been involved in one themselves. The question did not ask if the vessel had actually capsized. So an incident could have been a near miss. If we interpret that percentage to include near misses, then it would seem that fishing vessel stability is definitely an area where more training is required. Another question that I asked was If you were a deckhand and were concerned about the stability of the vessel while you were fishing would you say anything to the skipper? - the choices were yes, no, and maybe. The purpose of this question was to test the waters regarding the hierarchal chain of command on board vessels, that the skipper is always right, and has unspoken authority on the vessel. I maintain that vessel stability is everyones concern, and so this question was meant to help determine whether fishermen felt that way as well. Seven participants who filled out the evaluation questionnaire did not respond to the question. One person answered maybe, and everyone else emphatically said yes. Three respondents elaborated with absolutely, now!, and definitely. This extremely positive response may have been the result of having just participated in Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles, and respondents were feeling a new ownership of knowledge. Clearly, although nearly 100% said yes, whether this would actually happen might well depend on who the skipper was, and the particular circumstances. One participant answered yes to the question, but clarified their response with unless it was my father! The information that can be obtained using open ended questions depends on a participants ability to articulate their thoughts and write them down. I wanted to know what participants found the most useful and important from Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles. The question I asked was What did you learn today that was the most important to you? Five respondents did not answer the question, yet of those five, four rated the program as excellent and one as good. Some people simply answered

35

stability which is hard to draw much information from. However, well at the head of the list of what participants found important was the dramatic effect of free surface on a vessels stability. Free surface is cited by the TSB as a contributing factor in most cases where fishing vessels capsize. They also point out that free surface is probably the least well understood aspect of fishing vessel stability. The model can very clearly demonstrate the serious effect on stability that free surface creates. The next most common response to the question was the importance of freeboard to the vessels stability. This is interesting in that as I pointed out in Chapter 3, it is a bit difficult to actually demonstrate the importance of freeboard using the model. In order to explain how freeboard effects stability I had to use sketches to introduce the GZ righting lever, which is a function of the position of the centre of bouyancy and the centre of gravity. That participants found freeboard an important thing that they learned suggests that I had successfully addressed the misconception that lots of weight down below means categorically that the vessel is stable. Yes, weight should be stowed below, but the decreased freeboard can reduce stability.

Conclusion There is a tremendous amount of literature on program and training evaluation. At best, evaluation is a tricky because it can be skewed for any number of reasons. There are several variables that can effect how a respondent answers a question. I kept the evaluation questionnaire very simple and straightforward, and tried to make the questions purposeful as described above. The information that I gathered indicates that Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles was successful in demonstrating the basic principles of stability using the model.

36

Limitations

It is necessary to look at some of the limitations of Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles. Some limitations arise in the identification of the problem, with the model, evaluation, and the participants themselves. This chapter will look briefly at these areas. Limitations are inherent in most any program, and if recognized, can be used to improve or amend future program design.

The Problem Limitations can initially arise when identifying the problem itself (Chapter 2). In the case of this project the investigative authorities that looked at fishing vessel accidents related to stability identified the problem with statistics. There is, however, a developing interest in human factors research as it can be used to look at marine accidents. A human factor that receives a great deal of attention, for example, is fatigue that among other things can result in a loss of situational awareness. The TSB, when they analyze an incident, are beginning to take into account human factors which may have played a role in the incident. Fishing is a labour intensive occupation, and additionally there is a tremendous economic pressure on fishermen as a result of reduced stocks and fishing time. How fatigue, and in particular economic pressure, encourage risk taking as factors in stability incidents in the fishing fleet has not been identified. In order to be completely circumspect when looking at a stability incident fatigue, economic pressure and risk taking must be considered. Up until recently statistics have been collected from a techno-rational approach to incidents. That this approach has dominated accident investigation is not surprising. The techno-rational approach is well adapted to quantitative analysis which is how the problem was described at the beginning of this Final Report. Including human factors, such as economic pressure and fatigue in incident investigation blurs the playing field because human factors are more 37

likely to reside in a qualitative realm. Qualitative issues tend to be slippery, and frequently simply get put in the too hard basket. Quantitative analysis generates most safety training programs Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles was a response to a problem that was defined by statistics. It may be that research beyond looking at numbers is required to more fully define the problem. The problem redefined, perhaps in the words of fishermen, could well call for a refocused training perspective. A recent unpublished Masters Thesis looks at fishing vessel accidents through attribution theory. Fishermen were interviewed and asked what they believed were the causes of their accidents. Many of the causes cited fell outside of the techno-rational realm, and accidents were often attributed to fatigue and economic pressure (Acheson, 1999)

The Model Although the model was able to demonstrate several principles of stability, it had definite limitations. Probably the most serious of these was that it was not staunchly enough built to withstand the service it was designed for. This was true of the models built for the USCG, not just the one acquired by the WCB as part of this grant. I took it back to the Model Shipyard on several occasions for repairs. Were I in a position to redesign the model I would eliminate much of the piping system, and keep only what was essential for pumping out compartments. Filling compartments was more quickly accomplished by hand using a bailer. Raised hatches and a removable drum weighted to scale would have enhanced authenticity. Participants occasionally commented on the fact that it did not have a drum. For changing conditions of load the model was equipped with vertical weights that could be raised, increasing the height of the VCG. They illustrated the movement of the VCG but not in a particularly authentic manner. Although I fabricated weights that looked like items on a fishing vessel, they were not a complete answer to the problem of authenticity and simulation.

38

Another limitation of the model was that it was inherently extremely stable. In order to demonstrate some of the principles of stability I had to use weights that were not in keeping with the 1/16th scale. I did not see this as duplicity, but rather a necessity to make principles visible. For future use as a training aid, the model needs to go to the Model Shipyard for a refit of sorts before she is put back into service. Most importantly the hatches, even if they are left flush, need to be made watertight. The wing nuts used to hold bulkheads in place should be larger so they are not so finicky to work with - which took extra time during a presentation. The limitations of the model can for the most part be overcome with a refit, and some ingenuity on the part of the next facilitator that uses the model.

Evaluation The evaluation of Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles has been discussed in Chapter 6. However it warrants mention again here in a discussion of program limitations. It has been mentioned that the objectives of a safety focused training program are generally associated with behavior change, or the potential for change. The objective of stability training for fishermen is to promote awareness of stability concerns that can threaten a vessel, and encourage discerning loading and operating practices accordingly. It is difficult to ascertain whether or not on board behaviors will change following a stability training program. Regardless of the content or methodology of the training, there will continue to be fishermen who maintain that they have done something in a particular way and see no reason to change. It is known in the field of safety training that this time tested attitude is frequently a significant barrier to behavior modification through training. Or a fisherman might participate in a stability training program and believe that what they learned is sound information. However, upon return to their vessel other matters such as peer pressure or economics can obscure what was learned.

39

If a long term tracking of participants is decided on as an evaluation process for future stability training (such as that carried out by AMSEA), the WCB database for Subclass 0911 could be used. However before doing so it should be verified that this database is compatible with the goals of the study, and can incorporate the input of variables that may need to be considered such as vessel size and operator age and experience. Working with the TSB to collect data may present problems with confidentiality. The evaluation process is likely to reflect the criteria and contextual variables of the sponsoring agency. One area of evaluation that still needs to be researched is the absence of an evaluative model that derives its criteria and procedural features from that nature of the adult learning process (Brookfield, 1986, p. 262). Such an evaluative model is clearly different than one based on changed behavior. An evaluation process that derives its criteria from the nature of the adult learning process will be difficult for agencies that traditionally locate evaluation in statistics. Adult educators research and debate the nature of the adult learning process. And as I pointed out in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5, I made some very basic assumptions about the participants and how they would learn from working with the model, only to find that my assumptions were not necessarily correct, even though principles of adult education under pinned my assumptions.

The Participants Limitations of Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles in some cases arose from the participants. Although the program was open to all fishermen, and as it turned out anyone interested, there were instances where the gear type most represented determined certain aspects of the presentation. For example, if most of the participants were large vessel owners with stability books, I would talk about the stability books and what they contained. As small vessels are not required to have a stability data book, the conversation was not directly relevant to them.

40

Some of the participants, I suspect, came out of curiousity, however they made it clear that their boat was really stable and they had nothing to worry about. It is difficult to address this type of mind set. A final point about the participants is that some expressed discontent with the WCBs involvement in the commercial fishing industry. Fishermen already feel imposed upon by innumerable other regulations. The issue of WCB assessment fees being imposed on the fishermen rather than the companies came up several times in conversation. One community contact I made declined to participate because the program was funded by the WCB. This feeling towards the WCB may have kept some fishermen from attending the program.

Conclusion I have briefly mentioned some of the limitations that I believe effected Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles. Limitations associated with identifying the problem are not easy to address without significant research. The statistics do reveal a pattern and tell a story, but it may not be the whole story. With regard to the model, the limitations can be rectified fairly easily. The majority of fishermen who participated in the program were from the smaller fleet. I suspect this may have to do with the operators of the larger fleet being more experienced and perhaps feeling confident that they already had an adequate understanding of stability. Limitations regarding evaluation of this project have been discussed in previous chapters, and in general terms in this chapter. Evaluation is perhaps the most difficult part of any program, and requires particular attention if it is to yield valid and reliable results.

41

Recommendations
Recommendations regarding Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles are made based on the findings of this Final Report. My conclusion is that demonstrating stability principles using a 1/16th scale free floating model was an informative and well received program. However, it would more effective if it were included as part of a larger WCB training program for fishermen. The following considerations are offered:

Implement a larger WCB safety training program for fishermen that the stability model becomes part of Include the stability model with the Drills Training Course Offer a training certificate of some kind on the completion of a safety training course If Subclass 0911 is going to be responsible for their own WCB coverage, reduce a fishermans assessment if they have completed a well designed WCB safety training course that includes the stability model

Encourage participants in a WCB safety training course to participate in a long range evaluation process Start a WCB fishermens news bulletin of some nature that is mailed out four times a year to help profile the WCBs proactive position on stability and all safety matters related to commercial fishing

42

Bibliography
Ausubel, D.P. Educational psychology: a cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968. Brookfield, S. Understanding and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1986. Brookfield, S. The skillful teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990. Heinrich, H.W. Industrial accident prevention - a scientific approach. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1931. Heinrich, H.W., Peterson, P.E., & Roos, N. Industrial accident prevention - a safety management approach. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980. Knox, A.B. Helping adults learn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1986. Marchak, P., Guppy, N., & McMullan, J. Eds. Uncommon property: the fishing and fish processing industries in British Columbia. Toronto: Methuen, 1987. Merriam, S.G., & Caffarella, R.S. Eds. Learning in adulthood. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991. Perkins, R. Evaluation of an Alaskan marine safety training program. Public health reports, November/December, 1995 (110). Pratt, D. Five perspectives on teaching in adult and higher education. Malabar, Fla: Krieger, 1998. Sahakian, W.S. Introduction to the psychology of learning (2nd ed.). Itasca, Ill: Peacock, 1984. Skinner, B.F. About behaviorism. New York: Knopf, 1974 The Vancouver Sun, October 15, 1998. Transportation Safety Board, Statistical summary, marine occurences, 1996 Transportation Safety Board, Reflexions, July, 1995. Transportation Safety Board, Report No. M95W005, 1995. Transportation Safety Board, Report No. M96L0037, 1996. Transportation Safety Board, Report M96-13, December, 1996. Transportation Safety Board, Report M96-14, December, 1996. Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia. Subclass 0911: fish harvesting, stakeholder executive summary. Fall, 1998. Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia, Secretariat for regulation review, 1993

43