7/27/2019 98FS-40

1/47

Finding SolutionsFinding SolutionsFinding SolutionsFinding SolutionsResearch at the

Workers Compensation BoardWorkers Compensation BoardWorkers Compensation BoardWorkers Compensation Board

1150-20 U 1998(98FS-40)

FISHING VESSEL STABILITY PROVING THEPRINCIPLES

Captain Barb Howe, M.Ed.

7/27/2019 98FS-40

2/47

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 ofthis publication may be copied, reproduced, or distributed for profit or other commercialenterprise or may be incorporated into any other publication without written permission of theWorkers Compensation Board of B.C.

Additional copies of this publication may be obtained by contacting:

Workers Compensation Board of British ColumbiaPublications & Videos Department

6711 Elmbridge WayRichmond, BC V7C 4N1

Phone (604) 276-3068 / Fax (604) 279-7406Toll-free within BC 1-800-661-2112

7/27/2019 98FS-40

3/47

Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles

Issue: Knowledge of vessel stability within the B.C. fishing fleetAgency: Universal Marine Consultants, West Coast, Ltd.

Representative: Captain Barb Howe, M.Ed., Quinte Marine Services Ltd.Funding: $50,000

Fishing vessels often founder or capsize for reasons related to the loss of transversestability. In most cases a series of events lead to the incident. Fishermen need to beable to recognize and respond appropriately to signs that the stability of their vesselmay be, or is in jeopardy. Information needs to be accessible to fishermen aboutcommon 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 MarineTraining 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 andstability demonstration was taken to fishing communities on the B.C. coast over a sixmonth period.

Findings indicated that the danger of free surface of water collected on board a fishingvessel, and the seriousness of reduced freeboard were the two areas of fishing vesselstability least understood by fishermen. Investigative authorities frequently cite thesetwo stability issues as causes of fishing vessel capsize.

Recommendations regarding the continued use of the model to demonstrate stabilityprinciples are made within the context of other educational programs for fishermen

conducted by the Workers Compensation Board.

7/27/2019 98FS-40

4/47

Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles

Final Report

Captain Barb Howe, M.Ed.

1998 Finding Solutions

Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia

7/27/2019 98FS-40

5/47

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments page 4

Chapter 1 Project Inception 6Chapter 2 Overview: the Problem 7

Chapter 3 Overview: Stability Explained with the Model 11

Chapter 4 Principles of Adult Education 18

Chapter 5 Methodology 24

Chapter 6 Evaluation 32

Chapter 7 Limitations 39

Chapter 8 Recommendations 44

Bibliography 46

7/27/2019 98FS-40

6/47

7/27/2019 98FS-40

7/47

3

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.

7/27/2019 98FS-40

8/47

4

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 subsequentloss 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. The

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.

7/27/2019 98FS-40

9/47

5

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 issuesthrough 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:

7/27/2019 98FS-40

10/47

6

The Department of Transport, in conjunction with other governmentdepartments, agencies, and organizations immediately undertake a nationalsafety promotion program for operators and crews of small fishing vessels toincrease their awareness of the effects of unsafe operating practices on vesselstability (TSB, M96-13, December 1996).

The Department of Transport conduct a study to identify the extent ofunsafe 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 ofNon-

Regulatory Marine Occurrence Prevention Programs (NRMOPP) aimed at fishingvessels 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 onDecember 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

7/27/2019 98FS-40

11/47

7

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

7/27/2019 98FS-40

12/47

8

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.

7/27/2019 98FS-40

13/47

9

Overview Stability Explained with the Model

Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the Principles used a 16 th 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 variouslevels 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

7/27/2019 98FS-40

14/47

10

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.

7/27/2019 98FS-40

15/47

11

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 whichresults 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.

7/27/2019 98FS-40

16/47

12

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

7/27/2019 98FS-40

17/47

13

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.

7/27/2019 98FS-40

18/47

14

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 theupright 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.

7/27/2019 98FS-40

19/47

15

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.

7/27/2019 98FS-40

20/47

16

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

7/27/2019 98FS-40

21/47

17

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 whythis 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

7/27/2019 98FS-40

22/47

18

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 tobe 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 personalinvolvement, 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 thepotentialfor 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,

7/27/2019 98FS-40

23/47

19

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 likelyto remember the principles

when next on a fishing vessel. Stated another way, the potentialfor 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

7/27/2019 98FS-40

24/47

20

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 problem-

solving (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

7/27/2019 98FS-40

25/47

21

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.

7/27/2019 98FS-40

26/47

22

Methodology

The two previous chapters described the capabilities of the model, and theguiding 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.

7/27/2019 98FS-40

27/47

23

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

7/27/2019 98FS-40

28/47

24

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.

7/27/2019 98FS-40

29/47

25

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

7/27/2019 98FS-40

30/47

26

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

7/27/2019 98FS-40

31/47

27

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 replicatedthe 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.

7/27/2019 98FS-40

32/47

28

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

7/27/2019 98FS-40

33/47

29

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 andthe 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.

7/27/2019 98FS-40

34/47

30

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 needfor 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 manypeople 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

7/27/2019 98FS-40

35/47

31

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.

7/27/2019 98FS-40

36/47

32

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

7/27/2019 98FS-40

37/47

33

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

7/27/2019 98FS-40

38/47

34

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 course-

trained 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

7/27/2019 98FS-40

39/47

35

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

7/27/2019 98FS-40

40/47

36

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 hadsuccessfully

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.

7/27/2019 98FS-40

41/47

37

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 theproblem, 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-rationalapproach 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

7/27/2019 98FS-40

42/47

38

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 theybelieved 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.

7/27/2019 98FS-40

43/47

39

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.

7/27/2019 98FS-40

44/47

40

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.

7/27/2019 98FS-40

45/47

41

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.

7/27/2019 98FS-40

46/47

42

Recommendations

Recommendations regarding Fishing Vessel Stability Proving the

Principles are made based on the findings of this Final Report. My conclusion isthat 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 helpprofile the WCBs proactive position on

stability and al