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: Knowledge of vessel stability within the B.C. fishing fleet

Agency: 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 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 page 4
Chapter 1 Project Inception 6
Chapter 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
 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 Fishermen’s 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

2
 • 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”.

3
 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. 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.

4
 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 vessel’s 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:

5
 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 Non-
Regulatory 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

6
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 vessel’s
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
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.

8
 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 operator’s

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 operator’s 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 operator’s 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

9
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 vessel’s 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 vessel’s 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 vessel’s 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 vessel’s 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 model’s 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 I’ve 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
model’s 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 vessel’s stability is every crew member’s 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 isn’t 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 I’ve 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 learn…enable 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 vessel’s 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 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
person’s 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 person’s 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 person’s cognitive structure. Rote learning,
common in traditional marine training programs, may not link soundly to a
person’s 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. Pratt’s 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 Fishermen’s 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, I’ve 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 vessel’s 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 vessel’s 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 I’d be available for individual questions,
or to explain a fisherman’s 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 I’d 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’. I’m 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 fisherman’s 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 didn’t 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 wasn’t 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
wouldn’t 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 vessel’s 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 person’s 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 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

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 everyone’s 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 participant’s 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 vessel’s 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 vessel’s 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 Master’s 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 WCB’s 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 fisherman’s 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 fishermen’s news bulletin of some nature that is mailed
out four times a year to help profile the WCB’s 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