Accidents and the compelling need for more technology

Free fall lifeboats have so far never been used for emergency evacuations in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea. However, the shortcomings of existing free fall lifeboat designs were revealed in a number of incidents that took place during testing conducted in 2005. They related to structural safety, human loads and headway. A joint industry project was subsequently initiated by the Norwegian Oil and Gas Association to find the reasons why.

The project revealed that the SOLAS requirements, on which the design criteria were built, were based on lifeboat performance during test launches into calm waters and from heights significantly smaller than those encountered on host facilities on the Norwegian Continental Shelf. With larger waves and drop heights than those presumed, the lifeboats were exposed to greater loads and damage, which explained the shortcomings revealed in 2005.

As a result of these findings, DNV GL was asked to develop a new standard. The new Design of Free Fall Lifeboats – DNV-OS-E406 standard was launched in 2009 and revised the year after. Based on modern limit-state design methodology (rather than performance during drop tests), the standard was quickly embraced by the Norwegian offshore industry. The Petroleum Safety Authority Norway refers to the standard as the norm for the design of free fall lifeboats and Norwegian life boat manufacturers have models that comply.

DNV GL is now promoting the use of the standard beyond the North Sea, and, with minor modifications, for shipping, says Arne Nestegård, chief specialist for hydrodynamics and moorings. “Today, maritime lifeboats and their release and retrieval systems are being developed according to design criteria based on SOLAS requirements. DNV GL believes that if the shipping industry decides to implement our free fall lifeboat standard, maritime lifeboat safety will be taken an important step further.”

The situation can be seen as a perfect example of proactive change, rather than regulatory change being driven by response to accidents. However, for John Murray, director (marine) at the International Chamber of Shipping, one of the basic precepts of implementing changes at IMO level is a demonstrated compelling need which may not be the case in this instance, or in other discussions about potential changes to lifeboat regulations as a result of increasing Arctic shipping. “Clearly a lifeboat should be seaworthy, but I’m not sure that the Arctic has got significantly different or worse sea conditions from any other sea area and particularly from the North Atlantic. Equally, there is no history of lifeboat failures that inform a need for change. Fortunately, the number of abandonments into lifeboats is quite small, and equally, there is no record of lifeboats failing once launched. This is not an issue for the industry.

“It’s very important to understand that it would be foolish not to account for the nature of the area, but no matter where it is, there is a coastal state responsibility to provide search and rescue services. Therefore you have to counter any arguments about remoteness with the point that the coastal state is still expected to do their bit and provide appropriate SAR services for an area under their jurisdiction. There is no evidence that the current equipment is in any way deficient for what is reasonably expected.”

In other words, there is no compelling need, he says. Sometimes manufacturers can influence the industry; sometimes they make very sound proposals; and sometimes it can be co-incidentally to their commercial advantage to do so, creating a complex situation for decision-makers. He cites the call for heating in polar lifeboats when research done a few years ago indicates that once you have more than a few people inside them, they are self-heating. Over-heating rather becomes the problem. “While at first sight having upgraded lifeboats sounds good, the consequences need to be thought through. I understand why the concerns are being raised, but we need to look very carefully at whether or not there is a justification. Is there a compelling need, or are there other factors in play.”

Where Mr Murray does see compelling need is in the replacement of sub-standard hooks. Things, however, are not going to plan as he sees it. At a recent meeting of the Industry Life Boat Group, consisting of lifesaving appliance user organisations such as ICS, OCIMF, Intertanko ITF and IPTA, members were advised by class that some of the flat-to-flat design hooks that Mr Murray thought would not meet the new standard, did in fact satisfy the requirements of MSC Circular 1392.

“The concern with that is two-fold,” he says. “One, shipowners continue to be concerned about the need for safe hooks and were very keen to define the parameters of what a safe hook would be. It now appears that the guidance may not after all be clear. Second, although shipowners are fully committed to the need to change, let’s get it right once. We must avoid a repetition of the need to rehook lifeboats.”

Mr Murray is also concerned about the lack of clarity on IMO’s GISIS database about what shipowners are required to achieve when upgrading hooks. “Some of the information on the database about the approvals is, in our view, less than informative. For example, it might say that a particular hook is now approved once upgraded with a particular kit, but there is no detail of what the modifications are or indeed what the kit includes.”

Shipowners and operators are likely to have more to say on the issue of hook replacement. “It is very revealing that the majority of hooks on the market had to be corrected to be approved. That shows that right from the beginning they were not correct,” says Captain Kuba Szymanski, secretary general of InterManager. “Seafarers are still very angry that they have to have fall arresters. If the equipment is correct, why do we need this?” Another group within InterManager continues to lobby for very simple hooks and only partially enclosed lifeboats. “It may seem like discussion is settling down on the issues surrounding lifeboats, but that will change if another accident occurs,” says Captain Szymanski.

In the meantime, manufacturers continue to innovate, and therefore challenge the industry to consider further change. Viking’s new LifeCraft system consists of the craft itself, a self-propelled inflatable vessel with four engines for a high degree of manoeuvrability, and safety and a storing and launching unit, either placed on deck or built in, containing up to four LifeCraft units with a capacity of 200 persons each.

According to Viking vice president Niels Fraende, this is a product that completely changes the lifeboat versus liferaft discussion, at least when it comes to high-capacity evacuation systems. “Today’s larger and wider vessels mean that the number of passengers and the variation in trim height and list conditions can be enormous in a distress situation,” says Mr Fraende. “The LifeCraft is a hugely flexible evacuation system that can cope with such extremes.”

There are more advantages to this hybrid solution. For example, a specially designed chute system helps evacuees with special needs, such as children, the elderly and those on stretchers. The system also takes up less room than lifeboats, freeing deck space for shipowners keen to provide their passengers with more cabins, shopping opportunities and other journey enhancements.

Perhaps these considerations will forestall any discussion of compelling need.