Cuadro general de infracciones

Operators with no formal stability training were posed the same questions as those who had received formal stability training. Members of this group were operators who had not received a Fishing Masters Class 3 ticket or higher or no equivalent training. There were a total of eight interviewees who had not received formal stability training.

1. Determining if a Vessel is Stable or Unstable

All participants referred to experience on a vessel as being the most reliable way to determine a vessel’s stability. Participant 11 was the only participant who felt that if a vessel had stability work performed it was inherently stable. Participant 15 and 16 both said that a vessel’s stability characteristics can be determined by comparing a vessel’s draft with the height of the vessel. Both participants felt that if the vessel had a shallow draft compared to its height, it was more susceptible to capsizing. This belief alludes to the idea that a vessel with a high center of gravity has poor stability characteristics and the operators based their assessment of a vessel’s stability on its appearance. This idea was also brought up by Participant 6. He stated that he was able to assess a vessel’s stability based on its dimensions.

Of the eight participants in this group, only Participant 12 referred to a vessel’s roll period as being indicative of its stability. Participant 12 said that if a vessel rolls out too far, it is unstable. Although he did not explicitly state the relationship between stability and

69

comfort, it was apparent that this operator understood that a tender vessel is more susceptible to capsizing than a stiff vessel.

No other participant in this group referred to the stability of a stiff versus tender vessel. While no participant explicitly stated that a comfortable vessel implies stability, there were comments made that suggested this may be the case. For example, Participant 6 recalled a near miss when he described the vessel as being in “good shape” because prior to the incident it felt comfortable on the water and did not move much. Another example of a similar attitude was Participant 16. He complained that many vessels today are unstable because they are designed to optimize carrying capacity instead of comfort.

2. Stability Books

Participant 12 was the only participant who had a stability book, but he admitted that he does not use it. Most participants were generally indifferent on the subject of stability books and inclining tests. Participant 6 said that while a stability assessment would not hurt, it alone is not sufficient to ensure that a vessel does not capsize. This sentiment was repeated by Participant 13, who said that most accidents can be attributed to human error as opposed to vessel design.

Participants 15 and 16 both felt that stricter regulations on design need to be implemented for newer vessels, and stability analysis should be performed to ensure that these vessels meet design standards. Both operators stated that newer vessels are more likely to capsize because they are poorly designed by naval architects who lack experience. Participants 15 and 16 both strongly felt that the main reasons fishing vessels capsized was because of poor vessel design.

70 3. Maintaining a Stable Vessel

Although operators in this group did not have formal stability training, their responses to this question indicate that they take appropriate actions to avoid capsizing via causes highlighted in section 5.1. Actions taken by each participant are listed in Table 16.

Table 16: Actions Cited as Important to Maintaining a Stable Vessel – Operators without Formal Stability Training

The most noticeable discrepancy in this group of participants and the group with stability training was that every operator without stability training brought up the impact that a shifting load has on stability. Because operating a smaller vessel does often not require any stability training, this response was not surprising. A smaller vessel is more likely to be impacted by a shifting load than a larger vessel. Therefore, it is likely of greater concern to the group of interviewees that operate smaller vessels.

This group also had two participants say avoiding harsh weather and using stabilizers as important ways to maintain stability. Neither of these responses was brought up by operators with stability training. Wind and waves can pose more of a risk to a smaller vessel, so operators without stability training on smaller vessels are more likely avoid rough weather.

Avoiding a high center of gravity and free surface were only mentioned once and twice, respectively. While operators may not have explicitly stated the effect a center of

Participant Avoid Overloading Avoid a High Center of Gravity Avoid Shifting Loads Avoid F.S.E. Avoid Bad Weather Use Stabalizers

6   10  11   12  13    14    15   16   

71

gravity has on stability, it was brought up as a concern on multiple occasions during other portions of the interviews. Specifically, Participants 6, 15, and 16 all said that vessels that appear top heavy are likely unstable. Similar sentiments were brought up in regards to the free surface effect. While operators may not have an exact understanding of the impact of a free surface on stability, they are aware that leaks are detrimental to safe operations.

4. Risk of Capsizing

Much like the group of operators with formal stability training, answers as to what posed the most significant risk of capsizing generally reflected the actions the operators took to maintain stability. Fish species was brought up in this portion of the interview. Participant 12 discussed sea cucumbers posing a risk of capsizing because of the possibility of shifting loads, while Participant 13 mentioned pelagic species. Operators also remarked that rough weather and leaks pose a risk to their vessel capsizing.

All participants agreed to meet to discuss the risk of capsizing. Therefore, there is little doubt that to a certain extent, they are all aware that there is some degree of risk regarding the loss of their life and/or vessel due to capsizing. However, among operators with no formal stability training, the perception of this risk varied greatly. Furthermore, this group of operators generally regarded the risk of capsizing as being much less severe than the group of operators with some form of stability training. Several operators made comments that suggest that they feel capsizing poses little risk. Others made comments which reflected an impression of unconditional safety, provided certain criteria are met.

72

Participant 102, when prompted to assess the risk he felt capsizing posed, responded with “No risk.” This is an example of a lack of operator awareness. Participants 13 and 14’s opinions of capsizing were not as nonchalant as Participant 10, but both stated that they did not feel that capsizing posed a significant risk. With regards to capsizing, Participant 14 said that he “…doesn’t think about it much.” Participants 13 and 14 appeared as capable operators but it is apparent that they lacked awareness of the risk posed by capsizing.

In other cases, operators without formal stability training gave the impression that the risk of a vessel capsizing is next-to-negligible if that vessel meets certain design parameters. For example, Participant 6 opined that it was primarily undecked vessels that should be concerned with capsizing because they much more likely to become swamped than a decked vessel. Similar sentiments were expressed by Participant 11. He stated that if a vessel had an inclining test performed, it had suitable stability characteristics and therefore there was little risk of capsizing. Participants 15 and 16 also felt that if a vessel was designed properly, an operator did not have to worry about a capsizing event occurring, and that capsizing of modern vessel was due, in large part, to poor engineering and naval architecture decisions.

5. Best ways to Reduce Capsizing

While no participant could be said to be overly enthusiastic about an educational program, the general consensus was that any training that could improve safety would have some benefit. Participants 13 and 14 said they would be open to additional training in the

73

form of a seminar, as did Participant 11. However, within this group there was an emphasis placed on the need for stricter regulations on vessel design. Participants 15 and 16 were the most adamant on this point. Both felt that the primary cause of vessels capsizing was due to poor design. They felt that the most effective way to reduce capsizing events would be to place stricter regulations on the vessel design and ensure that they meet stability criteria.

The effect that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ (DFO) regulations have on operator safety was also raised. Participants 6, 13, 15, and 16 all brought up sinking of the

Pop’s Pride, an undecked vessel that sank off St. John’s while retrieving nets in 2016

(Transportation Safety Board of Canada, 2016). All of these participants said that the vessel should not have been on the water that day due to rough weather, but had to retrieve nets in order to avoid a fine.