To find out how a lifeboat that meets the IMO and SOLAS regulations would contend with arctic conditions, researchers conducted field trials offshore Newfoundland, Canada.The field trial included six runs in pack ice, ranging in thickness from 5/10 to 7/10 cover. Progress through the ice was slow and circuitous. (Images courtesy of NRC)

For nearly 100 years, ocean going vessels have carried evacuation craft. Completely open to the elements, lifeboats originally were built with no apparent consideration for the human beings that would be accommodated, often waiting for days to be rescued.

Even though advancements have been made in nearly every other aspect of vessel construction and functionality, the lifeboats in use today have remained virtually unchanged for nearly a century. Fortunately, the maritime community has begun to recognize that standards need to be set not only for the safety of personnel in need of a lifeboat, but also for the usability and habitability of equipment.

The Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) convention (established in 1914 in response to the Titanic disaster) set basic lifeboat design requirements. Based on these standards and those set forth by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), changes regarding the design and requirements of lifeboats are beginning to take place.

Addressing survival

Rescue operations have advanced considerably. The challenge today is to achieve the same level of capability in extreme and remote environments.

According to António Simões Ré, who is heading the group at the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) that is investigating this issue, it is doubtful that today’s crafts will be able to contend safely with icy conditions.

“Progress needs to take place rapidly if adequate lifeboat designs are going to be ready when the oil and gas industry moves into arctic environments on a large scale,” Simões Ré said.

As part of a four-year campaign implemented by NRC, research is being carried out to explore ergonomic and performance considerations associated with habitability and piloting survival craft in icy conditions.

IMO design requirements state that ocean going lifeboats must be totally enclosed to help protect passengers from fire, smoke, toxins, and the elements. Most importantly, however, newer lifeboats must be equipped with motors that have enough fuel to travel at a maximum speed of around 6 knots for a minimum of 24 hours.

“Having a motor allows individuals abandoning a sinking vessel or offshore platform the opportunity to pilot the lifeboat to safety,” Simões Ré said. The pilot (a.k.a. the coxswain) of the lifeboat is responsible for maneuvering the craft. Efficient maneuvering is critical because it could mean the difference between life and death.

Although lifeboat maneuverability is a high priority, habitability also must be considered. Once the craft has made its way out of immediate danger, Simões Ré said, the coxswain could be required to pilot the craft for a number of days; so air quality, space, and comfort also need to be tested.

Testing today’s design

To find out how a lifeboat that meets the IMO and SOLAS regulations (and is currently being used in other marine settings around the world) would contend with arctic conditions, researchers designed field trials to put it to the test.

The test craft was outfitted with sensors that measure carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2). The sensors featured alarms that would trip if pre-set thresholds were exceeded. Temperature sensors were installed as well.

In a week-long trial conducted offshore Newfoundland, an experienced three-member crew piloted a lifeboat in calm open waters, 7/10 pack ice coverage, and level ice in an exercise that covered the spectrum of conditions the craft would be expected to manage in real-world conditions. Piloting was the primary focus.

“It is critical for the pilot to maneuver away from threatening conditions; so it is important to design the coxswain station so that the craft can be easily controlled,” Simões Ré said.

Prior to measuring the lifeboat’s maneuverability in varying conditions, the coxswain carried out operationally critical tasks that included:
• Switching on the battery;
• Starting the engine;
• Engaging the speed selector lever (SSL) in the forward position;
• Manually steering the lifeboat to a designated area;
• Moving the SSL to neutral, then reverse to slow forward progress; and
• Returning the SSL to neutral.

Test runs in calm conditions were performed to familiarize the crew with the craft. These runs included basic maneuvering, acceleration runs up and down wind, bollard runs to determine the towing capacity of the craft, and crew transfers to determine how swiftly crews could move into the lifeboat.

The six runs in pack ice, ranging in thickness from 5/10 to 7/10 cover, took between 13 and 36 minutes. Data collected during this time frame were used to determine what conditions would be if the lifeboat were to remain in service for a longer period of time.

Twelve trials of different durations were made in level ice that was 8 to 12 in. thick with strength of 7 to 9 psi. The first attempt to run the lifeboat into the unbroken ice was unsuccessful. The team had to break a channel to get through the ice. As was the case for the runs in pack ice, the average speed of the lifeboat in level ice was low.
In most ice conditions, the lifeboat could not move directly to the target from the launch point because it was unable to get through the ice in a straight line. In pack ice, the craft took a circuitous route. “In all thicknesses of level ice, the lifeboat encountered conditions that precluded forward progress,” Simões Ré said.

During the level ice tests, the crew tested the effect on conditions inside the craft with the hatches and vents opened or closed. With the hatches of the craft open, temperatures averaged 48ºF (9ºC). With the hatches closed, the temperature averaged 57ºF (14ºC). The closed hatches also caused levels of CO and CO2 to escalate during a relatively short test period even though there were only three crewmembers on board.

Room for improvement

When the trials concluded, the coxswains rated the craft’s handling characteristics, navigation, throttle control, visual field, and the layout of the tower. Overall ratings indicated the level of maneuverability was unacceptable. Though the instrumentation was usable, it was not ideal. And handling in rough seas and wind were rated as potentially dangerous.

The coxswain had to open the hatch to get an unimpeded view of the surroundings, which compromised the craft’s watertight integrity. In an emergency situation in inclement weather, additional hazards would enter the equation, possibly including toxins or fire on the surface of the water and freezing spray, rain, snow, and high waves.

Other critical concerns during these trials were air quality and ambient temperature. “The CO and CO2 levels in the craft approached allowable levels within the first 10 minutes of the hatches closing,” Simões Ré said, and the temperature escalated as well. Extrapolating these levels for a realistic time frame expected for safe evacuation resulted in extremely high levels of gases and potentially dangerous temperatures. Because leaving the hatches open in inclement conditions is not advisable, and in some conditions is impossible, more work must be done in this area to provide truly safe operating conditions.

“With the oil and gas industry heading for more remote and harsh-environment areas, it is vitally important from an HSE standpoint to have lifeboats that are equal to the task,” Simões Ré said. “Our work to improve lifeboat habitability is time-critical, and significant work remains to be done.”

Comments