|
4 Discussion and conclusions
The results of the project show that it is necessary to focus on the functions of personal life-saving equipment throughout all phases of an emergency situation. There was a focus on information and training and on the possibility of training with life-saving equipment under realistic conditions. High priority was also given to enabling personnel to utilise emergency position indicating radio beacons (EPIREs), communication equipment and other emergency equipment while wearing personal life-saving equipment. The requirement ranked second in "The on-board situation" was that it should be possible to put on personal life-saving equipment in the dark, while the third was that it should be possible to put on such equipment on top of other clothing. In the category "In the sea", the requirement that covered prevention of drowning was given the highest priority. Various requirements that dealt with heat loss were emphasised, and these were given high priority in all categories of vessel. The results also showed that attention was being paid to the necessity of life-saving equipment reflecting the needs of current patterns of travel, for instance by taking account of the needs of elderly people and infants. There is a growing awareness that technical developments in the course of the past few years have opened up quite new possibilities for localising victims. In addition to the requirement for lights, which would make it possible to localise persons in the dark, the requirement for EPIRBs was also given high priority.
A large proportion of respondents had experience of both passenger vessels and the merchant fleet (75%). Respondents from the fishing fleet and passenger vessels emphasised the following requirement as being important vis-a-vis all the other responses: "personal life-saving equipment for crew is distinctly different from personal life-saving equipment for passengers" (no. 14). Apart from this, there were no major differences between the groups. This may be explained by the fact that many respondents have experience of several vessels and installations.
Analysis of the gap between the functional requirements that were presented here and the existing regulations has provided us with a good basis for identifying where the need for work on proposals for changes to the existing regulations is greatest.
5 References
| 1. |
Burchill G., Shen D., Anderson E., Boger D., Bolster C., Fetterman
B. (1992). Concept Engineering; The key to operationally defining customer's requirements.
Center for Quality Management, Document no. 71. Massachusetts. |
| 2. |
F revik, H. og Reinertsen R.E. (1998). Draktkonsept for helikopterpersonell;
Del 1 brukerunders  kelse for krav til draktkonsept for helikopterpersonell i Luftforsvaret.
SINTEF Rapport STF78 F98120. |
| 3. |
Frevik, H. og Sandsund, M. (2001) Kravspesifikasjon MC-bekldedning
for politiet. SINTEF Rapport STF78 F011507. |
Appendices
| 1. |
List of interviewees (1 page) |
| 2. |
Questionnaire: "Questionnaire study: functional requirements
for personal life-saving equipment" (5 pages) |
| 3. |
Prioritisation of requirements presented in the questionnaire
study (5 pages) |
List of interviewees
Troms
Maritime College; Safety training for fishermen Helly Hansen Spesialprodukter
Tallaksen Industrial Design
Sunn re
Livbeltefabrikk AS Det Norske Veritas AS
Norwegian Sea Rescue
Norwegian Directorate for Product and Electrical Safety
Norwegian Shipowner's Federation; Bergesen d y ASA
Norwegian Maritime Officer's Association; North Sea supply vessel
The Norwegian Fishermen's Association
Royal Norwegian Navy Materiel Command
School of Ship's Technique and Safety (Royal Norwegian Navy)
Coastal Express "Nordlys"
Fishing vessel (25 m)
Christiansens Livbeltefabrikk AS
The Federation of Oil Workers' Trade Union
Statoil Nord-Norge
Statoil, Heidrun oil platform
MARINTEK AS
Regatta AS
Safety Center Aukra
|
