from the project

　

　

　

　

　

Additionally, the members of the group corresponded between meetings.

　

The methodology was designed to create security and openness in the group, which in turn made innovation and creative thinking possible. The work was organized to draw knowledge from the members, not to assess the documentation. Supporting documents were used to control the progress and extent of the work. The methodology varied between group work and plenary meetings and different aids were utilized in the process.

　

1. Proposals for the design of functional requirements.

　

The group of experts based its work on the following considerations:

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

The group of experts gave priority to the task of formulating a main objective for the functional requirements that were to be developed. This turned out to be an objective that also works well for personal life-saving appliances in general:

　

Personal life-saving appliances should contribute to ensuring survival and provide safety to every person on board.

　

If all people on board are to be included on an equal basis, this calls for a certain segmentation relative to tasks to be performed, previous knowledge, size, and physical ability to help oneself.

　

From an individual's viewpoint, it would be desirable to make any appliance available in sizes and designs that will fit all imaginable combinations. However, a wealth of varieties will lead to serious problems with regard to both logistics on board and costs.

　

The group of experts added two new sizes, Infant and Big Adult. This means the size spectrum is extended in both ends to make suitable appliances available to new groups. This also led to the upper limit for the Child size being raised, while the Big Adult size was designed to include overweight individuals who were previously covered by the Adult size. Thus the Adult size has become somewhat less of a "fits all" size.

　

The Physically Handicapped size is identical to the Adult size, except that the user is assumed to be physically incapacitated. The needs of individuals in this group are in many ways similar to those stipulated for the Infant size and the appliance is thus defined as a special size. Today, physically incapacitated people are often identified on board, however shipping companies are currently unable to offer appliances adapted to this group.

　

The background of those on board in terms of knowledge and rehearsal corresponds to the functions they are expected to fulfil in an emergency. This makes it natural to distinguish between crew and passengers. Where crew are concerned, the tasks of a passenger ship crew during an evacuation are widely different from those of a crew on any other ship. This is particularly true of the initial phase of the evacuation and the expectations that crew members should contribute during the evacuation.

　

The approach of the group of experts was limited to the properties of appliances in relation to their donning and storage on board. Other aspects are a consequence of the properties of the equipment in relation to the design of the ship.

　

It is clear that the requirements for the donning properties of appliances intended for passengers should be stricter than for appliances intended for crew. The crews' appliances are thus permitted to be more complicated as the crew is assumed to have basic training.

　

What was highlighted the most was ensuring that donning properties were dimensioned in relation to adverse weather and visibility conditions and that it should be possible to don the appliance when in the sea.

　

The group of experts believe it is essential that personal life-saving appliances should not prevent dry-shod evacuation by fall-free lifeboat, lowerable appliances or MES. This is the primary evacuation route and where it is effective any personal life-saving appliance is also a piece of personal protective equipment.

　

Lying on the back, the traditional position, has a number of weaknesses that one has tried to compensate for by rigid turning, freeboard and body and facial angle requirements. This approach makes it necessary for the appliance to be designed in one particular way to comply with a set of design requirements. One has tried to address the obvious weaknesses of this approach under adverse wave or wind conditions by using various additional equipment, such as protection against spray (spray-hood). Nevertheless, the biggest disadvantage is that an unconscious person will live for a very short time under adverse wave or wind conditions.

　

What kinds and sizes of waves and which wind force should be assumed as the basis for assessing the appliances? The group of experts cannot give an unambiguous answer to this question. It must be a part of the group's further work to identify one or more wave patterns or other factors or approaches that may distinguish between suitable and less suitable or unsuitable equipment.

　

By rejecting the rigid back-lying requirement in favour of a functional requirement for the appliance to slow down exhaustion and prevent an unconscious person from drowning under adverse sea and weather conditions, it is up to the manufacturer to find a solution. This calls for new assessment methodology which includes laboratory testing that can model factors or properties that distinguish between different solutions or appliances.

　

The concept of "unconscious person" has long been a troublesome one in a testing context. Sophisticated methods and rules for "acting unconscious" have been developed. The group of experts finds it rather useless to continue this practice. It is therefore proposed to use the designation "inactive" to emphasize the fact that the person is indeed conscious with normal reflexes.

　

Today's method for the assessment of thermal protection has its weaknesses. Likewise, there is a widespread assumption that it is not necessary to provide thermal protection in "warm" water. What is clear, however, is that we know too little about how humans react to exposure to "warm" water. Previously, Norway has claimed that thermal protection should not be required for water temperatures exceeding 20℃.

　

The group of experts wants to find out how long a person can stay in the sea at a temperature of 20℃ before the core temperature is down by 20℃ This is intended to be dimensioning for the specification of protective properties recommended at different sea temperatures. It was agreed that if this time was less than 3 hours, one would prefer to determine the sea water temperature that yields this time.

　

It is particularly challenging to find a methodology for assessing appliances intended for children and infants. For ethical reasons, such appliances cannot be tested by the user groups. Additionally, it is clear that infants' heat loss shows a pattern which is different from that of adults, amongst other things because infants do not generate heat by shivering. This may also be a crucial point in the case of physically handicapped people with a paralysis condition.

　

This is one of the areas where the potential for improvement is most evident compared to today's requirements. The group of experts has not gone into details but has formulated functional requirements that cover the processes which the different user segments take part in.

　

Phase 3 of the project is intended to develop testing methods and criteria for the functional requirements of Phase 2.

　

This task can be handled by carrying out the following subtasks:

　

　

The proposals of the group of experts will contribute to providing the personal life-saving appliances of the future with properties that are closer to the end users' needs than today's equipment. The final result depends on the next phase of the project, which aims to translate functional requirements into concrete tests and limit values.