Using a Dacon Scoop to Recover a Loaded Liferaft at Sea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Service and supply vessels that perform standby duties in the offshore sector are equipped with a variety of resources with which to perform rescue at sea. For light to moderate sea conditions, techniques currently understood and practiced tend to involve using a fast rescue craft (FRC) to rescue survivors and subsequently transfer them to a safe haven (often a standby vessel). Rescuing evacuees in higher, more challenging sea states, however, is difficult given that it can be unsafe to launch and recover FRCs in such conditions. For these cases, many standby vessels in Eastern Canada and the North Sea are equipped with a device called a Dacon Scoop. The Dacon Scoop is a 6 to 8m semi-rigid net that is deployed directly from the side of the standby vessel and designed to rescue people directly from the water. While not a conventional use, it has been suggested that the scoop could also be used to recover small rescue craft (life rafts, lifeboats and fast rescue craft) at sea. Although life rafts provide occupants with some protection from the elements, there are still issues that can make it less than desirable to remain inside for extended periods of time if an effective means of system recovery is available. This paper presents the findings of research carried-out to determine if it is safe to use a Dacon Scoop to recover a loaded liferaft. The research trials made use of a loaded inflatable 25 person davit launched life raft and two different standby vessels 75m in length. A total of 34 tests were carried out over three days in significant wave heights up to 3.7m. Recommendations are given in the context of a human factor assessment related to the procedures, equipment and field trials experiences.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".