DEVELOPING ERGONOMIC BASED CLASSIFICATION RULES

N J Méry and J McGregor, Bureau Veritas, France

SUMMARY

Classification societies, as some of the most important maritime safety stakeholders are getting increasingly involved in
human casualty prevention at sea and are willing to contribute to setting up ergonomic design standards for ships. This
paper presents the initiatives of Bureau Veritas which aim to improve occupational safety onboard through the use of
ergonomics at the design and approval stage.

The paper will describe the first two steps of the society’s strategy to introduce low cost solutions that greatly reduce the
risks faced by seafarers. The first step led to the development and publication of a guidance note for the ergonomic
design of the means of access onboard (ladders, openings, walkways, etc.). The second ongoing step is the development
of a guidance note for the ergonomic design and arrangement of the machinery and control spaces. This second step
considers three main topics, namely: occupational health and safety; workplace design and; the human-machine
interaction.

NOMENCLATURE Based Standards (GBS) for oil tankers and bulk carriers
that classes’ common structural rules should follow
IMO International Maritime Organisation ergonomic design principles1 [1].
OHS Occupational Health and Safety
STF Slips, Trips and Falls Thus, Bureau Veritas initiated several activities to
ILO International Labour Organisation research and develop requirements ensuring seafarers’
GBS Goal-based Standards (new approach at IMO to and surveyors’ safety onboard merchant vessels. These
develop holistic requirements for rules) activities are based on integrating ergonomic design
IACS International Association of Classification features in the vessel and her equipment through low or
Societies no cost rule requirements.
ISO International Organisation for Standardisation
ASTM American Society for Testing Materials In fact, there are two main objectives for making the
HMI Human Machine Interaction design safer through ergonomics:
▪ Reduce the number of occupational accidents
1. INTRODUCTION onboard
▪ Reduce the number of unsafe acts and so-called
There is a need from the maritime industry to increase its human errors onboard
standards in terms of Occupational Health and Safety
(OHS). Not all of the industry’s actors are aware that It is acknowledged that ergonomic based requirements
occupational accidents onboard commercial ships cause from guidelines, additional notations or classification
everyday injuries to seafarers which can sometimes be rules cannot cover the wide range of ships’ designs. The
fatal. A recent survey of the Norwegian Maritime ideal solution is to carry out a full ergonomic analysis
Directorate’s database and Lloyd’s Register’s Fairplay (Human Factors Engineering) based on these
database found that more than 50% of the deaths requirements during the design phase of the vessel with a
recorded by the Norwegian Maritime Directorate were strong emphasis on task analysis. However, this would
due to occupational accidents and none of these were increase the design costs substantially. Ergonomics
recorded by Lloyd’s Register’s Fairplay database. driven rule requirements on the other hand provide a
Additionally, these injuries and fatalities induce direct framework for ensuring that the vast majority of related
and indirect costs for shipping companies and P&I clubs. risks are managed at almost no extra cost to the design
process.
Classification societies are among the main actors in
maritime safety. Historically, Class has been more 2. FIRST STEP: ERGONOMIC DESIGN OF
focussed on ensuring vessels’ seaworthiness, they now THE MEANS OF ACCESS
tend to aim at managing the risks the ship system will
encounter. This risk management includes the risk to 2.1 PREVENTING SLIPS, TRIPS AND FALLS
humans and improving more explicitly seafarers’ safety Slips, Trips and Falls (STF) are some of the most
by considering the human element as part of the ship common and frequent occupational accidents in the
system. Class societies are not only implicitly industry. They can happen in many places onboard a
encouraged by the growing human element community merchant vessel: ships motions at sea are very likely to
to conduct research in the area of human factors but it is
also explicitly stated by the International Maritime 1
Organisation (IMO) in the current requirements of Goal This means that these rules should integrate the
seafarers’ activity in the ship design requirement.
cause seafarers to lose balance, wet or oily floors are injuries (e.g. very dangerous ≡ death or disability); they
likely to cause seafarers slipping, dark areas are likely to were also asked to assess the frequency of access of the
cause them tripping on obstacles on the floor or bumping different places. We could finally derive a risk measure
into protruding pipes, etc. Surveyors are also exposed to from these severities and frequencies.
STF accidents while on duty, especially during close-up
surveys where they have to closely inspect a great 2.4 ANTHROPOMETRY
amount of the ship’s structures. Moreover, a 2005 study For the development of ergonomic based requirements it
by Jensen et al. [2] shows that STFs account for more is necessary to analyse:
than 40% of non-fatal occupational injuries occurring at
sea and more than 60% of accidents requiring at least 90 ▪ the work environment,
days to recover. ▪ the tasks to be carried out there,
▪ and the population of users who perform these
We chose to address STFs through the design of the tasks.
Means of Access (MAs) onboard vessels [3], a strategy
which has already been demonstrated to be successful for We addressed the first two points through the
the offshore industry. Additionally, some research made identification of the STF hazards and the safety
by the US Department of Navy led to the definition of a assessment of the means of access based on user
general cost model for the introduction of measures for feedback. For the analysis of the population of users,
fall protection and prevention (from height) [4]: we performed an anthropometric analysis.
incorporating fall protection and prevention measures at Anthropometry is the study of the human body
the final drawing stage will cost ten times more than dimensions and strength. An anthropometry analysis
doing it during the conceptual design; in the same way, is required to ensure that the product designed (here
the costs will be 100 times higher if the measures are the means of access) fits the physical characteristics
done as a construction modification, 1,000 times higher of the users while he carries out his tasks (see Figure
during start-up and testing and 10,000 times higher 1 below).
during maintenance phase. This accounts for the
importance of integrating the human element as early as
possible during the life cycle of the ship.
Additionally, the design of the means of access is
addressed by the IMO amended SOLAS regulations II-
1/3-6 [5] and the revised technical provisions for means
of access [6] and the corresponding International
Association of Classification Societies’ (IACS) Unified
Interpretations (UI) [7]. These regulations, provisions
and requirements present a first basis for the ergonomic
design of the means of access however, more detailed
requirements for a user-centred design of the MAs,
ensuring the safety of seafarers and surveyors, are
required.

2.2 THE IMPORTANCE OF USER FEEDBACK

When developing requirements – based on ergonomic
principles – for user centred design as we did for the
means of access, it is very important and even required Figure 1: Anthropometry in its environment
that the users participate. Who better than the seafarers
and surveyors themselves can assess the design of the We can illustrate the importance of taking into account
means of access? The answer is obvious: nobody. the physical characteristics of seafarers by referring to an
Therefore we collected user feedback through different accident that occurred recently and that could have been
ways: interviews in office, interviews onboard (we also avoided if an anthropometric analysis had been done
built ourselves a practical opinion on the reality of using during the design phase of the vessel [8]: in September
means of access) and questionnaires. 2007, three seafarers died onboard an emergency
response rescue vessel in the North Sea as a result of
2.3 A RISK BASED METHODOLOGY both an oxygen deficient atmosphere within the chain
We used the feedback from surveyors and seafarers for locker and a non-anthropometrically sized chain locker
identifying and assessing STF related hazards and risks. access hatch. The first seaman entered the chain locker in
The questionnaires were particularly useful for order to tie off the chain and collapsed; the second
quantifying the risks associated to different places seaman, in an attempt to rescue the former entered the
onboard and different means of access. Respondents chain locker and collapsed as well; then the third seaman
were asked to assess the “dangerousness” of the places tried to get into the chain locker equipped with a
and means of access on a qualitative scale of severity of breathing apparatus (BA) but finally had to use an
emergency escape breathing device (EEBD) instead
since, being a large man, he couldn’t descend through the 3. SECOND STEP: ERGONOMIC DESIGN
hatch while wearing a BA. Unfortunately, EEBDs are not OF THE MACHINERY SPACES
built for rescue and (also for some other reasons) the
third seaman experienced breathing problems and 3.1 ACCIDENTS IN THE MACHINERY SPACES
collapsed. Obviously the size of the hatch was not at the During the study on the design of the means of access
origin of the accident but it contributed to the failure of onboard commercial ships it clearly appeared – with the
the attempt to rescue the first two seamen and the death analysis of surveyors’ feedback through questionnaires –
of the third one. that machinery spaces are considered as some of the most
risky places onboard commercial ships: the analysis of
Thus, we developed dimensional requirements in the feedback showed that even if the severity of injuries
accordance with the anthropometric characteristics of the occurring in machinery spaces is quite average, the
population studied for the design of the MAs. For frequency of access (daily and weekly) is high, and this
instance, in reference to the accident summarised in this increases the risk a lot.
section, openings should be wide enough to allow a large
person, wearing a BA to rescue another person situated at Furthermore, these findings are confirmed by some
the other side of the opening. relatively recent studies. In Hansen et al. 2002 paper,
We used CAD virtual environments representing some “Maintenance in the engine room” and “Repair work in
typical areas on the ship and virtual manikins as shown the engine room” were among the most dangerous tasks
on figure 2 hereafter: in terms of number of notified occupational accidents
occurring onboard Danish flag merchant ships for the
1993-1997 period. This Danish study was then presented
to the IMO at MSC 83 [10]. In addition, the 2005
questionnaire study by Jensen et al. [2] showed that 31%
out of the 461 reported injuries (11 countries worldwide)
analysed happened in the engine room.

According to our work on the means of access, slips,

trips and falls related injuries occurring in the machinery
spaces – representing 37% of the total number of injuries
in machinery spaces in Jensen et al.’s paper – would be
partly due to be the bad location or simply the lack of
access to some parts of the machinery spaces, making it
harder to carry out operation, maintenance, repair and
inspection tasks safely. What about the other causes and
types of injuries? How can the design of the machinery
Figure 2: CAD 3-dimmensional simulations for the space prevent occupational accidents?
anthropometry analysis of the means of access
In order to answer these two questions, we logically
2.5 THE GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGN OF decided to more comprehensively assess the safety of
THE MEANS OF ACCESS FOR INSPECTION, machinery spaces and research on how to design safe
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF machinery spaces with ergonomic principles. Besides,
COMMERCIAL SHIPS this particular area appears to be one of the IMO’s
A guidance note entitled “Guidelines for the Design of concerns: in 1998 the MSC Committee of the IMO
the Means of Access for Inspection, Maintenance and adopted the MSC circular 834 [11] providing guidelines
Operation of Commercial Ships” was published in April for the design of the machinery spaces mainly based on
2008 by Bureau Veritas [9]. This document provides ship human factors’ related requirements (including
owners, shipyards, marine engineers, naval architects and ergonomics) aiming to encourage ships designers,
every stakeholder involved in the design and building of shipowners, ship operators, shipping companies,
merchant ships with dimensional requirements and shipmasters and engine-room staff caring about and
practical advice for the design, use and maintenance of improving safety and effectiveness of these places.
the Means of Access. These requirements address in
particular the following types of means of access: 3.2 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION
The methodology we adopted is the same as the one we
▪ Walkways, guardrails and handrails used for the development of ergonomics-based
▪ Vertical and horizontal openings requirements for the design of the means of access. Thus,
the first step is to identify hazards that seafarers face in
▪ Vertical ladders
the machinery spaces. We characterise hazards by a
▪ Inclined ladders or stair ladders
combination of the following three main elements as
represented on figure 3:
 ▪ A place or a piece of equipment: machinery
spaces are quite different in terms of layout, Hazards were identified and defined according to the
depending on the type of vessel, her size, her information gathered through interviews of people
trading area and her type of propulsion. working or having worked in machinery spaces (ex-
However, all machinery spaces have roughly design engineer, surveyors, ex-superintendant, ex- first
the same types of equipment and way of engineers), visits onboard an emergency rescue boat, a
functioning: the three primary functions of the ro-ro ferry and a container ship as well as information
machinery spaces are the propulsion, taken from the International Labour Organisation (ILO)
manoeuvring and power supply of the vessel; [12] [13] [14] [15] and accident reports from various
the five main circuits are the fuel circuit, the national maritime investigation bodies (MAIB, MARS,
lubrication circuit, the air circuit, the water CHIRP, BEAmer, NMD, DMA, etc.).
circuit and the electrical circuit. In other words,
what we mean by the expression “machinery We illustrate our findings by two situations encountered
spaces” is “every room, or piece of equipment during our visits onboard:
which is part of the propulsion system, the The first one describes a hazard present in every engine
steering system or the power supply system”. room. Various maintenance and cleaning tasks require
As an example, this definition typically removing some plates from the walking platform in order
includes the engine control room, the main to access some pipes, valves and other devices. However,
engine room, the transformer room, the pump this constitutes a risk for someone to fall into the hole on
room, the steering gear room or the workshops the floor as shown on figure 4 hereafter:
(the latter being part of all three systems
through the maintenance and repair activities it
implies).
▪ A task: seafarers have to carry out many
different tasks for operating, maintaining,
repairing and inspecting the machinery spaces.
These tasks can be carried out on a routine
basis, after inspection, or in an emergency
situation.
▪ A action is defined as a specific task in a
specific place.
▪ A triggering factor and/or an environmental
factor: these factors determine the ‘failure
mode’ of the task carried out. For our analysis,
triggering factors will principally derive from a
bad/unsuitable/ineffective design of the
equipment (design of the controls, the screens,
the gauges, and the access to the equipment,
etc.) or a wrong/inappropriate action (due to Figure 4: A dangerous situation in the main engine room
stress during an emergency situation, a failure
to follow the procedures, unsuitable procedures, The second illustration raises the ‘issue’ of relatively
a lack of communication, heavy workload due small vessels (such as coasters, ferries or HSC) in which
to a system failure, etc.). Environmental factors the space onboard is restricted. In fact, logically, the
are typically temperature, noise, vibrations, etc. economy of space is often done in the machinery spaces
since this area has no commercial function. We can
therefore have sometimes very little space around some
pieces of equipment for maintenance and not enough
space to adopt a suitable and comfortable working
posture, as shown on figure 5 hereafter where the ceiling
in the steering gear room is so low that almost nobody
can stand up.

Figure 3: Characterisation of hazards in the machinery

spaces
 website or in Andersson & Lützhöft’s 2007
paper [16].

3.3 RISK RANKING

In the same way as for the study on the means of access,
we used risk in order to rank the hazards identified
previously in terms of safety and performance. Risks
associated to the identified hazards are based on (1) the
severity of injuries and decrease in the performance they
are likely to be the cause of and (2) the frequency of the
task that has to be performed.

3.3 (a) Consequences

Consequences are impacts on seafarers’ health (injury) or
impacts on their well being and effectiveness: seafarers
and surveyors can be injured while carrying out a task;
environmental factors such as noise, vibrations or
temperature are likely to impact their well-being and
effectiveness as well causing health troubles such as
Figure 5: Lack of space in a steering gear room musculo-skeletal disorders. Therefore, we group the
consequences that we identified in two categories:
The list of hazards should be ideally as comprehensive as
possible. We will not present in this paper all the hazards ▪ Consequences on seafarers’ health: Minor or
we identified, however some of the hazards very often severe burns, blows, entanglement, eye injury,
cited by users and ex users are: sprains, fractures, electric shock, total of partial
loss of hearing, total of partial loss of sight,
▪ Heavy maintenance tasks in the main engine musculo-skeletal disorders, fatigue, etc.
room but particularly in smaller rooms such as ▪ Consequences on seafarers’ performance:
pump rooms were pointed out. The triggering decrease in the work effectiveness, decrease in
factors mentioned are a poor and/or unsuitable the motivation, decrease in concentration,
arrangement of the lifting and systems. Because decrease in cognitive capacities (slow reasoning,
of the ship motions one can be crushed by heavy poor logic, alertness decrease, and erroneous
parts being lifted. Sometimes there are no lifting interpretation of procedures, alarms and
devices and no easy access to the part that has to signals), decrease in dynamism, decrease
be moved or maintained; had an emergency capacity of error recovery, risk taking
situation occurred (a hot fuel oil leakage for behaviour, etc.
instance) it would be very hard to get out
quickly because of the lack of space. Moreover, through the questionnaire, we associate a
▪ The temperature in some parts of the engine more subjective severity scale to the actions [specific
room is a real concern for seafarers. The tasks in specific places] so that hazards are ranked by (1)
temperature can be very high in tropical areas consequences on health and/or performance (2) direct
while it can be very low during winter in assessment from users. The scale used is:
northern Europe areas for instance. Working
during hours in too high or too low temperatures ▪ Very dangerous (fatality, disability)
significantly decreases the performance of ▪ Rather dangerous (severe injuries)
seafarers and represents an increased risk for ▪ Not really dangerous (minor injuries)
being injured. ▪ Not dangerous at all
▪ Burns on hot parts of the machinery seem to be
very common for seafarers as well since it is Thus, we can check the consistency and robustness of the
quite easy to touch hot pipes inadvertently while assessment of consequences.
concentrating on performing another task.
▪ Location of wheels and valves (dangerous or not 3.3 (b) Frequencies
accessible) can create two types of hazards. The frequencies are mainly taken from the usual
They can turn into obstacles or since they are operation, maintenance, repair and inspection tasks. The
sometimes out of easy reach people have to sources of data we used to obtain such frequencies are
climb or crawl to use them while balancing in a again expert judgement from user feedback through
precarious position which represents an interviews and questionnaires but we also used several
unsuitable working posture for the type of work maintenance plans of existing vessels. As a rough general
performed. Some typical examples are overview of the frequencies, valves are operated several
highlighted on the US Navy safety centre times a week, seafarers have to read many different
gauges everyday for inspection, checking or monitoring ▪ ISO standards, 14726 on the identification
purposes, safety devices in the main engine room, the colours for piping systems, 8861 on the engine
boiler room or the main diesel generators room are room ventilation, 8862 on the air conditioning
usually maintained on a weekly basis as is cleaning the and ventilation of machinery control rooms, and
means of access and the purifier room and lubrication 13407 on the human-centred design processes
operations. Many maintenance operations are performed for interactive systems, etc.
on a monthly or yearly basis while repair activities on the ▪ Standards from the industry; for instance, Shell
main engines happen more scarcely. design and engineering practice manuals for
human factors engineering.
3.3 (c) Risks ▪ UK P&I’s website of useful ideas as seen by the
Risk measures are derived from the information Club’s ship inspectors.
organised in the Table 1 hereafter: ▪ Standards and guidance from the US Navy
health and safety services.
Hazards Consequences Frequencies
Trig. We carried out research in two main categories described
Place Task Cons. Sev. Freq.
factors in the sections below: occupational health and safety and
the human machine interaction.

3.4 (a) Occupational Health and Safety (OHS)

Table 1: Data for hazards’ risk-based ranking Health and safety of the seafarers can be ensured by
addressing environmental factors such as the air quality
and the ventilation, the temperature, the noise and the
3.4 ERGONOMIC / HUMAN FACTORS vibrations or by the design of the workplace. The former
ANALYSIS addresses middle-long term effects of the environment on
We found it not possible, relevant or useful to carry out a health while the latter directly addresses accidents such
full anthropometry analysis for every possible as slips, trips and falls.
configuration/type of machinery found on the different
ships types. Moreover, a huge amount of work has been 3.4 (b) The Human Machine Interaction (HMI)
already done in various industrial areas and in the In the machinery spaces, seafarers are constantly
maritime industry in relation to the ‘micro’ elements of interacting with all the elements and parts constituting
the ergonomic design of machinery. There is the water, air, fuel, and oil systems directly or, since
consequently a substantial amount of documents related vessels are increasingly automated, very often through
to designing machinery controls to fit people’s physical switchboards, gauges and many other devices allowing
and cognitive needs and capabilities. their control, maintenance, repair and inspection. This
Therefore, the novel ergonomic (or human factors) study human machine interaction should be addressed during
we are carrying out deals more with the ‘macro’ aspects the design phase in order to mitigate human errors and
of the engine room arrangements for preventing ensure the performance of people interacting with them.
occupational hazards. For the ‘micro ‘ aspects we draw In order to derive the design requirements taking into
on the existing work and incorporate existing standards, account this interaction we adopted the three
advice, guidelines, provisions and best practice from complementary approaches presented by Folcher and
international and national regulatory or standardisation Rabardel [17]:
bodies and the industry in order to achieve these goals,
namely: ▪ The human machine interface approach raises
the question: What are the functionalities
▪ IMO requirements from SOLAS, from the available to the user through the interface?
circular on the engine room design [11] as well Criteria for designing a quality interface can be
as all documents related to the bridge design, the self-learning capacity, the quality of displays
which provide many useful standards and and commands, the adaptability to individual
guidance for the design and arrangement of differences, the protection against user errors
engine control rooms. and transparency.
▪ IACS Unified Interpretations of SOLAS ▪ The human machine system approach raises the
requirements for the bridge design and Unified questions: How does the machine help me to
Requirements as well as IACS internal complete the user’s objectives? In other words,
procedures on the approval of design through how does the machine and user cooperate in
ergonomics. order to achieve the user’s goal? For assessing
the HMI, we use some ergonomic criteria such
▪ Bureau Veritas requirements from classification
as those defined by Bastien and Scapin for the
rules for steel ships and the guidance note for
design of interactive software programs [18].
the design of the means of access.
▪ The ‘activity with instruments’ approach raises
▪ ILO guidance documents on occupational health
the question: How does the machine change the
and safety [12] [13] [14] [15].
 user’s activity? This approach considers the 5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
activity of the user and the tasks he has to
perform in order to carry out his duty at work. We would like to acknowledge all the persons who were
interviewed and who responded to the safety assessment
3.5 FURTHER WORK questionnaires, surveyors and BV’s ex-seafaring
We are currently deriving requirements for the design personnel in particular. They participated actively in our
and arrangement of the machinery spaces from the research and provided us with some very valuable
human factors analysis in order to develop a guidance feedback of their experience at sea or as design
note. The guidelines are being developed along with the engineers.
six main categories addressed in the IMO MSC/Circ.863:
6. REFERENCES
▪ Familiarity
▪ Occupational Health
▪ Ergonomics 1. IMO, MSC 85/WP.5/Add.1, ‘Goal-based new ship
▪ Survivability constructions standards – report of the Working Group’,
▪ Minimising risk through design, layout and December 2008.
arrangement
2. O. Jensen et al., ‘Non-Fatal Occupational Injuries
However, the requirements will be grouped in different Related to Slips, Trips and Falls in Seafaring’, American
ways depending on their type and the equipment they journal of industrial medicine 47:161-171, 2005.
address:
3. N. Méry, M. Lassagne, J. McGregor, “Including
▪ By type of equipment ergonomics in the design process to address the risks of
▪ By situations and tasks performed (emergency, slips, trips and falls: methodology and application,
normal operation, repair, maintenance, etc.) Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on
Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 2008.
▪ By environment (hot, cold, humid, vibrating
environment, etc.)
4. Naval Safety Center website. Acquisition Safety – Fall
▪ By type of vessel
Protection, January 2009.
▪ By type of human machine interface for systems http://safetycenter.navy.mil/acquisition/fall/index.asp
requiring higher detail cognitive task analysis
5. IMO, resolution MSC.151(78), ‘Adoption of
amendments to the international convention for the safety
4. CONCLUSION of life at sea, 1974, as amended’, May 2004.
A significant amount of work has been done and is being 6. IMO, resolution MSC.158(78), ‘Adoption of
done on the ways to improve occupational health and amendments to the technical provisions for means of
safety in shipping. Nevertheless, there are not only some access for inspections’, May 2004.
areas that still need to be addressed, such as the design
and arrangement of the machinery spaces, but also there 7. IACS, UI SC 191, ‘Unified Interpretations for the
is a need for development of standards that integrate the application of amended SOLAS regulation II-1/3-6
numerous different design requirements developed by the (resolution MSC.151(78)) and revised Technical
various maritime stakeholders. Through our research we provisions for means of access for inspection (resolution
are therefore trying to develop these standards based on MSC.158(78)), Revision 3, March 2006.
ergonomics as a common denominator so that
approaches for the design of the means of access, the 8. MAIB, ‘Report on the investigation of the work
machinery spaces, the deck or the bridge are all based on undertaken in a dangerous enclosed/confined space and
the same ergonomic principles. However these guidelines the consequent attempted rescue onboard ERRV Viking
will only have an impact if they are used in the design Islay resulting in the loss of three lives at the Amethyst
phase of a project. If this is the case, they represent an gas field, 25 miles off the East Yorkshire coast UK 23
effective and low cost way to protect seafarers from September 2007’, July 2008.
occupational accidents, illnesses and to ensure a
comfortable and effective working environment onboard. 9. Bureau Veritas, ‘Guidelines for the Design of the
Finally, at the time when the maritime sector is Means of Access for Inspection, Maintenance and
struggling to attract sufficient young people into the Operation of Commercial Ships’, NI 537 DT R00 E,
industry, it appears crucial to show the efforts of the April 2008.
maritime industry to deal with seafarers’ safety and
health aboard merchant vessels. 10. IMO, MSC 83/5/7, ‘Goal-based new ship
construction standards – Consideration of GBS and
occupational health and safety’, Submitted by Denmark,
July 2007.

11. IMO, MSC/Circ.834, ‘Guidelines for the engine-

room layout, design and arrangement’, January 1998.

12. ILO – International Occupational Safety and Health

Centre (CIS), ‘International Hazard Datasheets on
Occupation – Ship-Engineer (Machinist)’,
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/safework/cis
/products/hdo/htm/engnr_ship.htm.

13. ILO, ‘Maritime Labour Convention’, 2006.

14. ILO, ‘SafeWork Bookshelf’

http://www.ilo.org/safework_bookshelf/english.

15. ILO, ‘Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and

Safety’, 4th Ed., ILO, Geneva, 1999

16. ANDERSSON, M & LUTZHOFT, M, ‘Engine

control rooms – Human Factors’, Proceedings of the
RINA Human Factors in Ship Design, Safety and
Operation, London, UK, 2007.

17. FLOCHER, V & RABARDEL, P; ‘Hommes,

artefacts, activités: perspective instrumentale’, In
FALZON, P (Coord.), L’ergonomie, pp 251-268, Paris,
France: PUF.

18. BASTIEN, C & SCAPIN, D, ‘La conception de

logiciels interactifs centrés sur l’utilisateur : étapes et
méthodes’, , In FALZON, P (Coord.), L’ergonomie, pp
451-462, Paris, France: PUF.

7. AUTHORS BIOGRAPHY

Nicolas Méry holds the current position of risk and

human factors research engineer at Bureau Veritas (BV)
Marine Division’s Research Department in the Risk,
Sustainability and the Human Element section. He is
responsible for developing BV’s knowledge and
competences on the human element.

Jonathan McGregor holds the current position Head of

the Risk, Sustainability and the Human Element section
at Bureau Veritas (BV) Marine Division’s Research
Department. He is responsible for the development and
management of Bureau Veritas’ research into human,
environmental and asset risk and risk control. His main
area of expertise is risk based design.