| |
At its meeting during the 2005 SMTC in Houston, the T&R Steering Committee agreed to charter the formation of a new Ad Hoc Panel to address, from a technical perspective, the issues and impacts associated with an increase of the assumed weight per person aboard passenger vessels. Because focus of Ad Hoc Panel #15, Loading Criteria for People aboard Passenger Vessels is closely allied with the broader subject area of the safety of passenger vessels, the activities of Ad Hoc Panel #15 share the same web pages as Ad Hoc #8.
Current Activities of Ad Hoc #8
IMO Activities
| |
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) initiative on Large
Passenger Ship Safety (LPS) began in 2000 at the suggestion of the
Secretary-General, who questioned whether SOLAS requirements, much
of which was written many years ago, duly addressed all the safety
aspects of their operations, in particular in emergency situations.
Since then, several of the technical IMO Sub-Committees have been
tasked with aspects of LPS and many comments and proposals have been
submitted by IMO Members, Observers, and Non-Governmental
Organizations (NGO). The progress of these tasks has been included
in Reports of the MSC and Sub-Committees to the MSC and of
established working and correspondence groups. A report
of the LPS correspondence group to MSC 75 (MSC 75/4/1) set forth
the strategic goals and objectives of the LPS initiative,
prioritized the areas for consideration, and updated the work plan
for the tasked technical Sub-Committees. The IMO Secretariat
prepared a summary
report for MSC 78 (May 2004) (MSC 78/4/1) on the progress made
to 2004.
The Working Group on LPS at MSC 78 considered the remaining tasks
of the LPS initiative. As a general principle, the Group agreed that
casualty thresholds (extent of damage) should stipulate the amount
of damage a ship must be able to withstand and still safely return
to port under its own power. In addition, even if this threshold is
exceeded, the Group agreed that a ship is to remain habitable for a
minimum time (generally agreed by the Group to be at least three
hours) to allow for safe and orderly abandonment. These casualty
thresholds are to be used by the Sub-Committees tasked with LPS
items to develop requirements for passenger ships to maintain their
essential systems and safely return to port. A report of the Working
Group is available (MSC 78/WP.14) and includes, among other things:
- revised guiding philosophy, strategic goals, and objectives;
and
- a revised work plan.
At SLF 47, the status of tasks assigned to the Sub-Committee were
considered. The SDS Working Group, which was tasked to deal with LPS
matters, discussed these tasks and developed a report to the
Maritime Safety Committee that addressed each one (see SLF 47/WP.6).
The group felt that significant progress had been made on several
tasks and acknowledged that research was ongoing. The progress was
related to the work completed through the Framework of LPS
Investigations that was established after SLF 46 in 2003. The task
on measures to limit progressive flooding was addressed, in part, by
the Practical Assessment research conducted by Finland (SLF
47/INF.6). The "characterization of designed survivability" task was
researched using a single unbuilt design by both time-to-flood
simulations sponsored by the U.S. and performed by MARIN (posted on
the SDS LPS working papers web page) and model tests conducted by
both Italy and Japan (SLF 47/8/2 and SLF 47/INF.11, respectively). A
SSC sponsored study on "structural integrity after damage" task was
submitted to SLF 46 (SLF 46/INF.10) and a follow-on study is
anticipated to be completed soon. The report on this final work will
be posted to the SDS LPS working papers web page when available.
The SDS Correspondence Group was re-established for the
intersessional period leading to SLF 48 and tasked with several LPS
activities. These included consideration of the usefulness of
time-domain flooding studies; investigation of raking damage issues;
determination of whether a "floatability assessment" criteria can be
established (proposed in SLF 47/8/3); and initiate the development
of a "threshold criteria" for survivability, as referred by MSC 78,
to satisfy either of two scenarios, (1) return to port or (2) remain
habitable for at least 3 hours for evacuation. The idea of a
"floatability assessment" is derived from the U.S. proposal (SLF
47/8/3) to use the harmonization results to assess survival time.
Similar to previous SDS Correspondence Group organization, the LPS
activities will be covered through postings to the LPS working
papers web page (link given below).
A presentation
on the Panel's activities with respect to the current status of the
IMO LPS tasks and of research involving passenger ship flooding
survivability was given at a T&R session at the 2004 SNAME
Maritime Technology Conference. More detailed time-to-flood reports
are available from the SDS LPS working papers web page. In addition,
a paper
authored by Panel members on the influence of semi-watertight spaces
on LPS survivability as found from the time-to-flood research is to
be presented at the 7th International Ship Stability Workshop in
Shanghai in October 2004.
The following work on large passenger ship safety at IMO has been finalized:
- completion of explanatory notes for the application of the new harmonized
probabilistic damage stability regulations;
- review of the IMO recommendation on a standard method for
complying with cross-flooding arrangement requirements in passenger ships (Res. A.266);
- development of guidance on the considerations Administrations should make in order
to permit watertight doors to remain open at sea; and
- an additional time-to-flood
simulation analyses on a new passenger ship design.
|
Harmonization and Large Passenger Ships
Background - Following the Andrea
Doria-Stockholm collision, the 1960 SOLAS Conference made
relatively minor changes affecting flooding protection, but noted in the
General Recommendations that "watertight subdivision and stability
deserve further study." Thus, IMCO Sub-Stab was charged with this task
in 1962. New passenger ship regulations based on the probabilistic
method were developed and were adopted as IMO Resolution A.265(VIII) in
1973. However, A.265 did not replace the previous "deterministic"
regulations but was considered only as an alternative. It was the
prevalent belief that although IMO decreed A.265 as equivalent, it was
felt that this was a far more severe standard. This is probably the case
as only a handful of passenger ships were designed to A.265. At the 1974
SOLAS Conference, A.265 was incorporated as a footnote to Part B. In the
Resolutions to the Conference a high priority was placed on establishing
a subdivision standard for "ships other than passenger ships". In fact,
the basic probabilistic method (of A.265) was used to develop the new
damage stability regulations for dry cargo ships that came into force in
1992. After this was accomplished, the SLF Sub-Committee was tasked to
"harmonize" the damage stability regulations in IMO instruments based on
the probabilistic method, rather than to "repair" the subdivision
lengths and number of compartments flooded, which were known to be
broken. The harmonization work was slated to first involve only
passenger and cargo ships; if this was accomplished successfully, then
SLF would undertake to revise the damage stability in other IMO
instruments, e.g. other ship types. The catastrophic losses of the
Herald of Free Enterprise in 1987 and the
Estonia in 1994 caused the timetable for
Harmonization to slip - by many years. SLF developed significant
amendments for enhanced after-damage survival criteria for the
deterministic regulations, known as SOLAS 90 and SOLAS 92. Once this was
accomplished SLF was back on track for Harmonization. Then, three years
into the Harmonization effort, a number of European Administrations and
universities proposed an EU project that would provide sufficient basic
knowledge for SLF to complete Harmonization. This EU project called
HARDER began in 1999, and completed its extensive research in time for
the papers deadline for SLF 46 - in June 2003.
| |
In September 2003 SLF was prepared to finish, but issues
associated with large passenger ship assessments prevented
completion of this task. The SLF requested guidance from the MSC on
how the harmonization effort should be completed. A number of
reference papers with various proposals were submitted to the MSC.
Taken with the key reference SLF reports, the MSC 78 reference papers
accurately frame the issues involved in this task.
The panel took a pro-active role in preparing for the
deliberations at MSC 78 and developed the letter to IMO's
Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) for naval architecture societies
-- RINA. The letter
(pdf version) recommended strong support of the majority opinion
of the SLF Sub-Committee and offered assistance to draft a MSC
"intervention" statement reflecting this opinion that, provided the
other naval architecture societies agreed, could be made by RINA.
MSC 78 agreed with the SLF Sub-Committee that passenger ship
survivability should increase with increasing ship length and number
of persons on board. The MSC further instructed SLF to treat this
task with urgent priority with the view to complete the
harmonization effort and deliver the draft amendments to MSC 79 in
December for approval.
The SDS ISCG completed the Harmonization work it was assigned and submitted
reports to SLF 47, also available via the SDS correspondence group website. Among
other things, the reports included the sample passenger ship recalculation results
(SLF 47/3/3, annex 1) and analyses that developed possible formulations of the
required subdivision index "R" that complied with the MSC 78 guidance.
The ISCG considered these results via questionnaire and was evenly divided between
one of the "R" formulations proposed and other proposals (SLF 47/3/8).
Other key papers were submitted to SLF 47 that discussed other
aspects associated with the Harmonization effort: bottom damage
protection (SLF 47/3/4; SLF 47/INF.4), minimum "A" values (SLF
47/3/8), collision penetration and extent for cruise ships, bulk
carriers and tankers (SLF 47/3/15), and discussions of the
probability functions (SLF47/3/5; SLF 47/3/12; SLF 47/3/16). Some
papers presented research results targeting large passenger ships (SLF
47/3/5, SLF 47/3/15, and SLF 47/8/2). MSC 78 encouraged this and asked that results be
brought back to MSC for possible action in the longer term.
At SLF 47, the Harmonization effort was finalized and draft
revised regulations were forwarded to MSC 79. This outcome is
discussed in greater detail on the Panel O-44 Activities
page. A summary of the status of the harmonization effort
following SLF 47 was presented at the T&R Sessions at the 2004 SNAME
Maritime Technology Conference on October 1, 2004. For information, other
papers that were submitted to SLF 47 associated with the
Harmonization effort related to passenger ships as well as the LPS
initiative as listed in the reference paper table below.
Italy reserved its position on the draft revised regulations at
SLF 47 and submitted a paper to MSC (MSC 79/11/1) that requested to
discuss in-depth their proposal for modifications to the harmonized
damage stability regulations -- in particular, the formulations to
calculate the p-factor (draft SOLAS regulation II-1/7-1). Rebuttals to this paper were
submitted by Norway (MSC 79/11/3 and MSC/11/4) that remind the MSC
of the reasons for the formulations agreed to by SLF.
In December 2004 at MSC 79, Italy stated its desire to have its concerns and proposals regarding the p-factor discussed and considered by the technical experts of SLF (i.e. the SDS working group). The MSC agreed and an intersessional meeting of the SDS working group was held on January 19 - 21, 2005 to consider submissions by Italy (MSC 80/3, MSC 80/3/1, and MSC 80/3/2). After lengthy discussions on the matter, the SDS working group proposed modifications to the draft SOLAS regulation II-1/7-1 and agreed that a program to fully validate and verify the proposed changes should be performed, including re-calculation of effected sample ships and a re-analysis of the required subdivision index R. A report of the SDS working group meeting has been submitted to MSC 80 (MSC 80/3/5).
The SDS correspondence group, established at SLF 47, submitted a report to MSC 80 that reports on the validation and verification work, including a revision to the R regulation (draft regulation II-1/6) based on the sample ship re-calculations, so that a fully validated and complete revised SOLAS chapter II-1 parts A, B, and B-1 was available for consideration at MSC 80. The report is posted on the SDS correspondence group website as well as on the "Other IMO Activities" page (see Resource "locator" table for links).
At MSC 80, in May 2005, considered the report of the SDS correspondence group and the agreed to the proposal that the formulations for the required subdivision R in draft SOLAS regulation II-1/6 should remain unchanged.
At SLF 48, in September 2005, the S/C reviewed the updated task list from MSC 80. The SDS correspondence group was tasked with developing "safe return to port" criteria and preparing mandatory requirements for water ingress detection and flooding level monitoring systems. The SDS correspondence group also continued its work on completing the explanatory notes to the revised SOLAS II-1 regulations.
At MSC 81 .....
At SLF 49 .....
Information about this task is available from a number of sources that are listed in the Resource "locator" Table below.
|
| |
The Table containing Reference papers has been moved
to its own page. We will not continue the update of this page (last entry is MSC 80/24).
Any additional papers on this subject can be obtained through our
Other IMO Activities page.
Sub-Committees Activities
Stability (SLF) Related Activities
Information about the LPS tasks assigned to the Sub-Committee on
Stability and Load Lines, and on Fishing Vessels Safety (SLF) can be
accessed from the LPS
working papers web page of the Subdivision and Damage Stability
(SDS) correspondence group website. In addition, information on the
key LPS related task of the harmonization
of damage stability regulations in SOLAS also can be accessed
from this website.
Fire Protection (FP) and Life-saving Related ActivitiesContact Jeff Lantz at
jlantz@comdt.uscg.mil
Design and Equipment (DE) ActivitiesContacts: Ray Petow at
rpetow@comdt.uscg.mil, or Wayne Lundy at
wlundy@comdt.uscg.mil
Radiocommunications and Search and Rescue (COMSAR) Activities
Contacts: Dan Lemon at
dlemon@comdt.uscg.mil
Dave Edwards at
dedwards@comdt.uscg.mil
Joe Hersey at
jhersey@comdt.uscg.mil
Standards of Training and Watchkeeping (STW) Activities
Contact Derek D'Orazio at
DDOrazio@comdt.uscg.mil
Navigation (NAV) ActivitiesContact Ed LaRue at
ELaRue@comdt.uscg.mil |
On February 8, 2000, Ad Hoc Panel #8, Safety Assessment of Passenger
Ships, was formed under the SNAME T&R Steering Committee. The meeting
was held at the offices of M. Rosenblatt & Son, Inc. in Crystal City -
Arlington, Virginia.
Agenda for the meeting:
- Introduction of members.
- Background that led to panel formation.
- U.S. Coast Guard introduction of work areas.
- Overview of passenger vessel evacuation analysis work at IMO.
- Overview of new lifesaving regulations and safety assessment
workshops.
- Discuss overall approach for completing work.
- Dates for future meetings.
Minutes of the meeting:
The meeting was opened with a review of what transpired in the T&R
Subcommitee on Pasenger Ships, that led to the formation of this panel Ad
Hoc Panel - on passenger vessel evacuation.
There are two major areas for this panel to work and add value. The
first, in the international arena, is the ongoing passenger vessel
evacuation analysis work taking place at the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) which started in FP 43 and is to continue through FP
44, 45 and 46. The current guidelines for RO-RO vessels, MSC/Circ.909
(effective July 1, 1999) was being looked at as the starting point for the
IMO FP meeting (FP 44, February 2000). U.S. Coast Guard work and related
documents in this area are available. The panel agreed to review
documents and other information that came out of February's FP
Sub-Committee meeting. The Coast Guard representative mentioned that they
were part of an international correspondence group on the subject and
would be sharing that information with the panel. The ICCL representative
also shared the ICCL information paper on passenger vessel evacuation
analysis being submitted to FP 44.
The other area of potential impact for the panel, is in the domestic
arena and is the implementation of the new subchapter W (Lifesaving
Systems for Certain Inspected Vessels). In particular, the Coast Guard is
looking to have workshops around the country on the development of safety
assessments which can be submitted in lieu of the 67% inflatable buoyant
apparatus requirement for vessels operating in lakes, bays and sounds
service or rivers service. The Coast Guard representatives thought that
the panel could add value in the establishment and process of the
workshops and for a technical review of their product which would
eventually be in the form of a Navigation and Inspection Circular (NVIC).
The panel discussed the possibility of having an example safety assessment
(one vessel or a fleet) that could be worked out at each workshop. The
potential sites given by the Coast Guard were Seattle, St. Louis, New
Orleans and New York. The compliance date for these new regulations is
2003 for existing vessels. The panel would be expecting information soon
on these workshops.
The panel had a general discussion on the areas given above and felt it
could definitely add value to these two areas. The panel would go forward
with the subchapter W workshop planning as soon as information could be
passed from the Coast Guard, and would start in on the passenger vessel
evacuation analysis as soon as we had the data from the latest IMO
meeting.
The panel, in general, thought that piggy-backing meetings with the
Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee (PVAAC) meetings would provide
the best opportunity to assemble all the panel members. Otherwise the
panel would work via email and conference calls. The panel would also
provide information on the SNAME web page.
The next Ad Hoc panel meeting is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, April 25, 2000 to coincide with the PVAAC meeting scheduled for 26-28 April.
|
