Feature 2 | Damage Stability
obtained with an onboard computer
using an updated programme. Therefore,
discussions of acceptable deviations would
be a key issue within the IMO.”
Mr Coley also recognised that there
would need to be a tolerance in the system:
“We will have to work out what kind of
tolerance would be acceptable if a ship is
not in accordance with the damage stability
regulations, that is if you load 5000tonnes
into tank 1 and you have one tonne too
much, that’s not much variation, but if it’s
10 or 20tonnes maybe that is too much.”
In November IPTA had voiced its
apprehension about the MCA’s position:
“We are concerned that to insist on
port state control requiring vessels to
demonstrate compliance with damage
stability requirements before leaving port a view from the bridge, how will new damage stability guidelines affect chemical tanker
will inevitably lead to vessel delays. Why? operators and owners?
Because, as the MCA has conceded all
along, the only practical way to do this is
by use of a damage stability computer. (e.g., type, size, age , and the number of allowable tolerances.”
“If the vessel does not have such a vessels involved) is needed to decide on the Although IPTA is a non-government
computer (which is the case with a large course of action on the matter.” organisation and as such has only
number of vessels) then the administration ClassNK offered another reason as observer status at the IMO it is supported
would have to be called in. This would to why some owners maybe opposed to in its concern over the UK’s proposals
naturally take time and lead to delays for installing damage stability computers by the Cook Island’s registry, which
vessels, and not necessarily because the onboard their vessels. It said: “One of the has full representative status, including
vessel is not in compliance with damage reasons that shipowners may oppose the voting rights, at the SLF meetings. The
stability requirements, but simply because proposed requirement to have damage Cook Island’s representative at the IMO,
it does not have onboard a piece of stability computers installed onboard Captain Ian Finley, said: “The Cook
equipment which is not mandatory,” wrote ship is because most are already provided Islands registry felt that the MCA did not
IPTA general manager Janet Strode. with shore-based damage stability analysis submit enough documentary evidence
However, Mr Coley said after the support which many shipowners may feel to make a compelling case. However, the
January meeting: “It is not needed to is more effective.” sub-committee agreed that there were
stop ships from sailing, owners will need ClassNK does not, however, believe that certain ambiguities in the regulations and
to be warned first, but ultimately it will there would be any problems providing those ambiguities needed addressing.”
be for the Paris MoU (Memorandum of verification of a chemical tanker’s damage Capt Finley denied, however, that there
Understanding) to decide.” stability status in a modern vessel. It had been any discussions between IPTA and
IPTA explained on its website that it had argues that: “Nowadays, intact/damage the Cook Islands on this issue: “The Cook
concerns about the content of the MCA’s stability programmes can be used both Islands and IPTA have never co-sponsored
paper and submitted, jointly with ICS and in the design stage to prepare the stability any paper on this issue,” he said.
OCIMF (International Chamber of Shipping booklet and in the operation stage to Meanwhile, the debate that took place
and the Oil Companies International operate the onboard computer. In such appears to have allayed any fears that the
Marine Forum), a paper outlining these cases, the calculations for either would ICS may have had and it has now fallen into
concerns. After further lengthy debate, result in zero deviations. Even if different line with the UK delegation in supporting
the sub-committee report noted: “The programmes are used in the design stage the development of new guidelines.
majority of delegations considered that no and to operate the onboard computer, In the final analysis, Mr Coley said: “The
justification or compelling [evidence] had such software will usually be quite similar Paris MoU will have to decide whether it
been demonstrated and strongly supported and consist of updated programmes, and wants to enforce these regulations now,
the view of IPTA, OCIMF & ICS that more any differences in the calculation results they can do that, they could take that
information on the alleged non-compliance would usually be within acceptable or decision.” NA
52 The Naval Architect February 2010
NA Feb10 - p50+p52.indd 52 03/02/2010 15:44:22
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76