Trans RINA, Vol 152, Part B2, Intl J Small Craft Tech, 2010 Jul-Dec
(e) giving credit for the contribution to safety from support arrangements available at the craft’s base port and in the operational area.
Some Australian interests have from time to time taken an interest in wing-in-ground effect (WIG) craft, an example of which is shown in Figure 3. These craft are subject to their own IMO standard [3] and are excluded from the application of the 1994 (and subsequent) HSC Codes.
interpretation. For example, some Administrations only impose operating limitations relating to loading on the craft’s structure in accordance with classification society requirements, whereas others may consider the totality of the vessel’s safe operations including considerations pertaining to:
• intact stability; • damage stability; • manoeuvring/seakeeping; • ability to safely evacuate in an emergency; and • environment.
Examples of this final point are the imposition by the United Kingdom and New Zealand
of operational
limitations to protect the environment and persons in the vicinity from wake wash waves that may be generated by high-speed craft in certain circumstances.
Figure 3. Wing-In-Ground effect craft
In accordance with its provision stating that it should be subjected to regular review,
the 1994 HSC Code was
revised in 2000 resulting in the 2000 HSC Code [4], which was itself reviewed and amended in 2006 [5] with effect from 1 July 2008. IMO subsequently published a 2008 consolidated edition of the 2000 HSC Code [6] to incorporate the
2006 amendments, which also
incorporated into the text of the 2000 HSC Code matters that had previously been covered by interpretations promulgated as a circular[7].
Later references in this paper to “the HSC Code” relate specifically to the current text of the 2000 HSC Code as amended, although they are generally also applicable to the superseded versions dating back to the 1994 HSC Code.
One of the features that distinguishes the 1994 HSC Code and its successor documents from traditional ship safety standards such as SOLAS [8] is that the Code does not provide for “go anywhere” certification but has a two-part certification system. equipment of the craft
The construction and is covered by the High-Speed
Craft Safety Certificate, while an additional certificate, the Permit to Operate High-Speed Craft, is issued in consultation with port States who are required to provide details of “any operational conditions associated with the operation of the craft”.
During the 2006 review of the 2000 HSC Code, it was pointed out to IMO’s Ship Design and Equipment (DE) Sub-Committee [9]
that imposition of operational conditions or limitations was subject to non-uniform B-88
IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee subsequently agreed in May of 2006 [10] that the DE Sub-Committee should develop guidelines for uniform operating limitations for high-speed craft.
2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE GUIDELINES
Following first consideration of the task by the DE Sub- Committee at its 50th meeting in March 2007, the main work was
delegated to a correspondence coordinated by the author.
In this regard, the resources allocated to this task and the time taken to complete it should be viewed in the context of the Sub-Committee’s extremely heavy workload on subjects related to the safety of conventional passenger and cargo ships.
The group was instructed to develop draft guidelines taking into account submissions on the subject to the Sub-Committee’s current and preceding sessions ([9], [11] & [12]) and comments that may be made by the other relevant Sub-Committees.
It is not intended for this paper to provide a detailed description of the workings of the correspondence group.
©2010: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects group
The need for the HSC Code to provide for the active involvement of the port State(s) in setting operational limitations is obvious when it is considered that high- speed craft certificated under the Codes are restricted to operating on specified routes or geographic areas and that those routes/areas may lie entirely outside the waters of the flag State.
As a result of the variations in matters considered by different Administrations, [9] provides several examples of
discrepancies such as operational
significant wave height varying from 3.5 m to 5 m that have been imposed by different Administrations on “one family of closely similar 96 m to 98 m catamarans”.
limitations on
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