Trans RINA, Vol 152, Part B2, Intl J Small Craft Tech, 2010 Jul-Dec received no support. Kingdom’s concerns, a limit of 130% (ie.


But in recognition of the United 30%


extrapolation) was finally included in the guidelines. Nonetheless, when the guidelines were finally adopted [15], this concession did not prevent the United Kingdom from again protesting at the 130% value when the Guidelines were being Maritime Safety Committee.


finally approved


The discrepancy between the 150% value in the Code and the 130% value in the Guidelines presents an operational problem for those high-speed craft builders who cannot readily access sea trial conditions requiring less than 30% extrapolation to worst intended conditions. It is expected that this discrepancy will be remedied when the 2000 HSC Code is next amended.


2.3 AVAILABLE RESCUE AND OPERATIONAL SUPPORT RESOURCES


This factor, which allows for retention of overall safety standards while facilitating weight reduction of high- speed craft relative to conventional vessels, can be readily overlooked if the design of a high-speed craft service is undertaken with a concentration on hardware rather than a total safety perspective.


To improve its visibility and reinforce its importance to the achievement of high levels of safety under the 2000 HSC Code, this


factor has been given appropriate


emphasis in the Guidelines. 2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS


Mention has previously been made of wake wash waves. Interests centred in the United


Kingdom were


enthusiastic about having the United Kingdom’s requirements on guidelines.


the subject incorporated into the The group noted, however, that


other


Administrations have their own ways of dealing with this phenomenon if and when it becomes a problem, so the final decision was to deal with it in broad terms only rather than introduce specifics.


Minimum safe water group depth with regard to bottom


scouring and adverse effects on seabed flora and fauna are among the other environmental aspects mentioned on the final guidelines. Although not considered by the correspondence


or mentioned in the final


guidelines, external noise emanating from a craft may be the subject of regulation by the coastal state and any resulting operating restrictions may also be shown on the Permit to Operate.


2.5 MEASUREMENT OF SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT


Since the significant wave-height is generally a significant


if not predominant limitations placed upon a high-speed craft, the means of part of the operating 3. FINALISATION OF THE GUIDELINES


The Guidelines [15] were finalised by the DE Sub- Committee at its session in March 2009,


without


amendment to the draft finalised by the correspondence group, and subsequently promulgated by the Maritime Safety Committee at its 86th session in June 2009.


4. CONCLUSION


Development and promulgation of the Guidelines fills an important gap in the standards framework associated with the 2000 HSC Code, particularly in relation to achieving international uniformity in the operational


measuring such a wave-height in an operational environment is an important part of the implementation and effectiveness of the Guidelines in an operational context.


by IMO’s


While it is recognised that many craft have systems for directly measuring the sea state or accelerations to which structure is subjected in service, no case was made recommending the fitting of such systems to all craft covered by the HSC Code, so the Guidelines incorporate a low-tech method by which operational wave-height can be estimated.


In the author’s view it would be advisable to require the fitting of an inertial wave measurement radar system in place of accepting the inaccuracy associated with such low-tech methods.


2.6 OTHER SAFETY MATTERS


During the process of development of the 1994 HSC Code, mention was made of the brittle failure of a main engine tail-shaft on a hovercraft


be reflected in restrictions imposed by operating in the


Canadian Arctic that had been built in tropical Australia. One would normally expect that any environmental (eg. temperature) limitations on the operations of a craft would


classification society when classing the craft. However, the Guidelines make no specific mention of this as the HSC Code provide for the imposition of such limitations on the Permit to Operate, whether in concert with or in addition to class restrictions.


To cover such occasional cases, especially where the operational routes/areas are predominantly or entirely outside the waters of the flag State, there is an obvious need for port


State involvement to ensure that the


operating limitations are comprehensive and consistent relative to similar craft operating under other flag(s) in adjacent waters. Whilst such involvement is specified in the HSC Code, it does no harm to emphasise that this aspect of the Code goes beyond the normal principle of a flag State bearing sole responsibility for the issue of safety certification to a vessel flying its flag.


the


B-90


©2010: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects


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