RCI’s Jewel of the Seas carried out the largest full-scale evacuation trial ever performed, on land or at sea
identical, despite the fact that one of the vessels has cabins and one does not. “We were pleasantly surprised by this,” Mr Brown commented. “It supports the view that the RTD generated by our test mirrors that of all ropax.” In contrast, the cruise ship RTD results for both its public and cabin spaces were different from the results of the ropax ferries trialled as well as the Eurostar Roma. Furthermore the response times for guests in cabins on the cruise ship were different to those in public spaces on the same ship: the mean response time for the former was 333 seconds, while for the latter it was a much lower 88 seconds. The response times for people in public spaces on the
cruise ship were significantly different to those in public spaces on Color Line’s Superspeed1 vessel. It took passengers on the cruise ship 66 per cent longer to respond to the alarm then those on the ropax. “The mindset is different on a ropax, as you are going from A to B. On a cruise ship you are there for vacation purposes, and have unpacked,” Mr Brown said at the seminar, as he explained why he thought peoples’ response rates were slower on a cruise ship than on a ropax. The response times for people in cruise ship cabins were
compared with those in the Eurostar Roma cabins. Again, there was a significant difference (see the featured table to compare the results). Mr Brown suggested the differences in passengers mindset accounted for this, adding: “The cabins are also more comfortable and luxurious in the cruise ship than in the ropax, where again it might not be necessary to unpack, it’s just a process of getting from A to B.” Response times for those in cabins on the cruise ship were longer than for those in cabins on Minoan Lines’ Olympia Palace. The reason for this was not just the different mindset on a ropax ferry. Another factor was the difference in age demography: on the ropax 44.2 per cent of the population was less than 19 years old on the ropax compared with 7.7 per cent for the same age range on the cruise ship customer base. The most important finding of the Safeguard project is that the current model, based only on a ropax ferry, is not representative of cruise ships. One of the project’s recommendations to IMO is that ferries and cruise ships should have their own distinct evacuation models. Safeguard has specified that cruise ships need two distinct models of
www.passengership.info
their own, one for day and one for night, and that these should be based on the Jewel of the Seas trial. The third recommendation is that there should be a new day evacuation case for ferries, based on the combined results of the SuperSpeed1 trial and the current Eurostar Roma standard. But as this is statistically similar to the current RTD guidelines, it is unlikely that there will be many changes. “The new RTD is unlikely to significantly impact evacuation analysis for ropax vessels but is considered to be a more representative, robust and reliable RTD,” a Safeguard paper explained. The data from these trials, along with additional benchmark scenarios, have been reported to IMO in three information papers for possible incorporation into future modifications of MSC Circ 1238.
As well as having a big impact on ensuring that evacuation procedures are as robust as possible, the semi- announced trials have given crews valuable training. Color Line project director Jan Helge Pile agreed with this concept and told seminar delegates that following Safeguard there were discussions about whether to hold a semi- announced trial once or twice a year. “The crew said that this was a good exercise for them,” he stated. Minoan Line project manager Christos Vazouras said the company wanted to try and repeat the exercise twice a year. RCI director of maritime safety and compliance Chris
Van Raalten said: “From a cruiseship
perspective...the actual response time is an eye-opener.” He said that participating in Safeguard meant that RCC could understand more about the regular muster drills it carries out already, and that it could learn lessons from the project. PST
NIGHT CASE ASSEMBLY TIMES USING IMO
STANDARD RTD AND SAFEGUARD CRUISE SHIP RTD Seconds minimum average
maximum
1,126 1,158 1,210
Source: RINA/Safeguard
IMO Safeguard 1,260 1,335 1,469
Per cent difference 11.9 15.3 21.4
Passenger Ship Technology I 2nd Quarter 2013 I 43
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 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88