information for the master round 2 resultsv2 by 3vP085oM


                                        Round 2

 Operational information for masters of passenger ships for safe return
                  to port by own power or under tow.

Two alternative amendments to SOLAS were proposed in Round 1. There was a
majority, (4:2), in favour of the mandatory carriage of an onboard stability computer.
Norway has proposed an alternative SOLAS text as follows:

       Ships required to comply with SOLAS Chapter II-2 Regulation 21 shall be
       equipped with an onboard stability computer. As an alternative, a shore based
       support may be considered by the Administration. The Master shall be provided
       with stability information and additional information pertinent to the assessment
       of survivability of the ship following a flooding casualty, in accordance with
       guidelines to be developed by the Organization.

Given that this provides the choice of either solution it can only be used as an alternative
to the Round 1 para 15 text. Given the sample size both will be offered as alternatives in
the Annex of the CG report to SLF 53.

Please indicate preference for Norway’s        Finland: We prefer the original Round 1
alternative or the original Round 1 para 15    para 16 text.
text.                                          Japan: Japan does not support the
                                               mandatory requirement to install an
                                               onboard stability computer.

                                               Japan prefers original para 15 text of round
                                               Norway: Affirm our proposal.
                                               United States: We prefer Norway’s
                                               United Kingdom: Preference is for the
                                               installation of an onboard stability

                                               Co-ordinator’s comment: since Norway’s
                                               text offers alternatives it can only be used
                                               as an alternative to para 15; despite a
                                               majority in favour of mandatory carriage of
                                               an onboard stability computer it is
                                               proposed to offer the Sub-Committee the
                                               option of both texts i.e. para 16 and
                                               Norway’s text. As a result of opinions
                      expressed in this and previous the CG on
                      safe return to port it has been assumed that
                      only a computer based system is capable of
                      producing the detail of information specific
                      to the actual and evolving condition of the
                      ship; this would preclude reliance on the
                      stability booklet.
Additional comments   Finland: The shore based support can be
                      an additional /complementing service. The
                      main motto of SRtP has been "the ship is
                      its own best lifeboat" and that is why the
                      ship shall also be independent of external
                      services. A delay or bad / overstressed
                      communications can jeopardize the
                      survivability of the ship. Counter
                      measurements to mitigate the damage or
                      decision to abandon the ship have to be
                      made immediately and on the spot. As
                      mentioned in UK's comments, the onboard
                      stability computer can (= should) be used
                      in drills to train the officers for various
                      damage scenarios.

                      Japan: SOLAS II-2/21 apply to passenger
                      ships which have 3 or more main vertical
                      zones, i.e. L>80m. In the case of small-
                      middle size passenger ships which do not
                      have complex subdivision, it may be
                      possible for the master to access
                      immediately to stability information by the
                      pre-calculated booklet.

                      Therefore, if selected Norway’s alternative,
                      Japan proposes addition to the text as
                      As an alternative, a shore based support
                      and/or other means such as pre-calculated
                      stability information booklet may be
                      considered by the Administration.
                      Norway:Co-ordinator’s comment:                 Formatted: Left
                      Norway has additional comments in the
                      text of the Draft Guidelines
                      United States:
                      United Kingdom:
     Modifications have been made to the DRAFT GUIDELINES ON OPERATIONAL
     PORT BY OWN POWER OR UNDER TOW which reflect views expressed in Round 1.

     Please comment on the modifications to the Draft Guidelines below.

                BY OWN POWER OR UNDER TOW.


1.       Stability information provided to the Master should be sourced from a[n approved]
     stability computer situated onboard the vessel [or from a shore base] and be capable of
     providing information at any time.

2.      The output format and units of the information supplied should be consistent with the
     format and units of the stability booklet in order to facilitate easy comparison.

3.      Additional information pertinent to the survivability of the ship should also be

4.        All information pertinent to the survivability of the ship should be kept in one easily
     accessible file; documents referenced within the file should also be easily accessible. A
     copy of the Emergency Towing Booklet (ETB) should be kept in [close proximity to] this

5.      Accuracy of programs using hull form models as their basis for stability calculations
     should have tolerances in accordance with IACS UR L5, when compared with the
     approved stability information; this applies equally to onboard and shore based systems.

Onboard stability computers
6.        At least two items of computer hardware capable of processing the data and providing
      the necessary information should be installed.

7.       Onboard stability computers should have an uninterruptible power supply (UPS)
      connected to both Main and Emergency Switchboards.

8.        A computer model of the ship should be installed in sufficient detail to enable output
      to be within the tolerances specified in IACS Unified Requirement L5 “Onboard
      computers for stability calculations”; this provides a template for the assessment of the
      accuracy of stability hardware and software which should be used as guidance for
      approval the Administration.

9.        Details of the loading condition of the ship at each departure should be input to the
      stability computer in order to encourage familiarity with the operation of the system and
      to save time on data input in the event of a casualty.

10.       At least two crew members should be competent in the operation the stability
      computer and capable of interpretation of the output in order to provide the required

11.       An Operation Manual is to be provided for the stability computer software printed in
      a language in which the operators are fully conversant.

Minimum stability and additional information requirements

12.       Taking into account the most recent known loading and flooded condition of the ship
      and taking into account any measures that may be proposed to improve or affect the
      survivability of the ship the following information should be provided:

         12.1.       GM transverse in any loading and flooded condition;

         12.2.       GZ and range in any loading and flooded condition;

         12.3.       Area under the GZ curve in any loading and flooded condition;

         12.4.     Maximum and actual values of free surface moments of all tanks and
             spaces below the bulkhead deck;

         12.5.       Location of flooding level indicators within tanks;

         12.6.       Draughts; fwd, midships and aft;

         12.7.       Angles of heel and trim;

         12.8.       The effect of flooding and heel and trim angles on:
        12.8.1. operation of essential equipment,
        12.8.2. escape routes and evacuation times
        12.8.3. effective deployment of life saving appliances;
        Co-ordinator’s comment: Finland had suggested to delete all of 12.8 on
        grounds that the impact of heel and trim for all items is dependant on the
        actual case. However this does not preclude the making available of
        information on the the limitations of effective working of essential equipment
        and LSA or on the general advice that escape and evacuation times may be
        considerably extended at angles of heel in excess of say 10 degrees etc. in light
        of that it is suggested to retain this text.
Norway comment: It is unclear for us in what level of detail this information is intended
to be presented. It could be useful with information on which equipment and life saving
appliances that is operable, also which escape routes that may be flooded. Co-
ordinator’s comment: It is intended that the limits of operability on all items of
essential equipment, as listed in SOLAS Ch II-2 Reg.21.4 and their associated
performance standards listed in MSC.1/Circ.1214, be detailed in order to make
clear the availability of these items. Additionally the wording of 12.8 and 12.8.2
amended to address Norway’s comment re flooding of escape routes.

   12.9.     [“s”value in that flooded condition;] Co-ordinator’s comment:tend to
       agree with Finland in that this is not necessary
Norway comment: Tend to agree with Finland and the co-ordinator regarding deleting

   12.10.     Natural roll period;

   12.11.     Instruction on the measurement/estimation of wave period;

   12.12.     Instruction on the determination of wave period of encounter;

Norway comment: Agree to delete 12.13, this shall be information given in the Damage
Control Booklet/Plan. Covered by new 12.22.Co-ordinator’s comment; There is no
specific mention of synchronous and parametric rolling in MSC.1/Circ.1245.

   12.13.     Any known sensitivity to synchronous and parametric rolling;

   12.14.     Profile areas of the ship both above and below the waterline, and means
       to establish their centres, in order to estimate the effects of wind pressure;

   12.15.     Bending Global bending moment and shear force;

   12.16.     Available pump capacities serving all spaces beneath the bulkhead deck;

   12.17.     Cross flooding arrangements and time for equalisation;

12.19.     Fuel consumption data accounting for estimates of increased resistance
    due to flooding; Co-ordinator’s comment: Some stability software packages
    will give wetted surface areas enabling an estimate of frictional resistance
    but not wavemaking and trim induced resistance. Finland wish to delete.

12.20.     If the ship is of wide beam and shallow draught and consequently has been
    assessed for her intact stability under the modified requirements provided in the
    Code for Intact Stability Chapter 4, then the details of this information should be
    made available;

12.21.    Arrangements for towing in accordance with The Emergency Towing
    Booklet (ETB);

12.22.     Ship specific particulars relating to Guidelines for damage control plans
    and information to the master (MSC.1/Circ.1245).]

To top