Load Lines for ships below 24m

I am looking at RS Rules for Load Lines;
http://www.rs-class.org/upload/iblock/f79/2-020101-065-E.pdf
See page 375, section 8.

Does anyone recognize the source of these requirements? In acting Load lines Code and IACS interpretations this part is not present, as they do not rate freeboard for craft <24m.

Funny that it states 306mm for 10m boat and 400mm for 24m. Not practical at all.

BUT, looking at the figure 306mm I assume it is taken from some international rules, as it seems to be one foot in Imperial System.

 

Freeboard is a statutory requirement not a Class requirement. Thus unless you have it in writing that the Flag state is signing over responsibility/authority to the Classification for your current project, I would check what the local Flag rules state as these are the rules to satisfy.

 

Yes, for RS is appointed by Russian Ministry of transport for Russian flagged vessels. They always require this nonsense with freeboard assessment, it does not make any sense because small craft architecture does not fit in these Rules. Say, there is no 'freeboard deck', houses can be partly recessed below deck level, window closing requirements do not comply, vent pipes, etc.

I just want to find out where this section of Rules for load lines <24m comes from, I suspect maybe some older version of Load Lines Rules that has now been dropped in international practice.

Here is the sample of what these idiots requested for 10m boat - see the vent pipes from fore peak? They requested this instead of boat style deck vents (UFO-type). Other 'nice feature' is excessive handrails in front of coxswain, but this is another story...

 

The flag states are given discretion over assigning load lines for vessels which are not required to have an international load line, i.e., vessels on domestic voyages or otherwise not engaged on an international voyage.

The Russian Register has decided that, for whatever reasons, they wish vessels in their classification which are less than 24 m in length to meet certain standards and have a load line, although this is not required by the ICLL convention. It could be due to the hazards of operating a small boat in winter in Arctic waters or whatever.

It's not clear why you picked the RS Rules. Are you working on a boat which needs RS approval?

 

Looks like there are a lot of corrections to the base number as well as other requirements based on service. You should not take Table 8.4.1 as an absolute but pull the thread to the end.

As for where it comes from...<shrug> FWIW, 306 mm (~12") to the downflooding deck edge for a 30 foot vessel is not excessive. If it's an open boat, get creative with what is the flooding deck and what is a well.

Google the IMO 1966/1988 Load Line Convention and The Russian Federation is a signatory by inhertance.

 

Yes we do some boats that need RS approval. Craft that can be operated at inland waterways are required to have either RS or RRR class.

This has nothing to do with Arctic as the boat is intended for seasonal use; there is no ice class or whatever. The reason behind such weird requirements is just lack of RS experience with small craft.

We can sort out this problem every time by compromising common sense and a lot of correspondence, but we do not want the boats we design look weird. So we are trying to work out the amendment to their Rules; thus I am trying to find the source of their current requirements.

 

It is not excessive, it is actually undersized. BUT there are requirements on top that, say, coamings. But the biggest problem is superstructure - the way they treat it the windows should have storm shutters! (And this comes directly from LL) Never seen 10m boat with storm shutters in my life, maybe excerpt some rescue vessels.

 

What is the full Class notation that you or they are applying?

 

For boat on photo, KM* HSC

But this does not matter; they require all boats below 24m to comply with this freeboard section.

 

Sounds like you're stuffed then :!:

 

Somewhat similar to what MCA forced upon us for a <24m boat which was carrying passengers. It sparked a huge debate...after 6 months we had to comply as client was waiting for the boat!!

Not all rules make sense and not all surveyors agree to "re-interpret" anachronisms in the rules more favourably.

 

Why are the vents there anyway? Looking at the gipsyhead there would be an open spurling pipe to the chainlocker. Was it the placement of the vents so far outboard without a bulwark and goosenecks? So they made you raise them to the downflooding height at centerline?

 

Hmm, in the design drawings there were no vents at all; the first time I found this absurd is made is from builder's photos. There is absolutely no problem with down flooding height or down flooding angle, they are excessive. The reason why RS requested to raise those vents is LL requirements, it is just written somewhere as 'height of vent pipes'. Stupid, but this is the way they do it.

And yes, You are absolutely right about open spurling pipe, it is lower than vent pipes now, but who cares? Common sense is not there, in RS.

 

It is common not just in RS it is an LL requirement..we have to comply with same rules for natural ventilation. One of our typical vents here:



This is on a < 24m vessel having to comply with LL regs.

 

I agree that natural ventilation might be needed (though I doubt it, if deck hatch is of category of watertigtness 3), but these pipes are nonsense on 10m boat, especially in front of steering.