watertight bulkhead

Study what is Notified Body

Naval architect would use proper standard - remember, 'right tool for the job'. It is not using a lesser standard, it is a proper standard. And would also have common sense. The requirements You posing to handrails is not applicable to 10m craft, I think You should read the preamble of the document prior to posting.

Because before there were GL HSC 2012 rules which are very good and practical, for composites in particular. We used them for many designs.
Now the joint DNV-GL HSC Rules follow DNV policy - too complicated and impractical, for small craft. (They took the loads from DNV, and CLT method for composite panels and stiffeners from GL). Unfortunately the new joint rules do not work for fast/small craft below 15m at all, to tell straight, due to mistake in formula for acceleration levels, min thickness requirements, etc.

 

It is anyone that wish to pay to be part of the "club" of recognised bodies. Anyone can do it, so long as you can show you have the prerequisite qualifications and experience and knowledge of the Rules one wishes to be an approved 'body' of.
Nothing fancy at all.

Define proper standard?
It is very easy to navigate, if you understand the philosophy of the rules - where safety is the key element, not what is cheapest.

Aaahh...so your beef is really you don't like that section of DNV-GL rules, not that it is a too difficult. Since those parts of DNV-GL rules have been, as I noted always been there.
Never used GL rules...but all Classification rules have their own idiosyncrasies...you just learn to live with them.

BV are the worse, i'd never use them...but if a client insists, who am I to argue!?

We have designed sub 15m vessels to DNV....we don't have any problems.

 

The same as classification society - You can set Your own

Proper standard is the one which serves the purpose - providing acceptable risk level with adequate cost. You can't talk about safety without considering costs. With small craft, cost is essential.

This is not my liking, we can do it. This is unwillingness of the client to pay 4 times more for structural design, on a small boat. Business basics: small craft- small money.
Unfortunately all rules move towards more costly solutions. Say, we did calcs of stability under ISO12217 with 2-3 load cases; since 2013 we do 7-8 load cases, for small boats. Clients wont' understand why the bill is 'doubled'

The boats we design are mostly fast craft. If it is a heavier one, You won't have any problems under DNVGL. Problem with their acceleration formula is objective and well known for fast craft, it is in review documents they circulated.

 

Note quiet.
Class are independent.

Nope.
Safety does not have cost as an input....and nor should it.
Just look many operators in and around SE Asia, all who cut costs or do not see legislation as 'adding value', just costing them money. Try telling that to the many that have sadly perished because of their contempt for safety rules.

So your complaint is not the rules per se, but how much it costs you to implement them.

If your competitors are following the same rules, it applies to them too. Thus, so what?

I still don't see where man hours ands cost is an input into ISO?

 

Yes, anyone can set ABC Register of Shipping or, develop some rules and start doing classification. Classification societies are not holy cows. They are commercial organizations, excerpt those owned by governments (RS, CCS, IRS).

I think You should study some basics. Safety is related to acceptable risk and ALWAYS associated with costs, say cost of loss of life. Absolute safety is not achievable. Study what is IMO FSA and how it works.

As to SE Asia, all boats say in Thailand are licensed by Marine Department. So there is mandatory legislation. The other question is how qualified are the surveyors, and how strict they are in enforcing safety requirements, here is the corruption factor. We did a lot of proposals on safety to local authorities over last years, and it is good to see them implemented.

Maybe You don't know, but many boatbuilders build boats without any engineering. Because 'it is expensive' And rules makers are making the situation worse.

To wrap up, naval architect should not only live in his imaginary world of rules, circulars, statuary requirements. He needs to spend time on water sailing or powerboating. Look at boats around, see how one can improve them in reasonable way, without just forcing them to go for classification Use common sense, think in realistic terms, develop professional skills. The profession of naval architecture is much older than any classification rules or standards. It would be improper to replace wide range of skills required for naval architect by rules of classification societies only. OK, so I gone sailing now

 

Risks are probability related not cost related. How you manage the risk is up to you.

It is just a simple HAZOPS, that's all. In simple terms, how you mange THAT risk.

Just like an FMEA, it identifies weakness and conflicts of interest in a system and it is logged, that's all.

Then join them, or stop complaining costs are rising, it is that simple!

Either you wish to provide a professional quality boat, or a cheap boat, take you pick, just like pick your rules, no one is forcing down a ruote.
Rules are here for compliance whether we like it or not (there is plenty I don't like). But....your choice is to either use them or not....

 

A skill is subjective.
A rule is objective.

Thus your annoyance, is that a skill, like being able to do 100 keepy-uppies, or drink 10 pints of lager without stopping or doing handstands on one hand while on a train etc etc.. is not a factor in the decision making of compliance. Ah yeah like the skill of the Capt telling passengers not to put on their life jackets. ....."The captain told us 'Don't worry about grabbing the life jackets, you won't need them"....i'm sure he felt his skills were not appreciated too!

Rules make objective quantitative decisions - liking them is not an input.
But if you wish to boast about your skills as a prowse and the reasons to make a boat cheaper and lighter...go for it....

 

I totally agree with these two paragraphs. Thats the reality. There are times when sitting up there, in the pulpit of the preacher, you can not see reality. Common sense is the least common of the senses and regulations can be the refuge of the inexperienced, not very innovative. When one lacks technical reasons, he takes refuge in regulations. Okay, let's continue sailing.

 

Albert, design and build to class is supposed to ensure that the vessel is at least structurally sound. You can also apply specific design and can still exercise a lot of skill if you choose. You seem to have a lot of angst with class societies. I'm not sure it's justified.

And you'll remember the scantling guide that was put together mostly by builders and small boat designers was ABS OSRY and and in their common sense and intuitive understanding they made a couple serious structural mistakes ! It took deaths coroners inquests and detailed engineering analysis before it was corrected. Shame that analysis and load assessment didn't happen at the inception.

 

I am not against classification societies. We use them where we need them. The truth is, for small boats, their requirements are often too complicated and do not give additional safety. Often, the societies reduce safety, because their surveyors have little understanding of small/composite boats (we all know it!). The Rules are just reflection of good practice, and the final judge about safety is the sea. We design boat for clients, not for classification societies. And every boat is combination of aesthetics, functionality, safety, comfort and cost.

That was ABS Rules for offshore acing yachts, I used it many times being a student and now it is discontinued. But ABS is a classification society, isn't it?

 

For those lovers of classification societies, and those who believe that they always improve safety. My favorite sample - 10m patrol boat under RS class (class was required by the tender, otherwise we would never go there).
On the centerline section, once can see aft deck level (2), saloon deck level (1). While reviewing the design, senior RS surveyor treated saloon deck as 'watertight deck' and requested us in writing (attention!) to provide draining ports from saloon deck level (1) to overboard. Note where saloon level is, and where the waterline is.

I am sure someone here will explain that this is 'statuary requirement', in another lengthy post. But actually, this is unsafe and dangerous. Only idiot (or senior idiot?) could require such rubbish. Classification society should have common sense, not operate with rulebooks only. So, what happens if we follow this requirement and do this?? Increased safety??

Unfortunately, I saw quite a few surveyors like this, thus do not have much trust in classification

 

Two separate but related topics:
1) The rules/standards used during the design and analysis.
2) The person or organization ensuring/certifying that the rules/standards have been followed.

 

David, I think they are related, because those persons/organizations write those rules/standards.

 

Sometimes but not always. ISO rules are written by committees which are not involved in reviewing designs, etc.

A designer and builder could follow a set of published rules/standards without involving the organization which created the rules. The designer and/or builder may be responsible to the customer to ensuring that the rules are followed.

 

You have made it very clear you do not like CS rules because you see them adding cost compared to your usual pleasure runabouts that do not require or have no requirement for such. Forgiven me for stating the obvious - but so what?
Commercial compliance is poles apart from pleasure craft. If you find them too complicated - don't use them, simple!

Thus, what does the rule say that you must comply with.

Nope.
The surveyors just enforce the rules they don't write them. That's all.
Everything using Class must comply with their standards, you either like or you don't. In ISO anyone can do this as there is no formal compliance other than....as you noted above..a written statement of compliance from "someone", then ISO is happy. Hardly safer!

If you do not like Class rules then don't use them, it is that simple.

No one said Class rules are ideal for small vessels (yet this seems to be your whole premise) owing to the errors bars in the formula yield odd results at times - even the new 2018 ISO have spotted this in their rules - since they are ostensibly aimed at small boats. And as noted above, most Class societies acknowledge this and allow for dispensations if you can provide evidence and a supportive arguments. We've been doing this for years and have many boats below 15m all to Class. Don't usually do such small boats, but we've not had and any real issues.

Class is the bare minimum standard of compliance that any one should achieve for a commercial build. Some can achieve this and some just dislike it, citing subjective reasons other than compliance.