Posted July 6, 1998
When the Buquebus fast ferry Catalonia broke the Transatlantic speed record last month to claim the Hales Trophy for the "Blue Riband," it marked another milestone in the development of High Speed Craft.
The 91 m, 400 dwt vessel, capable of carrying 900 passengers and 260 vehicles, completed the 3,125 miles (5,029 km) crossing from Manhattan to Tarifa, Spain, in 3 days, 9 hours and 55 minutes. Its average speed was 38.877 knots.
To some people, the last "true" Hales Trophy winner will always be the S.S. United States which captured the Blue Riband on its maiden voyage in 1952, averaging 35.59 knots. That record remained unbroken until 1990 when the Hoverspeed Great Britain--built, like Catalonia, by Incat Australia--achieved the crossing at an average 36.65 knots. Now the Catalonia appears to have broken another record set by the United States. Catalonia has become the first commercial vessel to sail more than 1,000 nautical miles in a 24 hour period, covering 1,015 nautical miles (1879.8 km) at an average of 42.3 knots (78.3 km/h). The previous record was the 868 nautical miles sailed by the United States over the period 6-7 July 1952.
What is particularly significant about Catalonia's success is that the fast ferry is, in every way, a commercial vessel. Indeed, the Blue Riband crossing was made as one leg of its delivery voyage from Tasmania to Spain. The vessel is now in commercial service between Barcelona and Palma de Mallorca, making the 150 mile run in 3.5 hours.
The 91.3 m wavepiercer, has a beam of 26 m and a draft of 3.7 m. Speed at maximum lightship condition is 48 knots (55.3 miles/h) and at full 450 dwt displacement is 43 knots (49.5 miles/h).
It is powered by four Caterpillar 3618 diesels, developed in conjunction with Bazan Motores of Spain and each rated at 7,200 kW at 1,050 rpm.
On board for the Hales Trophy bid were 24 people, including the owner of the ship, Juan Carlos Lopez Mena of Buquebus, and Incat Australia's chairman, Robert Clifford, who was technical director for the challenge.Reports filed by Clifford during the Atlantic crossing indicate that it was relatively problem free, though the start of the record attempt was delayed when a waterjet ingested a large plastic fishbox in New York harbor!
"The ship is handling it all very well and the engines have only had minor attention," noted Clifford in one report. "Considering they were delivered [to the shipyard] in the belly of a large aircraft only a few weeks ago the engineers have done well to have them up and running, producing 28,000 kW to meet the demands of the waterjets. The jets are behaving likewise, and are gulping up the equivalent of an Olympic swimming pool every minute with apparent ease."Apart from the minor engine difficulties, the biggest problems encountered appeared to have been some lifting floor tiles, and a broken supply line to a toilet cistern!
[More details of the record attempt are available at the Buquebus web site]
FROM GERMANY TO INDONESIA
Shortly before Catalonia made its assault on the Hales Trophy, another high speed ferry embarked on a lengthy delivery voyage. This was the first of five FPF 62-010 fast passenger ferries being built in Germany for Indonesia's ASDP by Lürssen Werft of Bremen in partnership with the PT Pal shipyard in East Java.
The design chosen for this program is not a catamaran, but a deep vee monohull with a parallel wedge shaped stern and spray rail. At a Froude number of 0.79, the semi-displacement vessel can keep its high speed and stability up to moderate wave heights, unaffected by the waves. Even at reduced speed, satisfactory behavior is ensured by a Vosper Thornycroft active stabilizer system. On North Sea trials, the 69.8 m, 925 passenger vessel exceeded its 38 knots contract speed with a full passenger and baggage load, 100% provisions and 50% fuel. At 100% continuous output, its four MTU 16V595 TE70L main diesels, each rated at 3,805 kW, enabled the vessel's four Kamewa waterjets to easily push it to 40 knots.
Indonesia-a nation of islands-offers numerous opportunities for the exploitation of today's ferry technology, but larger and faster ferries are finding increasing favor worldwide.
HOW SAFE?
The rather unmomentous way in which Catalonia succeeded in smashing transatlantic records underscores the fact that these vessels are exceptionally seaworthy. Still, they have ushered in an era of sea transportation that brings with it a fresh set of safety concerns.The U.K. Marine and Coastguard Agency has now completed a trial FSA (formal safety assessment) of high speed catamaran ferries. In forwardings its findings to the IMO Correspondence Group on FSA, the agency's Jim H. Peachy noted that "the predicted risk level for passengers and crew on HSC ferries is not only higher than previous accident experience indicates, but is high in relation to generally accepted limits of tolerability."
A diagram in the report indicates where the predicted risk level for fatalities with HSSC lies in relation to what might be considered negligible risk and the limits of tolerable risk In fact, the study predicts a total risk for the accident categories that it studied (which did not include groundings) to be 0.077 "equivalent fatalities" per vessel. What's an equivalent fatality? The study assumes that 100 minor injuries or 10 major injuries are equivalent to a fatality. A major injury is one where the injured person requires treatment in hospital. The 0.077 number apparently translates statistically into one equivalent fatality on every ship every thirteen years, but "the probability is that most vessels will not experience any fatalities at all, but that some vessels may be involved in a serious accident with multiple fatalities."
In reaching its conclusions, the U.K. study seems to have come to conclusions reached by the High Speed Commercial Craft Safety Board. The HSCCSB was established in August 1997 as a way for operators of fast commercial vessels in the New York area to get together and develop processes to reduce risks associated with these operations. The Board comprises senior operational or managerial personnel from six firms, and representatives of three regulatory agencies in the New York area; namely, New York City DOT, the Port Authority, and the U.S. Coast Guard.The U.K. study states the risk is greatest from "collision accidents at high speed in confined waters." According to Claude McKernan, who founded and chaired the HSCCSB before retiring from the Coast Guard, this was "the same conclusion that was drawn at the first meeting of the HSCCSB in New York City. The Board ranked Human Element and Congestion as the two highest risk factors confronting operators of high speed vessels. The U.K. study provides confirmation to the conclusions that were earlier drawn by a group of experienced operators brainstorming around the conference table."
MANAGING RISK
Captain Claude McKernan, who is now the operations manager for the largest private ferry operator in the U.S., contributed the following commentary. The opinions expressed are his own.
Risk management is the only effective process by which to make fast water transportation the safe and viable transportation alternative that it can be. Prior to managing anything, however, we must acknowledge it's existence. All responsible vessel operators must recognize the risk brought on by additional speed, and work to develop effective ways to mitigate it to an acceptable level. There is no one answer as to how best manage risk. What is required is a multi-faceted, continuous improvement approach. A number of technologies, techniques, methods, systems, and process may be employed to reduce risk. A combination of these will be required to reduce risk to a reasonable level. Industry is in a position to develop the program here, minimizing additional regulatory burden. If government sees that industry is taking responsible measures to mitigate risk, it will generally accept those measures as the standard, and simply maintain a monitoring posture. That is one reason the HSCCSB was formed.
The Coast Guard is charged with ensuring the safety of our waterways. The service has been watching the growth in the high speed marine sector and is hoping to see some reasonable operating guidelines developed soon.
The U.K. Formal Safety Assessment was recently submitted by the United Kingdom to IMO's Sub-committee on Ship Design and Equipment, to be considered in the on-going review of the High Speed Craft (HSC) Code.
The HSC Code, as is made clear in Chapter 1, is intended for vessels operating on international routes. Some administrations have employed the code for regulation of vessels operating on internal routes, particularly where those vessels are also used on international voyages and the majority of operations occur between countries.The HSC Code is very effective and may provide the highest standard of safety for fast craft, if properly implemented.
In the aviation industry, there are differing standards for international flights, flights over water, and differing sizes of aircraft, as well as different payloads (human or freight). Local commuter flights are not required to meet the same standards as are trans-oceanic flights. The high speed marine industry could benefit from many of the lessons learned in aviation. If all fast commercial craft operating in the United States were made to comply with the HSC Code that would be like making local commuter airline companies comply with the more stringent standards required on international flights.
Various national administrations have different requirements for operations entirely within their own boundaries. In the U.S., the Code of Federal Regulations, specifically, sub-chapters T, K, and H of 46 CFR, prescribes many design, construction, manning, training, and operational issues. These regulations do not address speed, nor make additional requirements for faster craft. The HSCCSB feels that this is a shortcoming of the current regulations, which lag behind today's technology. The HSCCSB is working to develop initiatives which will address many operational aspects missing from the current regulations. These initiatives are being developed on a voluntary compliance basis, by operators of fast craft with experience in congested waters. With vessels getting faster and faster, the need for effective risk management measures becomes patently clear.
The U.K. FSA recommends a number of Risk Control Options falling into three broad categories that, it estimates, should each significantly reduce the predicted risk level, typically by as much as 40%. It is quite conceivable that these findings and recommendations will be taken under serious consideration by IMO and administrations in future review of the HSC Code as well as the COLREGS and internal regulations and policy.
It would be prudent for operators to take these findings into consideration in the developingtheir own operating policies, sooner rather than later. They will reduce risk and be ahead of the game when any required changes are developed.
Measures which may be included under the three broad categories shown include:External controls:
a) Vessel Traffic Control (VTC) as contrasted to VTS. With Automatic Identification System (AIS) technology available, this could be easily developed on a tiered basis, with only certain vessels and waterways being required to comply, based on speed and congestion, similarly to controlled air space in the aviation world.
b) Route and speed controls in congested ports and waterways.
COLREGS review. Identifying characteristics. Navigation aids:
a) Provision in COLREGS for great speed variances (i.e. how could a conventional speed vessel reasonably be expected to know it is the give way vessel in a crossing situation with a vessel over the horizon, approaching at 48 knots? Should the high speed vessel alter course even though it is technically the stand on vessel?
b) High intensity light to identify fast craft from a good distance off. It would indeed be good to know if a vessel is approaching at high speed. But if the light is high intensity, won't it negatively effect the operators night vision? It won't be of much value if it's not bright enough to be seen at the required distance. In that case, would it help if it were a red light? But others around the world have already adopted the flashing yellow light provided in rule 23 of the COLREGS for air cushion vessels while in the non-displacement mode. This issue needs a serious evaluation.
c) Navigation Aids; buoys and lights. Is a two or three nautical mile nominal range for a nav aid light sufficient if approaching at high speed? How about the light characteristics; should flash intervals be increased?
Improved procedures and "adherence" to procedures:
a) Enhanced training requirements for operators of fast craft, including a requirement for Bridge Resource Management, situational awareness and risk assessment training.
b) Internal and external audits.
c) Higher standard of physical/mental fitness, tiered similarly to aviation physical standards.
Many of these ideas could be developed and implemented by operating firms in house, at minimal cost. The HSCCSB is already working to develop many of these risk reduction tools for member firms in the New York metro area. Once completed, the Board will make these products available to operating firms to use in the development of their own operating policy and procedure. Bridge Team, or Bridge Resource Management training has proven effective and could be implemented in house at minimal cost. An industry board, such as the HSCCSB, is in a position to recommend standards for training and other items, reducing the expense associated with contracting these things out. Route and speed controls are another area where industry boards and operators could take the lead.
In New York, HSCCSB member firms have agreed to voluntarily abide by a 30 knot speed limit in two highly congested, limited sight distance areas. Operators could regularly operate on the same routes, fostering a local knowledge among other waterway users, that high speed vessels usually run in the vicinity, which would elicit due caution. Concerns have been voiced that measures such as these could unreasonably restrict a master's prerogative or discretion. Under such unofficial, voluntary initiatives, however, it would be hard to fault a skipper for avoiding a dangerous situation by deviating from the route, or employing the vessel's speed potential in excess of the limit. Even should the measures eventually be adopted officially, prudent actions to avoid collision are allowed for under rule 8 of the COLREGS.Another low cost, risk reduction method is communications. Recreational boaters have expressed great concerns over high speed commercial craft operating in their waters. Much trepidation has been eased by informing those concerned about the measures taken to reduce operational risk on fast craft, including technology, training, and qualifications. The HSCCSB has embarked upon a boater awareness campaign in the NY, NJ, CT regional area, and to date, has conducted presentations for over 2,000 recreational boaters.ML
