Seatrade Cruise News is part of the Informa Markets Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Foreship counsels caution on expedition ship rush

Markus Aarnio, Foreship chairman is concerned that some proposed expedition ships designs are tailor-made to avoid SRtP requirements
Booming demand for expedition ships should not mean that good and safe shipbuilding practices for passenger vessels are compromised, leading naval architecture and engineering company Foreship has warned.

The consultancy believes that lack of consistency in the initial designs being rushed to market for vessels of around 10,000gt may conflict with established safety and environmental values.
‘Some designs we have seen do not meet the cruise ship Safe Return to Port (SRtP) provisions that were developed for a very good reason at the International Maritime Organization,’ says Markus Aarnio, chairman, Foreship. ‘These are smaller vessels, but they are still complex passenger ships; as such, they need to be envisaged as cruise ships from the outset.’
Aarnio says he is particularly concerned that some proposed expedition ships designs are tailor-made to avoid SRtP requirements, as they have two overlength main vertical zones or one vertical zone which is ‘not counted’. 

This is allowed in principle, if the Alternative Design analysis proves that two overlength main vertical zones without SRtP is at least as safe as three main vertical zones with SRtP,’ says Aarnio. 

Foreship has been involved with more than ten Polar Code passenger ship projects to date, including two landmark contracts: a luxury cruise vessel for Crystal Cruises; and a ‘Discovery Yacht’ for Scenic.

‘The Polar Code centers on ship safety and environmental protection in polar waters. It provides guidance to ensure that equipment operates at low temperatures, incorporates stability margins to deal with ice accretion on superstructures, and in some cases demands additional damage stability requirements. However, covering issues as diverse as design, construction, equipment, training, and search and rescue has not created a rule-set shrouded in mystery,’ Aarnio says.
‘There are misconceptions: some confuse the Polar Code (the IMO regulation for ships accessing Polar Areas) and Polar Class (which is the ice class regulation governing mainly the steel structures of ice-going vessels), for example,’ he remarked.
Polar Code ships fall into three categories: Category A ships are strengthened for at least medium first year ice; Category B ships are designed for at least thin first year ice; while Category C ships are envisaged as operating in open water of less severity. ‘Unless they really are designed for breaking ice, cruise ships are typically in categories B or C,’ says Aarnio. ‘Ice-breaking is another thing; if an owner really wants a ship that can break ice, a compromise is needed on fuel efficiency and passenger comfort in open water; this is not so in properly designed category B or C vessels.’


Hide comments


  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.