RESEARCH REPORT 307 - Health and Safety Executive · RESEARCH REPORT 307. HSE Health & Safety...

HSE Health & Safety

Executive

Use and operation of daughter craft in the UKCS

Prepared by MaTSU Ltd for the Health and Safety Executive 2005

RESEARCH REPORT 307

HSE Health & Safety

Executive

Use and operation of daughter craft in the UKCS

JK Robson, MNI MaTSU

Harwell International Business Centre Didcot

Oxfordshire OX11 0QJ

Daughter craft (DC) operate from emergency response and rescue vessels (ERRV) on the UKCS. Since their introduction in the 1990s the craft have seen progressive incremental development in terms of their design and operation. In parallel with this, the regulatory framework under which they operate has also been adapted. Using a datum point of October 2002, the technical specifications, similarities and differences between DC are discussed in detail and inferences drawn from the analyses. The development of DC based on their changing role is also discussed.

Recent changes in the provision of stand by cover as a result of the ‘Jigsaw’ project has created a quantum leap in both the DC philosophy and the regulatory regime. It is likely these changes will be matched by future developments in the areas of crew training and certification.

This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy.

HSE BOOKS

© Crown copyright 2005

First published 2005

ISBN 0 7176 2932 5

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may bereproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted inany form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the priorwritten permission of the copyright owner.

Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to:Licensing Division, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ or by e-mail to [email protected]

ii

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 METHODOLOGY 3

3 REVIEW FINDINGS 5

HISTORY OF THE DC 5

CONVENTIONAL ROLE OF DC 6

DEVELOPMENT OF ROLES FOR DC 13

WORK BY PROMARINE 17

ANALYSIS OF DC SPECIFICATIONS 17

ANALYSIS OF DC AND THEIR ERRV 18

ANALYSIS OF DC AND THEIR LOCATION 20

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR DC 21

DC OPERATOR CONSIDERATIONS 22

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS 25

APPENDIX 1 TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE PROMARINE DC

STUDY (2001) 27

APPENDIX 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS OF COMMON

DAUGHTER CRAFT 33

APPENDIX 3 REQUIREMENTS FOR LOAD LINE EXEMPTION 45

APPENDIX 4 ALBUM OF DAUGHTER CRAFT IN ACTION 46

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Since the earliest days of offshore oil and gas exploration in the UKCS smaller rescue craft have been

operated from emergency response and rescue vessels (ERRVs). Such rescue craft are much faster and

more manoeuvrable than the ‘mother’ vessel and can provide rapid response and intervention, especially

where in-water survivors need to be recovered.

The role was originally fulfilled by fast rescue craft (FRC) and in many cases they are still used today,

but since the early 1990’s larger and most robust rescue vessels were introduced and have operated

semi-autonomously from the mother vessel. These craft, termed daughter craft (DC), enjoy many of the

benefits of FRC in terms of their rescue and recovery capability. Moreover, DC design, construction

and size enables the craft to stay at sea for longer and offers the crew/passengers a more protected and

stable environment.

In more recent years DC design and operation has continued to evolve. Although their primary activity

is and is likely to remain the rescue and recovery of persons in an emergency, DC are seen as having the

potential to undertake other roles such as providing close standby for helicopter operations or the

transportation of small items to or between installations.

DC currently operate under the Load Line Exemption regulatory framework and limits are placed on

their maximum range from the mother vessel, duration of time in the water and maximum significant

wave height for operation. These limits to operability are likely to be superseded in the near future when

they may be covered by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s “Small Commercial Vessel Code”.

Bearing all these changing factors in mind, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) commissioned

MaTSU to review the development of the DC, provide an overview of current DC activities and assess

potential future developments.

Initially the study undertook a literature review and in large part used the outcome from a parallel HSE

study that gathered together detailed technical specifications of DC and their mother vessels currently in

operation on the UKCS. Other activities included face to face interviews with all ERRV operators that

use DC as part of their fleet, a site visit to a DC manufacturer and meetings with the MCA to discuss

the current and future regulatory regime in respect of DC.

Despite the extensive nature of the literature search the amount of detailed information was found to be

limited. However, when the results were overlaid with technical information from the complementary

study it was then possible to develop a good appreciation of how DC have evolved on the UKCS in

terms of their design, construction, propulsion and fitment.

In parallel with the evolution of the DC themselves, their role and the training of their crews has also

had to develop. DC crew are now specially trained to carry out their duties and this results in high levels

of skill, motivation and pride among those selected for DC crews. Coxswains require further training in

the wider range of communications facilities and navigational skills, particularly for the larger and

better equipped DC that in future may operate at greater distances from the mother vessel and yet retain

LLE certification.

With the possible move towards regulation under the “Small Commercial Vessel Code” further training

and certification will be required depending on the area category under which the craft will operate. At

the forefront of development will be the imminent introduction of autonomous rescue and recovery craft

(ARRC) as part of BP’s ‘Jigsaw’ project. Due for delivery in 2005, the ARRC’s design specification

calls for craft of 18.8m in length, a range of 400 miles at 20 knots and maximum speed of 34 knots.

v

Coupled with this is a launch capability in up to 7m Hs and a capacity of 57 survivors. There are

precedents for vessels of a similar size to operate in equally arduous weather conditions; the Dutch

KNRM and RNLI ‘Arun’ class lifeboats are similar in a number of respects. A major difference,

however, is that these vessels are not intended for launch and recovery via twin falls davits from another

vessel and this aspect remains to be proven through trials.

The introduction of the ARRCs could be seen as an extension of the DC concept, which itself may lead

to further development in the designs of smaller DC and an expansion of their operational capabilities.

As has been shown when used in offshore activities and by national rescue organisations around the

world, DC and those craft similar to them are fast, effective tools for marine rescue in all but the more

extreme weather conditions.

vi

1 INTRODUCTION

Daughter craft (DC) have seen increasing use as stand-by, rescue and recovery cover for offshore

oil and gas platforms on the UKCS. This has arisen from the requirement for larger and more

robust craft for the more remote and exposed platforms, as well as the industry driven move to

provide cover for closely deployed installations (e.g. in the Southern North Sea) by using craft

that were more independent of their mother vessel than the conventional fast rescue craft (FRC).

In many respects DC enjoy many of the benefits of FRC in terms of their rescue and recovery

capability. They can attain high speeds, are manoeuvrable and can be launched/recovered from

the mother vessel quickly. DC design, construction and size enables the craft to stay at sea for

longer and offers the crew/passengers a more protected and stable environment.

Even though the primary activity of DC is, and is likely to always remain, the rescue and

recovery of persons in an emergency1, DC are seen as having the potential to undertake other

roles such as providing close standby for helicopter operations or the transportation of small

items to or between installations. While doing so they can also act as rescue craft whilst the

personnel undertake their duties on these installations. This offers potentially large cost savings

compared to the usual combination of transfer by helicopter and provision of rescue cover by an

emergency response and rescue vessel (ERRV)2. To place this into context, as an example of how

the introduction and evolution of the DC concept has helped to rationalise in-field activities in the

southern North Sea (SNS), in one particular field before DC were available, up to 12 ERRV

were deployed to support a field of multiple installations whereas afterwards the same cover was

afforded by 2 ERRV with their DC.

Recognising the evolution of the DC, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) is also in the

process of adapting the regulatory framework under which the craft operate. In this respect the

current Load Line Exemption certification that specifies the operational parameters of a DC may

change so the craft are included within the MCA’s “Small Commercial Vessel Code”.

In view of this changing role and regulation, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have

commissioned MaTSU to review the development of the DC, provide an overview of current DC

activities and assess potential future developments.

1 Guidelines for the Safe Management and Operation of Vessels Standing By Offshore Installation, Section 3.11.1,

Issue No. 2 – August 2001 2 Prior to 2000, emergency response and rescue vessels (ERRVs) where known as stand by vessels (SBV). Their role

did not alter with the change of name.

1

2 METHODOLOGY

A search of the literature was undertaken to ascertain the current status of DC, their development

and future prospects. This was seen to be an essential first step before engaging in discussions

and correspondence with the operators and builders of such vessels.

The search took into account as many different sources of information as possible, including:

• Reports issued by the HSE

• Relevant organisations

− The Maritime and Coastguard Agency

− The Maritime Information Centre

• Research reports

• Guidelines for vessel operations

• Builders’ specifications for DC

• Internet searches

Despite the extensive nature of this search, the amount of detailed information was limited. This

has been reviewed and presented in Sections 3.1 to 3.3. This forms a suitable review point to

discuss with the HSE the finding to date and the proposed way forward.

Concurrently with this study a HSE research contract was let with Promarine, Aberdeen. The

objective of the contract was to produce a database of the ERRV in use on the UKCS; their

technical specification, types and location. An analysis of the results of the study is presented in

Section 3.4.

3

3 REVIEW FINDINGS

3.1 HISTORY OF THE DC

ERRV and the close support, fast rescue craft (FRC) have long performed the traditional roles

including:

• Rescue of survivors of emergency evacuations from the sea or life rafts

• Rescue in man overboard situations

• Assist recovery of personnel from totally enclosed, motor propelled survival craft (TEMPSC)

to ERRV

• Attend helicopter ditching

• Assist in collision risk management activities

Most FRC are similar to the inshore rescue craft used by the RNLI, in that they often use rigid

inflatable design, with both self righting capability and a high level of stability. They are typically

~ 6 m in length with a beam of 2.5 m and are capable of speeds of around 30 knots. A typical

example of such a craft is shown below.

The fitting and use of DC on the UKCS was pioneered by Boston Putford Offshore Safety Ltd. in

1985. The “Putford Tern”, a converted ex-Zapata Offshore Marine supply boat, was the first

vessel to offer a DC and was fitted with a ‘PR-30’ DC on the West Sole field in the southern

North Sea during the 1986 summer maintenance season.

Example of a FRC3

The FRC depicted is a DELTA 6.5, approved by

the Marine and Coastguard Agency as a 15-person

Fast Rescue Craft under the Standby Code. It

complies with SOLAS 1984 requirements and is

powered by twin 60 hp outboards to give a top

speed in excess of 30 knots. It is similar in design

and construction to those used by many rescue

organisations and standby vessel companies.

The DC is an early model Delta boat of the type in

use in 1990 when the DC concept was in a state of

rapid evolution.

Example of a DC4

3 Photograph courtesy of Delta Power Services 4 Photograph courtesy of Delta Power Services

5

The DC concept grew out of the FRC as can be seen by comparing the photographs above. The

evolution of the DC from the FRC was accompanied by:

• An increase in size (to between 9 and 20 m in length)

• Adoption of weather protection systems (e.g. cabins) for the crew

• Retention of the ability to launch from a “mother craft” and self-righting capacity

This enables DC to attend for lengthy periods close to platforms (primarily periodically manned

platforms) on which routine maintenance operations are being carried out (in effect DC are

effectively “standing-by”) or on which over-side or hazardous activities are taking place. The

provision of a safe area for the crew (i.e. a watertight wheelhouse) and improved shape/size for

riding out rough seas enabled DC to obtain UK Department for Transport Load Line Exemption

Certificates (these exempt vessels from certain freeboard regulations that apply to merchant

shipping and permit the vessel to operate somewhat independently from the mother vessel).

The increased size of the DC (compared to FRC) brought about improvements in the speed and

ride quality of these vessels.

3.2 CONVENTIONAL ROLE OF DC

ERRV use FRC primarily in emergencies and in training exercises; they are not permitted to give

close stand-by cover on their own. In contrast, ERRV and associated DC can provide standby

cover during routine operations, helicopter flights and over-side working. These different types of

operation play a part in defining the strategy for both positioning of ERRV and attendant DC as

well as sharing these vessels between installations. For example, the allowable separation from an

installation is usually based on a maximum travelling time to the site of a routine operation:

• Routine maintenance – rescue craft launched within two minutes of alarm.

• Helicopter operations – rescue craft launched within two minutes of alarm and up to 20

personnel recovered within two hours.

• Over-side maintenance – rescue craft in position to recover survivors within four minutes of

alarm and up to four personnel recovered to a place of safety within twenty minutes.

These times are then converted into travelling distances which depend on the prevailing weather

condition and season.

In addition, Load Line exemptions allow the independent operation of DC provided certain MCA

specified parameters are complied with. These generally specify the maximum continuous period

the crew may be on duty, the maximum distance away from the mother vessel that the craft may

operate and the maximum wind/sea state for normal operations. In many cases the parameters are

that the crew’s duty period should not exceed 4 hours and the DC must remain within 10 nautical

miles of the mother craft, although in the ‘Villages’ field a Halmatic P-38 DC was issued with a

LLE certificate allowing a range of 15 nautical miles from the mother vessel. Notwithstanding the

trend towards larger and better equipped DC, studies5 have shown that regular crew changes are

required, sometimes more frequently than every four hours because of demands made on the crew

by vessel motions (see Section 3.2.7). During crew changes, the above operating procedures are

suspended.

The Performance Capabilities of Crews of Daughter Craft Involved in Offshore Operations in the Oil and Gas

Industries, M. Tipton, C. Eglin & F. Golden, Research Report 108

6

5

When acting in their primary rescue and recovery role the concept of whether a DC can be 7

considered to be a ‘place of safety’ is not explicit. Neither PFEER6 nor the UKOOA code

specifically exclude a DC being considered a ‘place of safety’, but instead PFEER defines it as

being ‘a safe location where medical treatment and other facilities for the care of survivors are

available.’ The UKOOA code expands upon this by stating that a ‘place of safety must have

adequate facilities and competent personnel in sufficient numbers to be capable of providing:

• Access for survivors

• Reception for survivors

• Initial medical diagnosis

• Initial treatment and stabilisation

• Facilities for subsequent transfer of survivors

Although the debate on whether a DC could be defined as a ‘place of safety’ is continuing, on

balance the general assumption within HSE and the offshore industry is that the current fitment of

DC may be inadequate to fulfil the accepted definition. In the coming years this view may be

modified particularly with the trend for large and better equipped craft that are able to act in a

more autonomous role.

3.2.1 Design of DC

There is a wide variation in the design, size and capability of DC ranging from small vessels

similar to traditional FRC to large vessels that are similar to the Koninklijke Nederlandse

Redding Maatschappij (KNRM) class of vessel used by the Dutch Lifeboat Service and, more

recently chosen by the Caister Lifeboat as their new boat (a “Valentijn 2000” typically 10.6m [l]

x 4.1m [w] x 0.75m [d], 2 x 430 hp inboard engines giving a speed of 34 knots, 4 crew and total

complement of 50 persons).

The design approach to DC has normally been based on knowledge gained from previous designs

of craft rather than an original concept design, mainly because of the cost implications. This

development carefully ensures that various aspects meet the requirements of Registries or other

national regulatory codes.

Typically, the hulls of DC are GRP or welded and stiffened plates of marine aluminium. Many

contain closed cell foam linings to render the craft unsinkable.

The size of the craft denotes the number of crew and passengers that can be carried safely on the

vessel (usually 15, albeit not all of them in the sheltered wheelhouse). The seakeeping

performance of DC is improved by:

• Increased size

• Greater length-to-width ratio

• Adoption of a “deep-V” profile for the hull.

Several aspects of the design are driven by the rescue function of the DC.

• The size of the deck space should give the crew sufficient room to operate and to

accommodate survivors; typically sufficient room is provided for a total complement

(survivors and crew) of about 15.

6 Offshore Installations (Prevention of Fire and Explosion, and Emergency Response) Regulations 1995. 7 Industry Guidelines for the Management of Emergency Response for Offshore Installations, Section 4.5, Issue No.

2 – May 2002

7

• The freeboard of the DC is a compromise between minimising the height through which the

crew have to lift survivors from the sea and minimising decks being awash.

• The vessel’s collar should be small enough to allow the crew to lean over to pull survivors

from the sea

• The location of the wheelhouse and survivor retrieval point should allow the coxswain clear

visibility of the rescue operation and minimise the chances of running over the survivor or

entangling him in the propulsion/steering gear.

• Whilst the wheelhouse is primarily designed to protect the crew during non-rescue operations

(as well as providing toilet and galley facilities), it should also provide sufficient room for a

few injured survivors, including stretcher cases. In many designs, where there are large

number of survivors, the majority would have to remain on the open deck – some of the

larger designs do allow sufficient room within the wheelhouse to provide accommodation for

all rescued survivors.

3.2.2 Propulsion of DC

Most FRC are powered by outboard motors, either petrol or diesel. However, the increased size

of DC also allows for inboard diesels. While they have similar overall reliabilities (for modern

units), they each have their pros and cons:

• Outboard motors can be “repaired” more quickly than an inboard diesel by exchanging the

unit, thereby reducing downtime

• Diesel fuel is less flammable than petrol, thereby reducing fire risk

• In the event of capsize, the outboard is more prone to water ingress

In general, although some of the smaller DC use outboard motors, the larger the DC the more

likely it is to use inboard diesels.

These engines power one of two types of propulsion unit:

• Normal propeller, together with a rudder – this can present more danger to persons in the sea

• Waterjet – this reduces risk to persons in the sea but it is more prone to clogging (e.g. from

kelp) and takes more time to repair than a propeller.

3.2.3 Launch/recovery of DC

The earlier designs of DC tended to be launched/recovered via twin falls with lifting apparatus at

each end of the boat to limit rotation while the craft was suspended. Their davits were of fairly

basic design, were usually non-constant tension and without a pendulum damping system. They

operated with a power hoist and gravity lower controlled by a hand brake lever. Hoist speed was

generally in the range 30-48m/min and it could take up to 5 minutes to recover the boat to deck

level. High levels of training, experience and team working were required from both the craft’s

crew, who had to simultaneously hook on each end of the boat during recovery, as well as the

winch operator who had to ensure the craft was properly attached and in synchronisation with the

sea before hoisting.

A clear indication of the davit configuration and stowage location of a DC (circa 1990) is shown

below.

8

“Putford Apollo” with ‘PR-33’ DC8

Advances in DC design coupled with innovative davit systems has meant that since 1997 all

newly constructed ERRV based DC have used constant tension davits with a hydraulic

accumulator dampening system via a single fall. Such system developments and hoist speeds

typically between 35-60m/min has reduced craft recovery times to less than 1 minute in almost all

cases and half this time on several vessels. Improved recovery times has more recently become

the norm despite the higher freeboards of the rescue zone favoured by more modern or purpose

built ERRV compared to the earlier designs or converted supply boat/trawler ERRV.

The current design philosophy of both ERRV, showing the rescue zone and FRC/DC fitment and

a single fall DC is ably demonstrated in the photographs overleaf.

Photograph courtesy of Boston Putford Offshore Safety Ltd.

9

8

“Viking Provider”9

Norsafe Munin 1000 DC from “Viking Provider”10

9 Photograph courtesy of Viking Standby Ltd. 10 Photograph courtesy of Viking Standby Ltd.

10

3.2.4 Rescue equipment

Although there is potentially a wide range of rescue equipment carried by DC, the precise

combination is specified by the operator. These could include the following:

• Retrieval poles

• Jason’s cradle

• Dacon Scoop

• Hadrian rail and clip-on sliders

• Man over board recovery davit

• Nets

• Lifelines

In addition to carrying such equipment, careful consideration has to be given to its arrangement,

e.g. lifelines attached to the crew should allow them mobility sufficient to carry out their duties

3.2.5 Communications and navigation equipment

All DC carry radar and VHF radio. A range of other equipment is carried at the operator’s

discretion:

• Sirens, to warn survivors and other vessels of the DC’s approach

• Loudhailers, to communicate with survivors in the water

• Intercom, to facilitate communication between the crew

• Active and passive transponders, to improve radar contact between the DC and other craft

• Satellite positioning equipment, to pinpoint location

3.2.6 Crewing of DC

The crew on conventional DC is similar to that on FRC: a coxswain and two boatmen. By

agreement, DC crews operating on the UKCS abide by the OPITO (Offshore Petroleum Industry

Training Organisation) training standards:

• Boatmen. Basic personal survival course for ERRV crews, basic medical training course and

fast rescue boat course with VHF.

• Coxswain. A boatman with at least three months’ experience, a valid FRC Coxswain

Certificate, a valid Medical Aid and Care ITP Certificate and evidence of participation in an

OPITO approved ongoing training programme at sea.

There are a number of OPITO approved training establishments in the UK offering appropriate

training in DC operation, though only the following currently offer the Daughter Craft Coxswain

course:

• Maritime Rescue International Ltd, Stonehaven

• North Sea Training Services, Lowestoft

Though the courses are not recognised nor required under the IMO Standards of Training,

Certification and Watchkeeping regulations, they are a prerequisite to being employed as a DC

Coxswain on the UKCS. The five day course comprises a series of explanations, demonstrations

and opportunities to practise preparing and releasing a DC for operations, deploying a DC and

rescuing and recovering a casualty. Candidates are continually assessed against the relevant

OPITO training standards by direct observation of practical work and by oral and written

questioning. Following satisfactory assessment a certificate is issued.

11

3.2.7 Classification, standards and operational limits

Most classification societies (Lloyds, DnV, ABS) have rules dealing with the design of fast craft,

based primarily on hull pressures and vertical accelerations (i.e. design against slam impact

loads). These rules are effective in providing adequate structural strength and guarding against

injury to the crew but are ineffective in setting limits of operability, which are governed by crew

fatigue endurance and effectiveness as well as dynamic stability. In very general terms, larger

craft are more comfortable than smaller ones, primarily because the accelerations caused by a

craft’s motion in a seaway are reduced.

Crew Endurance

There are a number of standards relating to the comfort of passengers and crew aboard ships, the

main determinant of which is the motion of the vessel, both acceleration and vibration (e.g. BSI

6841:1987). These standards and analysis of vessel motion in various seas can be used to

calculate a permitted exposure time, which sets the frequency for crew changes.

However, the operational limitation can arise from the effect of vessel motion on crew operability

and effectiveness, such as shown in the following table.

11Table 1 Effect of activity on allowable vessel motion (rms)

Activity Roll (º) Heave acceleration (ms-1

) Lateral acceleration (ms -

1)

Heavy Manual 6.0 2.0 1.0

Light Manual 4.0 1.5 0.7

Intellectual 3.0 1.0 0.5

Operations

Assuming that the DC can be launched then the main operational envelope is formed by the

ability to recover and transfer survivors. There is considerable uncertainty in the operational

limits for these activities, with few being set as shown in Table 2.

12Table 2 Operational limits for DC

Activity Operational limit

Wind speed (Beaufort) Wave height (Hs in m)

Transfer from TEMPSC to DC 5

Transfer from DC to Standby Vessel 8-9 6-7

Application of the standards to the types of activity typically carried out on DC, together with an

analysis of its motions, indicate the following limits of operability in terms of frequency of shift

change.

11 Abrahamsen and Brubakk, “Human Comfort Onboard Fast Passenger Ferries”, Cruise and Ferry, 1991. 12 Gallagher and Goodwin, “Operating Envelopes of Offshore Rescue Methods”, report to HSE, 1995.

12

Table 3 Suggested operational limits for smaller DC13

Type of shift Operational limit


1 x 1 Hour 7 5.8

1 x 2 Hour 6 3.8

1 x 4 Hour 5 2.3

2 x 2 Hour 5 2.3

3.3 DEVELOPMENT OF ROLES FOR DC

The developing role for DC is that of providing longer stand-by capability at a greater distance

from the mother craft, as well as acting more independently during search and rescue (e.g.

provision of on-the-spot command and communications).

3.3.1 Design of newer DC

Clearly, such a role demands a large craft, in particular:

• Large (i.e. heavier) craft undergo smaller accelerations due to wave impact than smaller

vessels, thereby reducing the risk to the crew and facilitating rescue operations during rough

weather. Typically such craft weight at least 10 tons

• The wheelhouse should be fully enclosed and of sufficient size that it (together with any

below deck space) can accommodate all crew and survivors (this includes provision of toilet,

galley and medical facilities)

• There should be sufficient space around the wheelhouse to allow for all recovery/rescue

activities as well as for helicopter winching operations

• The larger hulls can permit significant space below decks to allow for accommodation of

additional survivors (e.g. the “Putford Progress” can take up to 30 survivors – 12 plus two

stretcher cases below deck)

The role also requires better on-board facilities:

• The galley should allow for the preparation of hot food and drinks for survivors and crew

• The medical facilities should allow survivors to change clothes and provide for emergency

treatment (e.g. stabilising casualties) before evacuation to helicopter or mother vessel

• A greater range of rescue equipment is normal: recovery scoop, scrambling nets, rigid

ladders, fitting for towing, etc.

• Communications equipment similar to that on a mother vessel (for remote command and

control)

• Improved navigational equipment, possibly fitting out with equipment to enable its use in an

integrated ‘REWS’ type system and including the use of transponders to enable the craft to

range outside the line of sight from the mother vessel

3.3.2 Crewing of newer DC

The longer duration of stand alone activity of newer DC may require a watch-keeping system to

be adopted, possibly two hours on – two hours off. This would require ideally a crew of four: two

Coxswains and two Boatmen but many DC have only one Coxswain. In addition to the training

described earlier (Section 3.2.6), Coxswains require further training in the wider range of

communications facilities and navigational skills, particularly for the larger and better equipped

13 Gallagher et al, “Research into the Operation of SBV FRD Craft used as Daughter Craft”, report to the Marine

Safety Agency, 1995.

13

DC that in future may operate at greater distances from the mother vessel and yet retain LLE

certification.

An option for the future is for DC to operate under the “Small Commercial Vessel Code” which,

depending on the intended area of operation, a vessel may be issued with a ‘Small Commercial

Vessel Certificate’. The areas most likely to be applicable to DC will be:

• Area Category 3 - Up to 20 miles from a safe haven;



• Area Category 0 – Unrestricted service.

Vessel crewing requirements differ depending on operating area certification such that the

following minimum deck manning certification requirements will apply:

Table 4 Minimum deck certification for “Small Commercial Vessel Code”

Area Category 3 Certificate of Competency issued by a Competent Authority, OR,

(Skipper’s RYA Advanced Powerboat Certificate (with 2 years experience), OR,

Qualification) RYA Certificate of Competency or Service – Coastal Skipper, OR,

MCA Boatmaster’s License Grade 1, 2 and 3 (modified), OR,

RYA Certificate of Competency or Service – Yachtmaster Offshore, OR,

RYA Certificate of Competency – Yachtmaster Ocean

(Additional A second person capable of assisting the Skipper in an emergency

Requirements)

Area Category 2 MCA Boatmaster’s License Grade 1, 2 and 3 (modified), OR,

(Skipper’s RYA Certificate of Competency or Service – Yachtmaster Offshore, OR,

Qualification) RYA Certificate of Competency – Yachtmaster Ocean

(Additional A person deemed by the Skipper to be experienced

Requirements)

Area Category 1 RYA Certificate of Competency or Service – Yachtmaster Offshore, OR,

(Skipper’s RYA Certificate of Competency – Yachtmaster Ocean

Qualification)

(Additional A second person holding at least a RYA Certificate of Competency or Service –

Requirements) Coastal Skipper

Area Category 0 RYA Certificate of Competency or Service – Yachtmaster Ocean

(Skipper’s

Qualification)

(Additional A second person holding at least a RYA Certificate of Competency as either

Requirements) Yachtmaster Ocean or Yachtmaster Offshore

Other training and certification requirements for DC crews under the “Small Commercial Vessel

Code” include:

• The crew should undergo training in the carriage of the dangerous goods and the IMDG Code

and records kept of the training undertaken.

• Skippers should hold an approved Basic Sea Survival Course Certificate.

14

• At least one person should hold a Radio Operator’s Certificate suitable for the radio

equipment on board.

• The Skipper or a member of the crew of vessels which operate in Area Category 2 or 3

should hold an MCA approved Elementary First Aid Certificate or a RYA First Aid

Certificate. Skippers of vessels operating in Area Category 0 or 1 should hold a Proficiency

in Medical Care Certificate.

• Skippers and any member of the crew who is liable to use the radar are strongly

recommended to undertake appropriate training in its use.

• An Approved Engine Course is a course of at least thirty hours duration which is approved or

recognised by the MCA.

• Skippers should be familiar with the vessels Stability Guidance Booklet.

Additionally, the “Small Commercial Vessel Code” requires minimum levels of training and

certification for those responsible for the engine, depending upon the power:

Table 5 Minimum engine certification for “Small Commercial Vessel Code”

Area Category 2

>750kW <=1500kW Attended an Approved Engine Course or satisfied the MCA

>1500kW <3000kW Marine Engine Operator’s License

Area Category 1

<=750kW Attended an Approved Engine Course or satisfied the MCA

>750kW <1500kW Marine Engine Operator’s License

>=1500kW <3000kW Senior Marine Engine Operator’s License

Area Category 0

<1500kW Marine Engine Operator’s License

>=1500kW <3000kW Senior Marine Engine Operator’s License

3.3.3 Operational

The MCA issue LLE certification to DC on a case by case basis and impose limits on their

operation in terms of the maximum sea conditions, duration and range from the mother vessel. In

the past these have generally limited DC operations to less than 3.5m Hs (significant wave

height), for not more than 4 hours and not more than 10 miles distant from the mother vessel.

These parameters were recently increased during the recent extended trial of the 38’ “Putford

Progress”.

Two important trends have been noted:

• Requirements for DC to operate further from the mother craft and for longer.

• Operators (either singly or in co-operation with each other) drawing up risk analysis based

strategies for deployment of ERRV and DC to cover multiple installations, reducing the

number of ERRV (e.g. www.riskassessor.com).

The implications for safety of the combination of these two trends is an area of concern, which

clearly needs more study.

Application of the approach outlined in Section 3.2.6 indicates the operational limits outlined in

the following table. These are similar to those for smaller DC, with the addition of new

operational limits for longer shifts.

15

Table 6 Suggested operational limits for larger DC14

Type of shift Operational limit


1 x 1 Hour 7 5.8

1 x 2 Hour 6 3.8

1 x 4 Hour 5 2.3

2 x 2 Hour 5 2.3

1 x 8 Hour 4 1.5

1 x 12 Hour 4 1.5

A more recent HSE research project15

thoroughly investigated the demands and expectations

placed on DC crew involved in offshore operations. The work provided a detailed examination of

the performance of DC crew undertaking a range of generic tasks, in varying sea states, in an

attempt to identify any degradation in performance capability with time.

Rather than giving benchmark figures for the expected endurance of DC crew in different sea

states, the study provided a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the extent to which their

performance may be impaired by a number of factors that impinge upon it, such as:

• DC design compared to the tasks required of it and the crew.

• Effect of different environmental conditions, temperature, sea state, wave steepness.

• Knowledge of and ability to perform skilled first aid treatment

The conclusions from the study are wide ranging and profound and in some cases challenge the

accepted understanding of DC operations that has developed over the last decade.

DC operating under the “Small Commercial Vessel Code” will probably not be limited by

weather conditions, range or duration, but instead will have to comply with the constraints of the

area category they are certified to operate in. Notwithstanding this, the requirements of the

Maritime Working Time Directive will apply to crews operating vessels under the Code. Briefly,

this will ensure that vessels are sufficiently manned to avoid the need to work excessive hours.

The Skipper is responsible for ensuring that he and all crew members are properly rested when

they begin work and obtain adequate rest when not on duty. The Directive provides that the

minimum hours of rest for anyone employed on board should be not less than:

• 10 hours in any 24-hour period; and

• 77 hours in any seven day period.

Although the limits should be observed they can be modified provided there is agreement between

the Skipper and crew, that health and safety and the safety of the vessel are not compromised and

that different leave periods are used as compensation.

If DC operating under the Code adopt a watchkeeping arrangement then a schedule of duties

should be drawn up setting out the hours of work and rest periods.

14 Gallagher et al, “Research into the Operation of SBV FRD Craft used as Daughter Craft”, report to the Marine

Safety Agency, 1995. 15 The Performance Capabilities of Crews of Daughter Craft Involved in Offshore Operations in the Oil and Gas

Industries, M. Tipton, C. Eglin, F. Golden & G. David, Research Report 108

16

3.4 WORK BY PROMARINE

The objective of the HSE contract with Promarine, Aberdeen was to produce a database of the

ERRV in use on the UKCS; their technical specification, types and location. The final report

from the initial contract was produced in January 2002 and yielded a database of 151 ERRV of

which 34 vessels carried a total of 42 DC, either singly (26 vessels) or in pairs (8 vessels). In

respect of DC the database contained a limited amount of technical information about each

vessel. An abridged version of the data gathered by Promarine is contained in Appendix 1.

At the conclusion of the first phase of work it was decided to extend the contract to encompass

more detail of the DC and their ancillary equipment. When the extended database was delivered

in November 2002 it contained a listing of 43 ERRV carrying a total of 56 DC, with 30 vessels

being fitted with one DC and 13 vessels having two. On almost all vessels where two DC are

carried they are identical in terms of the make, model and ancillary equipment.

On all DC the manning requirement is for 3 crew whereas the total complement on vessels where

DC are fitted ranges from 9 (1 x DC on the “Putford Trader”) to 18 (2 x DC on the “Havila

Tigris”). In general, however, where a vessel is fitted with DC the total complement is between 12

and 15, although there appears to be little correlation between the complement and number of

DC, i.e., some vessels have 15 crew and 1 DC and others have 2 DC with only 12 crew. In

emergency situations, where it may be necessary to launch both DC (where these are fitted), the

number of crew left on board the vessel to handle recovered casualties could be much reduced.

3.5 ANALYSIS OF DC SPECIFICATIONS

At the time of the November 2002 ProMarine study there were 10 different types of DC in use

from 4 manufacturers, from the smallest “PR-30” (8.3m overall length and 2350kg dry weight) to

the largest “Pacific-36” (14.4m overall length and 7490kg dry weight):

Table 7 Types of DC in use on the UKCS

DC no./type Overall length (m) Dry weight (kg)

6 x PR-30 8.3 2350

5 x MP-911 9.2 4200

16 x PR-33 9.3 2450

2 x Delta Phantom 9.4 4584

8 x Delta 95 9.5 2850

1 x MP-990 9.9 5240

2 x Norsafe Munin 10 5600

2 x Delta 115 11.5 4600

12 x MP-1111 11.75 5800

2 x Pacific-36 14.4 7490

Although the scantlings for each model are defined by the manufacturer and therefore owners can

not modify them, there is some latitude for the type of propulsion (inboard diesel or outboard

petrol) and power output that owners choose to fit to their craft. However, this tends to be the

case only with the smaller craft as larger ones begin to be constrained by their size and therefore

power requirements. With the exception of the Norsafe Munin which is driven by a waterjet, all

DC are fitted with conventional propellers:

17

• 27 x Inboard diesel engines with power outputs between 230bhp and 460bhp

Delta 115 2 (2 x 440bhp)

Delta 95 1 (1 x 230bhp)

Delta Phantom 2 (2 x 440bhp)

MP-1111 12 (12 x 430bhp)

MP-911 5 (5 x 300bhp)

MP-990 1 (1 x 432bhp)

Norsafe Munin 2 (2 x 460bhp)

Pacific-36 2 (2 x 430bhp)

• 29 x Outboard diesel engines with power outputs between 180bhp and 230bhp

Delta 95 7 (2 x 180bhp, 1 x 190bhp and 4 x 230bhp)

PR-30 6 (6 x 180bhp)

PR-33 16 (16 x 180bhp)

3.6 ANALYSIS OF DC AND THEIR ERRV

Based on the information contained in the ProMarine data it has been possible to make an

assessment of the profile of the ERRV fleet fitted with DC. Perhaps surprisingly, there is very

little correlation between size of vessels, their ages, former usage, specification and how they are

operated during the DC launch/recovery phase.

Where a vessel is equipped with 1 x DC it is more usual for this to be placed on the port side

although the ProMarine data also indicates that some vessels have davits on both sides even

though they only have one DC.

On the majority of vessels the DC fitment appears to come as a ‘complete package’ to include the

craft itself and all its associated launch/recovery tackle although owners may have the option to

choose from different davit systems. Obviously, the time taken to launch or recover the DC under

‘ideal’ conditions will depend on a number of factors not simply the davit type or its mechanical

specification. The vessel’s design will also play a part, for example the davit’s location in relation

to the water line, the outreach required to launch/recover, the number of falls and the type of

lifting hook.

Table 8 DC davit types in use on the UKCS

DC type Davit type Hook type Falls

Delta 115 2 x Caley Ocean Systems 2 x Cranston 2 x single

Delta 95 1 x Grampian Hydraulics 1 x Cranston 1 x single

Delta 95 1 x Hydralift 1 x Cranston 1 x single

Delta 95 1 x Hydramaskin 1 x Cranston 1 x single

Delta 95 3 x Caley Ocean Systems 3 x Cranston 3 x single

Delta 95 2 x Vestdavit PAP 8000 2 x Cranston 2 x single

Delta Phantom 2 x Caley Ocean Systems 2 x Cranston 2 x single

MP-1111 8 x Hydramarine 8 x Cranston 8 x single

MP-1111 4 x Caley Ocean Systems 4 x Cranston 4 x single

MP-911 4 x Caley Ocean Systems 4 x Cranston 4 x single

MP-911 1 x Hydramaskin 1 x Cranston 1 x single

MP-990 1 x Britannia C-Master 8000 1 x Cranston 1 x single

Norsafe Munin 2 x Hydramarine 2 x Cranston 2 x single

Pacific-36 2 x Caley Ocean Systems 2 x Caley 2 x single

PR-30 6 x Schat Miranda 6 x Mills Titan 6 x treble

PR-33 16 x Schat Miranda 16 x Mills Titan 4 x double and 12 x treble

18

Constant tension is used on approximately 60% (33 of 56 craft) of DC davits, the only davits not

fitted are those manufactured by Schat Miranda. Similarly, 34 craft are launched/recovered via a

single fall whereas 4 craft use twin falls and 18 use treble falls.

Perhaps of greatest significance to rescue and recovery performance is the time taken for launch

and recovery of DC and in this respect very significant differences are reported in the ProMarine

data. Clearly, the more sophisticated equipment ought to be able to launch and recover quicker

and this is borne out by the data. It appears that factors to be considered when determining craft

recovery time are less to do with simple winch speed and height of recovery and more to do with

the davit make, number of falls, boat size and whether constant tension is fitted.

At best, recovery of the DC is reportedly possible in 15 seconds (raising a 2850 kg boat through

6m on a single fall with an ‘A’ frame using a non-constant tension davit) whereas at worst

recovery can take up to 5 minutes (raising a 7490 kg boat through 8m on a single fall using a

constant tension davit). Of the 23 DC where this information is available the median value for

recovery time is 63 seconds although they are predominantly in the range 20 - 60 seconds.

DC launch times, though likely to be possible in more adverse weather conditions than for the

recovery, are similarly widespread, ranging from 15 seconds to 3 minutes. For this parameter the

type of davit appears to be the main determining factor rather than the boat size. Of the 22 DC

where this information is available the median value for launch time is 46 seconds although they

are predominantly in the range 20 - 40 seconds.

Of some interest in the ProMarine data is the information concerning operational detail on how

the ERRV/DC are manoeuvred during recovery. This was provided for 36 ERRV with the

predominant manoeuvre being “at very low speed with weather on opposite quarter” which was

said to be the favoured method on 24 ERRV. Other manoeuvres included recovery at 2-3 knots (4

ERRV), recovery at 3 knots (2 ERRV) and recovery at 3-4 knots (6 ERRV). It is interesting to

note that of the ERRV that adopt minimal headway when recovering DC, all are fitted with either

Watercraft PR-30 or Watercraft PR-33 craft. It is suggested that the manoeuvre required when

recovering DC is more a factor of the type of DC or its davits rather than the seakeeping or

handling characteristics of the ERRV. This hypothesis is borne out on the “Viking Endeavour”

where different DC are fitted (Watercraft PR-30 on starboard side and Delta 95 on port side),

each requiring a different manoeuvre to recover.

DC are fitted to widely different ERRV in terms of their age, former use and current role. It

appears that whether or not an operator chooses to fit DC is possibly more to do with commercial

factors agreed between themselves and the Duty Holders than a particular type of hull being

better suited to their fitment.

19

Table 9 Age profile and former role of ERRV carrying DC on the UKCS

Year of construction Former role Current role

2 x 1967 13 x Anchor handler/supply 17 x Multi-role vessels

2 x 1968 19 x Platform supply vessel 26 x ERRV

1 x 1969 7 x Purpose built

1 x 1970 1 x Salvage Vessel

1 x 1972 1 x Supply/diving vessel

2 x 1973 2 x Trawlers

1 x 1974

6 x 1975

8 x 1976

2 x 1977

1 x 1979

3 x 1982

3 x 1983

4 x 1985

1 x 1995

1 x 1997

1 x 1998

2 x 2000

1 x 2001

The diversity of the mother vessel profile is indicative that the fitment of DC is not dependent on,

for example, its year of construction or former use. However, a factor that operators of ERRV

perhaps consider when deciding whether their vessels could be fitted with DC is whether there is

a need for retro-fitting of manoeuvring thrusters to assist in the DC’s launch/recovery. All but 8

ERRV were fitted with at least one tunnel bow thrusters (and 3 had two thrusters) although only

8 ERRV had at least one tunnel stern thrusters. Of the ERRV that were not fitted with tunnel

thrusters most had highly manoeuvrable azimuthing thrusters.

3.7 ANALYSIS OF DC AND THEIR LOCATION

As previously mentioned in Section 3.6 there is little that that can be inferred, apart from perhaps

commercial considerations and ‘other’ duties that the DC may be expected to fulfil, from where

DC are located on the UKCS. The ProMarine database contains location information for 33

ERRV (correct as of 1 November 2002):

• 9 x ERRV with DC in Central North Sea

• 4 x ERRV with DC in Northern North Sea

• 14 x ERRV with DC in Southern North Sea

• 3 x ERRV with DC in Liverpool Bay

• 3 x ERRV with DC in West of Shetlands

However, the Southern North Sea (SNS) with its multi-platform fields, large number of normally

unattended installations (NUI) and relatively close proximity to shore, lends itself to the use of

DC more readily than other areas. The DC concept was first used successfully in the SNS and it

is where the boundaries of their use have been extended.

Current MCA control of DC activities limits their operation to a maximum of 3.5m Hs, at a

range of not more than 10 miles from the mother vessel and for periods of duty of not more than 4

hours.

20

3.8 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR DC

In the UK the regulatory framework under which DC currently operate is contained within the

Merchant Shipping Act. In brief, the Act, which is applied through the Merchant Shipping (Load

Line) Regulations 1998 (S.I. 2241/98) requires DC to either be inspected against and be covered

by the requirements of the Load Line Regulations or to have a ‘Load Line Exemption Certificate’

(LLE). Part 1 (Section 5) of the Regulations refers to the circumstances under which a LLE can

issued (see Appendix 3).

To minimise the burden of obtaining certification for their DC all operators have sought to have a

LLE issued for their craft. These certificates apply any restrictions and/or conditions on the

operation of DC such as the distance it may operate from the ERRV, limitations on the weather

conditions it may operate in and specify any minimum equipment and/or manning requirements.

While LLE are issued by MCA on a case by case basis the ‘normal’ limitations are that DC

should not be more than 10 nautical miles for its ERRV, that it should not operate in sea states of

more than 3.5m Hs and that it should not operate away from the ERRV for more than 4

continuous hours.

To discuss the operation of the LLE certificate to DC as well as develop an understanding of

potential developments in this area a meeting was held with Robin Raphael and Duncan

MacDonald of MCA on 12 March 2003. MCA advised that a number of recent events within the

offshore oil and gas sector, and in particular the growing and evolving role of DC, had required

them to review their legislative and certification framework:

• Placing the matter into context, it was reported that half the ERRV in use on the UKCS are

foreign flagged and therefore outside the control of the MCA. To ensure that proper

standards are maintained it is essential that well considered and robust codes and guidelines

are in place.

• It is felt that the Workboat Code could be used to regulate the operation of DC, albeit with

limitations on their use prior to the issue of a certificate, although it is recognised that this

would extend the Workboat Code beyond what was originally envisaged when it was drafted.

• The Halmatic P-38 DC and one other craft in use in Liverpool Bay are currently covered by

the Workboat Code rather than LLE.

• MCA have been made aware by BP that the DC proposed under the ‘Jigsaw’ project could be

better suited to the Workboat Code rather than LLE.

• Any changes to the Workboat Code would be achieved through an annex and would only

apply to DC.

• ERRVA can not see the benefit to their members of replacing the current LLE with the

Workboat Code believing that it may lead to DC being considered as ‘mini-ERRV’.

• Duty Holders believe the Workboat Code may enable DC to operate more flexibly and at

lower cost.

• Any change to the current system is likely to require an amendment to the ERRV code to

reflect this new regime.

• It is the MCA’s intention that all their Codes of Practice (Yellow for Small Commercial

Motor Vessels, Blue for Small Commercial Sailing Vessels, Red for Small Vessels in

Commercial Use for Sport or Pleasure, White for Large Commercial Sailing and Motor

Boats and Brown for Small Workboats and Pilot Boats) are to be harmonised into one

document. This will be achieved through the Harmonisation Working Group (representatives

including designers, builders, regulators and operators).

21

• MCA intend to contract a consultant to review the LLE infrastructure and the Workboat

Code and highlight what the issues to transition may be. However, MCA are already aware

that some vessels that have been issued with a Workboat Certificate may not be suited to act

as a DC or that if a DC was issued with a certificate it may be called upon to perform duties

to which it was not suited.

• When the issues have been defined MCA will advise Duty Holders and ERRV operators of

their findings and invite them to decide whether they want MCA to continue with exploring a

move to the Workboat Code or whether the LLE system should remain.

• Ultimately, MCA consider that a move from LLE to the Workboat Code would be beneficial,

however, they will not adopt this approach until all the previously identified issues have been

discussed by all interested parties and clarified.

To explore more recent developments with the DC regulatory framework, particularly the “Small

Commercial Vessel Code of Practice”, a further meeting was held with Duncan MacDonald of

MCA on 12 November 2003.

• The MCA’s ‘yellow’, ‘blue’, ‘red’ and ‘brown’ codes are to be amalgamated into one

document. A draft of the “Small Commercial Vessel Code of Practice” has been produced

and is undergoing a consultation process with a broad group of interested parties.

• DC are not currently included in the “Small Commercial Vessel Code of Practice” and for

this to occur the annexes to the “SBV Code” will need to be amended. This is due to occur in

June 2004.

• A scope of work for the amendments to the “SBV Code” is being produced and will be

agreed by all stakeholders. It is expected this may also cover the future introduction of

Autonomous Rescue and Recovery Craft (ARRC) and go some way in addressing the ‘place

of safety’ issue.

• With amendments to the “SBV Code” and subsequent coverage of DC within the “Small

Commercial Vessel Code of Practice”, the need for LLE to be issued for individual DC

would be removed.

• To be included within the “Small Commercial Vessel Code of Practice” each DC would need

to be surveyed against requirement laid down in the “SBV Code”. These will detail the type

of craft, its equipment and how it can be operated. A certificate will be issued for each DC

after successful survey.

• LLE will not be removed entirely but may not be used when the “Small Commercial Vessel

Code of Practice” is introduced.

3.9 DC OPERATOR CONSIDERATIONS

During November 2001 a series of meetings were held with DC operators to elicit their views on

the craft, their operational performance and how they may develop in the future. Below are the

points that were made during the meetings:

Steve Ferguson of Viking Standby Ltd., Montrose. 26 November 2001

• DC Fleet:

2 x Norsafe Munin 1000 with twin Hamilton waterjets

1 x Maritime Partners 911 with twin inboard diesels

2 x Watercraft PR-30 with twin 90hp petrol outboards

Although Viking Standby Ltd. had been involved to a limited extent at the design stage of the

Norsafe DC, the company generally purchased their craft ‘off the shelf’. However, the company

22

believes that DC manufacturers do respond to operator experience as well as their own innovation

when modifying existing or designing new craft.

It is the company’s policy to exercise their DC crews in up to 3.5 m Hs though at times this

guidance may be exceeded at the ERRV Master’s discretion. In general, crews prefer to use a DC

rather than a FRC because of the additional comfort afforded. This is particularly important

when engaged in personnel transfer, light stores handling and close standby.

DC coxswains are specially selected and trained from among their pool of crew and become

interchangeable between different ERRV, DC and FRC.

The rated personnel capacity of their craft is thought to be optimistic, especially when dealing

with injured survivors needing horizontal transfer to the ERRV.

The company’s DC have never been used in an emergency situation.

Gerry Harcombe of Havila Supply (UK) Ltd., Aberdeen. 26 November 2001

• DC Fleet:

7 x Maritime Partners 1111 with inboard diesels


The company has not had any input to DC design and development with all their current fleet

being of standard design. Some DC are fitted with a further VHF radio over and above standard.

It is the company’s policy to exercise their DC crews in up to 3.5 m Hs although in an emergency

this limit would be increased depending on circumstances. For instance, although their craft have

not been used in an oil industry related emergency, they did successfully rescue the crew of a

fishing vessel in 5 – 7 m Hs and 55 knots wind.

Crews prefer to use the DC rather than the FRC because of the additional comfort they provide

as well as the more interesting tasks they undertake.

Brian Lamb of North Star Shipping (Aberdeen) Ltd., Aberdeen. 29 November 2001

• DC Fleet:

3 x Delta 95 with petrol outboards

2 x Delta 115 with inboard diesels

2 x Delta Phantom with inboard diesels

The company has fed back crew suggestions for DC improvements to the manufacturers but has

always purchased their craft ‘off the shelf’.

It is the company’s policy to exercise their DC crews in up to 3.5 m Hs though the ERRV

Master’s can exceed this if required.

Crews prefer to use DC rather than FRC because of the comfort afforded and more interesting

work carried out. This is particularly important when engaged in personnel transfer, light stores

handling and close standby.

23

DC coxswains are selected and trained from among their pool of crew and in general there is no

intermixing between DC and FRC crews.

The company’s DC have never been used in an emergency situation involving the oil industry but

have taken part in the rescue of personnel from a fishing vessel in Liverpool Bay.

Colin Waddell of B.U.E. Marine Ltd., Aberdeen. 29 November 2001

• DC Fleet:

2 x Halmatic P-36 with inboard diesels


The company’s DC were bought ‘as is’ along with their mother vessels. Subsequently, the

company fitted an additional VHF radio to each craft as well as an external public address system

and cooking facilities. For some contracts a Safemarine REWS system has been installed on

some DC and the painter release mechanism was modified to make it safer to operate.

The company believes that most innovation in DC is manufacturer rather than operator led and in

the future there will be a trend towards bigger ERRV with DC being fitted on more vessels.

It is the company’s policy to exercise their DC crews in up to 3.5 m Hs though at times this

guidance may be exceeded at the ERRV Master’s discretion.

Although working in DC for extended periods was generally not well liked by the company’s

crews, doing so was better than being a FRC coxswain or boatman. DC crew are selected from

among their FRC and, after a period of training, it is seen as career progression.

Ian Palmer and Robert Catchpole of Boston Putford Offshore Safety Ltd., Lowestoft. 30

November 2001

• DC Fleet:



1 x Delta Marine Access Craft

1 x Halmatic P-38 with inboard diesels

Over the years since the inception of the DC Boston Putford Offshore Safety Ltd. have been

involved with Delta Power Services to take the concept forward and were also part of the

consultation exercise when the limit of their range from the mother vessel was increased from 5

miles to 10 miles. More recently the company played a part in trials of the Halmatic P-38, named

the “Putford Progress” and its associated davit system.

DC are used for helicopter operations, close standby and warning off of errant vessels. It is the

company’s policy to exercise their DC crews in up to 3.5 m Hs though at times this guidance may

be exceeded at the ERRV Master’s discretion.

DC coxswains are selected from among their pool of crew and trained appropriately.

The company’s DC have been involved in one installation man overboard rescue and the rescue

of a fishing vessel crew.

24

3.10 FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

As has been the case in the past, future developments on the DC concept will be largely driven by

what the industry needs. These may come about either as a series of incremental refinements, i.e.,

slightly larger craft, more facilities, better navigational or operational equipment or more

crew/passenger comfort, or as a step change in design and/or operation to meet new offshore

industry initiatives.

Over an 18 months period ending in the summer of 2002 the operation of a Halmatic ‘P-38’ DC

(named the “Putford Progress”) on board the ERRV “Putford Worker” was the subject of MCA

supervised trial in the ‘Villages’ field of the southern North Sea.

The DC had a dry weight of 11 tonnes and over the course of the trial there were over 1000

launch/recovery cycles using a single point lift Hydramarine davit. The MCA report on the trial

indicated some initial technical problems were experienced but these were overcome. On occasion

the DC had gone back to the shore; this being permissible because the crew were work boat

certified. The DC’s engine and telecommunications gear were reported to have all worked well.

The ERRV crane driver was found to be a critical responsibility and one that requires a high

degree of skill. Although those carrying out this task were properly trained initially, they were not

experienced in lifting such large craft.

What may be seen as a quantum leap in the DC concept is the work carried out to define the

requirements of BP’s ‘Jigsaw’ project. In particular, the boundaries of design may be radically

extended by the intention to deploy Autonomous Rescue and Recovery Craft (ARRC) from

Regional Support Vessels (RSVs).

Construction of eight ARRCs and four RSVs is underway with delivery of the first RSV expected

in the first quarter of 2005 and the first ARRC by the middle of 2005. Each 93m long RSV will

accommodate two davit launched ARRCs and two 7.5m FRC. Although the ARRCs have yet to

be delivered, the design anticipates the following particulars:

• 18.8m length • Self-righting

• Launch capability in seas of up to 7m Hs • Survivor reception area and

comprehensive medical facilities

• 400 nautical miles range at 20 knots • 34 knots maximum speed

• Internal capacity of 57 survivors and an • Capable of independent operation from

overload capacity of up to 84 the RSV including transfer of survivors

to shore

• 6 full-time crew members including a • Deck area to enable helicopter transfer of

paramedic survivors

In preparatory work, a number of trials were undertaken using models and simulators. It was

reported that the trials were generally successful and demonstrated that certain tasks could be

completed by the crew and medical aid administered while craft was undergoing accelerations due

to movement in a seaway of up to 7m Hs.

25

Overall, the issue of whether the ARRC can be considered a ‘place of safety’ will not be decided

until after the craft have been delivered and assessed by the HSE.

26

APPENDIX 1 TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE

PROMARINE DC STUDY (2001)

ERRV owner/manager ERRV name Built Type Previous type

1 BUE Marine BUE Foula 1968 SBV Trawler

2 BUE Marine BUE Iona 1977 SBV Platform Supply Vessel

3 BUE Marine BUE Raasay 1983 Multi-role Anchor Handler/Supply

4 BUE Marine BUE Skye 1968 SBV Trawler

5 Tufton Oceanic Investment Ltd Caledonia Master 1995 Multi-role Anchor Handler/Supply

6 Gulf Offshore Clywd Supporter 1985 SBV Platform Supply Vessel

7 North Star Shipping Grampian Crusader 1976 SBV Platform Supply Vessel

8 North Star Shipping Grampian Frontier 1997 Multi-role Purpose built

9 North Star Shipping Grampian Osprey 1979 SBV Platform Supply Vessel

10 North Star Shipping Grampian Prince 1983 Multi-role Anchor Handler/Supply

11 North Star Shipping Grampian Supporter 1976 SBV Platform Supply Vessel

12 Havila Supply ASA Havila Chieftain 1982 Multi-role Anchor Handler/Supply

13 Havila Supply ASA Havila Clever 1975 Multi-role Anchor Handler/Supply

14 Havila Supply ASA Havila Sea 1975 Multi-role Anchor Handler/Supply

15 Havila Supply ASA Havila Searcher 1975 Multi-role Anchor Handler/Supply

16 Havila Supply ASA Havila Star 2000 Multi-role Purpose built

17 Havila Supply ASA Havila Sun 1972 Multi-role Purpose built

18 Havila Supply ASA Havila Tigris 2001 Multi-role Purpose built

19 Gulf Offshore Highland Spirit 1998 Multi-role Purpose built

20 Gulf Offshore Highland Sprite 1985 Multi-role Platform Supply Vessel

21 Maersk Maersk Don 2000 Multi-role Purpose built

22 Boston Putford Nova 1969 SBV Platform Supply Vessel

23 Boston Putford Putford Acasta 1973 SBV Anchor Handler/Supply

24 Boston Putford Putford Achates 1976 SBV Platform Supply Vessel

25 Boston Putford Putford Achilles 1973 SBV Anchor Handler/Supply

26 Boston Putford Putford Ajax 1976 SBV Platform Supply Vessel

27 Boston Putford Putford Apollo 1975 SBV Platform Supply Vessel

28 Boston Putford Putford Aries 1977 SBV Platform Supply Vessel

29 Boston Putford Putford Artemis 1975 SBV Anchor Handler/Supply

30 Boston Putford Putford Athena 1975 SBV Platform Supply Vessel

31 Boston Putford Putford Enterprise 1985 SBV Platform Supply Vessel

32 Boston Putford Putford Guardian 1967 SBV Platform Supply Vessel

33 Boston Putford Putford Protector 1983 SBV Platform Supply Vessel

34 Boston Putford Putford Puffin 1970 SBV Salvage Vessel

35 Boston Putford Putford Rover 1982 Multi-role Anchor Handler/Supply

36 Boston Putford Putford Sea Mussel 1974 SBV Platform Supply Vessel

37 Boston Putford Putford Shore 1967 SBV Platform Supply Vessel

38 Boston Putford Putford Trader 1976 SBV Anchor Handler/Supply

39 Boston Putford Putford Viking 1976 SBV Supply/diving vessel

40 Boston Putford Putford Voyager 1985 SBV Platform Supply Vessel

41 Boston Putford Putford Worker 1976 SBV Platform Supply Vessel

42 Viking Standby Viking Endeavour (P) 1976 Multi-role Anchor Handler/Supply

43 Viking Standby Viking Endeavour (S) 1976 Multi-role Anchor Handler/Supply

44 Viking Standby Viking Provider 1982 Multi-role Purpose built

27

No. of Working area Installation ERRV ERRV propeller ERRV ERRV Directional

crew type BHP rudder thrusters

1 12 1700 Controllable Pitch Spade 2 Aquamaster

2 13 SNS Steel Jacket 4200 Controllable Pitch Becker 2 Aquamaster

3 12 SNS Steel Jacket 4240 Controllable Pitch Becker 2 Aquamaster

4 12 1700 Controllable Pitch Spade 2 Aquamaster

5 12 CNS FPSO 7260 Controllable Pitch Kort Nozzle 2 Veth

6 12 Liverpool Bay Oil Storage 7200 Controllable Pitch Kort Nozzle 1 Azimuth

7 12 CNS Steel Jacket 4200 Controllable Pitch Spade 1 Not Fitted

8 12 WoS FPSO 8300 Controllable Pitch Becker 3 Azimuth

9 12 NNS Concrete 3200 Controllable Pitch Spade 1 Gilljet

10 12 CNS Steel Jacket 6000 Controllable Pitch Spade 4 Aquamaster

11 12 Liverpool Bay Steel Jacket 3200 Controllable Pitch Spade 1 Not Fitted

12 15 NNS Concrete 12728 Controllable Pitch Becker 4 Aquamaster

13 12 7040 Controllable Pitch Becker 3 Aquamaster

14 15 CNS Steel Jacket 4200 Controllable Pitch Becker 2 Azimuth

15 15 CNS Steel Jacket 8000 Controllable Pitch Becker 2 Aquamaster

16 15 NNS Concrete 4010 Controllable Pitch Azimuth 2 Aquamaster

17 12 2850 Controllable Pitch Becker 2 Schottle

18 18 NNS Steel Jacket 4010 Controllable Pitch Azimuth 2 Azimuth

19 12 WoS FPSO 6000 Controllable Pitch Becker 2 Aquamaster

20 12 Liverpool Bay Steel Jacket 3600 Controllable Pitch Becker 2 Not Fitted

21 12 CNS Steel Jacket 4800 Controllable Pitch Becker 3 Azimuth

22 12 SNS HDJU 2401 Fixed Pitch Spade 1 Azimuth

23 12 SNS Steel Jacket 2800 Fixed Pitch Spade 1 Not Fitted

24 12 SNS Steel Jacket 2400 Fixed Pitch Spade 1 Not Fitted

25 12 SNS Steel Jacket 4200 Controllable Pitch Kort Nozzle 1 Azimuth

26 12 2400 Fixed Pitch Spade 1 Not Fitted

27 12 SNS Steel Jacket 2310 Controllable Pitch Kort Nozzle 1 Not Fitted

28 12 4800 Controllable Pitch Becker 1 Not Fitted

29 12 SNS Steel Jacket 6001 Controllable Pitch Spade 1 Not Fitted

30 15 CNS Steel Jacket 6161 Controllable Pitch Spade 1 Azimuth

31

32 12 2000 Fixed Pitch Spade 1 Gilljet

33


35 12 SNS Steel Jacket 7656 Controllable Pitch Spade 4 Aquamaster

36 12 SNS Steel Jacket 2500 Fixed Pitch Spade 1 Azimuth

37 12 CNS Steel Jacket 1600 Fixed Pitch Spade 1 Azimuth


39 12 SNS Steel Jacket 4800 Controllable Pitch Becker 1 Not Fitted

40

41 15 SNS Steel Jacket 3200 Controllable Pitch Becker 1 Not Fitted

42 15 WoS Semi 6160 Controllable Pitch Spade 1 Not Fitted

43 15 WoS Semi 6160 Controllable Pitch Spade 1 Not Fitted

44 15 CNS Steel Jacket 4800 Controllable Pitch High Lift 2 Azimuth

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

Thrust Tunnel Thrust (F) Tunnel (A) Thrust DC type No. of Length Weight No. of

(F) (A) DC (m) (kg) crew

8.4 tonnes 1 350bhp Not Fitted N/A Pacific 36 1 14.4 7490 3

6.7 tonnes 1 590bhp Not Fitted N/A MP11-11 2 11.75 5800 3

8.1 tonnes 1 8.1 tonnes Not Fitted N/A MP11-11 2 11.75 5800 3

8.4 tonnes 1 1095bhp Not Fitted N/A Pacific 36 1 14.4 7490 3

638kw 1 619kw Not Fitted N/A Delta 95 1 9.5 2850 3

2000bhp 1 560bhp Not Fitted N/A Delta 95 1 9.5 2850 3

N/A 1 450bhp Not Fitted N/A Delta Phantom 2 9.4 4584 3

600bhp 1 600bhp 1 600bhp Delta 95 1 9.5 2850 3

550bhp Not N/A Not Fitted N/A Delta 115 2 11.5 4600 3

600bhp 2 600bhp 1 300bhp Delta 95 1 9.5 2850 3

N/A 1 300bhp Not Fitted N/A Delta 95 1 9.5 2850 3

800bhp 2 1600bhp 1 800bhp MP11-11 2 11.75 5800 3

4000bhp 1 Not Fitted N/A MP9-11 1 9.2 4200 3

610bhp Not N/A Not Fitted N/A MP9-11 1 9.2 4200 3

560bhp 1 1500bhp Not Fitted N/A MP9-11 1 9.2 4200 3

735kw 1 515kw Not Fitted N/A MP11-11 2 11.75 5800 3

400bhp 1 400bhp Not Fitted N/A MP9-11 2 9.2 4200 3

735kw 1 515kw Not Fitted N/A MP11-11 2 11.75 5800 3

1400bhp Not N/A 1 800bhp MP9-90 1 9.9 5240 3

N/A 1 700bhp 2 450bhp Delta 95 2 9.5 2850 3

736kw 1 440bhp 1 440kw MP11-11 2 11.75 5800 3

246bhp Not N/A Not Fitted N/A PR30 1 8.3 2350 3

N/A 1 3.5 tonnes Not Fitted N/A PR30 1 8.3 2350 3







900bhp 1 5.0 tonnes Not Fitted N/A PR33 1 9.3 2450 3

PR30 1 8.3 2350 3


PR33 1 9.3 2450 3

N/A 1 160bhp Not Fitted N/A PR30 1 8.3 2350 3

600bhp 2 600bhp 1 313bhp PR33 1 9.3 2450 3


Not N/A Not Fitted N/A PR30 1 8.3 2350 3

N/A 1 500bhp 1 500bhp PR33 1 9.3 2450 3


PR33 1 9.3 2450 3

N/A 1 800bhp Not Fitted N/A PR33 1 9.3 2450 3

N/A 1 5.0 tonnes Not Fitted N/A Delta 95 1 9.5 2850 3


10 tonnes 1 7.0 tonnes Not Fitted N/A Norsafe Munin 2 10 3

29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

Total DC Engine HP Propulsion Speed Range Davit manufacturer No. of

capacity type (knots) (miles) davits

15 Inboard diesel 430 Propellors 25 120 Caley Ocean Systems 1





15 Outboard petrol 230 Propellors 30 100 Hydralift 1


15 Outboard petrol 230 Propellors 30 100 Caley Ocean Systems 1


15 Outboard petrol 230 Propellors 30 100 Caley Ocean Systems 1

15 Outboard petrol 190 Propellors 30 100 Grampian Hydraulics 1

15 Inboard diesel 430 Propellors 32 250 Hydramarine 2

15 Inboard diesel 300 Propellors 33 100 Hydramaskin HMD G60 1






15 Inboard diesel 432 Propellors 30 100 Brittannia C-Master 1

15 Outboard petrol 480 Propellors 30 100 Vestdavit PAP 8000 2

15 Inboard diesel 430 Propellors 32 250 Hydramarine G-Davit 1

15 Outboard petrol 180 Propellors 30 100 Schat Miranda 2




















15 Outboard petrol 230 Propellors 30 100 Hydramaskin 1


15 Inboard diesel 460 Waterjet 30 130 Hydramarine 2

30

Side fitted No. of Davit hook type Hoist height Total time to Total time to

falls (m) Recover (s) lower (s)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

Starboard 1

Port and Starboard 1

Port 1

Starboard 1

Port 1

Port 1


Starboard 1


Port 1

Starboard 1


Port 1

Port 1

Port 1




Port 1


Port 1





Port 3


Port 3

Port 3


Port 3


Starboard 3

Port 3

Starboard 3

Port 2

Port 3

Port 3

Port 2

Port 3

Port 3

Starboard 1

Port 3


Caley

Cranston

Cranston

Caley

Cranston

Cranston

Cranston

Cranston

Cranston

Cranston

Cranston

Cranston/Henrickson

Cranston

Cranston

Crabston

Cranston

Cranston

Cranston

Cranston

Cranston

Cranston

Mills Titan

Mills Titan

Mills Titan

Mills Titan

Mills Titan

Mills Titan

Mills Titan

Mills Titan

Mills Titan

Mills Titan

Mills Titan

Mills Titan

Mills Titan

Mills Titan

Mills Titan

Mills Titan

Mills Titan

Mills Titan

Mills Titan

Mills Titan

Cranston

Mills Titan

Cranston

8

7

8

8

7

7

5

7

6.5

8

6

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

8

8

6

approx 3

approx 3

approx 3

approx 3

approx 3

approx 3

approx 3

approx 3

approx 3

approx 3

approx 3

approx 3

approx 3

approx 3

approx 3

approx 3

approx 3

approx 3

approx 3

approx 3

7

approx 3

6

300

80

70

300

35

17

25

30

42

30

15

20

55

35

35

35

35

35

60

120

30

Not

Not

Not

Not

Not

Not

Not

Not

Not

Not

Not

Not

Not

Not

Not

Not

Not

Not

Not

Not

20

Not

30

180

40

64

180

30

17

40

30

22

30

30

20

60

20

20

15

20

15

>60

120

20

>5

>5

>5

>5

>5

>5

>5

>5

>5

>5

>5

>5

>5

>5

>5

>5

>5

>5

>5

>5

20

>5

25

31

Recovery time Davit type Heave compensation type

1 approx 5 mins Constant Tension Hydraulic Accumulator dampening system

2 60 sec Constant Tension Hydraulic Accumulator dampening system


4 approx 5 mins Constant Tension Hydraulic Accumulator dampening system

5 45 secs Constant Tension Hydraulic Accumulator dampening system

6 24 secs Constant Tension Hydraulic Accumulator dampening system





11 N/A Non Compensated Not fitted

12 45 sec Constant Tension Hydraulic Accumilator dampening system





17 45 sec Constant Tension Hydraulic Accumilator dampaening system


19 60 sec to deck Constant Tension Hydraulic Accumilator dampening system

20 <2 mins Constant Tension Hydraulic Accumulator dampening system


22 Approx 5 mins to deck Non Compensated Not fitted




















42 4 min Constant Tension Hydraulic Accumilator dampening system



32

APPENDIX 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION OF COMMON DC

Maritime Partners MP-1000 FRDC (Fast Rescue Daughter Craft)16

Maritime Partners MP-1211 FPC (Fast Patrol Craft)17



Maritime Partners MP-990 WJ FRDC (Fast Rescue Daughter Craft)20

Delta Power Services 95 BFT Seafire21

Delta Power Services 95 Comet22

Delta Power Services 11523

Delta Power Services 1000 Marine Access Craft24

Norsafe Munin 1000 and 1200 DC25

Halmatic P-3826

16 Information courtesy of Maritime Partners A/S 17 Information courtesy of Maritime Partners A/S 18 Information courtesy of Maritime Partners A/S 19 Information courtesy of Maritime Partners A/S 20 Information courtesy of Maritime Partners A/S 21 Information courtesy of Delta Power Services 22 Information courtesy of Delta Power Services 23 Information courtesy of Delta Power Services 24 Information courtesy of Delta Power Services 25 Information courtesy of Norsafe A/S 26 Information courtesy of VT Group plc

33

MP-1000 FRDC

MP-1000 FRDC (Fast Rescue Daughter Craft) is designed,

built and equipped to comply with MCA’s regulations for

such vessel as well as The Norwegian Maritime Directorate’s

requirements for Fast Rescue Craft for Offshore units.

The hull is built of marine aluminium and is of a fully

planning type with a deep V-bottom construction, suitable for

high speeds. The superstructure is made either by marine

aluminium or GRP sandwich construction. The

superstructure provides shelter and seating for six persons

and one stretcher.

MP-1000 FRDC is built to give maximum safety for the

crew and is self righting. It is installed with twin inboard

diesel engines and duoprop stern drive for the best

manoeuvring features. The craft is equipped with a lifting

arrangement with an approved release hook for safe launch

and recovery from the mother vessel/oil rig. The hull is filled

with special foam with closed cells, and this makes the boat

unsinkable. The strength of the hull and superstructure is

sufficient to withstand all normal forces encountered under

normal use offshore at maximum boat speed. The

superstructure can be customised to carry up 26 persons.MP-

1000 can also be delivered with water jet propulsion in model

MP-1000WJ FRDC.

Technical data:

Overall length: 10.00 metres

Length hull: 8.96 metres

Breadth extreme: 3.50 metres

Breadth hull: 2.92 metres

Draught: 0.70 metres

Weight empty: 5250 kgs

Davit load with 18 persons: 6900 kgs

Max speed with 3 crew: 31-32 knots

Engine: Std: Twin VOLVO KAD 32 P - 170 hp

Alt: Up to 340 hp

Propulsion: Std: Duoprop Stern Drives

Alt: Other approved water jets

Materials:

Hull made of marine aluminium.

The hull is filled with expanded polyurethane

foam.

Superstructure made of GRP, aluminium option.

The fender is made of special foam, and

protected with tailor-made PVC cover.

Lifting arrangement is made of high quality

steel, fitted with approved off-load release hook.

34

MP-1211 FPC

MP-1211 Fast Patrol Craft (FPC) is designed, built and

equipped to comply with MCA’s regulations for work boats or

similar national regulations.

MP-1211 is built of marine aluminium and is of a fully planning

type with a deep V-bottom construction, suitable for high

speeds. The hull is equipped with a special foam with closed

cells, and this makes the boat unsinkable. The strength of the

hull and superstructure is sufficient to withstand all normal

forces encountered under normal use offshore at maximum boat

speed. It is installed with twin inboard diesel engines and

waterjets for the best manoeuvring features.

MP-1211 is built to set a new standard for this type of craft, and

is self righting. The superstructure is made in GRP sandwich

construction, and provides in standard version seating for 4

persons in the wheelhouse, with capacity for more people in the

front cabin. The superstructure can be customised to carry up 26

persons and with adaptable interior layout and equipment:

Refrigerator, cooker, microwave oven, sink, lockers, toilet and

sleeping facilities.

MP-1211 can also be delivered as Fast Rescue Daughter Craft

(FRDC).

Technical data:






Max speed service weight: 34-35 knots

Engine: Std: 2 x Yanmar 6LYA-STE - 340 hp

Alt: Other approved engines

Propulsion: Std: Waterjet Hamilton HJ274

Alt: Other approved water jets

Materials:


The hull is filled with expanded

polyurethane foam.

Superstructure made of GRP, aluminium

option.

The fender is made of special foam

and protected with tailor-made PVC cover.

35

MP-1111 FRDC










and one stretcher.

MP-1111 FRDC is built to give maximum safety for the

crew and is self righting. It is installed with twin inboard

diesel engines and duoprop stern drive for the best

manoeuvring features. The craft is equipped with a lifting

arrangement with an approved release hook for safe launch

and recovery from the mother vessel/oil rig. The hull is filled

with special foam with closed cells, and this makes the boat

unsinkable. The strength of the hull and superstructure is

sufficient to withstand all normal forces encountered under

normal use offshore at maximum boat speed. The

superstructure can be customised to carry up 26 persons.

MP-1111 can also be delivered with water jet propulsion in

model MP-1111WJ FRDC.

Technical data:








Max speed with 3 persons: 38-40 knots

Engine: Std: 2 x VOLVO KAD 44 - 243 hp

Alt: Other approved engines of 170-340 hp

Propulsion: Std: Duoprop Stern Drives

Alt: Other approved water jet units

Materials:



foam.






36

MP-911 FRDC










and one stretcher.

MP-911 FRDC is built to give maximum safety for the crew

and is self righting. It is installed with twin inboard diesel

engines and duoprop stern drive for the best manoeuvring

features. The craft is equipped with a lifting arrangement

with an approved release hook for safe launch and recovery

from the mother vessel/oil rig. The hull is filled with special

foam with closed cells, and this makes the boat unsinkable.

The strength of the hull and superstructure is sufficient to

withstand all normal forces encountered under normal use

offshore at maximum boat speed.

Technical data:









Engine: Std: Twin VOLVO AD31P/DP


Propulsion: Std: VOLVO PENTA Duoprop

Materials:



foam.






37

MP-990 WJ FRDC

MP-990 WJ FRDC (Fast Rescue Daughter Craft) is designed, built

and equipped to comply with MCA’s regulations for such vessel as

well as The Norwegian Maritime Directorate’s requirements for

Fast Rescue Craft for Offshore units.

The hull is built of marine aluminium and is of a fully planning type

with a deep V-bottom construction, suitable for high speeds. The

superstructure is made either by marine aluminium or GRP

sandwich construction. The superstructure provides shelter and

seating for six persons and one stretcher.

MP-990 WJ FRDC is built to give maximum safety for the crew

and is self righting. It is installed with twin inboard diesel engines

and waterjets for the best manoeuvring features. The craft is

equipped with a lifting arrangement with an approved release hook

for safe launch and recovery from the mother vessel/oil rig. The hull

is filled with special foam with closed cells, and this makes the boat

unsinkable. The strength of the hull and superstructure is sufficient

to withstand all normal forces encountered under normal use

offshore at maximum boat speed.

Technical data:









Engine: Std: Twin Yanmar 4LHA-STP - 222 hp


Propulsion: Std: Hamilton HJ241

Alt: Other approved waterjets.

Materials:


The hull is filled with expanded

polyurethane foam.

Superstructure made of GRP,

aluminium option.

The fender is made of special foam

and protected with tailor-made PVC cover.

Lifting arrangement is made of high

quality steel, fitted with approved

off-load release hook.

38

DELTA POWER SERVICES 95 COMET

40

DELTA POWER SERVICES 1000 MARINE ACCESS CRAFT

42

HALMATIC P-38

Typical applications include standby vessel daughter craft, sea fisheries patrol boats, search and

rescue craft, super-yacht tenders and lighthouse and buoy tenders.

Principal Particulars

LOA (m) 11.50

Beam (m) 3.60

Draft (m) 0.60

Speed (knots) 25 - 40

Range (Nm) 300

44

APPENDIX 3 REQUIREMENTS FOR LOAD LINE EXEMPTION

Statutory Instrument 1998 No. 2241

The Merchant Shipping (Load Line) Regulations 1998

In general, these Regulations apply to United Kingdom ships wherever they may be and to other

ships while they are within United Kingdom waters, except - (a) ships of war; (b) ships solely

engaged in fishing; (c) pleasure vessels; (d) ships which do not go to sea; and (e) ships under 80

tons register engaged solely in the coasting trade and not carrying cargo. However, the

Regulations also make provision for certain exemptions as detailed below.

Exemptions

5. (1) Subject to paragraph (4) below the Secretary of State may exempt from these

Regulations

(a) any ship which embodies features of a novel kind if the development of those features

and their incorporation in ships engaged on international voyages might be seriously

impeded if the ship had to comply with all the requirements of these Regulations.

(b) any ship plying on international voyages between near neighbouring ports if –

(ii) in his opinion the sheltered nature and condition of the voyages makes it

unreasonable or impracticable to apply these Regulations; and

(ii) he is satisfied the Government of the other country (or, as the case may be, of each

of the other countries) concurs in that opinion.

(2) Subject to paragraph (4) below the Secretary of State may exempt from these

Regulations:

(a) a ship which is not a Convention-size ship;

(b) any other ship which does not ply on international voyages.

(3) Subject to paragraph (4) below, where a United Kingdom ship does not normally ply on

international voyages but is, in exceptional circumstances, required to undertake a single

international voyage, the Secretary of State may exempt the ship while engaged on that

voyage.

(4) Any exemption conferred under this regulation may be conferred subject to such conditions

as the Secretary of State thinks fit; and, where any such exemption is conferred subject to

conditions, the exemption shall not have effect unless those conditions are complied with.

45

APPENDIX 4 ALBUM OF DAUGHTER CRAFT IN ACTION

“Maersk Don” with MP-1111 DC27

“Havila Tigris” with MP-1111 DC28

Koninklijke Nederlandse Redding Maatschappij (KNRM) “Valentijn 2000”29




27 Photograph courtesy of Ken Robson 28 Photograph courtesy of Ken Robson 29 Photograph courtesy of Koninklijke Nederlandse Redding Maatschappij (KNRM) 30 Photograph courtesy of Koninklijke Nederlandse Redding Maatschappij (KNRM) 31 Photograph courtesy of Koninklijke Nederlandse Redding Maatschappij (KNRM) 32 Photograph courtesy of Koninklijke Nederlandse Redding Maatschappij (KNRM)

46

“Maersk Don” with MP-1111 DC

“Havila Tigris” with MP-1111 DC

47

Koninklijke Nederlandse Redding Maatschappij (KNRM) “Valentijn 2000”


48



49

Printed and published by the Health and Safety ExecutiveC30 1/98

Printed and published by the Health and Safety Executive C0.06 06/05

ISBN 0-7176-2932-5

RR 307

78071 7 629329£20.00 9

RESEARCH REPORT 307 - Health and Safety Executive · RESEARCH REPORT 307. HSE Health & Safety...

Documents

Transcript of RESEARCH REPORT 307 - Health and Safety Executive · RESEARCH REPORT 307. HSE Health & Safety...