MINUTES OF THE 6TH 15-24 METRE CODE MEETING, HELD ON WEDNESDAY, 14TH JANUARY 2004 IN THE NOVOTEL, SOUTHAMPTON:
Present:
1. Introduction and apologies:
1.1 The Chairman welcomed everyone and introduced the new members to the Group. Apologies were received from: Tony Rae and George Traves (NFFO); Jim Evans (SFF); Alan Dean (SFIA) and Dick James (NIFF). 1.2 The Chairman explained that the plan was to approve the amendments suggested in the draft provided for the meeting and to identify other areas of the code that could be addressed at this stage, rather than to conduct a full review. A full review would follow at a later date to be agreed by the Group. The Chairman proposed that each chapter of the code be considered in turn 2. Discussion of Amendments to Code:
2.1 The Chairman reminded the Group that the code had only been in operation for 14 months, during which time, suggested amendments, errors and information had been noted and where appropriate, the Code revision takes these into account. Deleted text was shown on the right-hand side of the code and additions had been underlined. The key changes, bar standard formatting updates, appeared on pages: 7, 13, 19, 24, 38, 42, 55, 60, 66, 68, 87, 94, 97, 101, 102, 103 and 104. The covering MSN 1770(F) had been deleted pending the production of a replacement Notice. The Chairman recommended to the Group that the amendments be adopted.
2.2 Unless otherwise specified in these minutes, the changes were adopted by the Group.
2.3 CHAPTER 1: (GENERAL)
The Chairman then asked the Group for any comments on Chapter One. It was noted that the Code supplied had pages 7 and 8 reversed.
ACTION 1: Pages 7 and 8: Order to be reversed.
Para. 1.1.6 Bill Wood and Bill Farquhar observed the addition of the references to radio regulations and the relevant Statutory Instruments and a discussion ensued. The MCA decided to follow this up outside the forum of the meeting.
ACTION 2: Para. 1.1.6 MCA to contact Bill Wood and Bill Farquhar for further discussion and consideration regarding the 99 Radio Regulations.
Para. 1.2.13 Bill Farquhar questioned the need for crew accommodation to be defined within the text. Following discussion, the Group decided that the definition was not necessary and the reference could be removed by deleting paragraph 1.2.13.
ACTION 3: Para. 1.2.13 MCA to remove reference to “crew accommodation” by deleting paragraph 1.2.13 as agreed by the Group.
Para. 1.2.14 The definition of “Deadship condition was debated. Cedric Loughran suggested the phrase “absence of starting power” be replaced with: “due to the absence of rotation”. Following discussion, the Group decided the existing wording should stand.
Para. 1.2.26 Rod Watts queried the definition of “Freeboard” shown in the text and a discussion took place with Ron Drysdale contributing on behalf of the MCA and its’ technical experts. The Group agreed that the existing wording should stand.
Para. 1.2.28 Bill Farqhuar enquired about the context of the word “independent” in the text. Richard Williams explained that this wording had come about as a result of a MAIB report into an electrical failure on board a sinking vessel that had immobilised the vessel’s bilge pumps. A discussion ensued, resulting in Cedric Loughran recommending revised/additional wording as follows to reflect the need for separately wired equipment.
ACTION 4: Para. 1.2.28: MCA to include after “work independently through a different” powersupply or switch board”. Wording to be considered and finalised by the MCA.
Para. 1.3.5.2 The requirement for the surveyor to provide the MCA with a declaration of survey and a record of particulars on completion of a survey should only apply to fishing vessels that are ‘new builds’. This was noted by the Group.
Para. 1.3.5.4 John Kearney queried the wording and scope of this paragraph concerning the repair, modification, or alteration, to an existing vessel to meet the standards set by the Certifying Authority. The MCA clarified the paragraph and its’ requirements and the Group agreed that the wording would stand.
Para. 1.3.8.4.1 Bill Farquhar queried this section and Ron Drysdale (MCA) responded that if the vessel remained in class the MCA would not carry out periodic surveys. However, if the vessel should drop out of class the UK Fishing Vessel Certificate would need to be cancelled until surveys had been undertaken with a satisfactory outcome.
ACTION 5: MCA to consider further clarification of wording of paragraph 1.3.8.4.1 (viii).
Para. 1.3.11.1 The Fishing Industry representatives felt that the reference within this paragraph to delegation of surveys by the MCA under agreement with Classification Societies, should not have been deleted. After consideration, Ron Drysdale, of the MCA, agreed with the Fishing Industry representatives and the Group decided that the deleted text should be reinstated.
ACTION 6: Para. 1.3.11.1: MCA to reinstate the following deleted text: “.. as delegated by MCA under agreement with Classification Societies” and to consider whether further clarification is appropriate in the light of discussions.
Para. 1.3.14.2 Bill Wood expressed concern about the clarity of this paragraph, in particular, the wording: “.. which should remain in force for 5 years from the date of completion of the previous survey”. Following discussion, it was agreed by the meeting that the text should stand.
2.4 CHAPTER 2: CONSTRUCTION AND WATERTIGHT INTEGRITY:
Para. 2.2.1.5 Pat Bonner and Bill Wood expressed the view that this paragraph concerning the drainage of water where wheelhouses are fitted over structures above the freeboard deck, should be deleted, as it was not necessary or appropriate. Following discussion, the meeting agreed.
ACTION 7: MCA to delete paragraph 2.2.1.5 concerning water drainage where wheelhouses are fitted over structures above the freeboard deck.
Para. 2.2.5.2 Arthur Copeland raised concerns about the wording of this paragraph regarding the positioning of side scuttles in relation to the freeboard deck and the waterline. Following discussion, the Group agreed that the paragraph should be reworded to clarify that it applied to existing vessels only.
ACTION 8: MCA to reword para. 2.2.5.2 so that it applies to existing vessels only.
Para. 2.2.6.5 The practicalities of operating the valves from floor plate level in an emergency or evacuation situation were debated. Ron Drysdale acknowledged to the Industry and the MCA that it was an important issue and would merit a separate discussion at the Technical Group Meeting. It was not within the remit of the Code Meeting to resolve. On balance, the Group agreed that the paragraph content should stand for the present, but be referred to the Technical Group for consideration.
ACTION 9: The Technical group are to consider the content and wording of paragraph 2.2.6.5 in relation to the practicalities of operating valves at floor plate level during an emergency situation or evacuation.
ACTION 10: Para. 2.2.7.4 - MCA to correct typing error (wrkplaces).
2.5 CHAPTER 3: STABILITY AND FREEBOARD:
Para. 3.1.1.5 Alan Piggott sought clarification of this paragraph concerning measures the skipper should take to ensure stability of the fishing vessel. He expressed the view that fishermen would benefit from more detailed guidance as to how to stow their catch in order to prevent it shifting with vessel movement. The Group agreed.
ACTION 11: Para. 3.1.1.5 - MCA to draft a more in-depth explanation for the benefit of fishermen about stowing their catch so that the cargo does not shift due to the movement of the vessel.
Para. 3.1.5.3 This paragraph only applies to Beam Trawlers. A discussion between the Industry and the MCA took place about lifting operations and the stability aspects. Pat Bonner felt that the test required was not practical. Bill Wood recommended that the subject should be looked into separately at the next Stability Group Meeting as the text needed clarification. The Group agreed.
ACTION 12: MCA to table discussion of lifting operations and stability aspects for inclusion at the next Stability Group Meeting.
2.6 CHAPTER 4: MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL INSTALLATIONS:
Para. 4.1.11.1 John Kearney enquired about the suitability of stainless steel for sea water piping, noting that it had not been included in the list of approved materials. Arthur Copeland and Ron Drysdale explained that there were problems with including stainless steel, as there were many grades of stainless steel that would not be suitable for use in seawater conditions. For example, there were manufacturers who marketed food grade stainless steel as suitable for seawater use when it was not, in fact, compatible.
Bill Wood proposed and the Group agreed that this paragraph should be left open pending the outcome of the Technical Group Meeting on 15th January 2004.
ACTION 13: MCA to consider the content of paragraph 4.1.11.1 of the 15-24 metres Code in light of the Technical Group meeting outcome on 15th January 2004.
Para. 4.1.13 Bill Wood expressed the view that more emphasis should be placed on oil fuel arrangements. A discussion ensued; however, the consensus of opinion was that the text should stand without alteration.
Para. 4.1.13.12 Bill Wood felt that the MCA should distinguish between existing and new vessels as it appeared that no distinction had been made in the text. In discussion, the MCA clarified that the text in italics already applied to existing vessels from the 1975 rules. The Group decided that this text should, in fact, apply to all vessels. The sentence, below, in bold type: “It is recommended that existing vessels are fitted with such an arrangement” should be deleted.
ACTION 14: MCA to convert text at paragraph 4.1.13.12 from italics to normal text and to expand the text to clarify that it applies to new AND existing vessels. MCA to delete the sentence below that is shown in bold text: “It is recommended that existing vessels are fitted with such an arrangement”.
Para. 4.2.4.2 Alan Piggott enquired whether the stroboscopic effect of fluorescent lighting had proved to be a problem. Cedric Loughran confirmed that it had the effect of distorting images and vision in certain conditions and thus, the code must draw the attention of vessel owners and boat builders to this potential safety issue. It was agreed by the Group that references to stroboscopic effect lighting should be moved to paragraph 6.1.9.
ACTION 15: MCA to expand sentence after “… be avoided” by adding “near machinery” and move content of 4.2.44 for inclusion in section 6.1.9, concerning: “Natural and Artificial Lighting of Workplaces”. Look at numbering and location of existing paragraph 4.2.4.5.
Para. 4.3.2.1(iii) Industry queried the deletion and replacement of the original text concerning the pumping arrangements for weathertight compartments where wet fish processing takes place. In discussion, the MCA agreed to reinstate the original wording and to incorporate guidance to explain the meaning of “sufficient freeboard” in the context of this paragraph, so that fishermen have clear guidelines to follow.
ACTION 16: Para.4.3.2.1 iii: MCA to reinstate the wording deleted from this paragraph and to look at draft instructions to Surveyors and incorporate guidance concerning “sufficient freeboard”.
4.3.2.2 Pat Bonner initiated a discussion about the wording concerning bilge pumps. He wanted to simplify the formula for calculating the capacity of bilge pumps. It was agreed by the Group that Bill Wood and Pat Bonner would collaborate outside of the meeting and provide further comments for possible inclusion in the Code.
ACTION 17: Bill Wood and Pat Bonner to provide comments/wording for the MCA to consider for inclusion in the Code at paragraph 4.3.2.2.
4.4.4.2 A discussion took place about the requirements for and the logistics in the use of anchors and cables. Ramiro Pereda outlined the background to the wording in the Code for Bill Farquhar. The Group agreed that the text which states that Table 1 on page 68, refers only to bow anchors and the additional text at paragraph 4.4.4.2, should be deleted.
ACTION 18: MCA to delete references to bow anchors only page 68 and to delete the following text from paragraph 4.4.4.2: “… and this should be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the surveyor”.
2.7 CHAPTER 5: FIRE PROTECTION, DETECTION AND EXTINCTION:
Para. 5.1.1.6 This paragraph states that the support structure to linings and ceilings, etc. should be made of non-combustible material unless this is not practical, in which case, the structure should be treated with a suitable fire retardant treatment. The Group considered whether a more detailed description was appropriate and concluded that the wording should stand to allow for some flexibility within the guidelines.
Para. 5.1.6.1 (ii) The Group considered the need for, and the practicalities of using fixed fire extinguishing appliances to fight fires in the galleys of fishing vessels. The Group took into account the different sizes, standards and ages of existing and new vessels. It was acknowledged that a fire started in the galley could be discovered by fishermen outside of the galley and thus to enter the galley in order to use a fixed appliance would put lives at risk. The merits and practicalities of locating mobile fire extinguishers outside the galley were considered. In conclusion, the meeting agreed that the MCA should expand and clarify the text to make fishermen aware of the various scenarios and the need to be able to contain and extinguish a fire without putting lives at risk by entering or re-entering the galley.
ACTION 19: MCA (including the Technical Surveyors) to produce more detailed, revised wording for the benefit of fishermen, to paragraph 5.1.6 of the Code.
Para. 5.1.6 1 iii Ramiro Pereda requested that the scientific formula for both references to metres be shown in the Code. The Chairman agreed this request.
ACTION 20: MCA to include the scientific formula for both references to metres within the code at paragraph 5.1.6.1 (iii).
Para. 5.1.6.2 Discussions took place about requirements for fire extinguishing equipment and the suitability of the different types of extinguisher currently marketed and fitted to fishing vessels. The Group debated whether the text should be revised, however, it was decided by the Chairman that the existing text should stand.
Para. 5.1.6.3.2(i) Ramiro Pereda queried the wording concerning escape routes and the “nature and location of the space” in relation to work and accommodation areas. The group agreed that the text be expanded to include “… and arrangement ” ... of the space. The sentence would read: “only one means of escape may be provided where this is considered to be adequate by the Certifying Authority having due regard to the nature and location and arrangement of the space and the number of persons who might be accommodated or employed there.”
ACTION 21: Para. 5.1.6.3.2 (i) MCA to add to text after “... location” “andarrangement” “of the space”. Thus, the sentence should read: “only one means of escape may be provided where this is considered to be adequate by the Certifying Authority having due regard to the nature and location and arrangement of the space and the number of persons who might be accommodated or employed there.”
5.1.8.3. The Group discussed this section of the Code and agreed that the MCA would check the 75 Rules in relation to oil fuel installations for new and existing vessels.
ACTION 22: MCA to check the 75 Rules and to review paragraph 5.1.8.3 in the light of the 75 Rules.
Para. 5.1.8.4.12 Ramiro Pereda requested that the chemical symbol for Carbon Monoxide be included in the text. The Chairman agreed.
ACTION 23: MCA to include the chemical symbol for Carbon Monoxide in the text at paragraph 5.1.8.4.12.
5.1.8.4.14 Cedric Loughran proposed that reference should be made to two shutdown devices to clarify the meaning of this paragraph. The Group agreed that the wording should be changed and expanded as per the action point below to clarify the guidance given.
ACTION 24: MCA to expand para. 5.1.8.4.14 and to revise existing wording as follows: “However, shut down devices, one operated by the alarm stated in section 5.1.8.4.10, may be ….”
2.8 CHAPTER 6: PROTECTION OF THE CREW:
Para. 6.1.3.2 In Group discussion, it was agreed that the reference to the height of the bulwarks for vessels constructed before 23 November 1995 was not practical. The Group agreed that the MCA’s Technical Officers would consider changing the text to cover the total height of the bulwarks on existing vessels.
ACTION 25: MCA Technical Officers to look at changing the text at paragraph 6.1.3.2. to take into account the total height of the bulwarks on existing vessels.
Para. 6.1.6.2 MCA drew the Group’s attention to the inclusion of EU regulatory references within this paragraph and the LOLER and POULER regulations that were being worked on and had almost been finalised. Should these latter regulations be in place by the publication date of the Code, the current regulatory references would be removed. Discussions would take place at the Technical Group Meeting on 15th January 2004.
ACTION 26: Robb Bailey (MCA Technical Group) and Dave Fenner to follow-up on the Loler and Pouler regulations. Should these regulations be in place by the publication date of the Code, the current regulatory references at paragraph 6.1.6.2 would be removed by the MCA.
Para. 6.1.7 The ventilation of enclosed workplaces was discussed and the content and wording of the Code considered. In conclusion, the Group agreed that the use of the existing word “sufficient” within the text was adequate, allowing room for appropriate interpretation within the usual Health and Safety at Work Act Regulations governing employers and workplaces.
Para. 6.3.1. Upon enquiry about the new MSN 1768, Bill Wood was advised that Medical Stores and Health and Safety issues came under the remit of Mary Martin at the MCA, whom he might wish to contact for further details.
2.9 CHAPTER 7: LIFE-SAVING APPLIANCES:
Discussions took place concerning paragraphs 7.1.1 and 7.1.2. It was agreed by the meeting that Ron Drysdale and Bill Wood would consider the appropriate place within paragraph 7.1.2.1 (i) to insert “except beam trawlers”.
ACTION 27: Ron Drysdale and Bill Wood to advise on the inclusion of the wording: “except beam trawlers” within paragraph 7.1.2.1 (i).
2.10 CHAPTER 8: EMERGENCY PROCEDURES:
This Chapter was approved by the Group without any further alterations.
2.11 CHAPTER 9: COMMUNICATIONS AND NAVIGATION:
Para. 9.3.3 Discussion took place concerning the phrase: “a sound reception system” and precisely what this meant. MCA clarified that this meant windows. In conclusion, it was agreed that the wording should be made more descriptive by altering it to read: “When the ship’s bridge is totally enclosed, “ the officerin charge should be able to hear sound signals…”
ACTION 28: MCA to reword paragraph 9.3.3 as agreed text: “When the ship’s bridge is totally enclosed, “ the officerin charge should be able to hear sound signals…”
Para. 9.4.1.2 The meeting agreed that “other navigational equipment” could, in fact, be a hand held compass. This would be deemed sufficient for MCA certifying purposes. The Group concluded that the text should stand.
Para. 9.4.3.4 The Group debated the intended deletion of this paragraph and also the requirement for paper charts in addition to “electronic means”. Ramiro Pereda clarified to the Group that the requirements expressed here were International requirements and not MCA initiated. Cedric Loughran outlined the type of “paper charts” and the level of detail he would expect to see when making inspections and it was acknowledged by the Group that international legislation must be complied with. The Group therefore, decided that the text marked for deletion should be reinstated and the final words: “..for safe navigation” be replaced by: “..to get back to safe haven”.
ACTION 29: MCA to discuss paragraph 9.4.3.4 at the Radio and Navigation Group and to reinstate paragraph 9.4.3.4, replacing the final words: “.. for safe navigation” with: “..to get back to safe haven”.
2.12 CHAPTER 10: CREW ACCOMMODATION:
This Chapter was agreed as it stands. The Group did, however, observe that some small and some old fishing vessels would have more primitive toilet and hygiene arrangements.
2.13 CHAPTER 11: CLEAN SEAS:
This Chapter was agreed as it stands. General discussions took place regarding the absence of holding tanks in some newly built fishing vessels and what constituted “garbage”. It was confirmed that under the MARPOL regulations, fish waste could be thrown over the side although other ‘food products’ could not be disposed of in this way.
2.14 ANNEXES: These were agreed by the Group. It was noted that the deliberations of the Stability Group may, in time, affect Annex 3.
2.15 CONCLUSION:
2.15.1 In conclusion, the Chairman invited general comments about the Code from the Group members. George Geddes enquired about the intended target audience and asked if the Code could be made more user-friendly in the way it is worded and presented so that fishermen will actually read the Code.
2.15.2 MCA confirmed that the target audience is everyone connected with the fishing industry, from the boat designers and builders to the fishermen and surveyors. It would therefore, be difficult, without diluting essential detail and losing clarity, to simplify it in style and content, bearing in mind the code has already been pared down with each redraft.
2.15.3 On balance it was suggested and agreed in principle, that another, additional means of communicating the main points for fishermen would be investigated. Ideas discussed included a summary of the key aspects (but not a guidance note) or a short video presentation.
ACTION 30: MCA agreed to look at potential formats for a simple summary of the key aspects of the Code for the fishing industry. 3. Consultation on Revised Code:
3.1 The Chairman advised the meeting that a revised code, with the usual comments, would be circulated to the Fishing Industry for comment in three weeks’ time. The Industry would be given one month in which to feedback their comments to the MCA for inclusion in the revised Code. 4. Any Other Business:
4.1 Ramiro Pereda updated the Group on progress being made at International level in respect of maritime and fishing industry guidance and legislation.
4.2 The IMO was reviewing the 12-24 meters fishing vessel document with a view to producing guidelines, instead of regulations. The IMO intended to approve the guide in September 2004. Ramiro could be contacted for further details and updates.
4.3 The ILO was to hold a meeting in May 2004 to prepare for a large meeting in two years’ time concerning maritime issues.
4.4 The EU was not currently producing much maritime legislation that would affect the United Kingdom or its’ fishing industry. Ramiro concluded that he was happy for Group members to contact him for any further updates or enquiries. 5. Date of Next Meeting:
5.1 The Chairman said that this would be considered at a later date, if a further meeting was deemed appropriate.
5.2 The Chairman closed the meeting by thanking everyone for attending. |