Report on rigging regulations charter fleet

Conoship International was recently commissioned by the Environment and Transport Inspectorate (ILT) to investigate the rigging of the ships of the ‘brown fleet’, following a number of serious incidents in which rigging components broke down.

Both Conoship investigators critically assessed the current ES-TRIN standards (the European Technical Regulations for Inland Navigation Vessels). The aim was to “Assess whether these standards are sufficient to ensure safety and practical applicability for the diverse fleet of historic sailing vessels.”

Main findings and recommendations for:

1. Comprehensive tables for rigging components: New strength-based criteria have been developed to fill gaps in the ES-TRIN tables for spars such as masts, booms and gaffs.
2. Proposed new standards:
   1. Staysail booms and yards: No specific rules currently exist; the report introduces mathematical models to determine safe dimensions.
   2. Wishbone gaffs: Due to their varying configurations, a case-by-case technical assessment is recommended rather than a general rule.
3. Standing rigging:
   1. For vessels that deviate from the prescribed number of stays, analyses show that safety is still undisputed, provided strength requirements are met.
   2. Small vessels (<30 m³ displacement) were found to be safely eligible for reduced rigging strength, confirming existing ES-TRIN approvals.
4. Running rigging
   1. ES-TRIN, in some cases, recommends more than six sheaves in a hoist. This proves rather impractical; the study recommends a maximum of six sheaves to improve handling without compromising safety.

Impact

The findings, according to the rapporteurs, “help fill critical regulatory gaps, replace outdated assumptions with calculations and better align regulatory standards with the practice of sailing and maintaining the Dutch charter fleet. The proposed adjustments are expected to improve both safety and operational feasibility.”

The full report can be downloaded from ILT’s website.
The report is only available in Dutch.

Source: Conoship

Editor’s comment:

Anyone reading the report will see that Conoship has obediently complied with ILT’s instruction to provide a place in the regulations for the rigging elements missing in ES-TRIN. However, not based on practice, as you would expect: if you have to add something new, you’d better do it right. And that means including all expert input, and making new calculations based on thorough risk analyses.

Trainee

But practice seems not te be in favor at ILT. This is probably why Conoship has merely relied on the same old assumptions used for the ES-TRIN, even though they have been shown to be inadequate. Existing charts and tables have simply been extrapolated to larger sizes and other components. Practice plays no role in all this, and is, by all appearances, even distrusted. For how else to explain that the expertise of rig masters and inspection authorities, which has been brought in several times, is nowhere to be found?
The rapporteurs speak highly of the contribution of a trainee, with some experience on the brown fleet. About the many hundreds of hours put in by the BBZ, fed by expert members, the inspection authorities and individual experts like Marijke de Jong: not a word.

Wrong calculations

So, it appears that all that information was hardly used. One example is how the forces on a staysail boom, which was missing from the ES-TRIN, are presented. Conoship’s calculators assume that, when setting the boom out on a downwind course, you put maximum tension on both the lazy guy and the sheet, and that the resulting twisting and bending loads determine how heavy that boom should be. Did you ever sail, gentlemen? Apparently not.

And this is just one example. Similar criticisms can be made of the texts on yards. In many places, the report breathes the spirit of the desk jockey who never had his nose in the wind. And that is very disappointing, because these are parts that are quite important. Just putting some vectors in a drawing behind the desk will not make ships any safer, and in some points arguably even less safe. In short: a missed opportunity.

Distrust

One would hope they would know better at ILT by now. The draconian extra rig inspection already did not make it easy to get the field enthusiastically involved in safer sailing, even though its importance is widely felt. This report is not a good follow-up, because it shows how much the government has come to distrust the field’s expertise.

Is everything in the report nonsense? Certainly not. But the very points where it is so blatantly wrong determine the judgement of those who will soon have to work with it. Noting the distrust of ILT, the Zeepost and Windassist editors would not be surprised if the professionals will soon have no confidence in ILT either. Because it is now doing exactly what it accuses the field of: that the professed focus on safety is insufficiently realised. Well now! Take a look in the mirror!

Windassist sponsor