3 General

3.1 Education and training

3.1.1 Plan approval of staff engaged in damage stability verification of new oil tankers, chemical tankers and gas carriers should have as minimum the following formal educational background:

.1 a degree or equivalent from a tertiary institution recognized within the field of marine engineering or naval architecture; and
.2 competent in the English language commensurate with their work.

3.1.2 Plan approval of staff engaged in damage stability verification of new oil tankers, chemical tankers and gas carriers should be trained according to theoretical and practical modules defined by the Administration or recognized organization (RO) acting on its behalf, to acquire and develop general knowledge and understanding applicable to the above-mentioned types of ship and stability assessment according to the IMO instruments referred to in section 2 above.

3.1.3 Methods of training may include monitoring, testing, etc. on a regular basis according to the Administration or RO's system. Evidence of training provided should be documented.

3.1.4 Updating of qualification may be done through the following methods:

.1 self-study;
.2 extraordinary seminars in case of significant changes in the international conventions, codes, etc.; and
.3 special training on specific work, which is determined by a long absence of practical experience.

3.1.5 Maintenance of qualification should be verified at annual performance review.

3.2 Scope of stability verification

3.2.1 The scope of damage stability verification is determined by the required damage stability standards (applicable damage stability criteria) and aims at providing the ship's master with a sufficient number of approved loading conditions to be used for the loading of the ship. In general, for non-approved loading conditions (by the Administration or RO acting on its behalf), approved KG/GM limit curve(s) or approved stability instrument software satisfying the stability requirements (intact and damage) for the draught range to be covered, should be used to verify compliance on board.

3.2.2 Within the scope of the verification determined as per the above, all damage scenarios specified by the relevant regulations should be determined and assessed, taking into account the damage stability criteria.

3.2.3 Damage stability verification and approval requires a review of submitted calculations and supporting documentation with independent check calculations to confirm that damage stability calculation results comply with relevant stability criteria.

3.2.4 Examination and approval of the stability instrument software installed on board (and to be used for assessing intact and damage stability) should also be carried out. A stability instrument comprises hardware and software. The accuracy of the computation results and actual ship data used by the software is to be verified.

3.3 Assumptions

3.3.1 For all loading conditions, the initial metacentric height and the righting lever curve should be corrected for the effect of free surfaces of liquids in tanks.

3.3.2 Superstructures and deckhouses not regarded as enclosed can be taken into account in stability calculations up to the angle at which their openings are flooded. Flooding points (including windows) incapable of weathertight closure are to be included in any list determined in accordance with paragraph 3.4.2.6. Full compliance with residual stability criteria must be achieved before any such point becomes immersed.

3.3.3 When determining the righting lever (GZ) of the residual stability curve, the constant displacement (lost buoyancy) method of calculation should be used (see section 6.1).

3.3.4 Conditions of loading and instructions provided by the submitter for use of the applicable KG/GM limit curve(s) and variation of loading patterns and representative cargoes are taken to be representative of how the ship will be operated.

3.4 Documentation to be submitted for review

3.4.1 Presentation of documents

The documentation should begin with the following details: principal dimensions, ship type, designation of intact conditions, designation of damage conditions and pertinent damaged compartments, KG/GM limit curve(s).

3.4.2 General documents and supporting information

.1 lines plan, plotted or numerically;
.2 hydrostatic data and cross curves of stability (including drawing of the buoyant hull);
.3 definition of watertight compartments with moulded volumes, centres of gravity and permeability;
.4 layout plan (watertight integrity plan) for the watertight compartments with all internal and external opening points including their connected sub-compartments, and particulars used in measuring the spaces, such as general arrangement plan and tank plan;
.5 Stability Booklet/Loading Manual including at least fully loaded homogeneous condition at summer load line draught (departure and arrival) and other intended operational conditions^footnote;
.6 coordinates of opening points with their level of tightness (e.g. weathertight, unprotected)^footnote, including reference to the compartment that the opening is connected to;
.7 watertight door location;
.8 cross- and down-flooding devices and the calculations thereof according to resolution MSC.245(83) or MSC.362(92), as appropriate, with information about diameter, valves, pipe lengths and coordinates of inlet/outlet. Cross- and down-flooding should not be considered for the purpose of achieving compliance with the stability criteria (see also section 9.2);
.9 pipes in damaged area when the breaching of these pipes results in progressive flooding (see section 10.1);
.10 damage extents and definition of damage cases; and
.11 any initial conditions or restrictions which have been assumed in the derivation of critical KG or GM data, and which must therefore be met in service.

The cases and extent of progressive flooding assumed in the damage stability analysis should be indicated in the Damage Control Booklet and the Documents for Submission in accordance with the annex to resolution MSC.281(85). Arrangements to prevent further flooding are to be indicated on the Damage Control Plan and in the Damage Control Booklet.

3.4.3 Special documents

3.4.3.1 Documentation

.1 Design documentation: damage stability calculations (including residual stability curves), the arrangements, configuration and contents of the damaged compartments, and the distribution, relative densities and the free surface effect of liquids.
.2 Operational documentation: loading and stability information booklet (stability booklet), Damage Control Plan; and Damage Control Booklet.

3.4.3.2 Special consideration

For intermediate flooding stages before cross-flooding (see sections 6.8 and 9.2) or before progressive flooding (see section 6.9), an appropriate scope of the documentation covering the aforementioned items is needed in addition. The intermediate stages for cargo outflow and seawater inflow should be checked. If any stability criteria during intermediate stages shows more severe values than in the final stage of flooding, these intermediate stages should also be submitted.