日本財団 図書館

共通ヘッダを読みとばす


Top > 技術 > 海洋工学.船舶工学.兵器 > 成果物情報

ISO/TC8/SC1及び同WG 東京会議報告書

 事業名 船舶関係国際標準化活動
 団体名 日本船舶標準協会 注目度注目度5


添付資料 9
 
From: Graeme-Tyne Gangway (Structures) Ltd [graeme@tynegangway.freeserve.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 9:09 AM
To: KHeinz@comdt.uscg.mil
Subject: Revision of ISO 7061
 
Dear Kurt,
 
Many thanks for the updated version of the draft.
In relation to the comments you made in your e mail to Bob we would comment as follows.
 
1 Scope
Would it not be better to place the references to each figure in with the definitions for each type of structure, for example by placing the following or other suitable form of text after the definition for each structure type "A pictorial example of this type of structure being given in appendix xxx". If this is done then the generic accommodation ladder drg that I sent you could be introduced. If you think that the pictorial examples are worthwhile, then it may be appropriate to also include an example of a walkway. We would be more than happy to provide the example should you think this worthwhile.
 
5.1
We would strongly oppose the removal of the requirement to have a registered quality system. The reason for this is twofold. Firstly there is a very significant risk of severe injury to anyone using such equipment should it collapse or fail as the result of defective design / manufacture. Secondly we have seen on a number of occasions equipment being used that is so very badly designed / manufactured that the user may well have been better off using a plank of wood. Therefore it is important that this clause is retained on health and safety grounds, economic arguments and / or the fact that manufactures in certain member nations are not ISO 9001 accredited should therefore not be a consideration for the committee.
 
5.2
The more complex type of system in figure 3 are invariably shore side supplied equipment. As you are aware in Europe we have the machinery directive as implemented by EU member states. Therefore in the EU the structure as a whole would undoubtedly be classed as a machine under the implementation of this directive and rightly so. However this standard does not and should not attempt to cover the complex machinery aspects of this type of structure and limits itself to the simpler structures that are walked upon. We included this statement originally in an attempt to clarify and / or emphasise this point to the reader of the standard. You may think that this should be unnecessary,
however our experience has shown that somewhere along the line some "bright" spark will attempt to use this document as the sole reference for the design of a complete complex system, a use for which it is not intended. The follow up question is then, should we not exclude complex systems from the scope of the document as they are mostly shore based? The answer to this is definitely no as it could quite easily lead to a considerable difference for standards in the design and manufacture of ship and shore supplied equipment. Without the inclusion of this type of equipment it is my opinion that we would only be doing half a job and leave the subject of access and egress to a ship in the same mess that it is in today.
 
5.2.7
We have stated in the text of this standard the main material of construction should be Aluminium, furthermore we have indicated the use of a well developed and mature standard for design and manufacture. In addition to this manufacturers of Aluminium equipment have records which can establish the suitability of this material for this type of equipment. However this standard does not and in my opinion should not restrict itself to one material type and thus allows the use of other materials without specifying them. If we take for example a designer who selects say mild steel as his chosen material, this would not present a problem as again there are well established codes and design standards for this type of material. Furthermore there is enough knowledge of the properties of this material to give confidence that a well designed and manufactured structure of this type will be able to meet the requirements of this standard just as well as its Aluminium counterpart. However what happens to the use of a novel material where no such confidence exists and mature knowledge of the materials properties have yet been established. We as standards makers should not restrict the use of this material simply because of this, as it is quite possible that once a sufficient body of evidence exists the material may prove to be more suitable than those presently used. Conversely we would be failing in our duty not to ensure that each and every single structure designed and manufactured from such a material is tested in accordance with the load test requirements of the standard until such times as an appropriate body of evidence exists for this material. The clause on load testing (8.2) however allows for the type testing of stringer configurations for Aluminium equipment or for equipment manufactured from "proven materials" the text in clause 5.2.7 is intended to establish that for new or novel materials each piece of equipment "shall" be tested in accordance with all of clause [8] of the standard i.e. All must be load tested.
If this is not clear from the text then feel free to suggest alternatives.
 
Regards
 
Graeme Wheeler
 
Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized.
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in reliance on it,
is prohibited and may be unlawful.
**********************************
-----Original Message-----
From: Heinz, Kurt
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 12:20 PM
To: 'Bob Markle'
Subject: RE: PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EQUIPMENT
 
Bob--
 
I've cleaned this up a little, and converted to the new template format...also imported the AutoCAD simple gangway picture that Graeme provided (Fig. 1). I'll stick a hard copy in your inbox for your files. The electronic version (attached) resides in my Public/ISO/Standards/7061 folder.
 
A couple minor glitches, if you will...
 
I've put the last sentence in the Scope clause in square brackets, because it really doesn't belong there. At the moment, this is the only place in the whole standard where we reference the three figures at all! We need to figure some way to tie the figures in better with the normative text.
 
Under definition 3.1, there's a hyperlink in square brackets which I guess was a note to yourself to check on ILO terminology?
 
Under 5.2, there's a hanging clause in a smaller font before 5.2.1...was this supposed to be a note or...?
 
5.2.7 puzzles me a little...it seems to say that if you use untried materials, you do the same tests you do anyway?
 
These are obviously all things that can be addressed at the next meeting, although it couldn't hurt to try to touch base on them with Graeme (and anyone else interested?) beforehand.
 
Kurt







サイトに関するご意見・ご質問・お問合せ   サイトマップ   個人情報保護

日本財団会長笹川陽平ブログはこちら



ランキング
注目度とは?
成果物アクセスランキング
1,479位
(31,444成果物中)

成果物アクセス数
5,988

集計期間:成果物公開〜現在
更新日: 2019年8月24日

関連する他の成果物

1.ISO/TC67/SC7/WG5 ヒューストン会議報告書
2.ISO/TC108/SC2及び同WG2 ミンデン会議報告書
3.救命胴衣及び浮力補助具に関するCEN/TC162/WG6及びISO/TC188/WG14 第11回ケルン合同会議報告書
4.ISO/TC8/AG カディス会議報告書
5.ISO/TC8/SC2及びWG3 オスロ会議報告書
6.ISO/TC8/SC6及び同WG8 釜山会議報告書
7.第18回ISO/TC18 スモールクラフト専門委員会及び同時開催作業委員会 ビクトリア会議報告書
8.ISO/TC8/SC1/WG1 コペンハーゲン会議報告書
9.ISO/TC8/SC1/WG3 ストックホルム会議報告書
10.ISO/TC8/SC2/WG3/ ロンドン会議報告書
11.第21回 ISO/TC8 本会議(釜山会議)報告書
12.第35回 ISO/TC8/AG 釜山会議報告書
13.第1回 ISO/TC8/SC8 釜山会議報告書
14.ISO/TC8/SC6 釜山会議報告書
15.第3回 ISO/TC8/SC4 釜山会議報告書
16.釜山会議セミナー
17.回頭角速度計/国際規格草案の作成
18.ラダーアングルインジケータ/国際規格草案の作成
19.ISOのA級及びB級磁気コンパスの統合規格/国際規格草案の作成
20.プロペラ軸回転計/国際規格草案の作成
21.プロペラピッチインジケータ/国際規格草案の作成
22.ISO9943:1991 造船―調理室及び調理器具のある配膳室の空調及び通風/国際規格草案の作成
23.ビジネスプラン
  [ 同じカテゴリの成果物 ]


アンケートにご協力
御願いします

この成果物は
お役に立ちましたか?


とても役に立った
まあまあ
普通
いまいち
全く役に立たなかった


この成果物をどのような
目的でご覧になりましたか?


レポート等の作成の
参考資料として
研究の一助として
関係者として参照した
興味があったので
間違って辿り着いただけ


ご意見・ご感想

ここで入力されたご質問・資料請求には、ご回答できません。






その他・お問い合わせ
ご質問は こちら から