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