I suppose it is not a state secret, but the problem I see is that the certificates issued by recognised boat builders are non conforming, because they do not have a diagram, showing the distribution.
The SAMSA buoyancy calculation presented in the small vessel survey courses, run across the country over the past 3 months, refers.
As you will be aware, the 60% rule calculation is the theoretical method regarded by SAMSA as being sufficient to determine whether category B to E vessels will comply with the Merchant Shipping (National Small Vessel Safety) Regulations, 2007 and consists of two (2) parts:
Part 1 - Determine sufficient buoyancy
Part 2 - Confirm level flotation
Part 1 of the calculation is well proven as a means to confirm sufficient buoyancy provision on small boats, however, Part 2 (level flotation) is regarded as being slightly conservative (on the safe side). ie. it is considered that small boats may achieve acceptable level flotation with less built-in buoyancy provided in the aft third of the boat than that which is required by the calculation.
SAMSA has generated numerous models to test and cross check the calculation but will only consider relaxation of the requirement on a case-by-case basis at this stage.
Surveyors/Safety officers are accordingly advised that they should not reject buoyancy certificates outright in the event that built-in buoyancy provided on a vessel is in excess of 60% but is shown by calculation not to be sufficient in the aft third of the vessel (for level flotation). In these cases surveyors/safety officers are requested to forward the certificate and supporting calculations to the writer for evaluation. The information will accordingly be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and the surveyor/safety officer advised of the determination. Surveyors/safety officers submitting case studies must submit sketch(es) showing:
a. The vessels principal particulars (Length, Breadth, Depth)
b. The vessel lightweight and lightweight distribution in the event that an even distribution assumption is not considered to be correct.
c. The built-in buoyancy type and distribution
ie. A draft buoyancy certificate should be provided with supporting information highlighting apparent short-comings for level flotation
Once sufficient body of evidence has been gathered, SAMSA will determine whether a less conservative standard may be accepted and advise all in a structured manner.
Your constructive input towards prompt resolvement of the above will be appreciated, particularly in light of the coming festive season.