David H. Blomberg

The yacht club I am a member of has a 24’ tender (water taxi) to facilitate access for members and their guests to boats kept on mooring buoys in the vicinity of the club. The vessel has operated on a protected route (inside the breakwall), with limited route (or greater) licensed operators and has been certificated to carry 20 passengers plus one operator for the past 40 years though it was substantially rebuilt to original scantlings 6 years ago. Following 40 years of safe and efficient operation, the OCMI this year exercised his option (specifying 160#/passenger) to require a simplified stability test per 46CFR178.320 for this “open boat” type vessel. This test resulted in a 20% reduction in passenger capacity. Promulgation of this proposal will likely result in a further reduction of another 10-20% should the options provided by the proposed 46CFR178.320(i) not be exercised. Were passengers rather than deadweight used to conduct the test, it would have been apparent that the only way to satisfy the passenger heeling moment (wind heel is negligible on this vessel) would be for about half the people sitting on one side to sit on the laps of folks on the other side. Though 46CFR178.320(c) of the existing and 46CFR178.320(i) of the proposed regulations provide options for the OCMI it appears the regulations, and certainly the application of the regulations, seem to be more and more geared to the lowest common denominator. In addition to having the option, which should be emphasized to consider such things as route, arrangements, handling characteristics etc, the OCMI should also have the option to consider the experience of the passengers being carried. We are not carrying school groups or tourists but rather boat owners and their guests, folks who are generally quite familiar with the advantages, and potential disadvantages, of “moveable ballast.” Even given the distribution of weight (highly unlikely due seating limitations and as both most of the passengers and the operator know better) to satisfy the passenger heeling moment of the SST, while the heel exceeded the ¼ of the loaded freeboard of approximately 18” by several inches it was less than ½ the loaded freeboard and substantially less than 14 degrees. The tender’s low freeboard facilitates its service as it better enables the safe transfer of passengers to and from their boats and reduces the chance of property damage to those boats. Don’t know the origin of the ¼ “f” to determine “i” but perhaps the naval architects could review either this factor (versus 33% or 50%) and / or provide a more reasonable number for the Passenger Heeling Moment that includes a consideration for the construction/service of the vessel and the level of protection provided by the route. Though the tender normally carries 10 or fewer passengers, perhaps on about a dozen or so trips per season there are 18-20 passengers aboard. Though many of us have long since challenged the 160#/pax (much less than 140#/pax) standard, the boat has provided safe and efficient service and the test weight only increased the vessels draft by about 5”. The reduction recently imposed, and a further reduction quite likely if this proposal is promulgated, will not appreciably impact on safety, but it will certainly compromise efficiency.