Marine Technology, Vol. 31, No. 4, October 1994, pp.

269-277

Implementation of Free-Fall Lifeboats on Ships

J a m e s K. Nelson, 1 Nancy B. Regan, 2 Rajiv Khandpur, 3 Alexander C. Landsburg, 4 and Robert L. Markle 5

The free-fall lifeboat is quickly becoming a common lifesaving appliance on ships and offshore
facilities. Although a free-fall lifeboat has never been launched from a vessel in distress, free-fall
lifeboats were successfully launched and recovered in a seaway during two separate maritime
rescues. Discussed in this paper are the basic behavior of free-fall lifeboats, considerations when
using free-fall lifeboats on ships, the relative economics of free-fall lifeboat systems compared with
conventional davit-launched lifeboat systems, and anticipated improvements in safety afforded by
free-fall lifeboats during an emergency.

Introduction and historical p e r s p e c t i v e

MANY of the risks associated with conventional lifeboat
systems have been s u b s t a n t i a l l y reduced by the free-fall lifeboat. These r i s k s include impact with the side of the ship
d u r i n g launch, t h e i n a b i l i t y to move a w a y from danger after
the launch if the engine does not start, and the i n a b i l i t y to
launch the lifeboats from t h e high side of a listing vessel.
These problems a r e minimized with the free-fall lifeboat because it is not lowered into t h e sea. The free-fall lifeboat falls
freely into t h e sea, g e n e r a t i n g kinetic energy as it does so.
The kinetic e n e r g y which is developed propels the lifeboat
a w a y from the distressed vessel d u r i n g and i m m e d i a t e l y after w a t e r entry. The lifeboat moves a w a y from danger even if
the engine does not operate.
The first k n o w n reference to a free-fall lifeboat is an 1897
p a t e n t issued to A. E. F a l k of Sweden. The p a t e n t d r a w i n g
depicts an enclosed lifeboat t h a t can slide off the stern of a
ship from a h e i g h t of a p p r o x i m a t e l y 3 m (10 ft) [1]. 6 In 1939
C a p t a i n W h i t e of t h e Bay and River N a v i g a t i o n Company
proposed the concept of a free-fall lifeboat (he called it a nons i n k a b l e s u b m a r i n e lifeboat) to the B u r e a u of M a r i n e Inspection and N a v i g a t i o n of t h e United S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t of
Commerce. This concept was reviewed by the B u r e a u which
concluded that:
His m e a n s of l a u n c h i n g lifeboats a p p e a r s to be inadequate and dangerous, and can in no respect be considered
e q u i v a l e n t to the p r e s e n t method of l a u n c h i n g such
boats. [The lifeboat] would strike the w a t e r at a terrific
speed and would cause considerable shock to the passengers.
Twenty y e a r s l a t e r in the N e t h e r l a n d s , Joost Verhoef de-

1 Associate professor and program director, Clemson University,

Master of Engineering Program at The Citadel, Charleston, South
Carolina.
2 Associate, C. R. Cushing and Company, New York, New York.
3 Naval architect, Survival Systems Branch, Merchant Vessel Inspection Division, United States Coast Guard, Washington, D.C.
4 Program manager, Ship Performance and Safety, Office of Technology Assessment, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Washington, D.C.
Chief, Survival Systems Branch, Merchant Vessel Inspection Division, United States Coast Guard, Washington, D.C.
6 Numbers in brackets designate References at end of paper.
Presented at the May 12, 1993 meeting of the New York Metropolitan Section of THE SOCIETYOF NAVALARCHITECTSAND MARINE
ENGINEERS.
OCTOBER 1994

signed and tested a free-fall lifeboat made of a l u m i n u m . It

was placed in service on a m e r c h a n t ship in 1961 with a
free-fall h e i g h t of about 6 m. The concept t h e n lay d o r m a n t
until 1973 when two serious ship disasters occurred. A f t e r
these accidents, the Nordic m a r i t i m e a u t h o r i t i e s commissioned the Norwegian Ship Research I n s t i t u t e to develop a n
improved lifeboat l a u n c h i n g system. The r e s u l t of this effort
was a 34-ft-long free-fall lifeboat t h a t was tested in H a r d a n ger Fjord in 1976 at free-fall h e i g h t s of up to 20 m. The first
m a n n e d launch from the stern of a ship occurred in Ores u n d s v a r v e t S h i p y a r d in 1977. This i n s t a l l a t i o n was form a l l y approved in S e p t e m b e r 1978 [1].
Today, free-fall lifeboats are in use on cargo ships, t a n k e r s ,
semisubmersible d r i l l i n g platforms, and fixed production
platforms, The heights of free fall r a n g e from a p p r o x i m a t e l y
6 m on some of the s m a l l e r ships to over 30 m on oil production platforms. A l t h o u g h a free-fall lifeboat h a s never been
used in an emergency evacuation, t h e y have been used successfully in two offshore rescues [2]. Over 15 000 people h a v e
been launched in free-fall lifeboats d u r i n g t r a i n i n g exercises
without a reported injury.
Free-fall lifeboats have not y e t been used on p a s s e n g e r
ships. These ships g e n e r a l l y c a r r y a large n u m b e r of lifeboats. Locating the required n u m b e r of lifeboats on the stern
of the ship, where the free-fall lifeboat gains its m a x i m u m
benefit, is not practical. Also, it is g e n e r a l l y felt t h a t special
t r a i n i n g is required to obtain m a x i m u m safety from free-fall
lifeboats. Such t r a i n i n g is not n o r m a l l y a v a i l a b l e to passengers on a ship.
The purpose of this p a p e r is threefold. F i r s t , the basic behavior of free-fall lifeboats will be reviewed and discussed.
Second, considerations p e r t i n e n t to the use of free-fall lifeboats on cargo and t a n k ships will be presented. Included in
the p r e s e n t a t i o n are space r e q u i r e m e n t s for the lifeboats and
the r e l a t i v e economics of free-fall lifeboats compared with
those of conventional d a v i t - l a u n c h e d lifeboat systems. Third,
the a n t i c i p a t e d i m p r o v e m e n t in safety afforded by free-fall
lifeboats d u r i n g a m a r i t i m e evacuation is estimated. This
e s t i m a t e is based upon a v a i l a b l e m a r i t i m e accident data.

Fundamental behavior o f f r e e - f a l l lifeboats

The configuration of a free-fall lifeboat a t the b e g i n n i n g of
a launch is shown in Fig. 1. The free-fall h e i g h t is m e a s u r e d
from the w a t e r surface to the lowest point of the lifeboat
when the lifeboat is in its launch position. The p r i m a r y factors t h a t affect the launch performance of a free-fall lifeboat
are its mass and m a s s distribution, the l e n g t h and angle of

0025-3316/94/3104-0269500.43/0

MARINETECHNOLOGY

269

--

Lour, ch

~ G ,p

i'

V~oter ~,urface

rj

~i

,.

J='

',e ~grit_
Fig. 3 Geometry of free-fall lifeboat during rotation phase

Fig. 1 Parameters of free-fall launch with lifeboat in launch configuration

the launch ramp, and the free-fall height. These parameters

interact to affect the orientation and velocity of the lifeboat at
the time of water impact, the acceleration forces experienced
by the occupants, and the headway made by the lifeboat immediately after water entry.
The launch of a free-fall lifeboat can be divided into four
distinct phases: the ramp phase, the rotation phase, the freefall phase, and the water entry phase. The ramp phase is that
part of the launch when the lifeboat is sliding along the
launch ramp. The ramp phase ends when the center of gravity (CG) passes the end of launch ramp and the lifeboat begins to rotate; this rotation marks the beginning of the rotation phase. The rotation phase ends when the lifeboat is no
longer in contact with the launch ramp. This is the beginning
of the free-fall phase; the lifeboat is falling freely through the
air. The water entry phase begins when the lifeboat first
contacts the surface of the water and continues until the
lifeboat has returned to the surface and is behaving as a boat.
During the ramp phase, the only forces acting on the lifeboat are its weight and a friction force between the launch
rail and the launch ramp. These forces are shown in Fig. 2.
When the lifeboat is released, it begins to accelerate from
rest along the ramp. During this time the lifeboat does not
rotate; it only gains speed along the launch ramp. The velocity of the lifeboat at the end of the ramp is mostly dependent
upon the length of the launch ramp in front of the lifeboat, L.
The velocity increases as the distance L increases.
After the CG has moved past the end of the launch ramp,
the lifeboat begins to rotate. The forces acting on it during
the rotation phase are shown in Fig. 3. Rotation is caused by
a couple formed by the weight of the lifeboat and the reaction
force between the lifeboat and the ramp. This couple imparts

angular momentum to the lifeboat. The primary parameters

that affect the behavior of the lifeboat when it is rotating at
the end of the ramp are the weight of the boat, the distance
D between the CG and the after end of the launch rail, the
angle from which the lifeboat is launched, and the velocity of
the lifeboat when it begins to rotate. For a particular lifeboat
and launch ramp, the distances L and D (as shown in Fig. 1)
are dependent upon the location of the CG.
The angular momentum imparted to the lifeboat decreases
as the distance L increases. This occurs because the velocity
of the lifeboat at the beginning of the rotation phase increases as the distance to the end of the ramp increases. As
such, the time during which it rotates--the time during
which the couple a c t s ~ e c r e a s e s as L increases. Because the
time of rotation is reduced, the angular momentum imparted
to the lifeboat is reduced. Likewise, the duration of the rotation, and therefore the angular momentum, increases as the
distance to the after end of the launch rail increases. The
lifeboat is in contact with the ramp for a longer period of
time. The angular momentum increases until the time at
which the lifeboat is no longer in contact with the launch
ramp. After leaving the launch ramp, the lifeboat continues
to rotate at constant angular velocity until it impacts the
water.
The geometry of the lifeboat as it impacts the water and
the forces acting are shown in Fig. 4. A couple formed by the
fluid forces and the weight of the lifeboat causes the angular
momentum induced during the rotation phase to be reversed
and the boat to return to even keel. This effect can be observed in Fig. 5, which shows the position and orientation of
a typical free-fall at the time of the first and second peak
J , ,

k
j

"-

""\ .
\\.,.

u r4

"\"

'~

I.

-\

"\'/
UN,':- n
"\

td

~N,~ ',
Lsunch

[ I

W@ i C:jht_
~- I u i d

Fig. 2 Forces acting on lifeboat during ramp phase

270

OCTOBER 1994

For~c@

Fig. 4 Geometry during water entry

MARINE TECHNOLOGY

"',
'",',
'i',

" ~..\
'.J,~.L ~
~":..<~'x
x

,~e~_'-t :.], m
Lour, eh Angle 30 deg
Weight 8,000 kg
LgJrIC ~,

- x

Water Surface

~'~

C,2,]l It~ ' ne r

Second Pea~.

Fig. 5 Orientation at time of first and second peak acceleration forces dur-

ing water entry

Fig. 6 Breakdown of ship types involved in accidents

acceleration forces. The magnitude of the couple causing the
boat to return to even keel is dependent upon several factors,
including the location of the CG, the magnitude and direction
of the fluid forces, and the orientation of the lifeboat.
As the CG is moved forward, the angular momentum induced during the rotation phase is increased, which causes
the lifeboat to enter the water at a steeper angle. Because of
the steeper angle and the forward location of the CG, the
magnitude of the couple available to overcome the rotation is
decreased. If the entry angle is too steep, or if the CG is too
far forward, the line of action of the fluid force could pass
beneath the CG. This would cause the fluid force to produce
an overturning moment instead of a righting moment. In an
extreme situation, the lifeboat could overrotate and become
inverted during water entry.
Kinematic equations of motion can be written for each
phase of the free-fall launch. Such equations have been presented by Nelson & Hirsch [3], Nelson et al [4], Tasaki et al
[5], and Boef [6]. These equations of motion form the basis of
the launch prediction developed by Nelson & Hirsch 13]. Extensive discussions about the quantitative behavior of freefall lifeboats have been prepared by Nelson [7], Nelson et al
[8,9], Nelson & Khandpur [10], and Boer [6]. The reader is
referred to these references for a more thorough discussion of
the governing equations of motion and the launch behavior of
free-fall lifeboats.
I m p a c t o f f r e e - f a l l l i f e b o a t s on s a f e t y
Maritime accidents
To estimate how much safety can be improved by using
free-fall lifeboats, a review of maritime accidents that have
occurred over the past 30 years was conducted by Nelson et al
[11]. The purpose of the study was to gather information
about ship, sea, and wind conditions during evacuations; the
type of lifesaving equipment that was used; and to infer
whether a free-fall lifeboat could have been used and if its
use would have reduced injury. The data for over 60 ship
accidents were obtained from accident investigation reports
and newspaper accounts. Because of the sources used, most of
the accidents involved vessels registered in the United
States. Significant data regarding the lifesaving appliances
used in maritime accidents worldwide were not available.
The following discussion is summarized from the discussion by Nelson et al [11] for those accidents involving merchant ships. Data were available for 46 ship accidents. Although not specifically a merchant vessel, the drillship is
included in the accident statistics. Passenger and fishing vessel accidents were not included in the analysis because, as
discussed previously, free-fall lifeboats are not used on these
vessels and probably will not be used on them in the near
future.
Figure 6 is a breakdown of the types of ships involved in
OCTOBER 1994

the ship accidents. Tankers and cargo ships were involved in

about an equal number of accidents. Two accidents involved
a collision between two ships. The accidents reviewed occurred over a period of 30 years, representing an average of
approximately 1.5 accidents per year. About 500 ships of the
same type were in the active U.S. fleet during the same period, and these may be used for comparison. The predominant
cause of accidents in cargo ships was shifting load. A majority of the accidents in tankships resulted from explosions in
the cargo tanks. Other causes included fire and structural
failure.
The wind speed and wave height t h a t existed at the time of
evacuation are presented in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. The
data are rounded to the nearest increment. Data were not
available for all of the accidents reviewed and in some cases
the data were estimated from the reports. As can be observed
from the data in Figs. 7 and 8, the evacuations occurred predominantly in wind speeds of 50 to 60 mph and wave heights
of 15 to 25 ft. In each case, free-fall lifeboats could have been
used and would have resulted in a quicker and safer evacuation.
Launch time and distance
Two significant advantages are offered by the free-fall lifeboat during the launch itself. The first advantage is the speed
with which the lifeboat can be placed in the water. The reduced time for launching a free-fall lifeboat lies in the time
expended from release until the lifeboat is in the water. It is
not believed that there are significant differences in boarding
a free-fall lifeboat that would make it inherently faster or
slower to board than a conventional lifeboat nor are there
any intrinsic operating characteristics that would make it

20
30
40
SO
't,~r,:: S;L,ee: [r~pr,)

60

70

Fig. 7 Wind speed at time of evacuation

MARINE TECHNOLOGY

271

continually moving a w a y from d a n g e r as it approaches the

water. F i g u r e 10 shows the distance of i m p a c t point from t h e
ship for various free-fall heights. These distance d a t a were
obtained from F R E E F A L L for an l l - m - l o n g free-fall lifeboat
of 7 t weight.
Additionally, the free-fall lifeboat has the a b i l i t y to effectively clear the ship by moving a w a y from it. This affords
further i m p r o v e m e n t in safety because i n i t i a l l y the free-fall
lifeboat is moving further a w a y from d a n g e r even if the engine fails to operate properly. A conventional lifeboat m u s t
rely on oars to move a w a y from the ship if the engine does not
function.
Safety d u r i n g t r a i n i n g and drills
,s

~o

~s

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Hekgt~t ( f e e t }

Wave

Fig. 8 Wave height at time of evacuation

faster or e a s i e r to operate in the water. The differences in

launch t i m e occur because, after release, the free-fall lifeboat
falls to the w a t e r u n d e r the influence of g r a v i t y w h e r e a s the
conventional lifeboat is lowered to the sea with a cable.
The t i m e required for free-fall and conventional lifeboats
to reach the w a t e r after b e i n g released is i l l u s t r a t e d in Fig. 9.
The time for the free-fall lifeboat is based upon an 11 m
lifeboat with a fully loaded weight of 7 metric tonnes (t). It
was launched from a r a m p at an angle of 35 deg with respect
to the horizon. The coefficient of friction was t a k e n to be 0.05.
The time d a t a were d e t e r m i n e d using the 1991 launch prediction model F R E E F A L L (Nelson & Hirsch [3]); the d a t a
correspond quite well with a v a i l a b l e full-scale measurements. The t i m e for the conventional lifeboats was computed
using the m i n i m u m acceptable speed for lowering a lifeboat
by falls. The m i n i m u m speed was used because to increase it
would require more expensive winches and brakes. The mini m u m acceptable speed, as specified in SOLAS I I I ~ 8 . 2 . 6 , is
computed from:
S = 0.4 + (0.02 x H)

(1)

where H is the h e i g h t above the w a t e r in meters and S is the

speed in m e t e r s per second.
The second i m p r o v e m e n t in safety offered by free-fall lifeboats d u r i n g the launch is the quick m o v e m e n t of the lifeboat
a w a y from i m m i n e n t danger. W h e n a conventional lifeboat is
lowered into t h e w a t e r by falls, it is a l w a y s in close p r o x i m i t y
to the vessel from which it is launched. This close proximity
m a k e s it v u l n e r a b l e to the effects of fire, explosion and motion of the vessel. A free-fall lifeboat, on the other hand, is

Although t r a i n i n g accidents do not occur frequently, t h e r e

have been injuries due to the accidental operation of the release m e c h a n i s m before the lifeboat is in t h e water. Lifeboats
have also fallen to the w a t e r with people on board when a
cable or cable connection has failed. Cable failures occur
most often when the lifeboat is being recovered after a drill,
but can also occur during lowering.
Cable-related accidents also occur d u r i n g actual evacuations. In two s e p a r a t e ship accidents, a lifeboat was b e i n g
lowered d u r i n g an evacuation into rough seas. The fall a t
only one end of the lifeboats e i t h e r released or parted, causing the lifeboat to be suspended v e r t i c a l l y a n d the occupants
to fall into the water.
The injuries caused by accidents such as these m a y be precluded in a free-fall lifeboat. The free-fall lifeboat and the
seats in which the occupants ride are designed as a system to
protect the occupant from the forces which occur when the
lifeboat impacts the water. Free-fall lifeboat systems are designed to impact the w a t e r at a r e l a t i v e l y h i g h velocity (in
the order of 25 m/s). This is not the case for conventional
lifeboats, which e n t e r the w a t e r at low velocity Con the order
of 1 m/s). In conventional lifeboats, the occupants are essent i a l l y sitting on benches t h a t r e n d e r little protection from the
effects of impact, p a r t i c u l a r l y impact directed along the
spine.
Free-fall lifeboats also have a cable and winch system to
recover the lifeboat after drills. This system can also be used
to launch the lifeboat when a l a u n c h by free-fall is not desired for some reason. W h e n lowered in this m a n n e r , the
free-fall lifeboat also m a y be subject to i n a d v e r t e n t release
accidents, but in most cases the consequences of such an accident should not be a problem if those on board are properly
seated.

20 I
35
30
25
20

" "".

~5

" .....

1D
5
4--

10

Height
Convenl~ona]

12

14

Above

16

18

Water

~-

20

22

2'I

26

28

]0

(meters)

Fig. 9 Time to launch versus height for free-fall and conventional lifeboats

272

OCTOBER 1994

1S

Free-Fall

::1
Height

Fig. 10

24
of F r e e - F a l l

27

30

(meters)

Distance from vessel that a free-fall enters water

MARINE TECHNOLOGY

Effect of vessel behavior and a t t i t u d e

As indicated in Figs. 7 and 8, evacuations tend to occur in
r e l a t i v e l y high wind speeds and rough seas. Lowering a conventional lifeboat into r o u g h seas can be dangerous. In several of the accidents, the lifeboats impacted the ship d u r i n g
lowering and became damaged. Some of these lifeboats capsized when the occupants were being t r a n s f e r r e d to other
lifeboats. In o t h e r accidents the lifeboat was capsized because
the lines were not r e l e a s e d quickly enough.
In almost h a l f of the accidents, the vessel was reported to
have been l i s t i n g a t the t i m e of evacuation. The list and t r i m
of the vessel have a significant effect on the outcome of the
evacuation. Conventional lifeboats are placed port and starboard. If the ship is listing significantly at the time of evacuation, use of h a l f the lifeboats is precluded because t h e y
cannot be lowered from the high side. Several accident reports indicated t h a t some lifeboats were u n u s a b l e because
the ship was listing. In some cases, the lifeboats on the low
side were inaccessible because of fire and flooding.
These problems are significantly reduced with free-fall lifeboats for several reasons. First, the free-fall lifeboat, which is
u s u a l l y located on the stern of the ship, is not significantly
affected by list or t r i m of the vessel. The launch angle would
be increased or decreased b u t the lifeboat would still be usable. Secondly, as shown in Fig. 10, the free-fall lifeboat
moves a w a y from the vessel d u r i n g launch; therefore, the
chances of i m p a c t i n g the vessel are minimized. Third, t h e r e
are no falls or p a i n t e r s to release after a free-fall lifeboat is in
the water. Lastly, wind and waves are believed to have little
effect on the free-fall lifeboat as it enters the water.
Have conditions precluded a free-fall launch?
Free-fall lifeboats can be launched by free-fall u n d e r severe list conditions, b u t the cable and winch l a u n c h i n g systems for free-fall lifeboat m a y be limited as to the degree of
list under which t h e y can be successfully used. This raises
the question as to w h e t h e r a successful evacuation could be
m a d e under conditions of ice or debris in the water, or in
shallow water, w h e n the ship is also listing. Ice and debris in
the water, and shallow water, are conditions under which a
launch by falls m i g h t be preferred over a free-fall launch.
D u r i n g the a n a l y s i s of m a r i t i m e accidents, Nelson et al
[11] concluded t h a t t h e r e were no accidents in which free-fall
lifeboats could not have been effective d u r i n g the evacuation.
There was no ice or debris reported in the w a t e r at the time
of evacuation in a n y of the accidents. Shallow w a t e r is usually not a concern since free-fall lifeboats g e n e r a l l y do not
submerge to a depth g r e a t e r t h a n the draft of the ship. Except for very shallow water, solid objects of substance are the
only t h i n g t h a t would p r e v e n t a free-fall lifeboat from being
launched by free-fall. F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e r e would likely have
been fewer c a s u a l t i e s if free-fall h a d been used because of the
cable-related accidents discussed previously. There is nothing in the accident reports t h a t would cause one to believe
more casualties would have occurred if free-fall lifeboats had
been used.
F r e e - f a l l lifeboat training
To fully achieve the levels of safety offered by free-fall lifeboats, the crews should be p r o p e r l y t r a i n e d in the use of the
equipment. The Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS)
c u r r e n t l y r e q u i r e s such t r a i n i n g for all crew m e m b e r s whether the lifeboat is launched by free-fall or by a g r a v i t y davit
system. Free-fall lifeboat occupants should be comfortable
with the concept and knowledgeable about boarding the boat,
properly s e a t i n g themselves, and using the safety h a r n e s s at
t h e i r seat.
OCTOBER 1994

Free-fall lifeboat t r a i n i n g can be conducted at special

schools, t r a i n i n g centers, or on the vessel. Usually, t r a i n i n g
centers provide the most extensive and comprehensive t r a i n ing programs. Classroom instruction is combined w i t h
hands-on operation d u r i n g a c t u a l free-fall launches. Generally t h r e e types of courses are offered at t r a i n i n g centers:
p a s s e n g e r courses for personnel who m a y be occupants in a
free-fall lifeboat b u t are not p a r t of the boat's crew; coxswain
or c a p t a i n courses for those crew m e m b e r s who m a y be assigned those positions; and r e f r e s h e r courses for personnel
who have completed free-fall t r a i n i n g in the p a s t but are
required to r e a c q u a i n t t h e m s e l v e s with the system. T r a i n i n g
centers for free-fall lifeboat instruction are the M a r i t i m e
T r a i n i n g Center (MTC) B.V. in Rotterdam, Robert Gordon
I n s t i t u t e of Technology (RGIT) S u r v i v a l C e n t e r in Scotland,
See-Berufsgenossenschaft (SBG) A u s b i l d u n g s und Traini n g s s t a t t e fur Sciffssicherheit in G e r m a n y , N o r w e g i a n Und e r w a t e r Technology Center A/S (NUTEC) in Norway, and
T r o n d h e i m M a r i t i m e Hoyskole of Norway. There are curr e n t l y no free-fall lifeboat t r a i n i n g centers in t h e U n i t e d
States.
Free-fall lifeboat t r a i n i n g also can be completed on the
vessel using the actual i n s t a l l a t i o n if a c e n t e r is not available. Most free-fall lifeboat m a n u f a c t u r e r s have t r a i n e d instructors t h a t can be used for this purpose. The m a t e r i a l
covered in a shipboard instruction p r o g r a m is much like t h a t
of the t r a i n i n g centers, except t h e crew gains firsthand
knowledge of the actual e q u i p m e n t they would use in an
emergency. T r a i n i n g can be continuously reinforced with
r e g u l a r l y scheduled drills and launches on the ship. Information m a n u a l s describing the free-fall system and its operating procedures can be kept in the crew r e c r e a t i o n room to
serve as a source of information about w h a t has been learned.

Installation
Space and weight r e q u i r e m e n t s
The I n t e r n a t i o n a l M a r i t i m e O r g a n i z a t i o n (SOLAS) and
the United States Coast G u a r d (USCG) c u r r e n t l y require
cargo ships and t a n k e r s equipped w i t h conventional davitlaunched lifeboats to have suiticient a g g r e g a t e s e a t i n g capacity so t h a t 100% of the persons on board can be accommodated on each side of the vessel. On those vessels equipped
with free-fall lifeboats, a single free-fall lifeboat capable of
accommodating 100% of the persons on board can be used if
the lifeboat is launched over the stern.
In t e r m s of the total q u a n t i t y of lifesaving e q u i p m e n t required, a free-fall lifeboat i n s t a l l a t i o n is a p p r o x i m a t e l y the
same as a conventional lifeboat installation. Two davits a r e
required for a davit-launched installation, a s s u m i n g t h a t one
lifeboat will also be used as a rescue boat (which is g e n e r a l l y
the case). A single davit is required for a free-fall lifeboat b u t
an additional davit is required for the rescue boat. 7 However,
the davit for the rescue boat is u s u a l l y a s i n g l e - a r m g r a v i t y
or mechanical davit which is simpler and more economical
t h a n the two-armed davits used with d a v i t - l a u n c h e d lifeboats. A davit-launched life raft is also r e q u i r e d on a free-fall
lifeboat installation. The davit for the life r a f t is u s u a l l y a
simple r a d i a l - t y p e davit. F i g u r e 11 is a s u m m a r y of the
equipment required for each type of lifeboat i n s t a l l a t i o n and
7 To be used as a rescue boat, a free-fall lifeboat must satisfy all of
the requirements for lifeboats and rescue boats. Currently there are
no free-fall lifeboats that are also certificated as rescue boats. The
primary concerns in this regard are the ability to recover a free-fall
lifeboat over the stern in a seaway when the ship is underway and
the required time to perform the recovery.
MARINE TECHNOLOGY

273

Table 2

Overall dimensions of a 28-person gravity-davit

lifeboat installation

, : o r J,, E l JT I O I q A L

I NSTALLAT

L I FEE~OAT

I Ol"J

System
Component

Units
Required

Length,
m

Beam,
m

Area
m2

Total
Area,
m2

Lifeboat
Lifeboat davit
Lifeboat winch

2
2
2

6.9
7.6
1.4

2.4
4.6
0.9

16.6
35.0
1.3

33.1
69.9
2.5

r---~ C43
~PEE
KEf

F~L:_

I I'4STA LLAT

F--EBOAT

~,rJD

FPEE
C~

:--,',H,:-E:

DA.

LIPEE,:

T-L.~_I,IZHE~

C~P,~,~

I Th

FALL

~E ] v

; :,E--

SE T

rI'ST

BE

LIFE~A~T

1 ~

100 %

130 % C c)

CC~

:-P-B~E
PPZ.

Clr:~

BCAp~I

iDrjE

SE~

EID/,C~D

I ~P,
~E

i:,~

MUST

BE

i~

O N ~ OP T N E

SEPARATE

O'~E

THE

SIDE

CE9

100 ~

CA,B9

C D)

CE3

LIFERA~T

Fig. 11

DE

OF

r.~IjST

THE

~, H

~r_l~D

.ESSEL

EITHEP

SIDE

DJIJMBE~ O F

CAPABLE

OF

OH

E,~CH

SIDE

BE

DA~'[T-LAUPJCH~D

IS

ALSO

~S
1:3Ef3

BE

CA#R'I ING

OF

THE

~ESSEL.

PASEENGEPS

ALL

THE

AS

L ] FEBOATI

THE

VESSEL

~ESCUE

PEF~SONS ON
~A~T5

BOAT

~ESL. UE B O A T

ON

THEN

PEET)
IN

IF

THE

ACEOM'vlODATIOr;s

F~OU

T~E

THAT

LOCATION

FO~EC;STLE

1
1

4000
5600

1
2

2400
126.5 each

136 each

1
1

1985
85

Units

Weight,
kg

2
2

2107 each
3672 each

2 or 4

126.5 each

85

14 595

11 896

Economics

AR~

0. c~ S T E t R N

C o m p a r i s o n o f survival craft requirements

Table 1 Overall dimensions of a 26-person free-fall lifeboat installation

System
Component

Units
Required

Length,
m

Beam,
m

Area, a
m2

Lifeboat
Ramp/recovery davit
Lifeboat winch
Rescue boat
Rescue boat davit
Rescue boat winch

1
1
1
1
1
1

7.1
7.4
0.9
6.2
6.0
1.4

2.5
3.9
0.5
2.6
2.6
0.9

17.8
2&9
0.45
16.1
15.6
1.26

Note that some areas overlap.

OCTOBER 1994

Lifeboat(s)
Davit and winch
Rescue boat and
davit
12-person life rafts
12-person davit life
rafts
Life raft davit and
winch
6-person life raft

Weight,
kg

Units

the usual location of the e q u i p m e n t on the vessel. This summ a r y is applicable for those vessels over 85 m in length.
Each type of lifeboat system requires some deck area for
the installation. The r e q u i r e d area includes t h a t necessary
for the e q u i p m e n t as well as t h a t necessary for m a i n t e n a n c e
of th e equipment. Tables 1, 2, and 3 give t h e required deck
area and installed weight of each type of lifeboat system. For
purposes of this comparison, a typical davit-launched lifeboat
and a comparable free-fall lifeboat were used. The free-fall
lifeboat i n s t a l l a t i o n appears to be more economical t h a n the
gr a v i t y davit system in t e r m s of e s t i m a t e d deck area. Most of
the deck u n d e r the free-fall d a v it is also usable for deck machinery, ventilators, etc. Despite the differences in usable
deck space, a free-fall installation is h e a v i e r t h a n a davitlaunched installation.

274

System
Component

Total weight

AND THE

O~,v t T

Gravity-Davit
Lifeboat System

CARRIED

REOLIIRED

STOWED

OF

CE#TlPlED

~C)I:g A

B O A T N E E D NCIT ~ E
L,FE#AFT
MET~F~S
TO

THE

F~C,M

1CIO~ ElF

REOUI ~EMENTS

IS

PER~Dr

IDED

Lr#EBDATS

~ESCUE

fiG0

rJG A ~ L

L~II,;,:~EE,

I'~1~

~RID. iDED

THE

ADD~TIOHAL
THAP~

BE
FPO

LIFE~ACTES

LEAST

AN

: ADm'

,1% EA,-F*

EAr.

SET
r,'A f

AT

MOR E

E :~

DED

OA. I T MEETS

E)

~"

Free-Fall
Lifeboat System

RED
I 'DNAL

-,-

LIFE~kFT

LIFEP~TS

THEI.

D)

/E[4T

S.
:'.E

P'J

c~

iZ,i$ L

~EOUI

COIJ

fl

B:I

Installation weight of typical free-fall and gravity-davit

lifeboat systems

rJULIBE~

~:

Table 3

I O:'1

As with any e q u i p m e n t cost, t h e r e is the i n i t i al acquisition

and installation cost as well as r e c u r r i n g cost for operations
and maintenance. The initial cost to acquire and install a
lifeboat system and the a n n u a l costs to m a i n t a i n the system
were est i m at ed for specific r e p r e s e n t a t i v e equipment.
Table 4 gives the est i m at ed acquisition costs for typical
systems. Shipping costs are assu m ed to be e q u a l and are not
considered for the purpose of this comparison. These cost data
were provided by one m a n u f a c t u r e r but are t h o u g h t to be
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of such systems. As shown in the table, the
free-fall lifeboat system is $20 000 less expensive t h a n the
conventional lifeboat system. The totally enclosed lifeboat
Table 4

Estimated acquisition costs for a 24-person free-fall lifeboat and

a 32-person gravity-davit lifeboat

Free-Fall System
Description
Lifeboats, davits, and
winches
Rescue boat and davit
Life rafts (12 pers.)
Davit-launched life rafts
(12 pers.)
Life raft davit
Life raft (6 pers.)
Equipment total cost

Gravity-Davit System

Units

Cost
(Each)

1
1
2

$223 900
$36 000
$5700

4b

2
1
1

$6200
$20 200
$4700

$319 400

Units
2

Cost
(Each)
$153 000
$6000 a
$5700

$4700
$339 500

a This is the additional cost for one gravity-davit launched lifeboat

certified as a lifeboat/rescue boat and for one specialized winch
needed to satisfy recovery speed requirements.
b Only two life rafts are required if they can be easily and readily
transferred from one side of the ship to the other.

MARINE TECHNOLOGY

used for the comparison can accommodate 32 persons but at

p r e s e n t is the s m a l l e s t capacity conventional lifeboat system
certified by the USCG.
I n s t a l l a t i o n and m a i n t e n a n c e costs were also e s t i m a t e d for
the two systems based on surveys and discussions with shipyards. A n u m b e r of s h i p y a r d s indicated t h a t the m a n - h o u r s
required for i n s t a l l a t i o n of a free-fall lifeboat system (including the rescue boat) were t h e same as or less t h a n t h a t for a
two-boat conventional lifeboat system (average t i m e required was 390 versus 460 hours). Only two shipyards indicated t h a t the free-fall lifeboat r e q u i r e d more man-hours for
installation.
The cost of m a i n t a i n i n g the life safety e q u i p m e n t onboard
a typical cargo vessel can be divided into two categories: (1)
r o u t i n e m a i n t e n a n c e , and (2) r e g u l a t o r y body maintenance.
These costs were e s t i m a t e d based upon the experience of various U.S. shipowners and suppliers of lifesaving equipment.
Routine m a i n t e n a n c e is g e n e r a l l y conducted onboard the
vessel. For the lifeboat, the r o u t i n e m a i n t e n a n c e consists of
periodic operation and inspection of the various components
of the lifeboat such as r u n n i n g the engine weekly, checking
the b a t t e r y levels, and checking a i r p r e s s u r e in the storage
bottles. Routine m a i n t e n a n c e of the d a v i t system includes
inspection of the l a s h i n g and recovery mechanisms, lubrication of the falls and moving parts, and m a i n t e n a n c e of the
coating systems.
Lifeboat m a i n t e n a n c e r e q u i r e d by a r e g u l a t o r y body includes the a n n u a l s t r i p p i n g of the lifeboat and getting the
e q u i p m e n t r e a d y for inspection. Required m a i n t e n a n c e for a
d a v i t includes opening of the e q u i p m e n t for inspection, rep l a c e m e n t or end-for-end e x c h a n g i n g of the falls, and operat i o n a l l y t e s t i n g the davit.
As t h e r e is little difference in m a i n t e n a n c e r e q u i r e m e n t s
between free-fall and g r a v i t y davit-launched (totally enclosed) lifeboats, r o u t i n e and r e g u l a t o r y body m a i n t e n a n c e
would be expected to differ little. The same is true for the
d a v i t installation. For a rescue boat, m a i n t e n a n c e costs are
considerably lower because t h e r e are no provisions aboard
and the davit is much simpler. Little r o u t i n e m a i n t e n a n c e of
life rafts is r e q u i r e d aboard the vessel, b u t the rafts m u s t be
t a k e n ashore every y e a r for t e s t i n g and r e p l a c e m e n t of expired equipment. The d a v i t for the life raft on a free-fall
lifeboat-equipped ship r e q u i r e s little maintenance.
The e s t i m a t e d p r e s e n t v a l u e of acquisition, installation,
and m a i n t e n a n c e costs can t h e n be combined to provide a net
p r e s e n t value for comparison of the two systems. For this
discussion, m a i n t e n a n c e costs were assumed to escalate 3%
per y e a r and the w o r k i n g life of the vessel to be 20 years. The
time value of c a p i t a l is a s s u m e d to be 10%. The e s t i m a t e d
p r e s e n t value costs are s u m m a r i z e d in Table 5 based upon
the required n u m b e r of components shown in Fig. 11 for each
type of installation. The e s t i m a t e d p r e s e n t value for a gravTable 5

Launch and recovery arrangements

There a r e t h r e e common types of systems for lifeboat recovery and controlled launch using falls: the roller track, the
r o t a t i n g ramp, and the A-frame systems.
F i g u r e 12 shows a r o t a t i n g r a m p system on a t e s t tower.
D u r i n g a controlled launch, the l a u n c h r a m p pivots about a
forward point until it is vertical. This is achieved t h r o u g h the
use of h y d r a u l i c rams. W h e n the r a m p is vertical, the lifeboat
is h a n g i n g over the w a t e r and can be lowered to the w a t e r
surface by falls.
The roller t r a c k system for a free-fall lifeboat works in a
s i m i l a r m a n n e r to g r a v i t y davits used with conventional lifeboats. Such a system is shown in Fig. 13. The steel davit a r m
moves on rollers t h a t r u n along a t r a c k u n d e r n e a t h the
launch ramp. Once the free-fall hook is released and the controlled launch sequence is activated, the d a v i t a r m will slide
along the r a m p with the lifeboat. The rate of descent is controlled by b r a k e s on the winch. A t t h e end of t h e ramp, t h e
a r m will swing the lifeboat over t h e stern of t h e vessel so the
lifeboat can continue descent towards the water. D u r i n g recovery of the lifeboat, this sequence of events is reversed.
G r a v i t y is the power source needed to launch the lifeboat in
this m a n n e r , while electric power is r e q u i r e d for recovery.
A n A-frame launch recovery system, as shown in Fig. 14,
consists of a steel davit a r m which pivots a t the lower, outboard end of the launch r a m p with two h y d r a u l i c rams. In the
stowed position the davit a r m lies alongside the lifeboat.
W h e n a c t i v a t e d for a controlled launch, the h y d r a u l i c r a m s
cause the davit a r m to swing u p w a r d and outboard, which
causes the lifeboat to be suspended over the water. The lifeboat can be lowered to the w a t e r surface u s i n g falls and a
winch. As with the other systems, this sequence of events is
reversed for recovery.

Estimated 20-year costs for free-fall and gravity-davit

lifeboat installations

Description
of Cost
Capital costs

Maintenance costs
Total present value

OCTOBER 1994

ity-davit system is a p p r o x i m a t e l y $535 000 a n d t h a t for a

free-fall system $482 000. The difference is a p p r o x i m a t e l y
10%.

system acquisition
installation
subtotal capital
costs
maintenance
system life
20-year maintenance
cost

Free-Fall

GravityDavit

$319 400
$13 500

$339 500
$17 500

$332 900
$14 500
20 years

$357 000
$17 000
20 years

$149 100
$482 000

$177 600
$534 600

Fig. 12 Rotating ramp launch-recovery system shown on test tower during

prototype trials (courtesy Watercraft)

MARINE TECHNOLOGY

275

~ALL5

faster and more efficient evacuation,

a single stern-mounted lifeboat instead of port and starboard lifeboats,
means for secondary launching,
always stowed in the ready-to-launch position,
boat is propelled clear of the vessel during the launch,
fewer tasks required for launch,
safer evacuation, particularly from vessels having a high
freeboard, and
improved economy over a 20-year period.
Currently there are no certificated free-fall lifeboats
within the United States, nor are there any training facilities. This situation can change very quickly if the American
maritime community, especially ship designers and owners,
is informed about the advantages of free-fall lifeboats. When
the demand exists, manufacturers are likely to pursue certification of free-fall lifeboats and to market them despite perceived product liability issues. It should be noted that some
free-fall lifeboats produced by foreign manufacturers have
nearly completed USCG certification requirements.

Free-fall lifeboats have a number of advantages when compared with conventional davit-launched lifeboats. These advantages include:

\
\

References
Fig. 13 Roller track launch-recovery system

Rg. 14 A-frame launch-recovery system

Conclusion

The design evolution of lifeboats from open wooden boats

launched by gravity to totally enclosed free-fall lifeboats has
occurred over the last century. European and Asian shipowners have responded to free-fall lifeboats with enthusiasm.
The International Maritime Organization, national regulatory authorities, and classification societies have prepared
regulations and certification criteria specifically tailored to
the unique behavior of free-fall lifeboat systems.
276

OCTOBER 1994

1 Klein, P. G., "Free-Fall Systems," Paper presented to the International Conference at the Maritime Academy WarnemuendeAVustrow,
Germany, Nov. 14-15, 1984.
2 Hatecke, P., Ernst Hatecke, GmBH, Drochtersen, Germany, Personal communication, 1990.
3 Nelson, J. K. and Hirsch, T.J., "FREEFALL---Launch Prediction
Model for Free-Fall Lifeboats," Final report prepared for United States
Coast Guard and Mobil Research and Development Corporation, Clemson
U Dept. Civil Engineering Report 3-S-90, Clemson, S.C., 1991.
4 Nelson, J. K., Fallon, D. J., Verhoef, J., and Hirsch, T. J., "Effects of
Mass Distribution on Free-Fall Lifeboat Behavior," Offshore Mechanics
and Arctic Engineering Conference, Stavanger, Norway, 1991.
5 Tusaki, R., Ogawa, A., and Tsukino, Y., "Numerical Simulation and
Its Application on the Falling Motion of Free-fall Lifeboats," Jnl. Society
of Naval Architects of Japan, Vol. 167, June 1990, pp. 147-158.
6 Boer, W. J. C, "Launch and Impact of Free-Fall Lifeboats," Ocean
Engineering, Pergamon Press, Vol. 19, No. 2, 1992, pp. 119-159.
7 Nelson, J. K., "Relationship of Parameters Affecting the Behavior
of Lifeboats Launched by Free-Fall," Proceedings Offshore Safety Conference: Protection of Life and the Environment, Institute of Marine Engineers, London, 1992.
8 Nelson, J. K., Fallon, D. J., and Hirsch, T. J., "Effects of CG Location on the Launch Behavior of Free-Fall Lifeboats," Journal of Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 1992.
9 Nelson, J. K., Fallon, D. J., and Hirsch, T. J., "Mathematical Modeling of Free-Fall Lifeboat Behavior," Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Conference, Stavanger, Norway, 1991.
10 Nelson, J. K. and Khandpur, R., "The Evaluation of Free-fall Lifeboat Launch Performance," Clemson University Department of Civil Engineering Report No. 3-S-92, Clemson, S.C., July 31, 1992.
11 Nelson, J. K., Markle, R. L, and Khandpur, R., "Evaluation of Increased Safety Through Use of Free-Fall Lifeboats," Journal of the
SA.F~E. Association, Vol. 21, No. 2, May/June, 1990.
12 "14 Hurt in Offshore Accident," Houston Post, Feb. 14, 1990.
13 International Maritime Organization, International Convention on
the Safety of Life at Sea, Consolidated text including 1983 amendments,
London, 1983.
14 Nelson, J. K., Hirsch, T. J., and Phillips, N. S., "Occupant Response
in Free-fall Lifeboats," Journal of the S A ~F.E. Association, Vol. 18, No. 3,
1988, pp. 42-56.
15 Regan, N. B., "Applicability of Free-Fall Lifeboats on United States
Vessels," Final report prepared for the United States Department of
Transportation (Maritime Administration) and the United States Coast
Guard, Report No. MA-RD-840-92000, 1992.
Metric Conversion Factors
1m

= 3.28 ft

lm 2 = 10.76ft 2
1 kg = 2.2 Ib

MARINE TECHNOLOGY

appelltiL~
C.S.S.C.
Behai Lifeboats
Yan Er Dao
Qingdao
Peoples Republic of China

O
O
-4
O

m
-In

Jorgensen & Vik A/S

P.O. Box 9
N-4891 Grimstad, Norway

Current free-fall lifeboat system manufacturers

Verhoef Aluminium
Scheepsbouwindustrie
Ernst Hatecke GmbH
Mulder & Rijke BV
Pesbo, S.A.
& Metaalwarenfabriek
P.O. Box 1107
P.O. Box 48
Auda Iparraguirre
P.O. Box 260
2168 Drochtersen 4
1970 AA Ijmuiden
48940 Leioa Vizcaya
1430 AG Aalsmeer, Holland
Germany
Holland
Spain
Fr. Fassmer GmbH
Harding Safety A/S Shat Watercraft, Limited
Greben Shipyard
Schiffs-und-Bootswerft
Mumby Road, Gosport
N-5470
50270 Vela Luka
D-2876 Berne 2/Motzen-Wesser
Hampshire, PO12 1AE U.K.
Rosendal, Norway
Yugoslavia
Germany

Appendix 2
Summary of numerous free-fall lifeboat characteristics
4 - Electric Winch
5 - Hydraulic Rams
N/A - I n f o r m a t i o n N o t A v a i l a b l e

I - Free-fall
2 - Gravity
3 - Float-free

Maa a f a e l a r ~

Z
m
-4
m
O
3:

Z
O
r"

o
o

IO
.,4
"4

Modd/Size
BH- FT.0

Ou p l l q ,
26

Leagt It

(...~=,)

Breadth

Weight Weight
HeightI Loaded E m ~ y M aHull
terial

2.86
3.10
6350
Beih;u (CSSC)
7.10
B H - F7.8
30
2.86
3.10
7100
7.90
Be,hal (CSSC)
286
3 10
7850
B H - F8.6
34
8.70
Beih a. (CSSC)
1.95
N/A
2540
Ermt Hateck e
OFF-4.9
8
4.96
3625
Ernst Hateck e
G F F - 5.7
15
2.2
N/A
5.7
4260
2.2
NiA
Ernst H a t e ~ e
OFF-6.6
18
6.62
4975
Ernst Hateck e
O F F - 7.4~
21
7 41
2.2
N/A
266
N/A
6250
Ernst Hated~e
O F F - 7 4b
28
7.4
2.66
N/A
7200
Ernst Hateck e
OFF-8.1
32
8.15
2.95
N/A
10470
Ernst Hatecke
GFF-9 9
40
99
2.95
N/A
12075
Ernst H a t e c i e
O F F - 11.5
51
11.5
4770
Ernst Hatec~
GFF - T6.6
17
6.62
2.2
N/A
5380
Ernsl Hateck e
G F F - ' f 7 .Is
2I
2.2
N/A
7.4I
I
2.66
N/A
Ernst Hateck e
O F F - TT.4b
28
74
6550
7400
2.66
N/A
E r m t Hated~
O F F - T8.I
32
8.15
10470
Ernst Hateck e
GFF-T9.9
40
9.9
2.95
N/A
1~70
GFF-TI15
51
11.5
2 95
N/A
Ernst H ale~k e
5800
Fr. F a s s m ~
O A R - T6.8
20
682
2 35
16
8170
7.78
2.7
1 21
Fr Fuss m~"
O A R - T7.7
34
6600
7
2.8
34
Orebea
F F L - 28
28
7700
Orebea
F F L - 32
32
7.8
2.8
3.4
2.8
3.4
89O0
Grebea
F F L - 36
36
8.6
I(3000
Orebcn
F F L - 40
40
2.8
3.4
94
l I 100
Oteb~m
F F L - 44
44
28
3.4
10.2
2.8
3.4
1500
Oreben
F F L - 48
48
I:
2.8
34
14000
Orebea
F F L - 52
52
11.8
12450
FF-34
40
2.95
3.55
10.52
Hardin S Safety
16500
FF-40
50
1Z72
2.95
3.6
Harding Safety
3 51
3.95
18000
F F - 42
60
13.22
Hwding Safety
356
5.05
28000
F F - 48. I
74
14.6
Harding S a f e r
2.46
3.2
5950- 570d
F F - 700
26
8.22
H a ' d i n g Safe~y
5000
6.77
)
2.5
3
G ES - 22
20
.lot ~et~ ea Vik
3
3.85
11400
GES-33
43--45
10.15
]
J o r g e ~ e n Vik
6.4
2.3
N/A
NtA
F L - I0
6-10
Verhod
N/A
Verhod
F L - 15
10-. 14
7.45
2.3
N/A
7.9
N/A
2.3
N/A
Vo'hod
FL-20
15-20
2.4
N/A
N:A
8
Verhod
FL-22
8
N/A
V er h o d
F L - 9-5
2 0 - 25
2.7
N/A
85
N/A
95
2.9
N/A
V e~hoef
FL-30
tO.-- 25
9000
3.1
N/A
Verhod
FL-40
26.-32
IO.5
9600
Verhoef
FL-50
33-40
11.25
3.~
N/A
3.5
3.78
14000
Verhod
FL-60
41-60
13
2.35
2.32
4500
Wat~craft
6.0WFF17
17
6.0
2.35
2 32
5800
6.82
Water~rgt
6 8W FF20
20
2.70
2.70
7550
W at er ca';~t
7.TWFF34
34
7.78
2.70
2.70
8600
8.50
Wat a'cra/t
8.SWFF38
38
3.90
2.75
12450
War,to'aft
I 10.15WFF45
45
10.0
3.80
3.50
i
15500
1
Wat~craf'
[
1ZSWFF'70
70
1Z8
[
q o t e - C o s t lS f o r l i f e b o a t o n l y , e x c e p t wlaere * i n d i c a t e s launcla a n d d a v i t a l s o . F o r p r i c e s q u o t e d

4400
4850
5300
1940
2500
2910
3400
4150
48~0
7470
8250
3420
3800
4450
5000
7470
8750
4300
6070
4500
5300
6200
7000
7800
8700
I0100
9450
12750
13000
22450
5550
3500
8000
N/A
2800
4000
NIA
4500
5000
5660
6600
N/A
3255
4300
5000
5750
9075
10250

GRP
GRP
GRP
GRP
GRP
GRP
GRP
GRP
GRP
GRP
ORP
GRF
GRP
ORP
GRP
GRP
GRP
GRP
GRP
GRF
GRP
GRP
GRP
GRP
GRP
ORP
GRP
GRP
GRP
S~eel
FRP
GRP
GRP
Alum.
Alum.
Alum.
Alum.
Alum
.... Alum.
Alum.
Alum
A I um.
....... G R P
GRP
GRP
..... G R P
GRP
GRP

(de~)

Free- Fall
Height
flea-,s)

N/A
N/A
NIA
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
35
35
35
50
35
N/A
45
30
30
30
30
30
35
35
3S
35
30
30
30
30
30
30

NIA
N/A
N/A
10
12
15
18
20
20
30
30
11.5
14
16
15.5
22
23.5
15
20
14
16
18
20
21
22
23
20
N~
28
40
20
N~
40
12
12
I2
16.5
12
17.5
18.5
195
20
18
18
20
N/A
32
N/A

Lauaeh
Angle

1
[
I

I
I
[

]
I
]

,
I

in foreign currency, the following conversion

I
I

Approvals
Cargo
Taaker
Ve~siom
Yes
Yes
y~
Yes
Y es
Y es
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
------Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Y~
Yes
Y~
Y~
Y~
Y~
Yes
yes
Y~
Yes
yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
yes
yes
Yes
Yes
yes
yes

rateswere

I
I
I
]
i
]

I
I
I

I
d
[
I
I
1
I

i
[
]

used:

Version
Yes
Yes
yes
No
No
-- ----Y~
Y~
Y~
Y~
Yes
Y~

N/A

Laulch
System
{See Key)

Ree.~v~y
Sysl em
(See Key)

Coat
(USD)

,NIA
., N/A
N/A
1,2,,3.5
1,2.3,5
1.2.3,5
1.2,3,5
1,Z3,5
1.2.3,5
1.Z3.5
1,2.3.5
1.2.3~
1,2.3,5
1,2.3,5
I,Z3,5
1.Z3,5
1,Z3,5

NIA
N/A
N/A
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

NIA
N/A
N/A
N/A
109,150
NtA
N/A
N/A
N~
N~
N~
l~J50

N~
4
4

1.2.3

t,2,3
N/A
Yes
I,Z3
1.2.3
Yes
I,~3
Yes
1.!3
Yes
1.13
Y~
Yes
1."-,3
I ,Z3
Y~
1.Z3
Yes
1,Z3
Yes
yes
1.2.3
yes
1.2.3
Yes
/
1.Z3
Y~
1,Z3
1,Z3
yes
1.2%3
No
I,Z3
No
I,Z3
No
I.Z3
No
No
1{>3
No
l,Z3
No
1.2.3
No
1.2.3
No
l ,Z3
Yes
1,93,4.5
yen
1,03,4.5
Yes
1.Z3,4.5
yet
[
1,2..3,4.5
Yes
]
1,93.4.5
yes
!__ i__ ,,Z3,4-5
I DM = 0.59 USD,

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I57.511
179,588

140,000

4
4 or 5
4 or 5

N/A
N~
N~
N~
N/A
229,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
140,000
180,000
345,000 *
NIA
N/A

4 or 5
4 or 5

N/A
N/A

4or5
4or5

223~300 *
N/A
357,000"
405,000
490,000
84.000
96.500

4
4
4

4
4
4
4
4

4or5
4or5
4or5
4or5
4 or 5

4 or 5

116,500

4 or 5
4o5
4or5

I28,000
N/A
N/A

I NOK= 0.15 USD