INTERNATIONAL SMALL CRAFT INDUSTRY CONSULTATION AND VALIDATION STUDY

INTERNATIONAL SMALL CRAFT INDUSTRY CONSULTATION AND VALIDATION STUDY ISO/DIS-12215-9 Hull Construction Scantlings Part 9: Appendages and rig attachment. Validation against existing boats - (Fixed ballast FRP yachts ONLY) Supported by The European Boating Association International Sailing Federation Royal Yachting Association 27 March 2009

REPORT TITLE INTERNATIONAL SMALL CRAFT INDUSTRY CONSULTATION AND VALIDATION STUDY. ISO/DIS-12215-9 Hull Construction Scantlings Part 9: Appendages and rig attachment. Validation against existing boats. (Fixed ballast FRP yachts ONLY) SUMMARY This report describes the results of an industry consultation exercise conducted between October 2008 and March 2009. The objective was to obtain feedback and actual boat data for fixed keel, composite yachts and compare these against the current requirements of ISO/DIS- 12215-9. Twelve companies were targeted and asked to supply input for two boats each, which would have yielded data for 24 boats. In the event 9 boats were received from five organisations. Additional discursive feedback was received from several companies. Further valuable feedback was obtained by the attendance by one company at a working group 18 meeting in November 2008 and by others at a number of meetings outside WG18 organised by the group s convenor. Given the data made available, the validation is considered suitable for spot-checking purposes. The plots of minimum compliance factors should be viewed collectively to give an overall impression of ISO/DIS-12215-9 requirements versus the diverse range of industry practices. Industry practice for keel design is expected to vary from use of pastexperience/rules of thumb, class rules (with or without class involvement) up to full finite element analysis using measured loads. Against this backdrop considerable variations are to be expected. Viewed overall, the scantling requirements of ISO/DIS-12215-9 seem to be reasonable and there is sufficient evidence to conclude that part 9 is ready for progression to FDIS as far as the fixed keel component is concerned. From previous experience with earlier parts of ISO-12215, progression to FDIS is usually followed by increased levels of interest from the industry and this is expected to be the case with part 9. DISTRIBUTION UNRESTRICTED ISSUE DATE 27 March 2009 AUTHOR: R Loscombe, CEng, FRINA. navalarchserv@ntlworld.com DISCLAIMER This report is for information only and is only to be used for ISO/DIS-12215-9 development purposes. The results may not be used to support or otherwise any existing keel configuration. ISO/DIS-12215-9 may not be referred to as an International Standard and this draft does not constitute an advanced draft under the meaning of RSG guidelines. Supporting organisations 1

1. BACKGROUND 1.1 ISO-12215 ISO-12215 is a nine part small craft scantling standard which has been under development since the early 1990 s. The standard is being developed by Working Group 18 (WG18) under the convener-ship of Gregoire Dolto of Fédération des Industries Nautiques (France). Parts 1-6 have been harmonized and may be referred to as International Standards. DIS and FDIS denote Draft and Final Draft international standard respectively, with DIS being a pre-fdis version. The FDIS version is the draft voted on by the national standards bodies concerned. Revisions after harmonization are generally at five yearly intervals unless a safety issue is identified in the interim period. 1.2 ISO/DIS-12215-9 Full title: Hull construction Scantlings Part 9: Sailing craft Appendages and rig attachment. Part 9 is currently at the DIS stage. The intention is to develop the FDIS by May 2009 for approval by WG18 at the 18 th June meeting in London. Part 9 covers keels and their attachment for keel boats and dinghies, dagger boards, chainplates, foundations, mast steps and other associated structure. The only items covered in this report are fixed ballast keels and their attachment. The Royal Yachting Association has supported the attendance of one of its staff at WG18 meetings since 2001. In addition, it has been their practice to use advanced drafts of 12215 for RCD scantling assessments, as permitted under RSG guidelines, as part of its role as a notified body. ISO/DIS-12215-9 has been used on an informative basis to complement other methods (where these exist). In this way, the requirements of the draft have already been compared with actual boat keel configurations and found to give good agreement for 12-18m production yachts. The current industry-wide validation therefore is only one in a series of ongoing validation exercises. Accident investigation reports have also been reviewed as these become available. 1.3 Industry consultation project This project commenced in the autumn of 2008 following the WG18 meeting in Berlin at which time the working group judged that the development process would benefit most from a targeted industry-level validation exercise. A number of key leaders in the field of fixed keel structures were identified and contacted. Of these, twelve indicated a willingness to assist either directly by email contact with the report s author or as relayed indirectly by the convenor. Each was asked to identify only TWO boats as being representative of their range or of special interest to them. This was intended to give a good spread of types/sizes and minimise their time commitment. 2

Companies were supplied with a spreadsheet developed by WG18 at the end of November 2008 which was intended to reduce the labour involved. The workload was estimated to be no more than ½-1 day for the two boats, if the data was readily to hand. Due to external time pressures (see 1.4) a deadline notification for end of January 2009 was sent to companies at the end of 2008 and subsequently extended to the last quarter of February. A final effort to gathering in outstanding boats was made in March. In the event, data for nine boats were received by the deadline as follows: Finland (2), France (4), New Zealand (2) and UK (1). The quality/consistency of data often required some intuitive work-arounds by the author. This was done without compromising the integrity of the process, since one can only take so much of company s time. The data is considered to be of sufficient quantity and quality to render the validation study meaningful, given that only an overview is being sought here. Several companies provided general feedback in respect of canting keels, fatigue-based design and composite laminate requirement in way of keel bolts. Two companies were unable to assist since the spreadsheet did not cater for their keel types being tray or recessed types (see 1.5). Of course, it is understood that companies have to balance issues of client confidentiality, diversion of their staff from fee-earning work and the limited incentives for releasing their expertise into the public domain. On the other hand, there is no question at this stage of ISO- 12215-9 being dropped so everybody needs to work together to make it as good as it can be. It seems likely given the importance of keel structures, that even those companies who did not supply data or reply in anyway will have taken a thorough look at the requirements and it may be presumed (perhaps optimistically) that they are reasonably content. 1.4 International Sailing Federation (ISAF) agenda Following a number of incidents with lost keels combined with the effective loss of the American Bureau of Shipping s plan review service some years ago, ISAF voted in November 2008 to institute a plan review for 0, 1 and 2 category boats. This is to be based on ISO-12215 and is due to commence in June 2009. This (together with the use of 12215 within the Volvo 70 rule) has swung the centre of gravity of the ISO scantling standard more towards all-out racing yachts away from production craft than would otherwise have been the case. The ISAF decision has also imposed a need for part 9 to be issued as a FDIS as soon as possible. 3

1.5 Part 9 limitations In developing part 9, WG18 have moved away from the part 5 approach whereby the design pressures given in this part of ISO 12215 are only (to be) used with the given equations. This is because the design loads in part 9 are more independent of the selected is the case with the pressures of part 5. The four key ballast keel load cases are: 90 degree knockdown (fixed keels) 70 degree maximum cant angle plus 40% overload factor (canting keels) Vertical force (up only) Longitudinal grounding (normal and enhanced resistance) The allowable stress factors are set at a level which should generally mean an explicit fatigue life assessment is not necessary, although an informative annex detailing one fatigue life prediction method is included. See discussion. Designers are free to use a range of alternative methods such as deflection-compatibility grillage theory, matrix-displacement or finite element methods. However, it would be an excessive burden if such more advanced methods were IMPOSED on all users of the standard. To counter this part 9 provides a series of strength of materials level beam theory based procedures. It is these which are implemented within the keel calculator spreadsheet. These methods are intended to be conservative and are limited in their scope. The part 9 annexes assume that the floors carry the transverse load. Version two of the spreadsheet (not supplied to companies in November 2008) includes an algorithm for distributing the grounding load between the floors and girders. This was derived from simple grillage analyses but is only applicable to one centreline or pair of closely spaced girder. Keels which fall outside the applicability of part 9 annexes: Recessed keels Multiple girder tray-moulding style keels Lifting keels, particularly keel boxes 4

There is no simple engineering method for analyzing these, leaving the choice between rules of thumb/experience (which puts these types outside the scope of 12215-9) or finite element analysis. It is not possible to develop simple methods for every configuration meaning there is no alternative, if the keel is to be engineered, but to apply suitable computational methods. At least part 9 provides loads and criteria. 2. RESULTS 2.1 Actual boats used in validation exercise All are category A, with lengths between 8 and 20 metres. Indicative hull lengths, full load displacement and ballast ratio and keel type are provided within this report. To further preserve confidentially, boats are labelled A to I and can only be identified by the originators. 2.2 Assessment conditions Of the nine boats supplied two used grillage-derived floor and girder moments/forces. This may well be representative of industry design practices. Where supplied, these grillage calculations (and other studies carried out by the author) indicate that the simplified annex isolated floor approach is only slightly conservative for transverse bending load cases and but excessively so for the longitudinal grounding case. Of course where no girders exist, the isolated floor assumption is likely to be less conservative (although the role of the rigid CL girder, aka the keel fin is another issue). For validation purposes, the spreadsheet provides an approximate equation for distributing the load between floors and girder(s) (for the grounding load case only). This equation was derived by matrix-displacement analysis of various floor/girder combinations varying end conditions and flexural rigidity ratios (approximately 80 configurations). 1 girder x 3 floors 2 girders x 3 floors 1 girder x 4 floors 2 girders x 4 floors K GFSR n G i1 n F j1 k k EF EF EI 3 L G EI 3 L F G F i j 5

Of course, this is only an approximation, showing the expected fair amount of scatter and the recommended approach is to model the grillage in 3-D so that loads may be applied directly to the keel rather than the grid (see figure on page 4). In practice, users will be able to submit their own estimate of the load share between floors and girders. Without a grillage analysis, this can only be intuitive and hence the equation-fit to the above data is considered to be a good intermediate approach between guesswork and rigorous 3-D analysis. It will be up to the working group to decide whether the load-share equation should be included within the standard. Two companies (of the five) supplied their own floor/girder offered capabilities (EI, ultimate moments in crown tension or compression and web shear force). In one case, the designer confirmed that these were based on the ABS Offshore Racing Yacht Guide equivalent thickness for sandwich plating which is considerably more generous than the ISO-12215-5 approach. In this validation, these have been replaced by ISO-12215-5 Evaluation level B mechanical properties, except in two cases where the designer supplied only final compliance table for one boat and no laminate schedules for the other. In this second case, the company values have been used. This combination of reasonably achievable mechanical properties and conservative isolated floor method are considered to provide a fair middle of the road comparison, neither too high-tech nor excessively conservative. This is the design/assessment approach which many production builders are expected to adopt as it involves the minimum level of deviation from the standard and no recourse to more advanced stress analysis methods. 2.3 Presentation of results Results are presented as MINIMUM compliance factors (ratio of offered value to ISO/DIS-12215-9 required value or limiting stress divided by actual stress). As capabilities are reduced by the limiting stress factor, a compliance factor of 1.0 indicates NOT that there is no margin of safety, but that the offered scantling JUST complies with the requirements of part 9 (which have a margin of safety factor built in). COMPLIANCE FACTOR = 1.0 (component JUST complies) COMPLIANCE FACTOR < 1.0 (component does not comply) COMPLIANCE FACTOR >> 1.0 (component easily complies) A histogram is provided for each boat for 9 critical items: Minimum CF for floors under knockdown moment (Load case 1 LC1) Minimum CF for floors under longitudinal grounding (normal) (Load case 4 LC4/I) Minimum CF for floors under longitudinal grounding (enhanced) (Load case 4 LC4/II) Minimum CF for girders under longitudinal grounding (normal) (Load case 4 LC4/I) Minimum CF for girders under longitudinal grounding (enhanced) (Load case 4 LC4/II) Minimum CF for keel bolts under knockdown moment (Load case 1 LC1) Minimum CF for keel bolts under longitudinal grounding (normal) (Load case 4 LC4/I) Minimum CF for keel bolts under longitudinal grounding (enhanced) (Load case 4 LC4/II) Minimum CF for the fin at root under knockdown moment (Load case 1 LC1) The vertical load case is rarely critical from this study and so results are not reported here. Keel flange and bulb-fin connections are also not reported as this information was not supplied in general by the companies. However, tentative calculations were made for fin-bulb connection using four horizontal bolts of the same diameter/material as the keel bolts, located 6

equidistance along the tip chord and in most cases this gave compliance factors marginally greater than one under bulb deceleration loads in grounding. As these are minimums it should be recognised that other components are likely to have higher CF s. In a real RCD assessment for example, it may only be necessary to introduce localised reinforcement in order to produce a fully compliant boat. The laminate in way of the keel has been reputedly an issue in a number of keel loss incidents. It is also one of the most difficult areas to rigorously analyse, at least within the zero R&D budget available to WG18. It is considered to be too important an area to neglect and yet it is an area in which it seems classification societies prefer to work on a case by case basis rather than provide extensive design equations. WG18 s preferred approach is to provide indicative values within the Annexes. These should be taken as indicative of reasonable practice and the intention is to flag this up as an important issue for designers. However, it is NOT intended that these should be interpreted as cast-in-stone figures. As there are numerous criteria (backing plate diameter and thickness, hull thickness, lapping tray requirements, location of bolt with respect to floor/girder webs and load case, bolt force), a compliance map is provided whereby red means non-compliance, green compliance. This provides an at a glance indication as to the extent to which the structure complies. The map assumes that the same backing plate/laminate/tray configuration is applied for all bolts. This of course need not be the case and many red areas may simply require local reinforcement. There is also some uncertainty about the integrity of the supplied data in this area. THE RESULTS FOR THE NINE BOATS ARE GIVEN IN APPENDIX I. No attempt is made to drill down into particular areas of non-compliance. This is only worth doing is there is 100% confidence in the supplied data and this is not the case. In reality, the only way to do this is to supply plans and material test data reports. 3. DISCUSSION POINTS Please note; the opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of working group 18. This section is included to provide some wider perspective than merely reporting the validation results. Comments from readers are welcomed, especially if this comes in the form of validated equations or solid data. 3.1 What constitutes a good result It will be noted that there are areas of non-compliance amongst the nine boats. This is to be expected and is not wholly unwelcome (in the author s opinion only) for the following reasons: 1. It must be recognised that keel attachment is too important for the standard to be seen as a rock-bottom minimum. A bit of healthy conservatism is seen as the responsible course of action. The risk of users designing down to a minimum standard should not be ignored, a particular concern if design by experience is replaced by handle-turning of the Annex/spreadsheet-level method. As experience is gained with the standard (see conclusions) it may be possible to adjust the requirements on the basis of well documented case studies, but this should not be done on the basis of a nine boat study. 7

2. The validation uses the annex methods of part 9. There is some evidence gleaned during development of the standard and in discussions with companies that these methods are conservative in comparison with 2-D and 3-D numerical methods. There should be some incentive for designers to use more theoretically sound procedures and it believed that many structural specialists will welcome the edge this flexibility provides. 3.2 A suggestion as to how part 9 should be used This last point is seen as critical. Keel grids are complex structures. The components do not behave as isolated beams. ISO/DIS-12215-9 recognises this by permitting more rigorous stress analysis methods. Stress distributions around keel bolts/backing plates are complex and cannot be accurately represented by simple equations of the sort contained in part 9 annexes. The part 9 annexes (as implemented within the validation spreadsheet) cannot assess recessed keels, keel boxes, canting keel wet compartment bulkheads or complex grillage configurations. What the annexes aim to do is to supply a simple, inexpensive not excessively conservative assessment tool for assessing the vast majority of conventional fixed ballast supported principally by floors with one or two tie-ing girders close to the centreline. ISO/DIS-12215-9 = Simple holistic (and conservative) procedures for production boatbuilders + Loads + criteria + guidance on advanced engineering methods for structural specialists It must be recognised that the standard, even if eventually harmonised, should not be regarded as the only way. A tick-box compliance mindset must be avoided at all costs and assessment bodies, such as notified bodies assessing for RCD compliance or ISAF approved notified bodies must possess the engineering competence to review designers/builders alternative methods when these are presented. While ISO/DIS-12215-9 should be seen as an assessment load-criteria based method, allowing some flexibility in the stress analysis methods for those that want it, this does not relieve designers of their responsibility to work within ISO-12215-5 in terms of grid properties, e.g. evaluation levels and effective plating. 3.3 Background to the stress factor (agreed by WG18) The stress factor is currently set at about 1/3 rd of ultimate for metals, wood and composite. It has been set at this level to effectively reduce the need for an explicit fatigue life prediction. Guidance for this is currently provided within the standard, but it is a difficult calculation since it requires a lifetime stress range v number of stress cycles history. By setting the stress level at a low level for infrequently occurring load cases, fatigue life becomes less of an issue. This is not necessarily the case for very high strength steels or where the structural configuration contains significant local stress-raisers. Again, just ticking the part 9 boxes may not be enough for all keel configurations. 3.4 Background to the load cases (under consideration by WG18) The load cases have been exhaustively checked against current classification society practice and design methods (where these were divulged). The transverse bending load cases (90 degree knockdown -fixed, maximum cant angle plus 40% dynamic overload factor -canting) are considered to be well grounding in existing methods and real load cases. 8

The most contentious load case is the fore and aft grounding (load case 4). This has been part of the ABS ORY guide for 20 years, albeit subject to various interpretations/amendments over that period. The current F 4 formula has been extensively checked against other methods, but this is still highly non-scientific. F 4-ENHANCED = 0,8 g m LDC (L WL /10) 1/2 N (with FRP stress factor of 0,33) Using ABS at L WL = 20m, (assuming 35% ballast ratio) and stress factor = 0,5, would yield a coefficient of 1,95 x 0,33/0,5 /1.414 = 0,91 Using DNV Large yacht rule, (assuming 35% ballast ratio) and stress factor = 0,5, would yield a coefficient 1,495 x 0,33/0,5 /1.414 = 0,7 It is not possible to relate the speed directly to grounding force and in any case this would be meaningless as a low speed impact on rock may be more damaging than a high speed impact on mud. The mechanics of impact of yachts with containers, berg-bits or whales defies simple analysis. Solid mechanics would need to be factored in - quite inappropriate for a simple standard. This is a crude deterministic approach to a probabilistic load case and should be treated with caution. Notwithstanding this, to give a feel only for the effective decelerating force (applied at the centre of gravity) implied by 0,8g (10m boat) or 1.1g (20m boat), assuming a constant impulse approach, a boat travelling at the hull speed would stop in about 0.5 second (translation only). The load applied at the keel would cause a bow down attitude of (very roughly) 0.5m at the bow. This all seems to constitute a pretty severe load case. Please note again very rough figures. It emerged from the validation that some boats, particularly those with no girders had little hope of complying with this load case, without substantial local reinforcement. It is important to recognise differences between the risk/consequences of impact loads on ocean racing boats with those of typical recreational craft. Hence, it was felt sensible to have a dual grounding load case approach; NORMAL and ENHANCED. Designers/builders could opt for either. A category A or B yacht need not necessarily be designed to impact Type II. It is for the designer or builder to decide. Type II may be applicable to ocean-going racing yachts in collision with floating objects, ice flows or marine creatures. For other category A or B craft (while designed to the appropriate requirements in all other respects) such a load case may not be appropriate. Whatever type is selected, the following note shall be included in the owner s manual to the effect: This boat has been designed to a Impact Type [I] [II] (delete as necessary) grounding scenario as defined in ISO-12215-9, where the craft is expected to be operating at [low] [high] speed prior to the impact (delete as necessary). While compliance does not guarantee that the boat will suffer no damage in such a grounding, the resistance of a boat designed to Type II is normally expected to be substantially greater than that designed to Type I. The NORMAL grounding deceleration is subject to discussion and the validation study has been informative in that respect. The current formulation is: F 4-NORMAL = 0,3 g m LDC N (as of beginning March 2009) 9

Note: another version F 4-NORMAL = 0,4 g m LDC (L WL /10) 1/2 has been recently proposed 10-March 2009, meaning the normal load case 4 value is 50% of the enhanced value. Results are presented for the first formulation. For the alternative simply multiply LC4/II compliance factors by two to obtain CF s for this version. Again no speed can be associated with this factor, but using the same grossly simplified logic as above, the speed is of the order of 3-4 knots. This is considered to be typical of operating speeds in shallow waters, where skippers, aware of the danger of grounding, proceed with caution. Grounding at this speed might lead to very minor injuries but should not it might reasonably be argued result in any hull damage. This then seems a reasonable minimum standard which the boating public might expect all boats to be designed to. Of course there will always be cases where groundings result in damage and no doubt ISO- 12215-9 will be cited by various parties. This is perhaps why an explicit speed-load relationship would be dangerous as well as scientifically invalid. This is not a reason for avoiding building in of some measure of collision resistance. 3.5 Other issues 3.5.1 Centre of rotation under load case 4 (refer to draft standard, annex B for details) This discussion is relevant to load case 4 only. The draft uses a centre of rotation (CoR) based on the relative stiffness of the floors, ignoring the girders and the thorny issue of how to treat the rigid keel root/flange. The method works well when CoR is located reasonably centrally with respect to the floor positions. It even works well when the configuration includes a grounding floor located near the trailing edge of the keel. However it does have a problem if the after floors are fairly similar but the most forward floor incorporates the stiff mast step. This rigid forward member attracts the CoR meaning that few bolts are forward of the rotation point (bolts are assumed to be effective in tension only). It would seem logical that the keel kick-up is taken by bearing on the shell aft of the CoR and the load is apportioned accordingly. Nevertheless this approach can lead to very low compliance factors on the forward (few) bolts. Ideally the standard should not drive design, but the provision of a stiff after (grounding) floor does seem intuitively correct. If this feature is employed then whether the mast step is there or not, the CoR is located near the bolt group longitudinal centroid (or aft which is even more advantageous) and there then do not appear to be any problems with keel bolts in the forward zone failing to comply. 3.5.2 Effective plating There are three general approaches to the effective breadth of attached sandwich plating: 1. ABS guides t based, using equivalent EI (i.e. strictly an effective width, post buckling phenomenon). 2. LR/ISO-12215-5 t based, using 20 (t o + t i ) (i.e. strictly an effective width, post buckling phenomenon). 3. DNV HSLCNSC rules b eff based on flange elastic and shear moduli, distance between point of zero bending moment AND only the inner skin is considered to be effective (shear lag based phenomenon) Using author s best interpretation of the published rules, for a typical floor configuration (550 x 1500) for which LR/ISO would yield 517mm width, ABS would yield 480mm and DNV 78 or 10

183mm (fixed or simply supported). For the same configuration but with 2400 gsm outer, 1680 inner and 30mm core, LR/ISO would yield 250mm, the DNV figure would be unchanged BUT would only consider the inner skin and ABS would yield 597mm (although capped by the floor spacing for this example). Reality is probably covered (one hopes) by this massive spread. Nevertheless it does seem rather odd that designers should be spending design time deciding on suitable stiffener pads (typically 3 or 4 plies of CU300 300mm wide) to lower the neutral axis, when the effective plating is still so crudely defined. There are two issues here; firstly to flag up for the benefit of companies using the ABS approach sandwich panel effective breadth, that a notified body proceeding under ISO-12215 might have a major problem accepting such grid properties. Secondly, given that the above rule formulations are still current, isn t it about time that this issue was resolved given that a few finite element analyses should allow a common formulation to be devised, if indeed this has not been already been done? 4. CONCLUSIONS The validation study shows reasonable support for the current level of design loads and criteria employed in ISO/DIS-12215-9, although it may be more correct to say that the validation has not throw up any issues which require a fundamental rethink. Some components appear to easily comply with the requirements of the draft standard whereas others struggle. This is not a surprise as in some cases, floors depths for example will be stiffness driven (not within scope of draft) or determined by cabin sole position. Grillage analysis may resolve many of these. The majority of components examined comply with the requirements of the draft standard even using the Annex methods which are considered to be conservative Non-compliances are not considered to be excessive unless the enhanced grounding case is selected, especially if no longitudinal girder is fitted (boat E). Changing boundary conditions may produce significant different results at floor ends and if some local reinforcement IS required, this is not considered to be a disaster for the builder. Given the problems encountered in obtaining reliable data, further validation studies should involve direct access to engineering drawings. Given the commercial sensitivity of such information, this is considered unlikely to happen and so further validation should be carried out by notified bodies as part of their normal structural assessment work. This information must remain confidential to the notified body but with numerous NB staff working on WG18, general trends will be informative. The problem of engaging industry encountered during the validation of part 5 continues, often for perfectly reasonable and well understood reasons. It is encouraging that despite the initial cries of despair, part 5 seems to be increasingly used with few problems, apart from a couple of known issues. It may well be that part 9 will follow the same path. In one respect their paths will be identical; ISO-12215 will not feature on industry s radar UNTIL it is at least at the FDIS stage (maybe not until harmonisation). In one respect, this validation has been invaluable in raising awareness, such that WG18 is likely to receive some further feedback between June 2009 (hopefully FDIS launch) and say November 2009 when all the typo s/tweaks have to be done. In this respect the adoption of part 9 as an approved (but not exclusive) method by ISAF would do much to facilitate this. 11

This page intentionally left blank 12

APPENDIX I

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21