TABLE 13.2 SUBMERSIBLES CLASSIFIED BY THE AMERICAN 

 BUREAU OF SHIPPING 



Classified 



Submitted for Classification 



AQUARIUS I 



BEAVER 



BEN FRANKLIN 



DEEPSTAR 2000 



GUPPY 



JOHNSON SEA LINK I 



K-250 (VAST MK II) 



NEKTON (BETA & GAMMA) 



OPSUB 



PC-8B 



PC- 1201 



PC- 1202 



PC- 1401 



PC 1402 



PISCES I, II, III. IV. V, VII, VIII, X 



PS- 2 



SDL-1 



SHELF DIVER 



TS-1 (PC-9) 



VOL- LI 



AUGUSTE PICCARD 



DEEP QUEST 



DEEP STAR 20,000 



SEA OTTER 



SEA RANGER 450 



PC- 1203 



PC- 1204 



PC- 16 



PISCES VI 



vehicles which do not ordinarily seek to 

 carry occupants other than the operator(s). 

 In short, charterers of submersible services 

 can choose from a wide list of vehicles either 

 ABS-classified or Navy-certified. 



At this point we shall leave the Naval 

 submersibles, which by Navy policy must 

 undergo and pass certification to operate, 

 and will deal with privately-owned vehicles. 

 In particular, let us address the question of 

 why's and the benefits to owners and build- 

 ers of ABS classification. 



Commander C. B. Glass, USCG, in a 1969 

 paper (1) described the U.S. Coast Guard's 

 position on legal requirements for submers- 

 ibles (pro) and pointed out that industry 

 owners themselves (Refs. 2 and 3) saw the 

 following benefits from certification: 



1. Reduction of insurance expenses. 



2. Establishment of confidence/acceptance 

 by the customer. 



3. Safety from an irresponsible few who 

 might endanger the economic and scien- 

 tific growth of submersible activity. 



Personal communications with Dr. J. W. 

 Vernon, General Oceanographic Inc.; Mr. D. 

 Barnett, Perry Submarine Builders, Inc. and 

 Mr. M. Thompson, International Hydrody- 

 namics, Ltd., who collectively have built and 

 operated 20 manned submersibles, reveal 

 that there is no apparent reduction in insur- 

 ance policies after the vehicle has undergone 

 ABS classification. The only conceivable ad- 

 vantage, according to Dr. Vernon, is that it 

 (ABS Classification) might influence an in- 

 surance company to decide whether or not 

 they will cover the vehicle. This opinion is 

 shared by Mr. Barnett who further states 



that, in his opinion, the insurance companies 

 have had insufficient experience in submers- 

 ible insuring and do not distinguish between 

 a classed or unclassed vehicle as far as the 

 size of the premium is concerned. 



A benefit can be seen in classification re- 

 garding establishing confidence and accept- 

 ance on the customer's part. Mr. Barnett 

 states that adherence to ABS classification 

 demonstrates that the vehicle is "built to a 

 standard" established by recognized authori- 

 ties in the field, and not merely those of the 

 builder. In the past several years ABS classi- 

 fication has become a requirement of several 

 non-military American Federal Agencies. 

 The submersible owner who wishes to lease 

 his vehicle to these agencies must produce 

 the required ABS documents, a benefit of 

 classification not mentioned by Commander 

 Glass. 



ABS classification standards were drawn 

 up by representatives from the Navy, Coast 

 Guard, industry and academia. Commander 

 Glass states that except in special cases, the 

 Coast Guard now accepts — though not neces- 

 sarily "rubber-stamps" — ABS classification 

 of surface vessels as proof of the adequacy of 

 structural design and expects that a similar 

 relationship will develop with submersibles. 

 One is therefore led to speculate why laws 

 are required, when the vast majority of vehi- 

 cle owners and users have voluntarily 

 adopted ABS classification as a prerequisite 

 to utilization. 



Regarding the benefit of safeguarding 

 against ". . . an irresponsible few," it is suf- 

 ficient to note that since the operation of 

 Auguste Piccard's FNRS-2 in 1948, over 100 



625 



