Working Group 21 (WG21) of CIMAC (Conseil International des Machines à Combustion) has published a paper which asks “What do the terms conventional and unconventional mean?”
In everyday life, this question may be rather unimportant and always open to redefinition. In a technological context, however, it becomes highly significant. Here it is essential to use these terms carefully, especially when it comes to performance requirements or technological solutions. This is why WG 21 (propulsion) has taken on the issue.
WG21 is made up of representatives of azimuthing propulsion, engineering companies, research organisations, system component suppliers such as related electrical equipment and automation, controls, gears, thrusters and system integrators including engine users, shipyards, and classification societies. They assume that there is a consensus in the global shipping industry on the meaning of ‘conventional’ and ‘unconventional’. However, these terms are not defined in IMO documents or international standards. And yet the performance requirements for certain technologies are based on these terms.
Hence, WG 21 believes that the terminology and usability of these terms should be carefully considered. In its position paper, the group has taken a closer look at the terminology ‘conventional’ and ‘unconventional’ used in regulatory frameworks, and highlights industry concerns regarding the use of terminology, proposing an approach to overcome the current challenges.
Tero Tamminen of Steerprop, WG21 chairman, said: “There is no clear definition for ‘conventional’, ‘traditional’ and similar terms, even they are used frequently in IMO documents and other industry papers, and popular wording can mislead and imply a wrong interpretation. That is why we propose for example, that the maturity of propulsion arrangements should not be based on whether they are conventional or unconventional.”
The CIMAC paper can be downloaded here.
