Escape Trunk Rule Debate Ends With New IMO Circular
- Details
- Category: Seguridad marítima
- Published on Wednesday, 29 July 2026 04:37
- Written by Administrator2
- Hits: 79
marine public
A follow-up on the SOLAS escape trunk debate, now settled by IMO's committee
WHAT THE 15 JULY 2026 CIRCULAR ACTUALLY CHANGES
1. The interpretation stays exactly the same - "lower part" still means the lowest deck level, platform or passageway, not necessarily the deepest point of the hull
2. No amendment was made - the committee reviewed the wording and left it untouched
3. No further discussion is planned - the specific interpretation question is now formally closed
4. No new class letter or statement is required - existing flag-approved arrangements remain valid as they stand
5. A copy of the circular is worth keeping on board - for reference if the topic comes up during an inspection
Note: This follows on from our earlier piece, Engine Room Escape Trunk: What SOLAS Actually Requires, which covered the original disagreement over where an escape trunk's "lower part" must begin. That disagreement now has a formal, committee-level answer.
If You Read the First Piece, Here's What's New
The earlier piece described a genuine grey area: SOLAS Regulation 13.4 requires an escape trunk to run from the "lower part" of a machinery space, IMO's 2015 and 2016 interpretations read that as the lowest deck level, platform or passageway rather than the absolute lowest point of the hull, and Port State Control inspections in several regions were not applying that reading consistently.
What has changed since then is not the rule itself, but the level of finality behind it. The International Maritime Organization's Maritime Safety Committee has now formally reviewed the same divergence a second time, at its 111th session, and closed it - without changing a single word of the underlying interpretation.
THE CIRCULAR IN PLAIN WORDS
MSC.1/Circular 1689/Rev.1, dated 15 July 2026, is short and direct once the committee procedure around it is stripped away. It revokes the original MSC.1/Circular 1689 issued the year before, restates the same interpretation of "lower part of the space," and confirms that Port State Control officers should continue to accept a flag-approved arrangement, consulting the flag Administration only where genuine doubt exists.
✔ Tip: A revoked circular is not a withdrawn rule - it means a newer circular has taken over the same subject. Rev.1 replaces the original 1689 entirely; there is no need to keep both on file.
From MSC 110 to MSC 111: The Timeline
|
Milestone |
What Happened |
|---|---|
|
MSC 110 (June 2025) |
Noted the PSC inspection divergence, confirmed the existing interpretation, agreed a new work item to review the wording further |
|
MSC.1/Circ.1689 (2 July 2025) |
First circular urging PSC officers to accept flag-approved designs while the work item continued |
|
SDC 12 (early 2026) |
Reviewed safety experience reports, including submissions from flag Administrations reporting no incidents linked to the existing arrangement |
|
MSC 111 (13-22 May 2026) |
Agreed that no safety issues had been demonstrated and no further discussion was needed |
|
MSC.1/Circ.1689/Rev.1 (15 July 2026) |
Formally revoked the original circular and confirmed the interpretation as final |
WHY "NO SAFETY ISSUES DEMONSTRATED" MATTERS MORE THAN IT SOUNDS
When a committee opens a work item to "review and, if necessary, amend" a piece of wording, the usual expectation is that something eventually changes. That is not what happened here.
SDC 12 examined safety experience actually reported from ships operating under the existing interpretation and found nothing that justified rewriting the rule. MSC 111 then confirmed that conclusion. The practical effect is that this is no longer an open question awaiting a future amendment - it is a closed one, backed by reported operational experience rather than theoretical concern.
❕ Important: A closed interpretation question is not the same as a relaxed one. Every dimension, ladder angle and enclosure requirement from the original regulation still applies exactly as before.
What This Means for a Ship Built Before the Debate Started
Nothing here changes the status of an older vessel's original approval. A ship contracted before the 2015 and 2016 interpretations existed was, and remains, judged against the rules and interpretations in force on its own contract date.
What this circular does add is a stronger footing underneath that position. An inspector questioning an older arrangement can now be pointed not just to the flag's original approval, but to a committee decision confirming that the same reading of the rule produced no demonstrated safety issues across the fleet.
THE END OF THE "2.3 METRE" PROPOSAL
During the earlier review, one proposal on the table was to add a fixed maximum distance - roughly 2.3 metres - between the lowest platform and the escape trunk's lower entrance, turning a judgement-based interpretation into a hard number.
The relevant sub-committee rejected that proposal at the time, on the basis that adding a new numeric threshold went beyond what an interpretation is meant to do - that kind of change belongs in an amendment to the regulation itself, not a clarifying circular. With MSC 111 now closing the matter without any amendment, that fixed-distance idea is not simply shelved for now - it has no live path forward under the current work.
Note: A rejected proposal like this one can always resurface as a fresh submission in future biennium agendas. What Rev.1 confirms is that, as things stand today, no such numeric limit exists or is pending.
What Actually Changes on Board Tomorrow
Very little, and that is the point of this update. No vessel needs new drawings, no company needs to issue a revised procedure, and no crew needs a different drill tomorrow than the one already rehearsed last month. The arrangement that was compliant under the previous reading of the rule remains compliant under this one, because it is the same reading.
What is worth doing is simple administrative housekeeping: filing a copy of MSC.1/Circular 1689/Rev.1 alongside the existing technical justification and flag approval documents, so that anyone asking about this topic during an inspection can see the full, current picture in one place rather than an outdated circular that has since been superseded.
WORDS IN THIS UPDATE WORTH KNOWING
Revoke
To formally cancel a previous circular, replacing it entirely with the new one rather than adding to it.
Rev.1 (Revision 1)
A numbered update to a specific IMO circular, indicating it supersedes the original version of the same document.
MSC session
A scheduled meeting of the Maritime Safety Committee, numbered sequentially, where member governments review and decide on safety matters.
Sub-Committee on Ship Design and Construction (SDC)
The technical body that reviews detailed design and construction questions before reporting conclusions up to the full Maritime Safety Committee.
Positive safety experience submission
A report submitted by a flag Administration describing operational experience with a rule or arrangement, used by IMO to judge whether a change is actually needed.
Contracting Government
A country that has signed and is bound by SOLAS, responsible for applying its requirements to ships flying its flag.
Enhancing Compliance Beyond the Minimum
A settled interpretation is not the ceiling on what a ship can do for its own crew. Several practical, voluntary arrangements sit above the regulatory minimum and are worth a company's attention regardless of how the interpretation debate concluded.
Emergency Escape Breathing Devices
SOLAS already requires an emergency escape breathing device in the engine control room and in workshop areas within category A machinery spaces, plus units positioned according to the layout of the space and the number of crew normally working there. Where a risk assessment shows crew regularly present at the lowest platform level, an operator can reasonably choose to position an additional device there, even though the regulation itself does not fix an exact number for every level.
Drills That Actually Get Tested
The requirement to demonstrate moving an injured person out of the machinery space is not new and is not specific to this debate - it comes from the general drill requirement in SOLAS Regulation III/19.3. Treating that drill as a real test, timed and logged rather than walked through as a formality, is what actually satisfies an inspector questioning the arrangement.
Keeping the Justification Alive
Where a technical justification already exists for a trunk that stops short of the lowest level, it does not need rewriting because of this circular - but it is worth confirming it is still the current version, still signed off, and still stored somewhere the crew can actually put their hands on during an inspection.
TABLE: OPTIONAL ENHANCEMENTS WORTH CONSIDERING
|
Arrangement |
Why It Helps |
|---|---|
|
Extra EEBD at the lowest working platform |
Covers crew present there regularly, based on a documented risk assessment |
|
Illuminated or reflective marking along the escape route |
Helps in smoke or blackout conditions during an actual evacuation |
|
Timed and logged rescue drills |
Gives a real record to show an inspector, not just a completed checklist |
|
Technical justification kept with current flag approval papers |
Presents the full, current picture in one place if questioned |
Getting the Habit Right, Not Just the Paperwork
Do:
✔ Keep the new circular filed with the vessel's existing SOLAS documentation
✔ Continue running rescue drills exactly as before - this circular does not reduce that requirement
✔ Make sure whoever answers an inspector's question knows the debate is now closed, not still pending
✘ Don't:
✘ Treat "no amendment needed" as "no drill needed"
✘ Assume every inspector has already seen Rev.1 - be ready to show it
✘ Discard the earlier technical justification just because the debate has ended
WHERE THE LONG-TERM WORK ITEM STILL SITS
MSC 110's original work item asked the Sub-Committee on Ship Design and Construction to "review and, if necessary, amend" the regulation's wording, and that broader agenda item has continued to be tracked through the 2026-2027 biennium schedule even after MSC 111's conclusion.
Note: Closing the interpretation question and closing the work item are two different things. The interpretation itself will not change without a fresh committee decision, but the formal agenda item can still run its administrative course before being closed out entirely.
❔ Did you know? IACS Unified Interpretation SC277, which mirrors the same IMO wording for classification purposes, was itself revised once already - Revision 1 took effect for ships contracted on or after 1 July 2025, without changing the substance of the original 2016 text.
Straight Answers About the New Circular
Q: Does MSC.1/Circular 1689/Rev.1 replace SOLAS Regulation 13.4 itself?
A: No. It is an interpretation confirming how the existing regulation should be read - the regulation's text has not been amended.
Q: Do older ships need a new technical assessment because of this update?
A: No, provided the original approval and any existing justification remain valid and available - this circular confirms the same standard already applied.
Q: Should a company still expect PSC officers to question the arrangement?
A: Occasionally, yes - but the circular gives a stronger basis to expect the flag-approved design to be accepted without further argument.
Q: Is this the end of any possible future change to the regulation?
A: Not necessarily - the broader work item remains on IMO's agenda, but any future change would need a fresh committee decision, not a reopening of this specific interpretation.
The Debate That Quietly Ended
Most regulatory disagreements at sea end with a compromise, a new number, or a redrafted paragraph. This one ended differently - with a committee looking at years of actual operating experience and deciding the existing wording had never really been the problem.
That is a quieter outcome than a rule change, and easy to miss in a single-page circular dated mid-July. But for a crew standing at the bottom of a machinery space, or an officer filing paperwork before the next port call, quiet and settled is exactly the outcome worth having.