Docker Hub Publisher FAQs
読む時間の目安: 10 分Certification program
What is the certification program for containers and plugins, and what are some benefits?
The Docker Certification program for Containers and Plugins is designed for both technology partners and enterprise customers to recognize high-quality Containers and Plugins, provide collaborative support, and ensure compatibility with the Docker Enterprise platform. Docker Certified products give enterprises a trusted way to run more technology in containers with support from both Docker and the publisher. The Docker Technology Partner guide explains the Technology Partner program, inclusive of process and requirements to Certify Containers and Plugins.
Publisher signup and approval
How do I get started with the publisher signup and approval process?
Start by completing our Technology Partner application. Docker’s partner team will review your application, and follow up directly with further steps. If you have any questions or concerns, please reach out directly to us at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Can we have a group of people work on the same product and publish to Docker Hub? (This replicates our internal workflow where more than one person is working on Dockerizing our product.)
Yes. You can submit your content as a team.
Product submission
What exactly is a customer given access to once they’re entitled to a given product plan?
The customer will be given the permissions to docker pull any tag associated with the source repo specified. We recommend that you create a distinct repo per plan and only use tags for different versions of that specific plan. For example, if you have a community, pro, and enterprise plan of a single product, you should create three separate repos, namespace/community, namespace/pro, and namespace/enterprise
. Once a customer is entitled to your enterprise plan, they will be able to pull store/namespace/enterprise:anytag
.
What is the typical publishing time for new products and updates?
Products are typically published within 24hrs of submission.
Once a product is published, what is the process for pushing a new build (1.2, 1.3)? Will we simply edit the same product, adding the newly tagged repos?
Edit the same product and update with the newly tagged repos.
Additionally, for product updates, you may include a set of Release Notes. These notes will not be published with the product listing itself. Instead, they will be emailed directly to the current subscriber of the product. This ensures that consumers will have timely, valuable alerts about the availability of new images and significant changes.
On the Information page, organization details are required. Do we need to fill those in again for every product we publish, or are they carried over? And if we change them for a later image publish, are they updated for all images published by our organization?
Organization details need to be filled in only once. Updating organization info once updates this for all images published by your organization.
Can we show customers all tags for a specific repository, the way we show all tags for official images?
We don’t support the ability to view available tags for published products because published products usually require entitlement.
Official images and community images have available tags visible because anyone can access any tag at any time anonymously.
In the future, we may enable product listings published with the concept of versions, allowing publishers to manage which versions of their products they expose to customers for access.
On the page for another vendor’s product on Docker Hub, I see the following chunks of data: How do these fields map to the following that are required in the publish process?
Fields I see
- Description
- License
- Feedback
- Contributing Guidelines
- Documentation
Fields in the publish process
- Product description
- Support link
- Documentation link
- Screenshots
- Tier description
- Installation instructions
Description maps to Product description in the publish process.
License maps to Support Link in the publish process.
Documentation maps to Documentation Link in the publish process.
Feedback is provided through customer reviews. https://hub.docker.com/images/node?tab=reviews is an example.
Tier Description is what you see once users get entitled to a plan. For instance, in https://hub.docker.com/images/openmaptiles-openstreetmap-maps/plans/f1fc533a-76f0-493a-80a1-4e0a2b38a563?tab=instructions A detailed street map of any place on a planet. Evaluation and non-production use. Production use license available separately
is what this publisher entered in the Tier description
Installation instructions is documentation on installing your software. In this case the documentation is just Just launch the container and the map is going to be available on port 80 - ready-to-use - with instructions and list of available styles.
(We recommend more details for any content that’s a certification candidate).
How can I remove a published product?
If you would like to remove your submission, contact us at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Can publishers publish multi-container apps?
Yes. Publishers can provide multiple images and add a compose file in the install instructions to describe how the multi-container app can be used. For now, we recommend asking publishers to look at this example from Microsoft https://hub.docker.com/images/mssql-server-linux where they have Supported Tags listed in the Install instructions (you don’t necessarily need to list it in the readme).
Regarding source repo tags: it says not to use “latest”. However, if we want users to be able to download the images without specifying a tag, then presumably an image tagged “latest” is required. So how do we go about that?
You can not submit “latest” tags through the certification/hub publish workflow. The reason we do this is so that users are aware of the exact version they download. To make the user experience easy we have a copy widget that users can use to copy the pull command and paste in their command line. Here is a screenshot to provide additional clarity.
I have two plans, can I use the same repository but different tags for the two plans?
We expect publishers to use a different repository for each plan. If a user is entitled to a plan in your product, the user is entitled to all tags in the relevant.
For instance, if you have a Developer
Plan, that is mapped to repositories store/mynamespace
/myrepo1
:mytag1
, another plan (say Production
) should map to a different repository.
Any user that is entitled to the Developer
plan will be able to pull all tags in store/mynamespace
/myrepo1
.
Licensing, terms and conditions, and pricing
What options are presented to users to pull an image?
We provide users the following options to access your software
- Logged-in users
- Subscribed users only (requires ToS acceptance)
- All users (including users without Docker Identity) Here is a screenshot to describe how publishers can update the options provided to customers.
If something is published as a free tier, for subscribed users only, does a user need to explicitly click Accept on the license terms for which we provide the link before they can download the image?
Yes
Do you have a license enforcement system for docker images sold on Docker Hub? How are they protected, once they have been downloaded? What happens if a customer stop paying for the image I am selling after, let’s say, 2 months?
We provide the following licensing option to customers:
- Bring your own License or BYOL.
The expectation is that the publisher would take care of License Keys within the container. The License Key itself can be presented to the customer through Docker Hub. We expect the Publisher to build short circuits into the container, so the container stops running once the License Key expires. Once a customer cancels, or if the customer subscription expires - the customer cannot download updates from Docker Hub.
If a user cancels their subscription, they cannot download updates from Docker Hub. The container may continue running. If you have a licensing scheme built into the container, the licensing scheme can be a forcing function and stop the container. (We do not build anything into the container, it is up to the publisher).
Does Docker Hub offer a Subscription service, handle our invoicing, payments, etc? What happened to Pay-via-Docker?
Docker has deprecated the Pay-via-Docker subscription service. At this time, Docker Hub only supports distribution of content, under the BYOL Ungated model. In the future, we intend to release BYOL Gated functionality as well. If neither of these options will work for your product and licensing structure, please do inform your partner manager to help guide our feature prioritization.
How does Docker handle Export control? Can individual countries be specified if differing from Docker’s list of embargoed countries?
We provide export control through blacklisting several countries, IPs and users based on the national export compliance database. Any export control we do is across all products, we do not selectively blacklist versions and products for specific groups. Send us an email at publisher-support if you have questions
Analytics
Where can I view customer insights?
Analytics reports are only available to Publishers with Certified. Go to https://hub.docker.com/publisher/center and click on “Actions” for the product you’d like to view analytics for. Here is a screenshot.
How do metrics differentiate between the different Pull Requirement options?
The Analytics reports contain information about the Subscriber and the relevant product plan. You can identify subscribers for each plan for each product. Only anonymous information is available to our publishers. If you’d like the opportunity to receive Lead information, Subscribed Users Only will need to be selected as the pull requirement. Please review the Technology Partner Program guide, and consult with your partner manager, for more information on Lead Generation plans.
Can I preview my submission before publishing?
Yes. You can preview your submission including the image you’ve submitted, the look and feel of the detail page and any markdown descriptions you might have.
Here are a few screenshots that illustrate the preview experience for markdown content. Product Description preview screenshot. Install instructions description preview screenshot.
Other FAQs
Can a publisher respond to a review of their product?
Yes
Can I have a publish by date for my content?
Not yet. This is a planned enhancement, but we have no specific availability date at this time. In lieu of an automated approach, you may coordinate publication timeline directly with your partner manager.
Can I convert my Hub Community profile to a Verified Publisher profile?
No, at this time you will need to separately sign up to become a Verified Publisher. Following that, you may migrate or re-publish your public repo’s under the new Verified Publisher profile.
Once I’ve completed the process to become a Verified Publisher with my partner manager, how do I get access to the Publisher Portal?
You will need to apply for access. Please either follow this direct link or click the “Publisher Center” link at the bottom of any Docker Hub page. Please note, that you will need to be logged in with a DockerID in order to see this link.
What kind of DockerID should I use to publish my content?
Publishing should be done with an Organization level DockerID. We recommend that this account utilize a shared alias with your corporate email account and only individual DockerIDs with company email are added to that organization.
Docker, docker, hub, purchase images


Toggle navigation
Why Don't I Own This?
Must Buys!
Categories
Category A
Category B
Category C
About Us
Contact Us
1500 Live Ladybugs
Text here
Ready to buy!
Ice Cream Lock
Text here
Ready to buy!
Lincoln the Emancipator T-Shirt
Text here
Ready to buy!
Previous
Next


Stateful scanning parser returning a string of all visited chars.
Stateful scanning parser returning a string of all visited chars. Many combinators can be
written in terms of scan
; for instance, take(n)
could be written as
scan(n)((m, _) => m > 0 option m - 1)
.
Parser that matches and returns only s
.
Parser that matches and returns only s
.
Like string
but case-insensitive s
.
Like string
but case-insensitive s
.
Quoted strings with control and unicode escapes, Java/JSON style.
Quoted strings with control and unicode escapes, Java/JSON style. *
Parser that returns a string of characters matched by p
.
Parser that returns a string of characters matched by p
.
Parser that returns a non-empty string of characters matched by p
.
Parser that returns a non-empty string of characters matched by p
.
Parser that returns the next n
characters as a String
.
Parser that returns the next n
characters as a String
.
Parser that consumes and returns all remaining chunks of input.
Parser that consumes and returns all remaining chunks of input.
Parser that consumes and returns all remaining input.
Parser that consumes and returns all remaining input.
Parser that returns a string of characters passing the supplied predicate.
Parser that returns a string of characters passing the supplied predicate. Equivalent to but
more efficient than stringOf(elem(p))
.
Parser that returns a non-empty string of characters passing the supplied predicate.
Parser that returns a non-empty string of characters passing the supplied predicate. Equivalent
to but more efficient than stringOf1(elem(p))
.


Choose an Address Type
Correspondence
Physical/Building
Residence
Additional Addresses
Eff Date
Mail Stop#
Line 1
State
Zip
Line 2
County
Line 3
Country
CAN
FRA
GDR
JAPAN
MEX
NEDER
ROC
UK
USA
HUN
City
Province


Password
Your password must be 8-20 characters long, contain letters and numbers, and must not contain spaces, special characters, or emoji.
Password
Must be 8-20 characters long.


the and waste for are BSF []. The that with from not Pacific food fly soldier but can has black have which such organic other PSIDS land [], Waste composting insects into than {background larvae also most more their this livestock Islands Management all feed insect flies management some Island New would Food margin population they although been these {border-style Insects any island main several use Development [,]. bioconversion its local may px;} research wastes #ffffff;} animal being many municipal one production used waste. Hermetia landfill species there waste, Cook less nations solid will (Diptera: BankMandaluyong, PacificAsian Philippines States Yes agricultural already facility government high human islands much Black Country SnapshotSolid Soldier due environmental including only thus was Fly Insect collection different diseases even exists fed means over process recycling using Developing Fiji PSIDS, Tokelau Tonga agriculture both could country dependent economic farming products relatively well Small South benefit feed, first here households issues potential provide source those waste-management Stratiomyidae) USA World about almost associated benefits coconut collected compost developing dumped edible filth found green higher highly landfills large little manure must presence production, protein reducing resources through Agriculture Nauru Niue Sci. Some While area certain climate composting, cost countries data enteric facilities financial fish global illucens lack like likely natural nearly need new per private problems px; rising sea small still though threatened three very where while {font-family Environ. Environment Feed Guinea Islands, May Micronesia Ministry Most Papua Regional Solomon These This Zealand abundant aid around change consumption costs crops development disease does dumping efforts established feeding font-size funding household increasingly online: people poultry primary produce sustainable system whether willing world (Hermetia Agric. BSF, Entomol. Fiji, Marshall Med. Stratiomyidae There Vanuatu [,], agriculture, among another arable biodiesel cannot capita copra developed double; endemic estimated exist far farmers flies, fly, include income laws legal limited locals mostly ocean part poverty processing program public reared rearing records reduce relative same sources stand studies tourism unknown. what Although Anim. Its Manag../j.wasman... Only Organic Salmonella Samoa Several Soc. Trop. United [,,]. ability above according and/or animals become biowaste border-color border-width burned businesses capacity convert depleted directly effectively entomological farms fisheries focused foreign generate growing half heavily illegal illucens) illucens, impact income. labor leachate levels loss major meal meaning methods multiple namely needs negative outside overflowing particular piles poor populations present problem produced rates recent require requires risk significant solid; square state studied survey systems them themselves times traditional urban valuable vector were work {font-style {font-weight & Atoll Australia BSF. BSFL Based Control Data European Even Federated Feed./JIFF. Flies For GDP Germany Global Health Human Kiribati Larvae Nauru, Note Other Pohnpei Republic Research Risk Strategy Thus, Tokelau, Tuvalu Tuvalu, Western areas based becoming before between bold burning butterfly capital cheap collecting collection, concern courier; crop crops, dairy demand dengue despite determine dump economies em; establishing exist, few fish, fishing, free further gases given great greatly groundwater had heavy help here. highest home however, humans importance imported includes increasing involved islands, kitchen landfill, landfills, last low management, management. manure, market matter mean money needed neglected obstacles often oil organic, outbreak outbreaks palm particularly pay people. permanent pilot point pt;} remittances, rest role sanitation segregate segregated set should source. space spread strong subsistence suggest surveys territories then tourist transportation value vertebrate waste-collection wastes, who working yaws


Limitless Possibilities
Our users have many passions.
They focus these interests into Regimens to be practiced on a monthly, weekly, or daily basis.
Versatile Calendar
Built with a powerful Google Calendar integration, BetterMe allows you to more quickly schedule your time through drag and drop.
Powerful Calendar
Built with a powerful Google Calendar integration, BetterMe allows you to more quickly schedule your time through drag and drop.


-
Background
These terms and conditions apply to organisations (which we will refer to as ‘you’ or ‘your’ from now on) who are applying for grant funding from Innovate UK, part of UK Research and Innovation (‘we’, ‘us’ or ‘our’). This includes applications made singly or in collaboration with other applicants. These terms and conditions apply to requests to fund the project named in the funding application and confirmed in the grant offer letter (GOL).
If your application for funding is successful, you will receive a GOL confirming any specific conditions of the award that you must comply with, in addition to these terms and conditions. You must sign and upload the GOL before your project can start. The GOL and these terms and conditions will together be referred to as ’this agreement’.
-
General terms and conditions
- We have the unilateral right to change these grant terms and conditions at any time,
giving 3 months’ notice. You cannot assign, transfer or sub-contract any of your rights
or obligations under this agreement to any third party. Rights and/or remedies under
this agreement, whether exercised or not, remain available throughout the term of this
agreement defined in clause 4.1. This agreement does not create any partnership or joint
venture between us at law. We:
- accept no liability for any consequences, whether direct or indirect, that result from you undertaking the project, using the grant, or Innovate UK terminating this agreement or the grant and
- limit our liability to the amount of grant payable for which you can provide evidence of eligible costs incurred and defrayed, provided you are not in breach of its terms.
- This agreement is subject to the laws of England and Wales. The grant cannot be used for any political or lobbying activity, or for any purpose other than the project or the purpose described or referred to in the GOL.
- We have the unilateral right to change these grant terms and conditions at any time,
giving 3 months’ notice. You cannot assign, transfer or sub-contract any of your rights
or obligations under this agreement to any third party. Rights and/or remedies under
this agreement, whether exercised or not, remain available throughout the term of this
agreement defined in clause 4.1. This agreement does not create any partnership or joint
venture between us at law. We:
-
Disclaimer
- Innovate UK accepts no liability, financial or otherwise, for expenditure or liability arising from the project or programme funded by the Grant except as set out in these Terms and Conditions, or otherwise agreed in writing.
- Innovate UK accepts no liability for any consequences, whether direct or indirect, that may come about from the Recipient running the Project, the use of the Grant or from withdrawal of the Grant. The Recipient shall indemnify and hold harmless the Funder, its employees, agents, officers or sub-contractors with respect to all claims, demands, actions, costs, expenses, losses, damages and all other liabilities arising from or incurred by reason of the actions and/or omissions of the Recipient in relation to the Project, the non-fulfilment of obligations of the Recipient under this Agreement or its obligations to third parties.
- Innovate UK reserves the right to terminate the Grant at any time, subject to reasonable notice and to make any payment that We agree may be necessary to cover outstanding and unavoidable commitments. If a Grant is terminated or reduced in value, no liability for payment, redundancy or any other compensatory payment for the dismissal of staff funded by the Grant will be accepted.
-
Duration
- This agreement comes into effect on the date of the GOL. It continues until the project end date set out in the GOL or on any other date subsequently agreed by us, unless this agreement is terminated earlier in accordance with its provisions (the ‘term’).
- The project duration will begin on the project start date set out in the GOL and end on the project end date (the ‘project term’) also set out in the GOL unless this agreement is terminated earlier in accordance with its provisions. The project start date and end date will be confirmed when you set up your project. Any changes to these dates need to be agreed with us.
- The terms and conditions of this grant will begin on the date of the GOL and shall continue after the project term for a period of 6 years.
- Any obligations under these Terms and Conditions that remain unfulfilled following the expiry or termination of the Agreement shall survive such expiry or termination and continue in full force and effect until they have been fulfilled by You.
-
Waiver
No failure or delay by Innovate UK to exercise any right or remedy under these Terms and Conditions shall be construed as a waiver of any other right or remedy.
-
Status
If any provision of these terms and conditions is found by a court or other legitimate body to be illegal, invalid or unreasonable, it will not affect the remaining terms and conditions which will continue in force.
-
Joint and several liability
Where the You are not a company nor an incorporated entity with a distinct legal personality of its own, the individuals who enter into and sign these Terms and Conditions on behalf of the You shall be jointly and severally liable for the Recipient's obligations and liabilities arising under these Terms and Conditions.
-
Your obligations
-
As a successful applicant, you will:
- manage the project in accordance with the terms of the application as awarded by us, and this agreement.
- not sub-contract any of your work on the project (unless previously agreed with us)
- inform us promptly, through your Monitoring Officer (MO),
- of any issue or material change that could affect the progress, delivery or exploitation of the project and of any changes to your constitution, legal form, membership structure (if applicable) or ownership.
- if you, your staff, officers or volunteers are subject to any complaint or investigation into dishonesty, fraudulent activities or business misconduct, carried out by any regulatory body or the police.
- of any allegations, whether proven or not, of fraud, criminal convictions, bankruptcy arrangements, or disqualifications
- fully co-operate with us, responding to any requests for information promptly and comprehensively and allowing reasonable (audit) access to your sites and staff upon request
- take out and maintain insurance covering your risks and liabilities for appropriate amounts and in keeping with good commercial practice.
- comply with all applicable laws and regulations in carrying out your activities under this agreement.
- have and maintain adequate procedures to manage and monitor any actual or perceived bias or conflicts of interest in any personal, business or professional activities by you or your representatives which conflict or could conflict with any of your obligations under this agreement.
-
provide the MO, within 90 days of the end of the project, with:
- the final project reports.
- any supporting documentation
- confirmation that the final claim has been submitted.
- confirmation that the final independent accountant’s report has been submitted.
- Take reasonable account of the guidance on trusted research and innovation issued by the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure | CPNI.
- Comply with the requirements stated in The National Security and Investment (NSI) Act 2020.
- Successful and unsuccessful applicants must give us, and any data-sharing partner we appoint, any information we need to create an evaluation report. For successful applicants this will be during the term of the grant and for a further period as specified in your GOL.
- To receive your award, you must start your project within 90 days of the date of your award notification.
-
As a successful applicant, you will:
-
Ownership
- Innovate UK has awarded this grant on the basis of the ownership details provided in your application. If ownership of the Company changes during the course of the grant funded project Innovate UK has the right to suspend or terminate the grant and to recover the value of the grant paid up to that time. Furthermore, failure to disclose a change in ownership may result in the suspension or termination of a grant.
- Where Innovate UK has reasonable grounds for believing that a grant funded project presents a risk to UK national security or national interests more generally Innovate UK shall have the right to suspend or terminate that grant without further notice.
-
Payment of grant
- We will only pay your grant into your business account at a UK clearing bank or one of its subsidiary banks within the UK. Innovate UK may accept an account at an alternative bank in exceptional circumstances at our discretion and by prior agreement. Your grant will be paid by instalments quarterly (unless otherwise agreed by Innovate UK) and in arrears on submission of a claim. This will be for your net eligible costs incurred, invoiced and paid in the quarter (or other period) covered by the claim. You accept that the eligible costs you can claim are limited to those types of costs approved by our Project Finance Team and communicated to you before the issue of the GOL.
- You must provide evidence to Innovate UK through the Innovation funding service (IFS) for each grant claim. You must discuss costs with your MO before they can approve and submit your claim for payment to Innovate UK.
- Your claims must be supported by a revised forecast of eligible project costs. These should detail expected costs for each future claim period and highlight any variations from the last forecast. Your claim might need to be supported by an independent accountant’s report as set out in section 14 below.
- You are required to have a time recording arrangement which allows you to accurately
record time charged to Innovate UK projects. All labour claims must be supported by a
time recording arrangement which includes:
- the date and number of hours worked per day.
- start and finish time.
- a brief description of the work completed and associated Work Package(s)
- the name of the staff member completing the task.
- an hourly rate
- Claims must be for completed quarters only. The exception is the final quarter which is
the only occasion when you can submit a claim for costs incurred but not necessarily
paid, provided that the cost is:
- for labour, overhead and/or travel and subsistence only
- paid within 30 days of the project end date, and
- included within the final independent accountant’s report.
- Innovate UK will normally pay the grant within 30 days unless we need further information to support the claim. We agree to raise requests for further information, if any, within 14 days of receiving the claim.
- All Claims must be submitted or completed as draft within 30 days of the period end. Innovate UK does not have to pay any claim received more than 30 days after the end of the quarter to which it relates.
- Innovate UK will retain 10% of your maximum grant value until the project is complete
and we have received:
- Final claim
- Supporting claim evidence information
- Final project report
- Final independent accountant’s report (IAR)
- You are responsible for maintaining contemporaneous and detailed records and documentation relating to the use of your grant, including timesheets, invoices and other documents.
- The time recording system should clearly show when, who and what has been carried out by employees. These should provide sufficient evidence to support the submission of timely and accurate claims and to demonstrate that your eligible project costs comply with the UK Subsidy Control Framework or State Aid Rules (as applicable) and as outlined in section 16.
- These records must be kept for 10 years following your receipt of the grant and must be supplied to satisfy requests for evidence of compliance within 20 days if requested. Grant recipients should be open and transparent and must provide additional information if asked. For example, this may include details of staff contributing to the project, or the nature of the relationship between the consortium members.
- Where you use subcontractors, we reserve the right to request further information and conduct further checks. Any relationship between the funded project partner and subcontractor must be declared. The lead project partner must be able to demonstrate that value for money is obtained in the procurement of goods, services or works funded by the grant. The procurement process must reflect that which a participant would typically use concerning its own money, with equal, or greater, vigilance. An inferior process will not be accepted. A project partner cannot sell services or equipment to other project partners at a profit.
- Innovate UK may appoint an auditor, at our expense, to ensure you are complying with the terms and conditions of this agreement. You agree to give the auditor or person nominated by UKRI, access to your project records within 2 weeks’ notice of their appointment. If the auditor determines that all or part of the grant has been misapplied or that you should repay all or part of the grant to Innovate UK, we may recover the cost of the auditor’s work from you.
- Innovate UK will not make payment for project costs that you are already in receipt of, whether from Innovate UK (in a separate project award) or any other funding organisation. In the event that separate funding has been awarded for costs associated with the same project deliverables it is the responsibility of you to notify Innovate UK and any other funding organisation. This will allow the awarding organisations to agree who should fund the relevant costs. If you are found to be claiming duplicate project costs whilst in receipt of separate funding (‘double dipping’) Innovate UK will consider terminating the project, recovering all project costs and where there is evidence of dishonesty (Fraud Act 2006), referring the matter to the Police.
-
Monitoring
- Innovate UK is required to demonstrate to UK Research and Innovation and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) the effective performance management of project delivery. Your project will be monitored by Innovate UK's project monitoring service.
- Throughout the term of your project, your progress is monitored by Innovate UK through your Monitoring Officer (MO). Your MO is your first point of contact for official notifications, queries and correspondence with Innovate UK, unless otherwise required by this agreement. You should comply with any reasonable request for information and deadlines by your MO.
- Your project manager, and others as may be agreed from time to time, will meet with your MO once a calendar quarter (or agreed period) to review your written report for the period since the last monitoring meeting. You should deliver this report to your MO no later than 14 days before the scheduled monitoring meeting.
- Your MO will require you to provide satisfactory evidence of project delivery in the
following 3 aspects:
- Technical assurance.
- Financial assurance.
- Project management assurance.
-
Warranties
- As of the effective date of this agreement, you warrant to Innovate UK that:
- you have all necessary resources and expertise to deliver the project (this assumes your reliance on, and timely receipt of the grant and any conditions specified in the GOL)
- you are not subject to any contractual or other restriction imposed by your or any other organisation's rules or regulations or otherwise which may prevent or impede you from meeting your obligations in connection with the grant.
- you have not committed any offence under the Bribery Act 2010
- you have adequate procedures in place for dealing with any conflicts of interest.
- all financial and other information concerning you which has been disclosed to Innovate UK is, to your reasonable knowledge and belief, true and accurate.
- you are not aware of anything in your own affairs, which you have not disclosed to Innovate UK, which might reasonably have influenced the decision of Innovate UK to make the grant on the terms contained in this agreement
- since the date of your last accounts (if any) there has been no significant change in your financial position or prospects which you have not declared to Innovate UK
- you are not subject to an outstanding order for the recovery of subsidy by UKRI, IUK or any other UK public authority or which has otherwise been declared by a court or a regulator to be unlawful and/or incompatible with the UK Subsidy Control Framework.
- you are not subject to an outstanding order for the recovery of any other State aid which has been declared by the European Commission to be unlawful and incompatible with the Single Market.
- if the UK Subsidy Control Framework applies to the grant funding (see section 16, you are not subject to collective insolvency proceedings nor do you fulfil the criteria under UK domestic law for being placed in collective insolvency proceedings at the request of your creditors.
- if the State Aid Rules apply to the grant funding (see section 16), you are not an ‘Undertaking in Difficulty’ as defined in the State Aid rules (GBER 2014).
- As of the effective date of this agreement, you warrant to Innovate UK that:
- Suspension, termination and repayment of grant
- Innovate UK may suspend, terminate and/or reclaim the grant in whole or in part.
- We will take appropriate care in how we do this, but in certain circumstances Innovate UK can immediately suspend grant payments.
- If we have concerns that mean we might need to suspend, terminate or reclaim the grant, we will write to inform you and you will then have 30 days to address our concerns.
- Examples of events that may result in Innovate UK suspending grant payments include,
without limitation:
- Misuse of the grant funds, including, in a fraudulent or financially misleading way or for purposes not declared in your application or agreed to subsequently by Innovate UK (or the Contracting Authority if specified as other than Innovate UK in the GOL)
- false statements in any part of your application for grant or project documentation
- failure to maintain satisfactory progress on the project in the opinion of Innovate UK.
- any significant changes to the proposed outcomes of the project
- failure to comply with any terms and conditions of this agreement.
- behaviour or activity by you, your staff, representatives or contractors which, in the reasonable opinion of Innovate UK is non-compliant with legislation or HM Government policies, or is detrimental to the reputation of Innovate UK, UK Research and Innovation or the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, or is otherwise detrimental to the public interest.
- you commit a breach of your obligations in section 16
-
Examples of events that may result in Innovate UK terminating the grant include, without
limitation:
- failure to resolve to Innovate UK's satisfaction, or not being able to resolve, the reasons for suspension.
- being found to have applied for and secured multiple awards from Innovate UK or UK Research and Innovation for the same or largely interchangeable project scopes.
- being found to have breached any of Innovate UK’s policies with which you had previously been required to comply as a condition of the award of the grant.
- becoming insolvent, declared bankrupt, placed into receivership, administration or liquidation, or having a petition presented for winding up, or any similar arrangements that may affect you financially.
- a change to your legal status or ownership which you have failed to declare or have misrepresented to us.
- you are in breach of any of the warranties contained in section 12.
- you use the grant for purposes other than those contained within the application and description of the project without the consent of Innovate UK.
- you have failed completely to provide or, in the reasonable opinion of Innovate UK, failed to make reasonable effort to collect and/or provide the information requested of you by Innovate UK in accordance with section 10.
- behaviour or activity by you, your staff, your auditor, your accountant, representatives or contractors involving an act of fraud, dishonesty, malfeasance, misrepresentation or any serious financial irregularity in respect of you or your operations which has or could have a serious adverse effect on you, Innovate UK, or both
- you commit a breach of your obligations in section 16.
- If you do not resolve an issue causing suspension or if we terminate the grant, you may be required to repay some or all, of the grant.
- Innovate UK has the right to take all reasonable steps to reclaim any or all of the grant already claimed by you, should it be necessary for Innovate UK to suspend or terminate your grant or terminate this agreement for any reason.
- Where there is an underspend in grant funds paid to or claimed by you at the project end date, the full value of the underspend will be returned to Innovate UK immediately.
-
Project Assurance and Compliance
- You agree to appoint an independent accountant who will inspect your financial statements relating to the grant. They will prepare an independent accountant’s report, at the intervals stated in, and including the information set out in, Innovate UK’s guidance note. The last of these is referred to as the final accountant’s report.
- The guidance note is available from your MO. The report will contain an opinion that:
- the financial information and level of grant claimed are fairly stated and fully evidenced.
- your submitted eligible costs have been properly incurred and paid in accordance with this agreement.
- you have provided satisfactory explanations for any queries raised by the independent accountant.
- You must appoint an independent accountant in a manner consistent Innovate UK’s Standard Terms of Engagement of Accountants. Please refer to Annex 6, Independent Accountants Report Intervals and Annex 7, Independent Accountants Report Template. These documents will be given to you by your MO.
- You must keep your accounts, including comprehensible management accounts, up to date and open to inspection by Innovate UK, or its nominated representatives, at all reasonable times. We have the right to carry out assurance visits to the registered UK office without prior notice. All reasonable efforts must be made to comply with any feasible requests at the time of the visit. We reserve the right to request additional information to conduct background checks and due diligence on company directors and persons of significant control.
-
Innovate UK may ask you to submit an accountant’s report if any of the following occur:
- you withdraw from the project.
- the project is terminated.
- you submit a claim disclosing expenditure substantially greater than forecast, in the opinion of your MO.
- you are suspected of breaching the terms and conditions of this agreement.
-
Confidentiality and information management
- Innovate UK has the right to request access to any additional information we feel necessary in connection with this award. You must provide or allow access to such information within 10 working days of our request. We will treat your confidential and personal information in accordance with our policies and data protection legislation.
- All your information disclosed deliberately or otherwise will be treated by Innovate UK as confidential information and commercially sensitive as exempted under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or any related legislation, unless otherwise marked or agreed in writing. For the avoidance of doubt, it is at your discretion and must be with the agreement of the relevant third parties, if you choose to disclose confidential information of third parties to Innovate UK, at which point it will be treated as confidential information by Innovate UK unless marked otherwise.
- You acknowledge and accept the terms of Innovate UK's Privacy Notice and Information Management Policy which should be read in addition to UKRI’s privacy notice. This policy complies with the General Data Protection Regulation (EU 2016/679), or GDPR, introduced on 25 May 2018 and explains Innovate UK’s specific arrangements for collecting, storing, using and sharing your information. Any information we collect from you, through our online platforms, grant applications and administration, events or elsewhere, will be managed according to this policy and is subject to data protection. This can include personal data or confidential or commercially sensitive information. The policy provides details on how we use this information to support our ability to fund, support and connect innovative businesses and encourage sustainable economic growth for the UK.
- As a public sector organisation we are also subject to some further data protection obligations under the UK Data Protection Act 2018.
-
Subsidy Control/State aid obligations
- The State Aid Rules (see Annex 5 of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland) will apply to the grant funding where the grant funding will affect trade between Northern Ireland and the EU as envisaged by Article 10 of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland in the EU Withdrawal Agreement. In such cases, the provisions in Annex A in these terms and conditions will apply to the funding.
- In all other circumstances, you must ensure at all times that the grant funding awarded to you is compliant with any legislation applicable in the United Kingdom on or after 1 January 2021 that regulates the granting by a public sector body of any advantage which threatens to, or actually distorts competition in the United Kingdom and/or any other country or countries (“UK Subsidy Control Framework”). Further information about the UK Subsidy Control Framework can be found in Innovate UK’s general guidance for applicants.
- You must inform Innovate UK of any other public funding applied for or awarded against the eligible costs covered by this award of grant.
- Innovate UK will immediately stop grant payments to you in any and all projects and may require you to repay grant funding if you are found to have received a subsidy that is deemed to be in breach of the UK Subsidy Control Framework.
- No subcontract or other agreement with a third party can be made which would constitute a breach of the UK Subsidy Control Framework.
-
Intellectual property rights
- Any intellectual property rights (IPRs) developed during or as a result of the project are owned by you.
- You will ensure that you have the necessary rights to use or access third party IPR needed to carry out the project.
- You manage IPRs in a professional and business-like manner in order, amongst other things, to help the achievement of Innovate UK’s overall aims of encouraging the commercialisation of new technologies, helping businesses to grow by benefiting from UK research and enhancing growth of high technology industry in UK.
-
Exploitation of project results
- Innovate UK requires you to establish an exploitation plan together with your Monitoring Officer at the start of your project, and to refine and update it at least once every 6 months (or at other intervals as agreed with Innovate UK) throughout the project’s lifetime. For a period of 5 years from the end of the project, Innovate UK expects you to take reasonable steps to exploit the results of the project in the UK (and the European Economic Area if the grant funding is subject to State Aid Rules. Innovate UK will continuously evaluate the impact of funding awarded to the project and you will cooperate fully in this process.
- You must refine and update your exploitation plan, initially set out in your application, throughout the lifetime of the project and where specified for a defined period after the project end date.
- You must inform us immediately if you are experiencing any financial, administrative, managerial difficulties that may hinder or prevent you from fulfilling your obligations.
-
Engagement
Through the funding provided by Innovate UK for your project, Innovate UK may bring together (physically or virtually) all parties supported to network, share learning and demonstrate impact of this investment. Upon request from Innovate UK you will be expected to participate in these activities as part of the funded cohort for the duration of the project and 3 months thereafter, with the expectation that the benefits gained from this activity may result in organisations themselves continuing this beyond the end of the project.
-
Evaluation data
- Innovate UK is required to evaluate activities across all funded projects for accountability purposes and to inform future programme design. You, and any collaborators, must provide Innovate UK, UKRI, BEIS, any independent evaluation partner we appoint, with data which will include, but is not limited to, information needed for benefit realisation and evaluation when requested within 30 days relating to your project organisations and grant-funded activities throughout the duration of the funded project and for up to five years from the end date of the project.
- Innovate UK or any independent evaluator Innovate UK appoint can also contact individuals to gather data through primary data collection methods for evaluating the impact of your project. Your data will not be published or referred to in a way which identifies any individual or business without your consent. Innovate UK may develop case studies to promote the technologies and systems being developed and demonstrated through this funding. We will develop the case study with you and will obtain your written consent before publishing.
-
Co-Investment data
- Innovate UK provide grant funding to your project with the expectation that additional
investment (co-investment) will be needed to see the innovation through to
commercialisation. This could include:
- additional investment to the agreed total project costs.
- any additional investment in associated technology/research areas or
- further investment to support commercialisation.
- Co-investment is a key factor for Innovate UK and as such, we reserve the right to request data relating to co-investment from You on an ongoing basis for the duration of the project, or as otherwise specified by Innovate UK, and for up to five years from the end date of the project.
- Innovate UK provide grant funding to your project with the expectation that additional
investment (co-investment) will be needed to see the innovation through to
commercialisation. This could include:
-
UK statutory framework
- Innovate UK is required to comply with all legislation in England and Wales.
- You must also comply with all legislation (including in the devolved administrations) where they apply to you and to act in a way that does not affect our ability to comply.
- We particularly draw to your attention the Bribery Act 2010, the Data Protection Act 2018, the Fraud Act 2006, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Equality Act 2010, the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Procurement Regulations 2015.
- Equality, Diversity and Inclusion
- Equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) will be monitored during the Project and its evaluation. This will require (and is not limited to) sharing of staff EDI data when requested, and monitoring and reporting on EDI impacts. All personal data provided to UK Research and Innovation will be processed in accordance with current UK data protection legislation, including the Data Protection Act 2018 and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
- Where embedding EDI into the project has been outlined as a requirement by UK Research and Innovation, it is expected that you will conform to this within the scope of the competition. It is anticipated that you will engage with associated events and support provided by UK Research and Innovation, where applicable.
- Human rights, Safeguarding and Whistleblowing
- You shall (and shall use its reasonable endeavours to procure that its staff shall) at all times comply with the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 in the performance of this Agreement as if You were a public body (as defined in the Human Rights Act 1998).
- To prevent exploitation, abuse or harm from occurring, all relevant safeguarding legislation must be adhered to. We particularly draw your attention to child protection legislation and the Modern Slavery Act 2015. You should have sufficient policies and/or processes in place in order to foster Safeguarding and to adhere to UKRI’s Preventing Harm (Safeguarding) in Research and Innovation policy.
- You shall undertake, or refrain from undertaking, such acts as Innovate UK requests so as to enable the Funder to comply with its obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998.
- You should adhere to good practice recommended by the National Audit Office Assessment Criteria for Whistleblowing policies.
- Publication of information
- You must observe any publicity embargo on the announcement of successful projects until you receive notification from Innovate UK that such publicity embargo as applies has been lifted.
- Innovate UK encourages you to seek your own publicity in respect of the project. If you want to publicise the project in any way whatsoever, please consult the Innovate UK guide ‘Publicising your project: guidelines from Innovate UK’ available from Innovate UK’s Press Office by emailing<EMAIL_ADDRESS>- In any online or printed materials related to activities funded by this grant, you must:
- Sign up to the guidelines upfront and acknowledge the fund in all communications.
- Use the approved logo prominently as much as possible.
- Use wording describing the support from the relevant challenge and Innovate UK in your communications.
- Dispute resolution
- Where a dispute arises between you and Innovate UK, we would encourage you to contact us
to discuss how the matter can be resolved. If a mutually acceptable resolution cannot be
achieved within 30 days of you contacting us, Innovate UK has the right:
- either, unilaterally to terminate the grant and potentially to seek repayment of all or part of the grant funds previously paid to you; or
- if both parties agree, to refer the matter to the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), whose decision will be binding. Any arbitration will be conducted in accordance with LCIA Arbitration Rules before one arbitrator seated in London.
- Where a dispute arises between you and Innovate UK, we would encourage you to contact us
to discuss how the matter can be resolved. If a mutually acceptable resolution cannot be
achieved within 30 days of you contacting us, Innovate UK has the right:
- Force majeure
Where an event of force majeure, or a change to the laws of England and Wales, UK government or devolved administration policy or State Aid Rules occurs which affects Innovate UK’s ability to continue funding your project, we can terminate this agreement by giving you as much written notice as reasonably possible. In such circumstances, Innovate UK will meet any eligible costs in respect of the project that you have reasonably incurred and paid before the date of termination of this agreement.
- Entire agreement
This agreement constitutes the whole agreement between Innovate UK and supersedes all previous agreements between us relating to the project. Each party acknowledges that, in entering into this agreement, it has not relied on and has no right or remedy in respect of any statement, representation, assurance or warranty (whether made negligently or innocently) other than as expressly set out in this agreement. Nothing in this paragraph shall limit or exclude any liability for fraud or for fraudulent misrepresentation.
Annex A – EU State aid law
- The provisions of this Annex A only apply where the grant funding awarded falls within the scope of clause 16.1.
- Unless otherwise stated in the GOL, Innovate UK makes the award through its Research, Development and Innovation Scheme operating under Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 (the General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER)) and subsequent amendment. You must ensure at all times that you are compliant with the State Aid Rules under which you have been awarded. Further information about the State Aid Rules can be found in the section on State Aid in Innovate UK’s general guidance for applicants.
- You must inform Innovate UK of any other public funding applied for or awarded against the eligible costs covered by this award of grant. It is your responsibility to ensure that the cumulative total of public funding and aid intensity you are receiving for the project does not exceed those limits stated in GBER. You must ensure you comply with State Aid Rules, which are those rules contained in Articles 107 to 109 of Section 2, Title VII, of the Common Rules on Competition, Taxation and Approximation of Laws, Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2008/C 115/01).
- Innovate UK will immediately stop grant payments to you in any and all projects if you become subject to a recovery order that follows on from a previous European Commission decision, which declares any aid you have received as illegal and incompatible with the internal market.
- Where you are required by an order of the European Commission to repay any grant to Innovate UK that is found to be unlawful State Aid, interest will be charged on the amount being reclaimed from the date of payment at the applicable legislated rate.
- No subcontract or other agreement with a third party can be made which would constitute a breach of your obligations under the State Aid Rules.
- You acknowledge that Innovate UK may be required to provide the European Commission with information about the financial assistance given to you by Innovate UK and you agree to provide such assistance as Innovate UK shall reasonably request.


QAudioDecoderControl Class
The QAudioDecoderControl class provides access to the audio decoding functionality of a QMediaService. More...
| Header: | #include <QAudioDecoderControl> |
| qmake: | QT += multimedia |
| Inherits: | QMediaControl |
This class is under development and is subject to change.
Public Functions
| ~QAudioDecoderControl() | |
| virtual QAudioFormat | audioFormat() const = 0 |
| virtual bool | bufferAvailable() const = 0 |
| virtual qint64 | duration() const = 0 |
| virtual qint64 | position() const = 0 |
| virtual QAudioBuffer | read() = 0 |
| virtual void | setAudioFormat(const QAudioFormat &format) = 0 |
| virtual void | setSourceDevice(QIODevice *device) = 0 |
| virtual void | setSourceFilename(const QString &fileName) = 0 |
| virtual QIODevice * | sourceDevice() const = 0 |
| virtual QString | sourceFilename() const = 0 |
| virtual void | start() = 0 |
| virtual QAudioDecoder::State | state() const = 0 |
| virtual void | stop() = 0 |
- 32 public functions inherited from QObject
Signals
| void | bufferAvailableChanged(bool available) |
| void | bufferReady() |
| void | durationChanged(qint64 duration) |
| void | error(int error, const QString &errorString) |
| void | finished() |
| void | formatChanged(const QAudioFormat &format) |
| void | positionChanged(qint64 position) |
| void | sourceChanged() |
| void | stateChanged(QAudioDecoder::State state) |
- 2 signals inherited from QObject
Protected Functions
| QAudioDecoderControl(QObject *parent = Q_NULLPTR) |
- 9 protected functions inherited from QObject
Macros
Additional Inherited Members
- 1 property inherited from QObject
- 1 public slot inherited from QObject
- 1 public variable inherited from QObject
- 10 static public members inherited from QObject
- 2 protected variables inherited from QObject
Detailed Description
The QAudioDecoderControl class provides access to the audio decoding functionality of a QMediaService.
The functionality provided by this control is exposed to application code through the QAudioDecoder class.
The interface name of QAudioDecoderControl is org.qt-project.qt.audiodecodercontrol/5.0
as defined in QAudioDecoderControl_iid.
See also QMediaService::requestControl() and QAudioDecoder.
Member Function Documentation
[protected]
QAudioDecoderControl::QAudioDecoderControl(QObject *parent = Q_NULLPTR)
Constructs a new audio decoder control with the given parent.
QAudioDecoderControl::~QAudioDecoderControl()
Destroys an audio decoder control.
[pure virtual]
QAudioFormat QAudioDecoderControl::audioFormat() const
Returns the current audio format of the decoded stream.
Any buffers returned should have this format.
See also setAudioFormat() and formatChanged().
[pure virtual]
bool QAudioDecoderControl::bufferAvailable() const
Returns true if a buffer is available to be read, and false otherwise.
[signal]
void QAudioDecoderControl::bufferAvailableChanged(bool available)
Signals that the bufferAvailable property has changed to available.
[signal]
void QAudioDecoderControl::bufferReady()
Signals that a new buffer is ready for reading.
[pure virtual]
qint64 QAudioDecoderControl::duration() const
Returns total duration (in milliseconds) of the audio stream or -1 if not available.
[signal]
void QAudioDecoderControl::durationChanged(qint64 duration)
Signals that the estimated duration of the decoded data has changed.
See also positionChanged().
[signal]
void QAudioDecoderControl::error(int error, const QString &errorString)
Signals that an error has occurred. The errorString provides a more detailed explanation.
[signal]
void QAudioDecoderControl::finished()
Signals that the decoding has finished successfully. If decoding fails, error signal is emitted instead.
See also start(), stop(), and error().
[signal]
void QAudioDecoderControl::formatChanged(const QAudioFormat &format)
Signals that the current audio format of the decoder has changed to format.
See also audioFormat() and setAudioFormat().
[pure virtual]
qint64 QAudioDecoderControl::position() const
Returns position (in milliseconds) of the last buffer read from the decoder or -1 if no buffers have been read.
[signal]
void QAudioDecoderControl::positionChanged(qint64 position)
Signals that the current position of the decoder has changed.
See also durationChanged().
[pure virtual]
QAudioBuffer QAudioDecoderControl::read()
Attempts to read a buffer from the decoder, without blocking. Returns invalid buffer if there are no decoded buffers available, or on error.
[pure virtual]
void QAudioDecoderControl::setAudioFormat(const QAudioFormat &format)
Set the desired audio format for decoded samples to format.
If the decoder does not support this format, error() will be set to FormatError
.
If you do not specify a format, the format of the decoded audio itself will be used. Otherwise, some format conversion will be applied.
If you wish to reset the decoded format to that of the original audio file, you can specify an invalid format.
See also audioFormat().
[pure virtual]
void QAudioDecoderControl::setSourceDevice(QIODevice *device)
Sets the current source to device. Changing the source will stop any current decoding and discard any buffers.
Sources are exclusive, so only one can be set.
See also sourceDevice().
[pure virtual]
void QAudioDecoderControl::setSourceFilename(const QString &fileName)
Sets the current source to fileName. Changing the source will stop any current decoding and discard any buffers.
Sources are exclusive, so only one can be set.
See also sourceFilename().
[signal]
void QAudioDecoderControl::sourceChanged()
Signals that the current source of the decoder has changed.
See also sourceFilename() and sourceDevice().
[pure virtual]
QIODevice *QAudioDecoderControl::sourceDevice() const
Returns the current media source QIODevice, or 0 if none (or a file).
See also setSourceDevice().
[pure virtual]
QString QAudioDecoderControl::sourceFilename() const
Returns the current media source filename, or a null QString if none (or a device)
See also setSourceFilename().
[pure virtual]
void QAudioDecoderControl::start()
Starts decoding the current media.
If successful the player control will immediately enter the decoding state.
[pure virtual]
QAudioDecoder::State QAudioDecoderControl::state() const
Returns the state of a player control.
[signal]
void QAudioDecoderControl::stateChanged(QAudioDecoder::State state)
Signals that the state of a player control has changed.
See also state().
[pure virtual]
void QAudioDecoderControl::stop()
Stops playback of the current media and discards any buffers.
If successful the player control will immediately enter the stopped state.
Macro Documentation
QAudioDecoderControl_iid
org.qt-project.qt.audiodecodercontrol/5.0
Defines the interface name of the QAudioDecoderControl class.


Army Builder Tools
Game:
{{game}}
Faction:
Name:
Number of Models:
Cost:
Abilities:
AddOns:
Gear
Powers (known):
Powers (options (amount)):
Powers (options):
Add new Model


$templateFactory
(service in module ui.router.util
)
Service. Manages loading of templates.
Creates a template from a configuration object.
config – {object} –
Configuration object for which to load a template. The following properties are search in the specified order, and the first one that is defined is used to create the template:
config.template – {string|object} –
html string template or function to load via fromString.
config.templateUrl – {string|object} –
url to load or a function returning the url to load via fromUrl.
config.templateProvider – {Function} –
function to invoke via fromProvider.
params – {object} –
Parameters to pass to the template function.
locals – {object} –
Locals to pass to invoke
if the template is loaded
via a templateProvider
. Defaults to { params: params }
.
{string|object}
– The template html as a string, or a promise for
that string,or null
if no template is configured.
Creates a template from a string or a function returning a string.
template – {string|object} –
html template as a string or function that returns an html template as a string.
params – {object} –
Parameters to pass to the template function.
{string|object}
– The template html as a string, or a promise for that string.
Loads a template from the a URL via $http
and $templateCache
.
url – {string|Function} –
url of the template to load, or a function that returns a url.
params – {Object} –
Parameters to pass to the url function.
{string|Promise.<string>}
– The template html as a string, or a promise for that string.
Creates a template by invoking an injectable provider function.
provider – {Function} –
Function to invoke via $injector.invoke
params – {Object} –
Parameters for the template.
locals – {Object} –
Locals to pass to invoke
. Defaults to
{ params: params }
.
{string|Promise.<string>}
– The template html as a string, or a promise for that string.


View Training Open
Add user to training
Login
Incorrect login
Add User
List of Training Types
List of Training Types
Name
Attend
Note
Pass
Baja
name
Note
Confirm
Confirm
×
Confirmation
Message


Trending
Proceed to Jam without signing in
[[${error}]]
[[${message}]]
Forgot password
We will be sending a reset password link to your email.


PART B
ASSOCIATED FACTS AND
SEPARATE INVESTIGATIONS
CHAPTER 33
BOW DOOR FAILURES AND OTHER INCIDENTS OF RO-RO VESSELS
Following the ESTONIA catastrophe the governments of the countries involved - Estonia, Finland and Sweden - initiated a number of investigations concerning
(1) the national organisations with responsibilities for own vessels according to national law and international conventions;
(2) the national organisations with responsibilities for foreign vessels under the Port-State-Control (PSC) regime;
(3) the activities of the international Classification Societies.
First of all, however, all car/passenger ferries with bow doors were closely inspected as soon as possible whenever they arrived in a Swedish or Finnish ports. It is unknown whether this procedure was also carried out in the Estonian ports. From Sweden it is only known that reportedly 28 vessels were found to have serious defects to their bow-door arrangements.
From Finland the following report was received:»The bow and stern doors of all the Finnish passenger/Ro-Ro cargo/ ferries have been inspected by the maritime inspectors of the Finnish Board of Navigation (F.B.N.).
Two vessels were stopped for repairs. The locking arrangements have been welded into closed position on board the ferries which run between Helsinki-Stockholm, Helsinki-Travemünde and Vaasa-Sundsvall, and also on board the ferries which are cruising in the Northern Baltic.
A special Port State Control Survey has been carried out on board all the passenger ships which are regularly trading to the Finnish ports. Captain Veikki Inkinen, Chief Maritime Inspector of the Gulf of Finland Maritime District, informed that two main categories of damage to the locking devices were found:1. Fatigue fractures.
2. Wear and tear.Cracks and fatigue fractures in the lugs of the locking devices and wear and tear failures in the bolts. Some of the bolts were 78 mm undersize (max. acceptable 3 mm) due to extensive wear. Also corrosion damages were found.
The inspectors found damage to almost every ship's bow visor's locking devices.
Maritime Inspector Tom Sommerdal surveyed about 10 vessels in Helsinki. Also he found wear and tear damages in the lugs and bolts of the locking devices of the bow visors. Also leakages in the hydraulic systems were noted.
The vessels under Estonian flag were in worse condition than those under Finnish flag.«In addition, the Swedish government instructed already on the 03.10.94 the previous Supreme Court Judge Magnus Sjöberg to carry out an internal investigation of the National Maritime Administration for Shipping and Navigation - Sjöfartsverket - and, in particular, its Sjöfartsinspektionen - The Shipping Inspection (Shipinspec). This investigation covered among other things the subjects 1) to 3) stated on the previous page and was performed on basis of a Government decision defined as follows:
»On 28 September 1994, the passenger ferry Estonia foundered south-west of Utö in Finland en route from Tallinn to Stockholm. The vessel was flying the Estonian flag. On 29 September 1994, the Government commissioned the Board of Accident Investigation to assist in the accident inquiry. A joint accident board was then formed, with representatives from the Estonian, Finnish and Swedish authorities. One of the main functions of this board is to establish the reason for the accident.
Survivors of this maritime disaster have stated that the vessel's bow "visor" was torn away, which is supposed to have been an important cause of the sinking.
Information has since emerged to the effect that incidents and problems with bow doors have occurred previously with ferries of the same type as the Estonia. A high standard of safety at sea demands that the necessary conclusions are regularly drawn from incidents and accidents that occur. In addition to the investigation now being carried out by the joint accident board (JAIC), other matters should be dealt with including the reporting routines within the Shipinspec.
The Government commissions former Judge of the Supreme Court Magnus Sjöberg to carry out such a survey. As part of this, the investigator is to examine how information relevant to maritime safety is analysed and promulgated within the department, and where necessary put forward proposals for improvements. The investigator is also to look at the options for and the frequency of exchange of relevant maritime safety information between maritime safety authorities and other bodies that have important functions in the field of maritime safety, such as classification societies, insurers and shipowners' associations. Finally, the investigator should examine how such information exchange takes place between Shipinspec or corresponding bodies within our local region, and where necessary put forward proposals as to how this might be improved.
The investigator shall carry out his work in contact with the JAIC and in co-operation with the special committee on increased maritime safety for ferry services that the Government will be setting up.
The Government authorises the Minister of Communications to appoint a secretary or other assistant to the investigator.
The work of the investigation shall be completed with the utmost dispatch.«The complete "Report on Maritime Safety Work by The Shipping Inspection" by Magnus Sjöberg is attached in the Swedish Original and in English translation as Enclosures 6.3.116 and <IP_ADDRESS>. It comprises 58 pages and deals exclusively with the conditions existing before and at the time of the ESTONIA accident and among other things the investigator has closely looked into the history of bow door failures and associated incidents as they were reflected in the various files of the different Sjöfartinspektionen offices - not at a central register - of which some shall be explained below:
(a) The car/passenger ferry "VISBY"
The car/passenger ferry VISBY was built in 1972 and had a gross tonnage of 6665 registered tons. On 12 November 1973 on its ordinary run between Nynäshamn and Visby, the forebody of the ship was struck by heavy seas. The result was that the bow door opened and water was shipped on the car deck. The master therefore decided to turn the vessel back to Nynäshamn. This event took place after the vessel had come out into the open sea. There was a high wind and heavy sea at the time. On survey of the damage it was found that both of the locking hooks of the bow door had been broken off and indentations were left on the door. As a temporary measure the bow door and cargo ramp were welded to the hull. After the repair had been water-tested and surveyed by the relevant Classification Society, Lloyds Register of Shipping, the vessel received temporary permission to continue trading until the next yard inspection. In February 1974 permanent repairs were carried out, in which the bow door received new locking hooks of heavier dimensions than previously, and the locking device was further reinforced by shroud screws with lashing attachments.
The Shipinspec's conclusion about the cause of the accident, as stated in the investigation report dated 1 November 1974, was that the bow door locking devices were of too weak construction.(b) "STENA SAILER"
The Ro-Ro cargo ship STENA SAILER was built in 1973 and had a gross registered tonnage of 2872. On a voyage between Zeebrügge and Dover on 16 January 1974 with a cargo of trailers and transport lorries, the vessel encountered heavy weather with increasing opposing seas. The vessel reduced its speed, but the strong sea broke apart the locking devices of the forward bow door, and lifted it out of closed position. The space between the bow door and the bow ramp was filled with water. The ramp was therefore secured using six chains. In order to avoid additional damage, the vessel was hove to and subsequently Rotterdam was called on as port of refuge where a temporary repairs were carried out. The locking mechanism and hoisting arms of the bow door had been damaged, and the port side ramp hydraulic actuators had become unusable after the failure of the operating rod attachment. The investigation report of Shipinspec dated 12 December 1974 found that the cause of the accident was the took weak constructions of the locking devices of ramp and bow door.(c) "SVEA STAR"
SVEA STAR, a car/passenger ferry built in 1968 with a gross registered tonnage of 9963, was registered with Lloyd's Register of Shipping. Between Travemünde and Helsingborg on 5 May 1974, the vessel encountered heavy weather and rising seas. A particularly heavy sea struck the vessel, breaking the forward locking devices and extra securings and lifting up the bow door. Water collected between the forward door and the ramp. The vessel returned to Travemünde for damage inspection.
Upon survey it was found that all three hydraulic locking devices were completely damaged, and even the extra securing with two 2-inch turnbuckles had been torn apart. No damage was evident to the actual door or ramp. The locking devices were temporarily repaired and surveyed two days later in Helsingborg by both the Classification Society and the Department.
The Shipinspec investigation report dated 12 December 1974 states that in the opinion of the master, of the Classification Society and of the Department the accident was due to the too weak construction of the locking devices of the bow door.(d) "SAGA STAR"
The car/passenger ferry SAGA STAR, with a gross registered tonnage of 8226, was built in 1981. On 6 May 1982 the vessel was about to sail from Travemünde to Helsingborg. The weather was calm. When the bow visor was closed the port hinge failed which caused the port side of the visor to fall down four meters. The hydraulic hinges broke and oil leaked out. Immediately afterwards the starboard hinge failed too and the entire visor fell down . After having been surveyed by Lloyd's Register of Shipping, the vessel was given a permit to proceed to Helsingborg - via Malmö - without its bow visor.
Upon survey damage to the visor and its attachments to the hull, and hull damage between ramp and visor was ascertained. It was stated in the Shipinspec investigation report that the accident was probably due to the visor hinges having been of insufficient dimensions.(e) "STENA JUTLANDICA"
The car/passenger ferry STENA JUTLANDICA was built in 1983, with a gross registered tonnage of 15 811. On 12 October 1984, STENA JUTLANDICA was berthed at Fredrikshamn. When the bow door was opened, the port hinge of the bow door failed and the bow door fell down a bout 2 metres. After having been lifted back into position, the door was welded in place. A permanent repair was carried out on a later occasion. When the bow door was inspected, cracks were found in the hinge attachment welds. The attachment plate was also partly cracked. According to the Shipinspec investigation report the cause for the hinge failure was the under-dimensioned welding seams of the hinge attachments which led to crack propagation.(f) Certain other accidents to ro-ro vessels
The accident on 16 March 1987 involving the HARALD OF FREE ENTERPRISE led the Shipinspec immediately to carry out a review of all Swedish flag ferries from the stability point of view. Letters were also written to the owners with questions about such matters as their routines for operation and checking of bow and stern doors.
During this investigation details were also obtained of previous bow door damage to Finnish car/passenger ferries. For example, it was stated that the Finnish vessel FINLANDIA sustained damage to her bow door in 1981 which also led to a modification of her sister ship SILVIA REGINA, later STENA SAGA. It was also revealed that the Finnish car-passenger ferry MARIELLA suffered very severe visor damage in 1986 - see also further in this chapter - which led to structural changes of her and the visor of her sister ship OLYMPIA, then still under construction. During the investigation of the above events it turned out that the bows were designed with too much flare, which had resulted in extreme bow stresses.As a result of the disaster involving the ESTONIA, one of the actions taken in autumn 1994 was a specific inspection of passenger ferry bow visors by the Gothenburg Shipinspec office. Of the twelve ships examined within the Gothenburg area, eleven showed deficiencies. These ranged from the formation of cracks in the locking devices to operating system deficiencies. One vessel, the LION PRINCE, was not permitted to sail, while heavy weather restrictions were imposed on certain other vessels.
Finally, the following should be noted in this context. The mass media reported that the ESTONIA's sister ship, DIANA II, nearly lost her bow visor between Trelleborg and Rostock on the same stormy night in January 1993 when the Polish ferry JAN HEWELIUSZ sank. However, no so-called Section 70 report was submitted to the Department's Investigation Section as required by the existing regulations. Nor was this event, as far as it is known, brought to the attention of the central authority in any other way until after the loss of the ESTONA. The Department subsequently submitted the question of the master's conduct for possible prosecution, but the prosecutor decided not to bring an action.
The DIANA II as well as the also above-mentioned MARIELLA incident shall be explained in more detail later on in this chapter. Before, however, the reaction of the administration on the SAGA STAR accident shall be outlined as follows:
After survey the chief inspector of the Malmö Shipinspec office, Åke Sjöblom, decided on 17 May 1982 that SAGA STAR could sail without the bow visor until the end of May, provided that the weather was good, that the voyages were undertaken at reduced speed, that due attention was paid to the other factors which might affect the seaworthiness of the vessel and that the log extracts were submitted to the Shipinspec after each voyage.
It was further decided that complete drawings, together with calculation material for "bow door", hinges and hydraulic arrangements should immediately be submitted to the Shipinspec. Following a survey on 17 May 1982 Lloyd's Register of Shipping awarded an Interim Classification Certificate in accordance with the Shipinspec's decision.The new bow visor was surveyed and approved on 14 June 1982.
The Classification Society submitted the requested calculation material, and the then Safety Section of Sjöfartsverket drew up its own highly comprehensive memorandum with computation sheets. This memoran-dum is dated 14 July 1982 and was intended to form the basis of discussions at a safety meeting. The memorandum proposed that the Administration should determine how various forces are to be calculated. There are also references to the accidents referred to above, and the fact that these led to changes in the rules of the Classification Societies. It was alleged also that the calculations submitted by the Societies indicated inadequate engineering input on the calculation and design side, and it was alleged that the Classification Societies did not monitor this aspect sufficiently. It was mentioned for example that the bow doors of the VISBY and a vessel named WASA STAR subsequently had to be strengthened. The author of the memorandum expressed a desire for further Classification Society and yard calculation material, and proposed that the Administration should take measures to prevent further accidents of the kind in question.According to the file the matter was finalised by the then acting Sea Safety Direction of Sjöfartsverket who wrote to Lloyd's Register of Shipping on 21 September 1982, criticising the Society's calculations and superinten-dence. The letter concludes as follows: "The Administration requests that you test the suggestions made regarding the present version and indicate the reinforcements that you consider necessary. In view of the fact that the locking devices of bow visors broke open in bad weather on a number of vessels, the Administration further requests you to account for the dimensioning of the locking devices of this vessel."
Apparently the SAGA STAR accident had triggered off even more activities within the Administration as reflected in the letter that the then Safety Director, Per Eriksson, wrote on 15.03.84 to Lorenzo Spinelli of the Italian Classification Society RINA - see Enclosure 33.419. It reveals that the strength expert, Gunnar Hjertstedt, of the National Maritime Administration (Sjöfartsverket) had written a memo after the cause investigation following the SAGA STAR accident and after the subsequent discussions with Lloyd's Register, of which page 1 is available and where among other things it is stated:
»The correspondence and discussions with the classification society involved in this problem have shown that they consider the opening and closing arrangement of doors as lifting appliances exempted from their surveys, except on special request of the owner, while the other scantlings of the door and the locking arrangement are subject to their control.
To this procedure the Swedish Administration of Shipping and Navigation (Note: Sjöfartsverket) has the following objection. Details involved in the opening and closing of bows are integrated parts of the doors, which we find difficult to separate from the regulations concerning securing and the problem to calculate and establish the scantlings of other details of the door. If the control in this case is separated to different authorities the hazard of missing important control objects is great, which has been demonstrated in this case. The Administration of Shipping and Navigation would suggest that this problem is discussed within IACS.«The memo had apparently been written sometime in 1982, but in March 1984 the responsible safety director was obviously not even certain whether he had passed it on to "dear Lorenzo" when being reminded by his strength expert before his retirement, which is another demonstration of the attitude of the responsible authorities in those years. The only page available of this memo is attached together with another page from another letter or memo signed by Gunnar Hjertstedt but without date referring to the "closing and securing of doors" as Enclosure 33.420.
After each of the above-mentioned accidents exclusively concerning bow doors of car/passenger ferries or Ro-Ro cargo vessels which were only 1 year or less old - with the exception of the SVEA STAR having been 8 years old - Shipinspec and/or Sjöfartsverket only investigated against the Classification Societies, mainly Lloyd's Register but also Bureau Veritas and Norske Veritas. The Building Yards are not even mentioned and the Classification Societies were blamed for took weak construction and/or under-dimensioned locking devices and hinges.
This is, of course, remarkable to note bearing in mind that the head of the Investigation Section of the National Maritime Administration (Sjöfarts-verket) attended all the meetings of the JAIC investigating the ESTONIA casualty, be it the official full Commission meetings or the internal meetings of the Swedish part of the JAIC where it had obviously been decided already shortly after the catastrophe to put most of the blame on the Building Yard.
Finally the report of the Gothenburg office of the Shipinspec concerning the STENA SAILER accident shall be quoted as follows:
»On 2 May 1974, a report was received from the Gothenburg Shipinspec office of a meeting dealing with examination of bow door locking devices. From this report it emerged that STENA SAILER's bow door had come open during a previous voyage. It also appeared that the bow door of STENA SAILER's sister ship, the UNION WELLINGTON under the New Zealand flag, despite having been reinforced, had been opened during heavy weather. Another sister ship, the SEA TRADER, had crossed the Atlantic in bad weather, but on this vessel the bow door had been welded closed. The following may also be found in the report. "During the meeting, it emerged that very little is known about the forces that affect the bow door. However, through the trials conducted by G.L. (Note: by Germanischer Lloyd), some slight under-standing of this has been gained. It appeared that more or less all the locking devices on existing vessels with bow doors are of too weak construction. That matters have gone as well as they have so far is due to the fact that vessels with bow doors are mostly used in restricted trades where they do not normally meet such heavy weather. I propose that the Administration investigates how locking devices on bow doors ought to be placed, designed and constructed, and that there should then be a check on the locking devices of existing vessels. This presumably will not be done by the Classification Societies, since after all these have already approved the existing locking devices."«
Note: Special attention has to be drawn to the obvious fact that this proposal was made already in May 1974 by the chief inspector of the Gothenburg office to the National Maritime Administration - Sjöfartsverket.
The report of Magnus Sjöberg on the STENA SAILER continues:
»On 8 May 1974, the Department wrote to Bureau Veritas, with which STENA SAILER was classified, and sent the society the same memorandum and questions as had formerly been submitted to Lloyd's Register of Shipping in connection with VISBY and SVEA STAR. Bureau Veritas was given the chance to respond to the questions in the memorandum and to give its views on the accident in question. It was then asked what maritime safety measures Bureau Veritas intended to undertake in connection with the bow door accidents that had happened.
Bureau Veritas replied at the end of July 1974, and this response indicated inter alia that the society intended to make its requirements for bow door locking devices stricter.«Note: When DIANA II and VIKING SALLY (ESTONIA) were designed and built in 1978-1980 there were no requirements at all in the Bureau Veritas Rules then in force (1977 Rules). This reveals from a letter that the BV head office wrote to the JAIC on 10.01.95 where it is stated among other things: »The bow door drawings of the MV ESTONIA were reviewed by the Hamburg local office of Bureau Veritas which was in charge of the review. List of reviewed drawings is given as Annex 4. « »The drawings were checked against the Bureau Veritas 1977 rules which did not contain formula for the rule strength of securing devices of shell doors opening outwards.«
The complete letter is attached as Enclosure <IP_ADDRESS>. See also comments in Subchapter 2.4.3.
So much for the Swedish investigations publicly known. The results were certainly one of the reasons why Safety Director Bengt-Erik Stenmark had to resign from his position and was replaced by Johan Fransson.
It is unknown whether a similar investigation was carried out in Finland with the Finnish Board of Navigation - then Sjöfartsstyrelsen and now renamed Sjöfartsverket. Certainly on first view the Finns would even have had more reasons to look into the performance of this organisation which, after all, had issued wrong "Passenger Ship Safety Certificates" for VIKING SALLY, SILJA STAR, WASA KING - the three previous names of the ESTONIA while trading under the Finnish flag. It is also unknown whether a similar investigation was carried out in Estonia.
In any event, in the course of the investigation by this 'Group of Experts' some further bow door incidents concerning car/passenger ferries in the Baltic have come to light which are worth being explained, viz.VIKING SAGA now REGINA BALTICA
Built for AB Sally - simultaneously with VIKING SALLY - at the Turku Shipyard in 1980. On 20.10.84 the vessel was on her scheduled voyage from Helsinki to Stockholm and encountered a south-westerly wind of 14 m/s, i.e. Bft. 6-7, when at around 23.00 hours she was shaken hard by the sea, coming from ca. 3 point on port side. The alarm of the locking device system was not activated. In Stockholm, however, heavy structural damages in way of the port visor side were found and temporary repairs were carried out. During the permanent repairs, performed later, it was recommended to reinforce the visor. For particulars see the survey reports attached in original and in office translation as Enclosure 33.421. Classification Society: Det norske Veritas (DnV).MARIELLA
Built for Rederi AB Slite at Turku Shipyard and delivered in March 1985. On 07.11.85 the ferry was on her scheduled voyage from Helsinki to Stockholm, when at around 23.00 hours she was hit in the front by an uncommonly high sea from port which shook the vessel hard. Locking devices and hinges of the visor broke, the visor was lifted up and remained connected to the ship only by the visor actuators. Due to the enormous pressure, exerted on the pistons during thrusting up the visor, the pistons were widened and the pressure lessened. As a result thereof the visor came down again and the ingress of a large quantity of water onto the car deck was only prevented by the immediately initiated full-astern manoeuvre. The ship continued to Stockholm on very slow speed. The Classification Society of MARIELLA was and is Det norske Veritas. At the time of this incident the vessel was still under guarantee. It was considered to exchange the heavily damaged visor with the identical visor of her sister ship OLYMPIA which was still under construction at the Turku Shipyard, but it was subsequently decided to repair and convert the visor on site while the ferry kept trading and during which time the loading/discharging operations were carried out exclusively via the stern ramps. The repairs, which also included the locking devices being considerably reinforced, required about 5 months.
This incident, which was probably the most serious visor damage of a car/passenger ferry in the Baltic area before the ESTONIA catastrophe, led to considerable discussions in the shipping industry. The fact that DnV participated in the inspections/meetings with three Finnish representa-tives and one Swedish representative underlines that the problems were realized and that it was clearly considered to be a Class matter, the F.B.N. was not involved. After analysing the events it was agreed that the immediate reduction of the speed and the turning of the stern into the sea had finally prevented the loss of the visor and the subsequent probably unavoidable catastrophe. - See the Inspection Report Enclosure 33.422.
The MARIELLA - same as the ESTONIA - is equipped with a visor/bow ramp combination, i.e. the upper part of the ramp extends into a deck house which is part of the visor. In addition to this the vessel is equipped with a 2.50 m high and moveable collision bulkhead on the car deck.
As a consequence of the MARIELLA accident the locking devices for the bow visor of her sister ship OLYMPIA, delivered in April 1986, were totally changed upon the instructions of the Swedish Sjöfartsverket - inspector Lennart Ahlberg. The owner, Gustav Myrsten, was reportedly personally handling the changes and reinforcements of the locking devices.
Subsequently the OLYMPIA was chartered by P&O and used in liner service between Southampton and Bilbao. At the same time the Classification Society was changed from DnV to Bureau Veritas (B.V.) and P&O ordered the installation of eight additional locking devices in view of the regular crossing of the Bay of Biscay.SAINT PATRICK II
Built for SF-Line, the third Viking Line partner, in 1973 as TURELLA by Sietas Werft, Hamburg. She is a passenger/Ro-Ro cargo/ferry of 7984 gross tons and 1325 dwt, built to Lloyd's Register Class Rules and supervision and is classed + 100 A1, Ice Class I, Ice Class IA, which corresponds to Finnish/Swedish Ice Class Rules 1971. The vessel is fitted with a bow visor and ramp for vehicle access at the forward end. At the aft end there is a stern door/ramp. The mean draught is 5.35 m, while ESTONIA's draught was about 5.5 m. Information was received from Helsinki about damage to the visor of this ferry having been in bare-boat charter for Tallink (ESCO) from September 1993 to May 1994 between Helsinki and Tallinn. During this time the ferry experienced the following:- on 11 January 1994 - The bow visor was frozen in position above and below the Atlantic lock, which was the modification fitted in 1982 consisting of a hydraulic locking arrangement between the forepeak tank top below the bow ramp position and the bottom of the visor. The visor could not be opened in Tallinn and the vessel was discharged by the stern. The visor's lower area was heated with steam hoses to clear the ice and then released.
- on 18 February 1994 - The starboard side bow plating, below the visor and in way of the Atlantic lock space, was found to be heavily set in and the visor could not be opened. After discharge of vehicles, on the early morning, the vessel went to the Baltic Shipyard, where repairs were effected to the starboard bow. See the attached photo documentation. After this incident on 18 February, extreme care was taken when navigating in ice conditions, with the vessel being trimmed by the stern to keep the visor higher above the waterline.
- on 29 March 1994 - The bow visor was found to be jammed and upon examination it was noted that the port side bow shell plating, in way of the Atlantic lock position, had been heavily set in, similar in nature to the damage noted on the starboard side on 18 February 1994. Immediate temporary repairs were carried out to allow the vessel to continue her service. On 4 April 1994 it became necessary to carry out some additional welding to the temporary repair on the port side. Upon subsequent dry-docking it was found that extensive damage to the shell plating on both sides had been sustained whilst the bow visor was damaged as follows:
- Bow lower edge plating, port and starboard buckled and set in and visor void tank possibly breached.
- Visor locking arrangement open position, port side fractured and starboard side missing. Visor displaced slightly to port.
A photo documentation with explanation is attached as Enclosure 33.423.
The experience of the SAINT PATRICK II as explained above confirms the observations by passengers on board the ESTONIA during the ice winter 1994 and the respective damage to visor and locking devices found subsequently.


--- title: Contact heading: Singup For Your Site description: I'm very busy, so sign up before it's too late. ---


RT @elight: OH: “Let he who is without sin file the first indignant pull request.” /cc @ryanbigg #roa3
3/8/2013, 3:39:57 PM
Favs: 0
Retweets: 0
link--- layout: tweet ---
RT @elight: OH: “Let he who is without sin file the first indignant pull request.” /cc @ryanbigg #roa3
3/8/2013, 3:39:57 PM
Favs: 0
Retweets: 0
link


| Training Data | Training Ground Truth | Test Data | Test Ground Truth | License |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Download DICOM (48.9GB)
Download DICOM Corrected* (23.0GB)
Download JPEG (23GB)
Download metadata (2MB)
Download metadata v2 (2MB)
Download duplicate image list (2MB)
|
Download (2MB)
33,126 entries of gold standard lesion diagnoses. |
Download DICOM (15.3GB)
Download DICOM Corrected* (6.7GB)
Download JPEG (6.7GB)
Download metadata (458KB)
|
{% include 'partials/not_available.html' %} | CC-BY-NC |
*The newer version of the DICOM files are provided to avoid potential errors stemming from readers implementing a strict DICOM verification, as implemented in http://dclunie.com/dicom3tools/dciodvfy.html.
When referencing this dataset in your own manuscripts and publications, please use the following full citation. Please note this is a preprint and has not undergone peer review. It is being prepared for submission and if accepted to a peer reviewed journal the below will be updated accordingly:International Skin Imaging Collaboration. SIIM-ISIC 2020 Challenge Dataset. International Skin Imaging Collaboration https://doi.org/10.34970/2020-ds01 (2020).
Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
The dataset was generated by the International Skin Imaging Collaboration (ISIC) and images are from the following sources: Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Medical University of Vienna, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Queensland, and the University of Athens Medical School.
You should have received a copy of the license along with this work.
If not, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode.txt .
[1] Rotemberg, V., Kurtansky, N., Betz-Stablein, B., Caffery, L., Chousakos, E., Codella, N., Combalia, M., Dusza, S., Guitera, P., Gutman, D., Halpern, A., Helba, B., Kittler, H., Kose, K., Langer, S., Lioprys, K., Malvehy, J., Musthaq, S., Nanda, J., Reiter, O., Shih, G., Stratigos, A., Tschandl, P., Weber, J. & Soyer, P. A patient-centric dataset of images and metadata for identifying melanomas using clinical context. Sci Data 8, 34 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-00815-z