Live aboard haters

[BandB]

As in the past, boatpoker infers he's leaving the forum to stir up his supporters and seek sympathy. Works every time He's out there lurking.

Wifey B: Since you want him gone so badly, if he promises to leave, will you do the same?

 

[BruceK]

As in the past, boatpoker infers he's leaving the forum to stir up his supporters and seek sympathy. Works every time He's out there lurking.

Yet again? Like a dog returning to its vomit.

 

[Hippocampus]

This vessel was manufactured prior to enactment of some of the USCG 33CFR requirements and NFPA and ABYC standards and recommendations in effect today. This survey addresses those items thought to be necessary for safety but does not suggest complete compliance with current regulations or standards and recommendations.
INTENDED USE: recreational

Pulled this off the web as an example of another accredited surveyors report which he apparently uses as standard language. Believe inclusion of such language would address some posters concerns but still allow the surveyor to do an honest job to the best of his abilities and satisfy insurance vendors.

 

[Shrew]

Precisely! But Boat Poker wields it as one. Surveyors who do so are an industry wide problem.

By the way, Shrew earlier referenced ABYC as a "standard", which is a government term for regulation.

This feels like a giant game of semantics. At no point has anyone contended that ABYC is LAW. It is a guideline to be used for comparison, which ironically is one of the definitions of 'Standard'.

Let's roll back several pages. If not ABYC, what is a better reference for comparison??

You don't like the ABYC. We get it. You're entitled to have an opinion. Your not entitled to berate people for disagreeing with yours.

 

[Rufus]

My background is government regs and policy. That's where I'm coming from. From that perspective precise definitions matter. The term Standards is used in reference to the material that goes into government regulations. Associated non-regulatory technical material is called Advisory or Guidance. It gets published in Advisory Circulars. (An acceptable means of complying with the Standard is an example). ALL of this material goes through a public process, with input from any interested party, including end users. Most importantly the material is subjected to a cost-benefits(safety) analysis....what are the safety gains versus the cost to vehicle manufacturers and operators. Criteria from alphabet organizations typically miss this crucial step...they actually don't have the resources to complete it.

"If not ABYC, what is a better reference for comparison?" I'd ask...what are you trying to compare? Old versus new designs? I think we all agree that's inappropriate. So let's eliminate referencing ABYC for that (unless it's a reg by reference). And I can't see how an ABYC (or other) design spec reference helps at all with a condition and operation assessment of a legacy system design. Old systems are viewed as "safe" by the government as long as they are properly maintained and operate per the original design. Same for old cars, airplanes....

I've written material for ABYC and been invited to attend their working groups. I don't dislike their material or their people. My issue with ABYC is the aggressive safety marketing program that in my view targets uniformed boaters, and the fact that their material keeps popping up and screwing up the fundamental concepts of minimum level of safety and original certification basis. If someone or some entity wants to up the across-the-board minimum level of safety of a given boat system, petition for rulemaking and supply supporting documentation that a safety issue exists. Don't try to force it on boaters via insurance companies. The government process works, it eventually eliminates the politics, and it maintains a level playing field.

PS I'm a strong proponent of owner conducted surveys...checklists, questionnaires and digital photos. Everyone should be pushing insurance companies to adopt this concept.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. R. Good post! While owner conducted surveys may be a viable option I think a better approach might be an acceptance by both the surveying community and the insurance companies of the phrase posted by Mr. (Dr.) H in #333 (first paragraph) AND some sort of appeals process whereby an overzealous surveyor's "must do before insurance is granted list" can be challenged.


Example: I had an insurance survey done by a SAMS/NAMS professional and he noted that the swim platform brackets had surface rust on them and stated as such in his final recommendations. You guessed it. NO insurance coverage until those pesky brackets were painted. No way I could convince my insurer that it really wasn't a safety but a cosmetic concern. (I've since switched insurance companies).

 

[SteveK]

Rufus, good post
"My issue with ABYC is the aggressive safety marketing program that in my view targets uniformed boaters,"
That line right there is the grief many get because until it is written on a survey, you may not even know it exists. Great scam to keep the secret handshake going, good business for ABYC to make people pay to get the inside scoop, great lobby to get the insurance companies rely on it as the bible of boating.

 

[Rufus]

I have an old Jaguar that I've owned since the 80's. I got lucky and it's worth more than my dang boat. When I went to insure it, I called Haggerty Insurance. They said no problem...send us a few photos and fill out the questionnaire. That's all there was to it. Markel has done the same thing for our boat...while the questionnaire was quite comprehensive, and they want a lot of supporting photos, it's still a lot less intrusive and less costly than bringing a surveyor aboard for a 5-7 year renewal. We've been in our house almost 40 years...no one has insisted on an inspection or update to any of the systems. Something is whacky with boats....again, a lot of fingers in the pie... Might be time to poke around Coast Guard headquarters for some answers.

 

[Pau Hana]

I have an old Jaguar that I've owned since the 80's. I got lucky and it's worth more than my dang boat. When I went to insure it, I called Haggerty Insurance. They said no problem...send us a few photos and fill out the questionnaire. That's all there was to it. Markel has done the same thing for our boat...while the questionnaire was quite comprehensive, and they want a lot of supporting photos, it's still a lot less intrusive and less costly than bringing a surveyor aboard for a 5-7 year renewal. We've been in our house almost 40 years...no one has insisted on an inspection or update to any of the systems. Something is whacky with boats....again, a lot of fingers in the pie... Might be time to poke around Coast Guard headquarters for some answers.

Markel may have you grandfathered in (ref self surveys), but rest assured that any vessel over 26’ and 10 years of age will require a professional hauled survey for hull & machinery coverage.

The difference between FAA and marine are many- one of the biggest is that there is no federal standard for seaworthiness enforced by a governmental agency. ABYC, NAMS, SAMS- all promulgate standards, but they are voluntary standards.

In all my years of insuring boats, one of the things I despise the most is the self survey- because is can never be the dispassionate, ho ear assessment of the vessel’s material condition. The owner has a vested fiscal and emotional interest in the vessel, and the self survey is too often just a rubber stamp- and, too often, the owner doesn’t have the requisite skills to properly assess the boat.

 

[SteveK]

Youtube ABYC

 

[sunchaser]

Markel may have you grandfathered in (ref self surveys), but rest assured that any vessel over 26’ and 10 years of age will require a professional hauled survey for hull & machinery coverage.

The difference between FAA and marine are many- one of the biggest is that there is no federal standard for seaworthiness enforced by a governmental agency. ABYC, NAMS, SAMS- all promulgate standards, but they are voluntary standards.

In all my years of insuring boats, one of the things I despise the most is the self survey- because is can never be the dispassionate, ho ear assessment of the vessel’s material condition. The owner has a vested fiscal and emotional interest in the vessel, and the self survey is too often just a rubber stamp- and, too often, the owner doesn’t have the requisite skills to properly assess the boat.

 

[Rufus]

The difference between FAA and marine are many- one of the biggest is that there is no federal standard for seaworthiness enforced by a governmental agency. ABYC, NAMS, SAMS- all promulgate standards, but they are voluntary standards.

In all my years of insuring boats, one of the things I despise the most is the self survey- because is can never be the dispassionate, ho ear assessment of the vessel’s material condition. The owner has a vested fiscal and emotional interest in the vessel, and the self survey is too often just a rubber stamp- and, too often, the owner doesn’t have the requisite skills to properly assess the boat.

Yes, Coast Guard regulation of recreational boat design and continued seaworthiness of the vehicles is very limited....on purpose. The safety data do not support more rigorous involvement. If the insurance industry sees a safety problem, they have a duty to ask for additional rulemaking and oversight. Keep in mind that rulemaking is a public process...

I'm completely passionate about my boat's material condition. If I lie about items in the survey, I'll not be covered if a related loss occurs. Then I will be cancelled. Marine insurers need to be a lot more customer focused.

 

[Rufus]

This vessel was manufactured prior to enactment of some of the USCG 33CFR requirements and NFPA and ABYC standards and recommendations in effect today. This survey addresses those items thought to be necessary for safety but does not suggest complete compliance with current regulations or standards and recommendations.
INTENDED USE: recreational

Pulled this off the web as an example of another accredited surveyors report which he apparently uses as standard language. Believe inclusion of such language would address some posters concerns but still allow the surveyor to do an honest job to the best of his abilities and satisfy insurance vendors.

I believe the language says the surveyor will use whatever he chooses from any source to support his findings. Scares the hell out of me....

 

[psneeld]

One problem with safety based correction is often the root cause is improperly identified or the "easy" versus the proper solution is implemented/regulated.

 

[rslifkin]

I believe the language says the surveyor will use whatever he chooses from any source to support his findings. Scares the hell out of me....

Keep in mind, you're basically paying a surveyor for his assessment of the condition of your boat. There's nothing that dictates what standards they can and can't use (beyond the legally required ones) to make that assessment. A surveyor can't be expected to look at any possible system (especially ones with pretty minimal legal requirements) and determine it's safe without some additional guidance. If you wanted perfect assessments, discretion, etc. with no risk of recommending changes to something that's different from standard but perfectly safe, a survey would take a very long time and cost a ton of money.

How the reports are written combined with how insurance companies interpret them (and form requirements from them) is where the problems can start.

In my mind, recommendations should be broken down a bit more than they typically are. Maybe a few categories like:

1. System is fine as-is (either meets standard, or is equivalent, or is not standard, but still adequate and would be unreasonable to update to standard)
2. System is fine for use, but if making changes at some point, consider X updates based on Y standard
3. System has X safety concern based on Y standard, Z changes recommended
4. System is unsuitable or unsafe, consider Y standard as a basis for correction

Things that fall into that first or second category shouldn't drive any forced updates to systems. I have a feeling that some complaints come from things like category 2 being mentioned (where a system isn't quite standard, but isn't unsafe or unsuitable) and then an insurance company forces changes based on that remark.

 

[Pau Hana]

Yes, Coast Guard regulation of recreational boat design and continued seaworthiness of the vehicles is very limited....on purpose. The safety data do not support more rigorous involvement. If the insurance industry sees a safety problem, they have a duty to ask for additional rulemaking and oversight. Keep in mind that rulemaking is a public process...

I'm completely passionate about my boat's material condition. If I lie about items in the survey, I'll not be covered if a related loss occurs. Then I will be cancelled. Marine insurers need to be a lot more customer focused.

That is your opinion, which I disagree with. I think that you are connecting your experience in the FAA arena to rec marine- similarities abound, but not as many as you are trying to connect.

Lose motive power or structural integrity in a plane, and the likelihood of death is very real in a high percentage of situations. Lose power or structural integrity in a boat, and the worst outcome is loss of life, but more often loss of property.

I'm not disagreeing that some surveyors are questionable, but the vast majority are doing the job to the best of their ability. The comments I read about the disagreements the vessel owner has with the surveyor usually fall squarely into the category of "emotional connection"- the owner has an emotional connection with the vessel and is offended when a surveyor points out deficiencies the vessel has.

That constitutes an attack on the vessel, and is usually met with argument and intolerance of the surveyor. That is the reason I hate self surveys- I have mine done every 5 years or so, and am not brilliant or arrogant enough to think that I can do a better job that the professional I trust.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

Wow! Just read 346 posts.

You all hate live-a-aboards: Why? LOL

 

[BruceK]

Wow! Just read 346 posts.

You all hate live-a-aboards: Why? LOL

Must be a dull day. I love our marina liveaboards, they give my boat security, they notice any lines issues etc, they`re a big plus for the marina.

 

[djones44]

Must be a dull day. I love our marina liveaboards, they give my boat security, they notice any lines issues etc, they`re a big plus for the marina.

Putting together a marine community is both a challenge and a profound achievement - never mind by whom - usually just experienced en passant.