Live aboard haters

[O C Diver]

From the Macmillan dictionary:

Definition of standard(s):

COUNTABLE/UNCOUNTABLE a level of quality or achievement, especially one that people generally consider normal or acceptable
standard of: higher standards of service in hospitals
raise/improve/lower standards: What can be done to raise standards in schools?
meet/achieve/conform to/comply with standards: They must supply water that complies with medical health standards.
set (someone) a standard: He sets himself high standards.
Laurence Olivier set the standard for (=was the best example of) acting in the 20th century.
below/not up to standard: The food was not up to standard.
of a high/low standard: She always produces work of a high standard.


I think people are confusing Standards with requirements, laws, and minimum acceptable standards.

Ted

 

[boatpoker]

I just went back and read Boat Pokers post. He lumps ABYC in with "Code". It's not. Deceptive and misleading.

Please show me the post where I did that.

I even posted part of my reports where I clearly define what are voluntary and what are legally required. Here, I'll post it again ...

 

[Art]

Why are so many "assaulting" the obvious correct thinking and marine survey integrity of boatpoker?

I shake my head at this. It appears obvious that boatpoker knows as much or more of the details regarding marine surveying than any other surveyor available.

 

[Rufus]

Please show me the post where I did that.

Post #249

 

[boatpoker]

Post #249

"I clearly define in my "Comments" which are code (ABYC, NFPA, TP1332, CFR Title 46) and which are my "opinion".

Ya got me on semantics. I should have said "standards" or "codes and standards"

I was trying to reinforce my attempt to distinguish between the "opinions" expressed in my reports and the various codes and standards.

 

[Rufus]

From the Macmillan dictiona


I think people are confusing Standards with requirements, laws, and minimum acceptable standards.

Ted

USCG regulations ARE.....minimum acceptable standards. There are very few for pleasure boats. Boat owners should thank their lucky stars for that and stop rolling over when surveyors try to stick it to them with insurance companies by using unofficial guidelines that are not applicable to their boats.

 

[catalinajack]

It is NOT an assault, just a profound difference in opinion pretty much stated with thought and civilty. If you have not already, I suggest that you go back and read through the back and forth postings and you will see that it is so. You may even begin to understand some of the arguments being made have validity despite BPs different opinion.

Isn't this the purpose of forums, the exchange of ideas and opinions? If done so with respect and at least a modicum of politeness there is no reason for anyone to become offended. If anyone becomes offended simply because another expresses an opinion apposite to their's, then I have little respect for that person. I'm not saying that is the case here but we often see it. Also, the written word can sometimes be misinterpreted in a way that the writer not all intended.

Lastly, there are a lot of folks here who have a lot of experience. Just because BP is a surveyor does not make him more expert to some others, others who disagree with him. I am not one of those experts but I do have opinions. When I am corrected, I do not take offense. I expect others not to take offense when I correct them about something of which I know to be true.

Why are so many "assaulting" the obvious correct thinking and marine survey integrity of boatpoker?

I shake my head at this. It appears obvious that boatpoker knows as much or more of the details regarding marine surveying than any other surveyor available.

 

[Art]

IMO... there is a redundancy of incorrect accusations [repeated over and over] against the validity of boatpoker's decisions, suggestions, recommendations and stated facts.

Anything repeated often enough begins to take on its own life... just ask Trump... he works that fact like a flute of the Pied Piper!

 

[SteveK]

ABYC
For $1595 I can take an online course over 9 days and 90 minutes per day. Once I pass for $105 a year I can get access to all these codes that are referenced in surveys.

I get the part that a surveyor should be certified competent by some education and require recertification periodically. We should be able to rely on that.

What pisses me off is when handed a survey stating something is not in compliance I have no way to reassure myself that in fact it is correct.

The TP1332E that boatpoker references can be found here free for the download. ABYC is referenced 32 times more for info as opposed to follow it to the letter. But try to look up an ABYC item without being a member, forget about it, you need the secret handshake.

Earlier I mentioned residential building inspectors. If they stated 'X' is not correct I had the ability to reference the code to verify whether it was opinion or fact.

BP is indeed being picked on after sharing because we have all had surveys we did not agree with. BP is the messenger giving an insight we would only be guessing at. Stop shooting the messenger. Ask why the public cannot get a copy of the reference material of ABYC so often used or misused.

 

[Rufus]

"I clearly define in my "Comments" which are code (ABYC, NFPA, TP1332, CFR Title 46) and which are my "opinion".

Ya got me on semantics. I should have said "standards" or "codes and standards"

I was trying to reinforce my attempt to distinguish between the "opinions" expressed in my reports and the various codes and standards.

No, I think we "got you" on how you actually operate in the real world....

 

[Art]

ABYC
For $1595 I can take an online course over 9 days and 90 minutes per day. Once I pass for $105 a year I can get access to all these codes that are referenced in surveys.

I get the part that a surveyor should be certified competent by some education and require recertification periodically. We should be able to rely on that.

What pisses me off is when handed a survey stating something is not in compliance I have no way to reassure myself that in fact it is correct.

The TP1332E that boatpoker references can be found here free for the download. ABYC is referenced 32 times more for info as opposed to follow it to the letter. But try to look up an ABYC item without being a member, forget about it, you need the secret handshake.

Earlier I mentioned residential building inspectors. If they stated 'X' is not correct I had the ability to reference the code to verify whether it was opinion or fact.

BP is indeed being picked on after sharing because we have all had surveys we did not agree with. BP is the messenger giving an insight we would only be guessing at. Stop shooting the messenger. Ask why the public cannot get a copy of the reference material of ABYC so often used or misused.

Agreed!

"BP is indeed being picked on after sharing because we have all had surveys we did not agree with. BP is the messenger giving an insight we would only be guessing at. Stop shooting the messenger. Ask why the public cannot get a copy of the reference material of ABYC so often used or misused."

 

[Hippocampus]

Had a boat built for me in mainland China (so met their shipping guidelines) in a yard ABYC and Lloyd’s certified and inspected (so met their guidelines). Went on voyage with a port of NY tug captain, marine insurance broker, ex blue water racer. Of course they went through every nook and cranny of the vessel to fight off boredom. Endless discussions about details. How the boat was bonded, where I unbundled wires for ferrites, gauges of wires, choice of through hulls and how they were done, backing plates -g10 or metal. Every detail you can think of. They picked up a few things I then changed. A dip in the wet exhaust hose from too long a hose. Removing a anti siphon valve. Adding a T to allow a AC water supply pump to be primed after boat was out of the water. ABYC came up repetitively. Repetitively these 3 guys had one bitch or another that they thought it insufficient in places and there was a better way. Or they thought there was several ways to skin the cat and all should be included. I don’t have anything close to the experience nor expertise of that group so can’t comment on if ABYC is good or bad. Or if it’s really not useful as I think EU-A is. But I do think any deficiencies or unsafe situations in a boat should be picked up by a surveyor. Think any deviations from “best practices “ should be noted. And to do so doesn’t require invoking ABYC or any other guidelines. If any guidelines were to be put in a footnote to outline corrective measures have no issue but even this shouldn’t really be necessary. I think the boater wants to know “what’s wrong with this boat?. What’s it worth?” Insurer or bank wants to know “is this a good risk at this valuation?”. See ABYC or any rating tangential to those questions. They are helpful in understanding current “best practices “ but neither represent a ceiling or floor (land based used of those words not nautical).

 

[Hippocampus]

BP-I’m curious do you have any issues with ABYC? Or was that group biased?

 

[boatpoker]

BP-I’m curious do you have any issues with ABYC? Or was that group biased?

I do have a few disagreements with ABYC but I also disagree with some of CFRs, TP1332, ABS, CE, UL and NFPA and that is why I specify in my comments section which comments are legal requirements, the various standards or my personal opinion. Please read the first paragraph of my "COMMENTS" section. No standard or law is perfect but I do believe they are needed.

The aims of ABYC and the position of their standards in the boating world is much at odds with many of the opinions here. The preface from the standards are worth reading. Hope it's readable ....

For those offended by ABYC, they can easily join and become a member of one or more of the technical boards and have a say in those standards.

 

[Northern Spy]

Most standards you have to pay for or have a subscription service.

ASME, API, ANSI, CSA, NEC, IEEE, ISO are all standards off the top of my head that you have to pay for, many of which have been adopted as code in many jurisdictions.

ABYC is no exception.

I'm fortunate to have an IHS subscription. ABYC is not included unfortunately.

 

[Hippocampus]

Excellent post BP.

 

[Seevee]

Most standards you have to pay for or have a subscription service.

ASME, API, ANSI, CSA, NEC, IEEE, ISO are all standards off the top of my head that you have to pay for, many of which have been adopted as code in many jurisdictions.

ABYC is no exception.

I'm fortunate to have an IHS subscription. ABYC is not included unfortunately.

Yes, you have to pay for ABYC, and for some of us it's worth it. I have been a member for quite some time, but cancelled this year because of my boating activities slowing down a bit. But will pick it up later. They have a lot of good courses, some free and some you pay for. For "me", well worth it.


And, correct, not required, but a lot of it is good standards to pay attention to.



And while some of our boats are many years older and don't comply with ABYC standards, there's sure some thoughts to update as prudent. Things change, often for the better and little downside of being aware of it. Better products, better ways of doing things, etc.


BP, I appreciate your comments and respect your position. We can learn a lot from you.

 

[Rufus]

.... I specify in my comments section which comments are legal requirements, the various standards or my personal opinion. Please read the first paragraph of my "COMMENTS" section. No standard or law is perfect but I do believe they are needed.

It's not clear if the excerpt from the attached report is for a Canadian boat, a U.S. boat, or if it's a pleasure boat or commercial. In any case your introduction to the Comments section in your report says "Comments based on a specific authority are identified as such." In item A(5) you list NFPA 302 and ABYC. In the U.S., ABYC and possibly NFPA are not an authority in the legal sense. The ABYC material later in your attachment says their material is "advisory only, their use is entirely voluntary". Why are you using advisory only material in a "must do" section? Further, your "must" language suggests you are a representative of the government. Are you?

Your ABYC quote regarding propane system design is completely unrelated to the the issue...."rust". That quote in this context is extraneous and nonsensical.

 

[boatpoker]

Sorry for the edits ... having a hard time getting the photo attached.

It's not clear if the excerpt from the attached report is for a Canadian boat, a U.S. boat, or if it's a pleasure boat or commercial. In any case your introduction to the Comments section in your report says "Comments based on a specific authority are identified as such." In item A(5) you list NFPA 302 and ABYC. In the U.S., ABYC and possibly NFPA are not an authority in the legal sense. The ABYC material later in your attachment says their material is "advisory only, their use is entirely voluntary". Why are you using advisory only material in a "must do" section? Further, your "must" language suggests you are a representative of the government. Are you?

Your ABYC quote regarding propane system design is completely unrelated to the the issue...."rust". That quote in this context is extraneous and nonsensical.

1. Whether Canadian, US, Bahamian pleasure or commercial is covered in the vessel description at the front of the survey report. You can check that from samples on my website.


2. Comments based on a specific authority ... Naming ABYC as one of the authorities I believe is justified as they are routinely accepted by courts and underwriters as an authority on the matter.

3. The "must do" section includes my opinion on what must be done and that is clearly indicated as "my opinion". (most people hire me for my opinion).

4."Rust". The rust comment is followed by a period as rust is not covered in any code or standard. I then cite the issues contravening ABYC in a separate paragraph. For a full understanding of this or any of my other "comments one must refer to the body of the survey. Below is the body section covering the propane system.

 

[BandB]

Surveyors are hired for their professional opinions. Those may be based on many varied resources. We've had boats surveyed to meet Class requirements and those surveyors must use the Class documents. But the reality is we're using professionals and paying for their opinions. I've had 6 boats surveyed and been extremely happy with all, but all were new. However, I can site South Florida surveyors who have incredible reputations among my captains and engineers and many others I've known to use them. But then I'm happy with the lawyers and the CPA I use too.

The key is selection. I know some just want a sign off, not a good complete survey.

I compare it to a public company being audited. They cover all the requirements to complete audited financial statements. Then come the management recommendations. A lot of managers resent those. I figure I spent tens or hundreds of thousands meeting government requirements and they were there for weeks, I want their observations as that's the only operational benefit I'll receive. This is much like comments or recommendations on surveys. I want to know what they saw that they would change perhaps in the future. Sometimes it's minor but we had one where it was two galley cabinets didn't remain secure when closed. We made the manufacturer immediately correct that before everything went flying across the floor. We had a recommendation for rerouting some plumbing to the other side of some equipment and our engineers addressed that a week or so later.

As to Boatpoker choosing his customers on any basis he chooses other than those prohibited that's his right. I do the same. I once refused to do business with someone who later became President. I refuse regularly to sell to people I don't want representing me and to those I feel there's a risk they won't pay. We all have to decide.

 

[catalinajack]

"3. The "must do" section includes my opinion on what must be done and that is clearly indicated as "my opinion". (most people hire me for my opinion)."

When a surveyor makes a "must do" recommendation, whether qualified or not as his opinion, no underwriter will give it a pass. That is the essence of this entire discussion. Even a recommendation that is not termed a "must do", if that recommendation is footnoted to an ABYC recommendation, that, too, becomes a "must do" in the eyes of an underwriter. And that, folks, is where some surveyors do a disservice to boaters. Surveyors who do this, if effect, are rewriting the recommendations to suit their opinion of what "must" done because, when an underwriter sees "ABYC" in any context they invariably default to "must".

Boatpoker, surely you know this to be fact. Now, if in your opinion, this is the "correct" way to write reports, just say so. But, to use esoteric examples to support your opinion on writing reports is, quite simply, deflection.

I'm still waiting for your opinion on what was wrong with the electrical outlet in one of the pictures you posted.

Sorry for the edits ... having a hard time getting the photo attached.



1. Whether Canadian, US, Bahamian pleasure or commercial is covered in the vessel description at the front of the survey report. You can check that from samples on my website.


2. Comments based on a specific authority ... Naming ABYC as one of the authorities I believe is justified as they are routinely accepted by courts and underwriters as an authority on the matter.

3. The "must do" section includes my opinion on what must be done and that is clearly indicated as "my opinion". (most people hire me for my opinion).

4."Rust". The rust comment is followed by a period as rust is not covered in any code or standard. I then cite the issues contravening ABYC in a separate paragraph. For a full understanding of this or any of my other "comments one must refer to the body of the survey. Below is the body section covering the propane system.

 

[O C Diver]

I'm still waiting for your opinion on what was wrong with the electrical outlet in one of the pictures you posted.

He already answered that.

The outlet is not in a (UL approved) junction box. any short will occur directly against wood therefore a fire hazard. I know of one fire caused by a mouse (a liveaboard ) getting jammed between the outlet and the wood causing a short.

Not to worry, this is not illegal in the US so won't be mentioned in a survey report

Ted

 

[boatpoker]

But, to use esoteric examples to support your opinion on writing reports is, quite simply, deflection.

I think we speak different languages. When I ask a question it's to gain an answer or gather further information. I'm sorry, if you see answering quesions with actual examples of how I work as "deflection" If that is "deflection", I simply don't know how to answer you.

The first thing I tell any potential client is "Please look at the sample reports on my website so that you understand exactly what I do or don't do". If after reviewing examples of my work and completing other due diligence, they may choose to hire me or not and I'm ok with that.

If on the other hand I get the sense that I may not like dealing with this person ... I'll be too busy to take on the job

 

[Sealife]

It seems the big complaints here could be directed at the insurance companies just as easily as they are being directed at BP. After all that is what is upsetting you guys. Having to spend money as directed by your insurance company to comply with voluntary safety requirements as pointed out in a survey.

Just a thought...

 

[Art]

I think we speak different languages. When I ask a question it's to gain an answer or gather further information. I'm sorry, if you see answering quesions with actual examples of how I work as "deflection" If that is "deflection", I simply don't know how to answer you.

The first thing I tell any potential client is "Please look at the sample reports on my website so that you understand exactly what I do or don't do". If after reviewing examples of my work and completing other due diligence, they may choose to hire me or not and I'm ok with that.

If on the other hand I get the sense that I may not like dealing with this person ... I'll be too busy to take on the job

BINGO! - I handle my contract building business exactly the same way. In regard to zeroing in as to whether any project is good for the customer and me to interactively accomplish. Pretty simple... either it appears there is a symbiotic business relation about to transverse - or not! Either way if fine with me.

 

[Rufus]

Surveyors are hired for their professional opinions.

Periodic condition surveys are required by insurance companies. At least one allows customers to conduct their own. When a hired surveyor goes beyond a condition survey and states that he/she believes (and infers in a report) that old legacy systems must be redesigned to the latest industry guidelines (not government regulations) for for new construction, that is an opinion which crosses the line. As stated previously, SAMS leadership told me a surveyor who did so regarding my boat was out of line. BP's stated practices are out of line.

SAMS/NAMS clearly don't police their surveyor membership, nor do most insurance companies who don't have a clue what's happening from a technical perspective. I raised holy hell with my insurer (and SAMS) when I came across a renegade surveyor who was waving around ABYC guidelines in regard to system upgrades. The insurance company subsequently instituted a customer conducted self survey...a checklist backed up by scores of digital photographs. They have competent staff (some of them former surveyors) to review the submittals. They trust their customers more than they trust the surveyor community. Self surveys for insurance renewals should be an industry wide practice. Y'all can make it happen.

For the most part, buyer surveys are negotiating weapons.

Having surveyors set market value is absurd.

 

[boatpoker]

BP's stated practices are out of line.

That is a complaint I've heard frequently over the decades.
Never from a client but only from sellers and yacht brokers and I'm a little proud of that.

It also shows I have some skill in weeding out undesirable clients.

 

[BandB]

It seems the big complaints here could be directed at the insurance companies just as easily as they are being directed at BP. After all that is what is upsetting you guys. Having to spend money as directed by your insurance company to comply with voluntary safety requirements as pointed out in a survey.

Just a thought...

Ultimately the insurance companies don't generally force that. Some entry level person may misinterpret but reaching the real decision makers, the ones in charge, you can get by without doing all the items and reach agreement.

 

[boatpoker]

Ultimately the insurance companies don't generally force that. Some entry level person may misinterpret but reaching the real decision makers, the ones in charge, you can get by without doing all the items and reach agreement.

I agree. I've had many calls from insurers wishing to discuss a finding.
I've also called many on behalf of clients when they underwriters made silly demands like "refreshing the bottom paint".

 

[BandB]

That is a complaint I've heard frequently over the decades.
Never from a client but only from sellers and yacht brokers and I'm a little proud of that.

It also shows I have some skill in weeding out undesirable clients.

You just quoted me as saying your practices were out of line. I don't think I ever said that unless I misspoke my intention, but looks like a snippet, misrepresentative. Please provide the post number or full quote. I said all along it's your right. Is this a Rufus quote of me or something?