Auto fire extinguisher size

[Steve DAntonio]

In my feeble mind, ABYC is trying to establish itself as the 'go to' authority but all it has accomplished is confuse the issues.

Elaborate please...what specifically do you find confusing?

 

[Steve DAntonio]

I don't see ABYC as a problem for new boat manufacture....

It's when the boating industry in general wants vessels brought to those standards when upgraded (not sure if even major repairs are included). As long as meeting the spirit is acceptable I can see that, it's when surveyors or insurers expect 100% compliance that things start to go south when 90% 0r better of the safety issues are addressed but the lesser percent ranks equally.

Point taken and I hear this often. Here's the challenge, a surveyor inspects a boat, he find defects that can lead to electrocution, fire, flooding, explosion, loss of control, etc. If the vessel is 1 year or 10 years old, it doesn't matter, those aboard are still subject to these dangers, and they make the vessel a greater risk to an insurer. So what are we as professionals to do, ignore clear ABYC violations, which make the vessel potentially dangerous, just because it is used? At the very least, the owner, and buyer needs to be made aware of these issues.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

Point taken and I hear this often. Here's the challenge, a surveyor inspects a boat, he find defects that can lead to electrocution, fire, flooding, explosion, loss of control, etc. If the vessel is 1 year or 10 years old, it doesn't matter, those aboard are still subject to these dangers, and they make the vessel a greater risk to an insurer. So what are we as professionals to do, ignore clear ABYC violations, which make the vessel potentially dangerous, just because it is used? At the very least, the owner, and buyer needs to be made aware of these issues.

My point was ABYC should recommend safety issues, yet surveyors and insurance companies treat it as 'law.' The USCG has the only authority to enforce safety issues, not ABYC. They recommend. This may rub some of you guys but in my opinion it's a scam between ABYC and the insurance companies. I also agree the it makes no sense to bring a 1988 trawler to 2022 standards.

 

[Bacchus]

My point was ABYC should recommend safety issues, yet surveyors and insurance companies treat it as 'law.' The USCG has the only authority to enforce safety issues, not ABYC. They recommend. This may rub some of you guys but in my opinion it's a scam between ABYC and the insurance companies. I also agree the it makes no sense to bring a 1988 trawler to 2022 standards.

ASD
Again I ask What are you proposing as an alternative?
Many places where the organization developing standards had no role in enforcement. Municipalities and other authorities are charged with enforcement. What do they enforce to? Would you be happier if USCG required recreational vessels that are documented to be inspected and comply with ABYC rather than insurance Cos?
I dont believe there is any collusion between ABYC and Ins Co's as you insinuate. If not ABYC what standards could / should Ins Co's expect vessels to meet? Or are you in favor of no expectation of a vessels meeting any standards to secure insurance?
Your point of bringing a 1980s vessel up to modern stds... that is exactly why Ins Co's refuse vessels over a certain age. I find it reasonable that as a class or group older vessels have a higher risk of a claim... maybe marine Ins could take the stand of auto where the is a "high risk" pool and premiums are increased based on age of vessel - no ABYC inspection reqd... would that avoid your perception of collusion?

 

[rslifkin]

Point taken and I hear this often. Here's the challenge, a surveyor inspects a boat, he find defects that can lead to electrocution, fire, flooding, explosion, loss of control, etc. If the vessel is 1 year or 10 years old, it doesn't matter, those aboard are still subject to these dangers, and they make the vessel a greater risk to an insurer. So what are we as professionals to do, ignore clear ABYC violations, which make the vessel potentially dangerous, just because it is used? At the very least, the owner, and buyer needs to be made aware of these issues.

In my mind, there are some things that are enough of a safety improvement to be well worth upgrading to newer standards (such as propane systems). But there's plenty of other stuff that could be nit-picked if desired and is a much smaller improvement (and potentially much harder to retrofit on an older boat). I can't imagine a surveyor actually getting fussy about wiring colors, for example, but I bet if one did, at least some insurance companies would want the whole boat re-wired.

 

[twistedtree]

It's purely anecdotal, but the updates that I've heard required by insurance seem pretty reasonable, and typically involve the most dangerous systems.


I can also report first hand that there aren't any insurance companies represented on the ABYC electrical committee, so zero influence.

 

[garbler]

A couple of things to consider; (1) if your fire suppression alarm goes off do not under any circumstances open doors or hatches as it will dilute the extinguishing agent and most critical is the inflow of oxygen will cause blow up. Blowers and vents should also be closed; (2) Diesel engines can ingest Halon and continue to run on Halon 1310, 1210 and the newer FM-200. This is not good especially if you have a fuel injector line leak or hydraulic leak hitting hot exhaust or other hot ignition source. So good exhaust lagging is critical. The USCG now requires automatic engine shut downs when a Halon suppression system is activated. Though as a personal non-inspected vessel you do not have to comply with these rules but it a good idea and worth thinking about

One of the problems with automatic engine shut downs is that the loss of power and maneuverability if it occurs at the wrong time can theoretically be more hazardous than a contained fire. It’s hard to figure but the USCG believes fire first.

Regarding the ABYC Steve Dantonio has covered this but you must consider that marine underwriters will undoubtedly require compliance. The other standardS that would apply is the NFPA and UL. By and large if the NFPA and UL specs call for it it will be included in the ABYC standards. On most large vessels with Lloyds or ABS certification there are some different standards that must be complied with but this group probably isn’t in that group. SOLAS are the other safety standards that must or should be followed by those going offshore. The only outfit I’ve found to be a PITA is OSHA. They generally fall in line with the NFPA but I’ve seen some ridiculous calls by them in small boat shops enough to shut them down. 42” high hand rails on planking two feet off the floor ? And they will fine you.

Rick

 

[Portage_Bay]

.....
One of the problems with automatic engine shut downs is that the loss of power and maneuverability if it occurs at the wrong time can theoretically be more hazardous than a contained fire. It’s hard to figure but the USCG believes fire first.
.....

I've given this quite a bit of thought. Here's my take as a west coast boater on a heavily built older boat with lots of flamable materials in the engine room.

Keeping in mind that a fire can go from just noticed to total distruction very quickly. Search the forum for a fire aboard a Krogen Manatee while dockside for a good example. It happened so fast they went from the first hints of smoke to standing on the dock in their PJs as the boat burned. Keeping in mind we don't carry protetive gear, SCBA, the engine room is a confined space and we are a crew of two with only one of us having fire figting training. Fighting a fire beyond what can easly be extinghished with a portable is out of the question. Expecially an engine room fire.

If the fixed system goes off and shuts down propuslion:

- In a close quarters situation for example a marina. Very unfortunate but tearing up some fiberglass drifting out of control is far better then the risk of burning several boats with an out of control fire. Fixing fiberglass is what insurance is for.

The remaining scenarios all have in common that it is far better to be working on elimnating what caused the fire to get things stabilized and running again than being forced to abandon a buring boat.

- On a calm day well away from everything. Plenty of time to deal with the situation.

- In a remote area far from assistance. We're alone, we need the fire out NOW. Then we have time to deal with it.

- In heavy weather. I'd be truly miserable dealing with the situation but not as misrable as abandoning a burning boat.

- Crossing a hazardous bar or transiting one of the many challenging tidal rapids around here. I'd sure hate to see that happen but I'd much rather be on a floating boat that may have gotten banged up on the rocks then scrambling to get in the rib in those places. And when I look at the total time or distance in dangerous waters on a cruise from Puget Sound to SE Ak the percentage of time or distance where loosing propulsion might be catasrophic is small. Very small. And I keep coming back to I want the engine room fire out NOW.

Another way to think about it is the odds of a fire on a recreational boat are small. The odds of the fire quickly destroying the boat are smaller. The odds of loss of propulsion being fatal are even smaller. I'll opt for the automatic shutdown system.

 

[garbler]

As I noted earlier auto engine shut downs and engine fires can in rare circumstances be a conundrum. Worst case scenario in my mind would be transiting a dangerous inlet. And as I recall this did happen with a small Head Boat on the West Coast maybe Morrow Bay but I’m guessing here. As I recall the loss report said one of the 8V71’s had a return fuel line crack dumping fuel into the oil gallery, dilution and a engine burning up. The fiberglass exhaust piping was melting and the Halon system actuated setting off the shut downs. Apparently the vessel had already committed into the inlet and had like fifteen passengers. The skipper/owner had installed override controls on the shut downs and was smart enough to use them and cleared the inlet on one engine. Tough predicament. Engine room was toast but not much more.

Many times well enclosed engine or machinery spaces can withstand a bit of time before involving the rest of the vessel depending on construction. When you read about fires that spread through the entire length of a hull quickly they are usually
electrical and it occurs both recreational and commercial. Commercial fires are more common but you have to consider hours of use and number of systems but hydraulic, fuel and oily bilges are prime candidates. Yacht fires are more often shore power related, propane or gasoline sources. And one of the worst scenarios is the recreational boat owner opening engine hatches with a B1 dry chemical then all hell erupts.

Rick

 

[OldDan1943]

My take: when entering a messy inlet; give consideration t o disabling the 'auto' part until you get through the inlet then reenabling the 'auto' part.
My reasoning is, some time you do not want to lose the main engine..... once through the inlet, can return the circuit to fight the fire.
Per opening the engine compartment; wait at least 15 minutes.... and/or the decking above the engine cools. I do have a camera in the ER but I doubt if it will survive a fire. Accessing the ER too soon, you could get a flash back due to the introduction of oxygen the ER.

 

[rslifkin]

Many auto systems don't have a way to disable them, but you could preemptively flip the shutdown override switch.

 

[psneeld]

Point taken and I hear this often. Here's the challenge, a surveyor inspects a boat, he find defects that can lead to electrocution, fire, flooding, explosion, loss of control, etc. If the vessel is 1 year or 10 years old, it doesn't matter, those aboard are still subject to these dangers, and they make the vessel a greater risk to an insurer. So what are we as professionals to do, ignore clear ABYC violations, which make the vessel potentially dangerous, just because it is used? At the very least, the owner, and buyer needs to be made aware of these issues.

Former chief of Aviation Safety for the USCG got a few quals too.

.... I see a lot of ABCY points and complied where I could with my boats/commercial boats too....there were a few that just were non-economical or very mechanically difficult to comply with. Funny how the insurance companies agreed that my slight mods, considering them acceptable even though not fully ABYC compliant or what the surveyors thought.

I have no problem with surveyors pointing out non compliance.... fortunately I usually get my way convincing the insurance companies of my risk management solutions, but a lot of other boaters can't make the arguments on risk management I could and are spending way more than they should have to to get that extra 5% of compliance that presents a 0.0001 percent risk.

Sometimes risks can't be eliminated as desired by best practice, but can be mitigated that the ABYC does not address.

 

[garbler]

Former chief of Aviation Safety for the USCG got a few quals too.

.... I see a lot of ABCY points and complied where I could with my boats/commercial boats too....there were a few that just were non-economical or very mechanically difficult to comply with. Funny how the insurance companies agreed that my slight mods, considering them acceptable even though not fully ABYC compliant or what the surveyors thought.

I have no problem with surveyors pointing out non compliance.... fortunately I usually get my way convincing the insurance companies of my risk management solutions, but a lot of other boaters can't make the arguments on risk management I could and are spending way more than they should have to to get that extra 5% of compliance that presents a 0.0001 percent risk.

Sometimes risks can't be eliminated as desired by best practice, but can be mitigated that the ABYC does not address.

Great points from a guy sounds like he knows his s—t

 

[Steve DAntonio]

My point was ABYC should recommend safety issues, yet surveyors and insurance companies treat it as 'law.' The USCG has the only authority to enforce safety issues, not ABYC. They recommend. This may rub some of you guys but in my opinion it's a scam between ABYC and the insurance companies. I also agree the it makes no sense to bring a 1988 trawler to 2022 standards.

A "scam"? You think insurers are paying off ABYC?

I work closely with ABYC, i help write some of the standards, while it may be imperfect, I assure there is no collusion between insurers and ABYC. Insurers want to minimize risk, ABYC compliance is one of the ways they achieve this. In fact, ABYC routinely rejects industry and boat owner suggestions for the addition of new or expanded standards, their criteria being, 'is this really needed, are people getting hurt or dying because of it?" If not, then the answer is no, we are not adding to the standards.

 

[Steve DAntonio]

In my mind, there are some things that are enough of a safety improvement to be well worth upgrading to newer standards (such as propane systems). But there's plenty of other stuff that could be nit-picked if desired and is a much smaller improvement (and potentially much harder to retrofit on an older boat). I can't imagine a surveyor actually getting fussy about wiring colors, for example, but I bet if one did, at least some insurance companies would want the whole boat re-wired.

In my experience this isn't happening, at least not often, not for something like wire colors. One man's nit picking is another's compliance.

 

[rslifkin]

In my experience this isn't happening, at least not often, not for something like wire colors. One man's nit picking is another's compliance.

I agree, I haven't heard about any cases of it either. But a bit of official guidance on what should be retrofitted if possible and what is only worth doing if it's an easy change would be nice.

 

[garbler]

I understand to a point when old timers and those with years and a stack of log books get their hackles up over ABYC rules. Some surveyors steps aboard somebody’s vessel where the owner has probably forgot more than he or she will ever know and proceeds to dictate do’s and don’t’s. ABYC, NFPA etc. are standards they are not marine laws and technically cannot be enforced. The rub is that those who want insurance and many times loans must comply as the underwriters generally don’t know squat about boats ( people in cubicles working with forms and contracts ) and therefore rely on accepted standards by these organization to keep ill informed or careless owners in line. One of the biggest problems are new surveyors or those with little technical depth or experience that approach a job defensively and figuring the best and safest approach is to do everything by the book, period. With experience either working in a yard or running vessels for years a smart surveyor knows two things, (1) they don’t know everything and (2) there is always more than one way to do a job safely.

After nearly forty years in the business I’ve always been able to listen and if possible to compromise on some things. On professional working vessels I often defer costly repairs knowing that some defects or issues can be held off safely until next haul out or availability. I rarely put a vessel owner in a position of losing a season, contract or his livelihood. However, for instance, calls involving fuel systems, poorly built and design engine exhaust runs, really dicey wiring or thru-hull penetrations and others is non-negotiable. It’s a bit of a balancing act that requires real experience to evaluate properly. There are some standards that can create a undo hardship or actual damage to comply with, such as lightning grounds where a correct ABYC installation would require hacking into a sailboat pan or liner. Example being Catalina boats that never install them. Fuel tanks with inspection plates or fuel level glasses, generally inaccessible exhaust runs, electrical runs, driveline fittings buried under tanks or joinerwork, low exhaust runs incapable of preventing back flow, etc. etc.. I’ll mention this in my reports but short of redesigning the boat there are few feasible options. Then it’s up to the underwriters to evaluate.

But the ABYC and NFPA are the technical backbone of the industry and in my opinion absolutely necessary in not only in keeping up with new equipment and construction methods. LI batteries being a hot topic these days so everybody is playing catch up. But these standards are really the only reference that yards, insurance companies and owners can consult. Dockside advice is generally not reliable.

Rick

 

[Bacchus]

I dont know but have to wonder whether surveyors err on the side of reporting any/ all non-compliance issues isn't driven by their desire to protect themselves from any legal action?
I see little downside where a survey points out non-compliance
I can anticipate potential legal actions where surveyors ignore & don't report obvious non- compliance or report them as "minor" (their judgement as ABYC doesn't qualify the stds) and implying or stating upgrade or modification not essential?
I get that most survey contracts have clauses that relieve the surveyor of the responsibility for absolute knowledge/ perfection but that doesn't preclude having to defend themselves and their actions.

I haven't seen anyone respond to the question of what are your proposals, if doing away with ABYC?

Is it conceivable to have surveyors inspect and report compliance to ABYC stds as of the build date?
If that were even possible I would expect Ins Co's to increase premiums for older vessels... everybody OK with thatbapproach?

 

[psneeld]

One of my inputs has always been why is there essentially the same standards for boats of many types and many missions.

The USCG soecifies ships built to warfighting standards and some to plain commercial standards.

Wartime dangers are different than what many ships would encounter.

Why is a 8 knot coastal trawler expected to experience the same motion and vibration seen in high speed offshore exprrsses, go-fast boats or sportfsh? The same can be said for many small points.

I do agree with a loth of best practices, but there are many times they are not always necessary or can be done in perfectly safe, different ways or could wait a long time before being fixed/ upgraded if working fine for now.

 

[Steve DAntonio]

One of the biggest problems are new surveyors or those with little technical depth or experience that approach a job defensively and figuring the best and safest approach is to do everything by the book, period. With experience either working in a yard or running vessels for years a smart surveyor knows two things, (1) they don’t know everything and (2) there is always more than one way to do a job safely. Rick

Your points are well taken. I suppose, given the choice, I'd prefer doing everything by the book rather than the alternative. And, your point about surveyors lacking practical knowledge is a pet peeve of mine, if I had my druthers I'd insist that a minimum of 10 years of trades experience in the marine industry be necessary in order to apprentice as a surveyor.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, ABYC is the worst standard setting body, until you consider all the others.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

A "scam"? You think insurers are paying off ABYC?

I work closely with ABYC, i help write some of the standards, while it may be imperfect, I assure there is no collusion between insurers and ABYC. Insurers want to minimize risk, ABYC compliance is one of the ways they achieve this. In fact, ABYC routinely rejects industry and boat owner suggestions for the addition of new or expanded standards, their criteria being, 'is this really needed, are people getting hurt or dying because of it?" If not, then the answer is no, we are not adding to the standards.

Yet ABYC has, in their eyes have enforcement/influence in the insurance industry. The USCG has the only federal enforcement authority. The State would also have some enforcement.

So if ABYC only "recommends" then why are they in bed with the insurance companies, meaning an insurance policy will not be issued unless you follow ABYC. It has become common practice that a boat that is being surveyed for insurance to be held to the ABCY standards of a new vessel, not at the time of manufacture.

I have no issue if the boat being surveyed are held to the standards at time of manufacture, but not today's ABYC standards. To prove my point do you think if insurance companies could not use ABYC recommendations for setting policies there would be an outrage. You would have to be blind if you don't see the connection.

Another example. The 10' rule. According to ABYC if your electrical panel is more than 10 feet from the shore power connection they "Recommend" an extra circuit breaker on both "line" and "common" lines. If you don't install it, no insurance. Yet in 1988 this piece of equipment was not required or even thought of. Today, surveyors see this as a piece of required equipment.

So there is no coelution between ABYC and insurance? Come on reality says different. Leave the enforcement to the USCG. ABYC can continue to recommending additional equipment, but the insurance companies would be prohibited from requiring such equipment if it was no available at time of manufacture.

Former chief of Aviation Safety for the USCG got a few quals too.

.... I see a lot of ABCY points and complied where I could with my boats/commercial boats too....there were a few that just were non-economical or very mechanically difficult to comply with. Funny how the insurance companies agreed that my slight mods, considering them acceptable even though not fully ABYC compliant or what the surveyors thought.

I have no problem with surveyors pointing out non compliance.... fortunately I usually get my way convincing the insurance companies of my risk management solutions, but a lot of other boaters can't make the arguments on risk management I could and are spending way more than they should have to to get that extra 5% of compliance that presents a 0.0001 percent risk.

Sometimes risks can't be eliminated as desired by best practice, but can be mitigated that the ABYC does not address.

Good points. One backlash with all of this is that insurance becomes a side issue. Owner can't afforded the required repairs as set by the surveyor and insurance companies, then the owner simply walks away from obtaining insurance and we all suffer if the owner is involved in an accident.

The majority of boat owners are not those that own 40+ yachts like many here on TF. They are the smaller boating community, on fixed incomes. See alot of this in yacht clubs where most of the boats are weekend/ski boats now.

[/QUOTE]

ASD
Again I ask What are you proposing as an alternative?
Many places where the organization developing standards had no role in enforcement. Municipalities and other authorities are charged with enforcement. What do they enforce to? Would you be happier if USCG required recreational vessels that are documented to be inspected and comply with ABYC rather than insurance Cos?

You were OK with the USCG until you brought in ABYC. We are already required to be inspected at anytime/anyplace by the USCG. They don't seen to be too concerned whither you are complying with the ABYC 10ft rule.

With the exception of federally documented vessels (different discussion), the State would have the authority to enforce State and local boating laws, but there are limits.

I dont believe there is any collusion between ABYC and Ins Co's as you insinuate. If not ABYC what standards could / should Ins Co's expect vessels to meet? Or are you in favor of no expectation of a vessels meeting any standards to secure insurance?
Your point of bringing a 1980s vessel up to modern stds... that is exactly why Ins Co's refuse vessels over a certain age. I find it reasonable that as a class or group older vessels have a higher risk of a claim... maybe marine Ins could take the stand of auto where the is a "high risk" pool and premiums are increased based on age of vessel - no ABYC inspection reqd... would that avoid your perception of collusion?

There are standards already established at date of manufacture. To require owners to bring their vessels to 2022 standards is ridiculous. As far as insurance companies cancelling, it isn't about safety, its about money and profit. Both supported by the insurance companies and ABYC.

Look at how much profit has now gone out the window due to Ian? Do you think ABYC standards are the topic of discussion between the insurance companies? Me think not. What will happen, some insurance companies will go bankrupt, others will dramatically raise their rates NATIONWIDE, meaning west coast insurees will pay the price for the hurricane.

 

[garbler]

All through this interesting thread surveyors are mentioned when ABYC rules come up. Marine Surveying is just another job on the waterfront and the prudent surveyor should remember this since everybody must work together and should be on the same page of building or repairing boats so they operate safely. There are so many misconceptions about a surveyor’s job and frankly many are held by those trying to get in or new to the business. Those who jump into the business, print cards, build a website and join SAMS ( which is growing by leaps and bounds without real qualifications ) then hit the docks with boilerplate check-off lists are a poor substitute for the real thing. A good surveyor with real depth and experience relies on word of mouth work as the long standing underwriters know who they are as do the agents and others who need them. When a broker calls a surveyor to look at a trade-in you can bet their is a good reason and the same reason they are never called for sales. Insurance companies will use one type of surveyor for simple C&V’s ( Condition & Valuation ) but if they get into big complicated losses or legal trouble they make quick calls to those surveyors with a track record, can get admitted to court and help out. Sometimes they call just to retain them so they can’t testify against them, but first come first serve. Every report a surveyor makes can become a matter of legal record so the honest smart surveyors should never bend to an insurance company’s wants or a private client as there is a good chance their old files and reports that contain contradictory information can trip them up under oath.

There are lots of very experienced smart people out there that know more and would be excellent surveyors but there are several qualities and traits necessary that they can’t or won’t follow. Surveyors must primarily be able to organize facts and write thorough easy to follow reports. Good surveyors must have thick skins and be able to control emotions. They must be physically capable of working tall ladders, go aloft, crawl tight spaces and often take a few risks to ferret out problems. And finally be completely honest to the craft that requires neutrality and keeping their hands out of the till and refuse all the temptations to look the other way or tailor reports for somebody’s financial interest. Today most surveyors won’t do purchase surveys for the fact that the risk is too great. Wood hulls are pretty much out of the question. When a surveyor misses something on an insurance C&V there is no risk as the companies don’t sue surveyors they just won’t call again. Surveying is really like taking a crap, it all about paperwork.

BTW the ABYC standards are written not just for insurance but for builders to comply with. I know of no production builders who hire surveyors to conduct progress construction inspections to insure compliance. So it’s up to the company to follow the rules though many barely do and more and more are guilty of burying critical components under built-ins, pans and liners, tanks etc. I guess one interpretation builders use is that everything is accessible if you don’t mind the cost of tearing a boat apart but that is not following the spirit of the ABYC standards.

Furthermore to those who think the ABYC is involved, or should be, in construction specifications well that is not their intent or scope. They write specs for all of the onboard systems that equate to safety such as; fuel systems, ventilation, engine exhaust, batteries & related, electrical, stoves and heaters and fuels, fire suppression, escape hatches, etc. etc. etc. . They do not generate construction scantlings, ie, hull skin specs, decks and related fittings or anything else along these lines with the exception of weight and stability. The USCG is no different regarding recreational small craft. Inspected vessels are a different proposition since they carry passengers, tankers and now some other carriers are coming under their preview. Generally construction specs and scantlings are the meat and potatoes of the classification societies such as ABS, Lloyds, Veritas or Norske and you do it their way or forget it. These classification societies require incremental construction inspections and depending who you are are paid by either them or the owner. I have even done several ferro cement hulls for Lloyds odd as it may seem

Rick

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

BTW the ABYC standards are written not just for insurance but for builders to comply with. So it’s up to the company to follow the rules though many barely do and more and more are guilty of burying critical components under built-ins, pans and liners, tanks etc. I guess one interpretation builders use is that everything is accessible if you don’t mind the cost of tearing a boat apart but that is not following the spirit of the ABYC standards.

So what Government law, rule or government regulation sets ABYC as a regulatory agency? Builders are not "required" as you would allude here. Same for Lloyds, ABS, Veritas and others. They make their own rules, preference it as "Safety" requirements to set standards that are then pushed on to boat owners to comply with as if the standard are a government regulation. So long as I have complied with federal and/or State law, then it should no matter if it is in compliance with ABYC standards. Nor should insurance companies be able to force you to comply with anything oter that Government/State safety requirements.

The USCG is no different regarding recreational small craft. Inspected vessels are a different proposition since they carry passengers, tankers and now some other carriers are coming under their preview. Generally construction specs and scantlings are the meat and potatoes of the classification societies such as ABS, Lloyds, Veritas or Norske and you do it their way or forget it. These classification societies require incremental construction inspections and depending who you are are paid by either them or the owner. I have even done several ferro cement hulls for Lloyds odd as it may seem

So again where is the requirement in Federal/State law that states these societies have the power to regulate. Their "meat and potatoes" are just that, money, control and profit.

 

[garbler]

So what Government law, rule or government regulation sets ABYC as a regulatory agency? Builders are not "required" as you would allude here. Same for Lloyds, ABS, Veritas and others. They make their own rules, preference it as "Safety" requirements to set standards that are then pushed on to boat owners to comply with as if the standard are a government regulation. So long as I have complied with federal and/or State law, then it should no matter if it is in compliance with ABYC standards. Nor should insurance companies be able to force you to comply with anything oter that Government/State safety requirements.



So again where is the requirement in Federal/State law that states these societies have the power to regulate. Their "meat and potatoes" are just that, money, control and profit.

My word this last post has to stand on its own cause I have enough of a life that I can’t afford the hours to refute your assertions. All I can say is that this post has the faint scent of conspiracy at many levels and generally I find this trait can’t be addressed in a conventional manner. I hope I’m wrong. Apparently you feel no safety standards are valid if not applied by the original builder. That your vessel or other older vessels are immune to new standards despite the fact that you have probably upgraded your vessel many many times with new technology. Safety is not static as every year accidents, fires, and casualties are investigated and new sources are discovered and prevention methods addressed. I admire those that can break out and play by their on rules but then don’t reach back for financial help if you don’t want to play by the rules.

Rick

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

My word this last post has to stand on its own cause I have enough of a life that I can’t afford the hours to refute your assertions. All I can say is that this post has the faint scent of conspiracy at many levels and generally I find this trait can’t be addressed in a conventional manner. I hope I’m wrong. Apparently you feel no safety standards are valid if not applied by the original builder. That your vessel or other older vessels are immune to new standards despite the fact that you have probably upgraded your vessel many many times with new technology. Safety is not static as every year accidents, fires, and casualties are investigated and new sources are discovered and prevention methods addressed. I admire those that can break out and play by their on rules but then don’t reach back for financial help if you don’t want to play by the rules.



Rick

Well take a deep breath. I wanted to know how ABYC has the authority to push regulations on boat owners.

I'm not against added safety, I'm against just being forced to add safety items by an agency that has no authority to do so. USCG has that authority. If it were that important the USCG would issue a regulation.

It would be similar to a requirement from AAA to install catalytic converters on ALl cars, even ones manufactured in 1965.

 

[Bacchus]

So what Government law, rule or government regulation sets ABYC as a regulatory agency?

NONE HOW MANY TIMES DO OTHERS HAVE TO POINT OUT ABYC IS NOT MANDATORY AND THEY HAVE NO ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY.
NO MORE THAN ANY APPLIANCE MFG IS REQD TO OBTAIN (AND PAY FOR) UL APPROVAL. MAYBE YOU ARE THE TYPE TO PURCHASE NON APPROVED APPLIACES TO SAVE A DIME... THATS YOUR PEROGATIVE.


Builders are not "required" as you would allude here. Same for Lloyds, ABS, Veritas and others. They make their own rules, preference it as "Safety" requirements to set standards that are then pushed on to boat owners to comply with as if the standard are a government regulation. So long as I have complied with federal and/or State law, then it should no matter if it is in compliance with ABYC standards.

Nor should insurance companies be able to force you to comply with anything oter that Government/State safety requirements.
ASD... NO BODY CAN FORCE YOU TO COMPLY WITH ABYC. NEITHER CAN YOU FORCE AN INSURANCE CO TO INSURE YOU IF THEY CHOOSE NOT TO AND FOR ANY REASON



So again where is the requirement in Federal/State law that states these societies have the power to regulate. NONE... NOT APPLICABLE - STOP REPEATING YOURSELF

Their "meat and potatoes" are just that, money, control and profit.
NEWS FLASH! INSURANCE COS ARE FOR-PROFIT.
IF YOU THINK NON-PROFIT INSURANCE IS A GOOD BUSINESS PROPOSITION START ONE - I'M PRETTY SURE THERE ARE OTHERS THAT AGREE AND WOULD ENROLL... GREAT ADVERTISING TAG LINE WE ENSURE ANYTHING / EVERYTHING REGARDLESS OF AGE OR CONDITION... NO SURVEY OR INSPECTION REQUIRED,

Well take a deep breath. I wanted to know how ABYC has the authority to push regulations on boat owners.
PLEASE SEE ABOVE - AGAIN REPEATING YOURSELF -THEY CAN'T - ONLY YOU MAKE THAT DECISION... BUT YOU THEN DONT GET TO DEMAND THEY INSURE YOU AT A RATE YOU FEEL IS REASONABLE. SORRY... IT DOESNT WORK THAT WAY

It would be similar to a requirement from AAA to install catalytic converters on ALl cars, even ones manufactured in 1965.
YOUR ANALOGIES BORDER ON ABSURD... AAA IS NOT A STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION LIKE ABYC, NEC, NFPA, UL ETC, ETC. THOSE ORGS ARE THE ONES ANALOGOUS TO ABYC AND THEY ALSO HAVE NO ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY BUT WORK THE SAME WAY.

WHILE YOU HAVENT OFFERED AN ALTERNATE SOLUTION YOU HAVE INSINUATED YOU MIGHT.... JUST MIGHT BE OK WITH SURVEYING A VESSEL AGAINST AN OUTDATED ABYC STD THAT THE VESSEL WAS SUPPOSEDLY BUILD TO. IF SO - ANY OBJECTION TO AN INSURANCE CO APPLYING AN AGE OR ABYC REVISION FACTOR THAT MULTIPLIES THEIR "CURRENT" LOWEST COST RATE AND THEY INCREASE RATES BASED ON VESSEL /ABYC BUILD/COMPLIANCE DATE ?

I see, hear, read a lot of whining but little offered as a viable alternative.

I suspect there are few, possibly no for profit industries you feel are under charging or even pricing their goods fairly. I get the idea you would be in the camp where "all business are crooks! Over charge, under deliver and reap unjust profits!"
If not, please elaborate on which industries you believe under charge or are pricing fairly.

 

[twistedtree]

Well take a deep breath. I wanted to know how ABYC has the authority to push regulations on boat owners.

I guess this is as good a place as any to speak up. I think you are pretty seriously misinterpreting/misunderstanding a lot of things.



Meeting ABYC standards is not required in the US. Period, end of statement. Meeting the standards is voluntary by boat builders, by repair and service companies, and by boat owners. Your boat doesn't need to meet ABYC standards to be operated in any US waters, nor to be bought or sold.


It's the market that demands meeting the standards. Boat builders and service people do it because it gives them an advantage, and because it's requested by owners/buyers.


And insurance companies DO NOT require that a boat full meet current ABYC standards. It's simply ridiculous to say they do. What they do seem to care about is that certain boat systems are up to snuff. That's their prerogative. They can set whatever requirements they want to insure your boat. Some don't accept boats over a certain age, or wooden boats, or boats that don't have certain system meeting ABYC standards. Some won't insure if you have LFP batteries.


It's a free market, and what you are asking is that insurers be required to insure your boat no matter what condition it's in, or what safety issues might exist. The issue you have is with Insurance companies, so you should take issue with them, not with ABYC. It's the insurance company that requires you to meet certain standards, not ABYC or any government entity.

I'm not against added safety, I'm against just being forced to add safety items by an agency that has no authority to do so. USCG has that authority. If it were that important the USCG would issue a regulation.

Again, ABYC isn't requiring it, so don't keep says that they are. Your insurance company is requiring it, so grind your axe on them.

It would be similar to a requirement from AAA to install catalytic converters on ALl cars, even ones manufactured in 1965.

That's a pretty silly comparison, and really like saying that Active Captain is requiring you to modify your boat. There is no parallel at all with ABYC + your insurance company.



I think a more meaningful comparison would be UL. There is no legal requirement that products be UL listed to see, buy, or use them in the US. Yet the market expects it, so companies all do it.


Also consider NEC or NFPA. Electric wiring standards have evolved, yet there are lots of old houses built when there were no standards or different standards than what we have today. New work is required to be carried out to new standards. That's by law is most areas, so much more demanding than ABYC. And building inspections often cite what is now considered to be deficient work, and insurance companies require that things be corrected or upgraded. Law doesn't require those upgrades, but nobody will insure you without addressing the issues.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

I see, hear, read a lot of whining but little offered as a viable alternative.

I suspect there are few, possibly no for profit industries you feel are under charging or even pricing their goods fairly. I get the idea you would be in the camp where "all business are crooks! Over charge, under deliver and reap unjust profits!"
If not, please elaborate on which industries you believe under charge or are pricing fairly.

Sorry my intent was not to piss you off, rather to have a meaningful discussion about how ABYC and insurance companies have a hold on the industry. Granted I don't need to meet these standards if I chose not to be covered by insurance. Most folks I know are starting to not carry insurance for a variety of reasons. Not my choice but if I want financing, dock space etc, then I am REQUIRED to carry insurance. Insurance companies require ABYC compliance. Didn’t mean to poke the bear, but reality is reality. Still a good conversation.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

I guess this is as good a place as any to speak up. I think you are pretty seriously misinterpreting/misunderstanding a lot of things.



Meeting ABYC standards is not required in the US. Period, end of statement. Meeting the standards is voluntary by boat builders, by repair and service companies, and by boat owners. Your boat doesn't need to meet ABYC standards to be operated in any US waters, nor to be bought or sold.


It's the market that demands meeting the standards. Boat builders and service people do it because it gives them an advantage, and because it's requested by owners/buyers.


And insurance companies DO NOT require that a boat full meet current ABYC standards. It's simply ridiculous to say they do. What they do seem to care about is that certain boat systems are up to snuff. That's their prerogative. They can set whatever requirements they want to insure your boat. Some don't accept boats over a certain age, or wooden boats, or boats that don't have certain system meeting ABYC standards. Some won't insure if you have LFP batteries.


It's a free market, and what you are asking is that insurers be required to insure your boat no matter what condition it's in, or what safety issues might exist. The issue you have is with Insurance companies, so you should take issue with them, not with ABYC. It's the insurance company that requires you to meet certain standards, not ABYC or any government entity.






Again, ABYC isn't requiring it, so don't keep says that they are. Your insurance company is requiring it, so grind your axe on them.





That's a pretty silly comparison, and really like saying that Active Captain is requiring you to modify your boat. There is no parallel at all with ABYC + your insurance company.



I think a more meaningful comparison would be UL. There is no legal requirement that products be UL listed to see, buy, or use them in the US. Yet the market expects it, so companies all do it.


Also consider NEC or NFPA. Electric wiring standards have evolved, yet there are lots of old houses built when there were no standards or different standards than what we have today. New work is required to be carried out to new standards. That's by law is most areas, so much more demanding than ABYC. And building inspections often cite what is now considered to be deficient work, and insurance companies require that things be corrected or upgraded. Law doesn't require those upgrades, but nobody will insure you without addressing the issues.

You make some valid points. Some I agree with.

But as expressed above if you choose to carry insurance then they want an inspection for ABYC compliance. Such as steel bowls under fuel filters, 10ft rule and other issues. Even if the issue was recommended in 2015, they want your 1988 trawler to meet those same 2015 standards.

Want to stay at a marina, many require insurance. Don't blame them at all. Unfortunately many boaters are no longer carrying insurance as it has been priced beyond thier means, so they go without. Not me. I carry insurance, but the cost is getting to hurt and I don't see any end in sight. Boat survey, add issues that the inspector finds according to the up to date ABYC standards makes it even harder to meet


Yet as some here have expressed there is no requirement to follow ABYC recommendations. True until you turn the page and see the truth. I believe ABYC serves a purpose. But I would disagree with you that's it not required. It is required if you want to carry insurance, lease a slip, etc.

Didn't realize this was such a sensitive issue. There are those that are pro ABYC and those who are anti ABYC. I guess never to meet in the middle.

Hope everyone is having a great weekend and our prayers to those in Florida.

 

[Steve DAntonio]

If you have a 100-year old home inspected, and the home inspector says the wiring is dangerous because there are no fuses or circuit breakers, the insulation is failing and and solder and tape has been used in place of wire nuts, would you dismiss his report as impractical, because he is judging an old home by modern standards?

In the case of the example of the 10-foot rule, wires without over-current protection are fire hazards, period, there's no such thing as grandfathering when it comes to the physics of electricity, a fire is a fire is a fire. Why anyone would resist this, other than for economic reasons, escapes me.

Few builders today build to ABYC standards, however, several do, and they participate in the NMMA/ABYC compliance program, where they voluntarily agree to meet a set of ABYC Standards, and they offer an example vessel for inspection by an NMMA approved surveyor. Detailed here Boat & Yacht Certification Program | NMMA The link for the manufacturers that participate is broken at the moment, unfortunately.

Even for the builders/vessels that participate in this program, I find violations, however, in that case, they are contractually compelled to correct them, at least for new vessels.

This is a worthy debate.