Vent in the side of the fly bridge. Very basic. Builder installed.
the fact that insurance companies will accept the opinion of almost anyone who is "certified" (SAMS, NAMS etc.) doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot and does nothing to justify the title of "marine surveyor"
RT, we still don't disagree, If you are familiar with my posts over the years (and I am sure you are) you will recall that I have blamed the underwriters on many occasions for the sad state of affairs of the surveying business. The underwriters could put the fly by night surveyors out of business overnight if they so chose by simply refusing to accept shoddy work.
Unfortunately I can't do anything about that and just go about my business doing as honest a job as I know how and trying my best to offer my somewhat informed opinion through my website.
Wait a dang second. SAMS/NAMS have exclusive billing with my insuruance company. When I asked the insurer why that was so, they told me that in exchange for locking out non-SAMS/NAMS surveyors, these surveyor organizations promised to up the qualifications of it's membership, provide some standardization among it's membership, and provide the company with a standardized report format. So now SAMS/NAMS haven't kept their side of the bargain and you blame the insurance companies??? You can't do anything about it? What, the organization puts a gag on you? I dismissed a card carrying SAMS member who couldn't find the pointy end without his ACYB book, and had to get a waiver for a surveyor with a list of credentials as long as your arm because your organization sold the insurance companies a bill of goods...and that's the fault of the insurance company? I fault the carriers for enabling this mess, but that doesn't absolve SAMS/NAMS. It you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Thanks again for the quotes. Fascinating reading from one of the top few in Canada if I understand you correctly. I'll pass this along.
I don't claim to be among the top, I'm just a guy trying to do an honest job.
SAMS made no such promise to any of the hundreds of insurance companies and if you think a lowly surveyor living on a boat in Mississauga, Ontario can influence hundreds of insurance companies and their billions of dollars ...... well I just don't know what to say to that.
Well....according to our currently commenting surveyor...that really isn't compliant because the vent isn't below the gunnels....
I think that is reasonable as long as the vent isn't over a door or window...but the wizards at ABYC seem to think it isn't SAFE enough....
Sorry sir, but that is exactly what my insurance company told me when I hired a non-SAMS/NAMS surveyor. SAMS gets exclusive access in exchange for providing a qualified, well managed surveyor community. Of course you've failed. I was suggesting you try to do your part to fix your own organization, not the insurance companies...the membership qualifications problem is not theirs...it's yours. Sure sounded like you were counting yourself as one of that top tier. In any case, you're absolutely sure you're not part of the problem...
Boatpoker, I've read and appreciated the stuff on your web site. It's pretty clear that you take the issues around safety on board seriously, and I think that this kind of advocacy helps us all in the long run. Thanks for your efforts and contribution.
That said, I appreciate some of the points that semi-planing brings up. As I understand things meeting ABYC standards is not required for new boats that are not used for commercial purposes, and certainly the standards have evolved since many of the boats out there were sold new.
So when you point out in your written survey that the install doesn't meet current ABYC standards what is the response from the owner's insurance company? I understand that this is a big grey area, but I'm concerned that this "non-compliance" is in reference to a set of standards that may not apply to the boat and its intended use. I think that's the heart of semi-planing's point.
Sorry to blather on, but I recently was essentially forced by my home insurance underwriter to have extensive electrical work done on my 110 year old home to the tune of > 20k. I was dropped into one of those grey areas after a home inspection. Nothing had changed for the worse during my 20 years of ownership, but this particular inspector felt that the outdated wiring was an issue, even though the local electrical authority (and the underwriter, before being provoked by the report) didn't. Is my home safer now? Sure. But I knew the risks when I moved in, judged them to be small, and would have liked to have done the work when it suited me.
So while I would certainly appreciate a surveyor pointing out how I could make my old boat safer, I would hate to see a case where expensive and/or extensive remedial work to meet current standards were forced upon me by my insurance company, particularly when new boats aren't always compliant, as you point out on your web site. Sometimes the insurance folks aren't experienced enough to read between the lines. So I do kind of question calling these things out in the written report.
But to cite ABYC recommendations as "absolutes" is just wrong.
"I've been in this business for a long time and have never told anyone that ABYC Standards were absolute or mandatory. Neither have I known another surveyor who made such a claim and I know hundreds of them."
Never said you did. Just made the statement that "absolutes" are wrong. I think that most folks here would agree that some surveyors use the ABYC recommendations as a "crutch". And, yes, some do say "see here, it says right here, you are not in compliance". You don't. Good on you. You know hundreds of surveyors? So what. Have you read all of their surveys? Look, some surveyors hurt us with thier lousy, ignorant surveys. The problem for boat owners is that we CANNOT rely on the fact that a particular surveyor is a member of a professional orgnization. And isn't that just the point that is being made by others here? And why are you being so darn defensive about all this? You are a good surveyor. Ackowledged, by assumption. You are among the few and far between. Own it.
"I've been in this business for a long time and have never told anyone that ABYC Standards were absolute or mandatory. Neither have I known another surveyor who made such a claim and I know hundreds of them."
Never said you did. Just made the statement that "absolutes" are wrong. I think that most folks here would agree that some surveyors use the ABYC recommendations as a "crutch". And, yes, some do say "see here, it says right here, you are not in compliance". You don't. Good on you. You know hundreds of surveyors? So what. Have you read all of their surveys? Look, some surveyors hurt us with thier lousy, ignorant surveys. The problem for boat owners is that we CANNOT rely on the fact that a particular surveyor is a member of a professional orgnization. And isn't that just the point that is being made by others here? And why are you being so darn defensive about all this? You are a good surveyor. Ackowledged, by assumption. You are among the few and far between. Own it.
No, I have not read all their surveys and never said I did (although I've read a couple of thousand and have several hundred of others reports in my files). As stated on my website a "credential" of any kind does not ensure a good survey. Like any other endeavour the buyer must perform due diligence before hiring anyone. If you hire a lousy plumber or lousy surveyor, you have to own that.
The big question will be....what requirements will be for ALL boats and what will be the requirements for new builds?
The big deal with many is not whether ABYC standards are good or bad....just how they are applied to older vessels and who is the "authority" .
This is the kind of situation where my personal rub with the whole circular mess gets me on step.
I glad you're better with boat surveying than your are with story facts.Remember your society is the one that gave a woman $5,000,000 for spilling hot McDonalds coffee on herself.
I glad you're better with boat surveying than your are with story facts.
Jury award was for $2.86 million which was reduced by the trial judge to $640,000, which was then further reduced to a non disclosed amount prior to an appeal decision.
From Wikipedia Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants.
Liebeck (the burn victim) was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed care for 3 weeks, provided by her daughter. Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years.
Ted
She order hot coffee, not coffee that would cause injury if she drank it when served. The part of the suit that was lost in the settlement hype was that a restaurant has an obligation not to serve you an item that is hazardous to consume at the time it was served, or at the very least warn you.Numbers aside, my point stands. order hot coffee (she didn't order cold coffee did she ? ), spill it on yourself and blame McDonald, collect money. Accept no responsibilty for your own actions. ..... omit due diligence, hire a lousy surveyor then rant.
.......... Anyway, the boat was constructed in 78 and it hasn't shown signs of blowing up!! Or the occupants being 'Gassed'. Lucky I guess according. ............
I glad you're better with boat surveying than your are with story facts.
Jury award was for $2.86 million which was reduced by the trial judge to $640,000, which was then further reduced to a non disclosed amount prior to an appeal decision.
From Wikipedia Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants.
Liebeck (the burn victim) was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed care for 3 weeks, provided by her daughter. Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years.
Ted
Really off subject, but I recall "trying" to drink mikky'd coffee back in the day. That stuff was dangerous. And they were sued multiple times and ordered to lower the temp. They did not comply. They are now in compliance. As to marine surveyors, my opinion (from personall experience, first hand, $$$ outa my pocket) is that they are incompitent, all of them that I know anyway, and apparently most other knowledgeable boat owners feel the same way. I understand the insurers desire to know what they are assuring, it only makes good business sense. EXCEPT that they have this army of (add descriptive expletive) trying to tell them if the boat in ? is a good risk. Knowing this, and the fact that I'm paying, suggests to me that I get what I want. I have been "written up" a time or 2 for minor things that ended up being major expenses to satisfy the insurer. Now I just tell my guy what I want, over the phone during the initial contact. I suppose if he doesnt want to do it my way he can opt out. They never do. And, I normally have to tell them what they are looking at, what it does, etc. Then, I want to see the finished survey befor I approve it. They always have mistakes, usually from plain ignorance or lack of knowledge. The last fellow called my planing hull sportfisher a "full displacement hull" in his report. After fixing that his survey was submitted, and he recieved favorable remarks from the insurer. He was happy, I was happy, insurer was happy. I like that pattern.
Simply, you're permitted to burn yourself on your own coffee because you screwed up. When a business sells you a product, there is an assumption that the product will be safe for the intended purpose at time of delivery unless otherwise stated. The hamburger analogy falls flat as most could eat the the burger as served without incident. Nobody could have consumed the coffee in that situation without burning themselves.But she should have known that coffee is normally served hot. If she had burned herself with her own home made coffee she would have had nobody to blame. The accident was her fault not McDonalds.
If McDonalds or any other restaurant sold someone a hamburger and they took too big a bite and choked on it and died, should the restaurant be held responsible?
Life comes with risks and responsibilities. Not everything bad that happens to you is someone else's fault.
What you're forgetting is that the ones who were blown up or gassed aren't around to tell about it.
It's similar to the seatbelt situation mentioned earlier. I drove for years before seatbelts were commonly installed in cars. I was never killed or injured in an accident so based on my personal experience, seat belts are a waste of money and time, right?
I never drive or ride in a car without wearing my seat belt. Common sense tells me I'm safer if I do.
The same common sense tells me to make whatever changes I can to my boat systems to keep me as safe as possible.
I think we're trying to make the same point. The important thing is that we understand the risks and that's where the standards come in. ABYC has more experience than we do as individuals. We can look at their standards and compare them to our situations and make our decisions. Without their standards we have no place to start.But do you wear a 5 point harness for that one in a million accident?
No.....simplify the obvious and that is exactly where we are....safety is a moving target and for every side...there is some other extreme argument.
Thus the birth of risk management where brains are allowed to overcome blind rules.
but that is how this discussion got going somewhat.....I think we're trying to make the same point. The important thing is that we understand the risks and that's where the standards come in. ABYC has more experience than we do as individuals. We can look at their standards and compare them to our situations and make our decisions. Without their standards we have no place to start.
Really off subject, but I recall "trying" to drink mikky'd coffee back in the day. That stuff was dangerous. And they were sued multiple times and ordered to lower the temp. They did not comply. They are now in compliance. As to marine surveyors, my opinion (from personall experience, first hand, $$$ outa my pocket) is that they are incompitent, all of them that I know anyway, and apparently most other knowledgeable boat owners feel the same way. I understand the insurers desire to know what they are assuring, it only makes good business sense. EXCEPT that they have this army of (add descriptive expletive) trying to tell them if the boat in ? is a good risk. Knowing this, and the fact that I'm paying, suggests to me that I get what I want. I have been "written up" a time or 2 for minor things that ended up being major expenses to satisfy the insurer. Now I just tell my guy what I want, over the phone during the initial contact. I suppose if he doesnt want to do it my way he can opt out. They never do. And, I normally have to tell them what they are looking at, what it does, etc. Then, I want to see the finished survey befor I approve it. They always have mistakes, usually from plain ignorance or lack of knowledge. The last fellow called my planing hull sportfisher a "full displacement hull" in his report. After fixing that his survey was submitted, and he recieved favorable remarks from the insurer. He was happy, I was happy, insurer was happy. I like that pattern.