Discussion in 'Technical Discussion' started by RobVer, May 8, 2009.
I'll admit it. Trading my waistline for a bottom line.
Well..between my post and K1W1's, that takes care of everything except RINA, KR and GL....doubt I'll bother to drag those off my book shelf.
I thumbed through my pile of RINA books when the thread started. There is nothing in them to support that poor befuddled "surveyor's" rant.
As obnoxious as this thread is to many readers, let it be an example of how a "surveyor" or one who claims expertise and authority can leverage a personal opinion into high costs and extra work for owners. These people have no qualms about presenting a survey report that is based on opinion and a poor understanding of "requirements" as opposed to good ideas.
Insurance companies take them at their word because like most bureaucratic organizations, they feel secure in following the written suggestions of an "expert." Look at how viciously the poster fought to defend a flawed premise. Is there anyone at an insurance company or most management companies to defend the owner's interest against this sort of malpractice?
That is the reason I asked this "surveyor" to reference the exact regulations and class rules that define the standards on which he based his claims. If the survey report presented his opinion as fact, as did his posts, the underwriters would certainly force the owner to pay for expensive and unneeded modifications or further appraisal. At the very least it would create a situation that consumed time and incurred additional costs to bring in a class surveyor to analyze the situation.
Apology for tardiness, an update and an offer.
Really! Gentlemen! Such personally aimed vitriol is very unbecoming. Shades of hungry wolves over a carcase. You really must have patience.
You yet may be proven even more correct in your condemnations! Stay for the kill, why not? Please don't close the thread.
But I feel too that this atmosphere of odium is my own stupid fault for posing such an inappropriately esoteric question in the first place, without thought of consequence or a layman's bestowal or strong and identifiably mirthful flavouring, and, finally, without really understanding that this 'forum' is essentially all American and not really European; not that one has any ill opinion whatsoever of Americans. But my first comments were inconsiderate.
And you will all, no doubt, be delighted to hear that, apparently, I was very unfair in being unequal in retort and, also, that I have made a slight, but still important and common, ERROR in one legal assumption in my initial statement.
If I may, I'll keep that for later. But one can just imagine those colonial snarling pearly-whites in the background! Oh dear me.
For your interest, and to be fair, you shall know that, in the interim (and as you all seemed to focus on one single issue) I am compiling a list of every yacht fitted with fuel header tanks /I] built by every reputable yard I know of in greater Europe (such as B&V, Lurssen, A&R, Burmeister, Buguer, Damen, Feadship, H&W, Ulstein etc., etc.)
To be balanced, we are also doing a list of the well known American yards and their boats, or rather trying to. It's quite a task, but it's fun and it's educational for me.
It's far too early for a judgement with only about seventy boats checked but, interestingly, so far the percentages are about 98% built in Europe to and, maybe, 5% in the States, though the latter percentage may rise as we add larger vessels. (Engineers...please tell if you have positive knowledge of a particular vessel's systems...any little helps.) Interesting? I think so. And I wonder, is it illustrative of the reason for the righteous vitriol against my statements in this forum? Anyway, the list is for publication soon.
Lastly, and to keep things warm and fuzzy, I have a small offer for you all. You have all been so amusing and charming in your jottings.
Surely it is true to state that a vessel MUST have a hull, and MUST have something to connect the props to the engines, (and a few other bits of note) to be considered seaworthy, (or in more usual legal parlance 'Not unseaworthy'.) and therefore safe ... and even possibly insurable.
But, do you know, one cannot, for the life of me, find one single entry in any code anywhere, from any organization, that says any of these are actual requirements. Not a word. Plenty of waffle on 'this spec. and that spec etc. But nothing to say either item is a requirement in itself.
So, having now discovered this marvellous loophole, would any one of you chaps like to invest in my new business building boats without hulls and propeller shafts etc. What an offer! We could make a fortune! Unfortunately, frames do seem to be a requirement, but only in relation to hulls, so maybe not. There's also nothing to say we can't float it with some bags for the inclining stuff anyway.
( By the way, this last bit is a joke..just in case someone blows a gasket trying to disprove it!!) be happy ... and tanks (sic) for being such good sports.
A sailing vessel must have something connected to the propellers to be deemed seaworthy, safe, and insurable?
Thousands of years of history would seemingly disagree.
Water jets are out of the question too eh?
Oh no...it looks like we are heading into round 2
Well, it was just taken off by a new post by RobVer, but to avoid a third World War, I have put it on hold and temporarily locked this thread.... Sorry all.