Armoured gas hose. Is it safer.

K

KAM

Well-Known Member
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
1,356
Visit site
My surveyor recommend replacing standard gas hose with armoured. I just recieved the armoured hose but several issues. There is no date on the hose, it's not possible to check the condition of the rubber due to the armoured covering. It will still perish where the hose clips compress it. It's much stiffer so more difficult to ensure it's sufficiently clamped. Being heavier and stiffer there is more load placed on the cooker connection and rigid gas pipe supports on the hull. Is it really going to be safer. I'm inclined to keep the existing recently renewed un armoured hose as there has been no sign of chafe on the existing installation. Has anyone challenged this type of reccomendation.
 
KAM said:
My surveyor recommend replacing standard gas hose with armoured.
Click to expand...

I had this on a previous boat's survey. The sort of survey that makes you never want to place any more business with that surveyor.

Where a standard, in good condition and in-date rubber hose is used and doesn't abrade against any edges I do wonder why a surveyor would recommend the use of an armoured hose. Indeed, the surveyor who did that last survey for me certainly wasn't Gas Safe certified and made the same recommendation.

A survey for a buyer of a previous boat of mine called the authenticity of the boat's Gas Safe certificate into question as the surveyor didn't personally know the Gas Safe engineer who signed the certificate. (but the surveyor would have found the engineer's registration on the Gas Safe website, the list created to verify such persons)

Are we paying for survey that are created by surveyors that have run out of things to find on the boat, and are now making recommendations that affect items outside of their areas of competence and qualification just to increase the page count of their reports?
 
langstonelayabout said:
Are we paying for survey that are created by surveyors that have run out of things to find on the boat, and are now making recommendations that affect items outside of their areas of competence and qualification just to increase the page count of their reports?
Click to expand...

Even more annoying when the insurers insist on you carrying out the surveyor's "recommendations"
 
langstonelayabout said:
I had this on a previous boat's survey. The sort of survey that makes you never want to place any more business with that surveyor.

Where a standard, in good condition and in-date rubber hose is used and doesn't abrade against any edges I do wonder why a surveyor would recommend the use of an armoured hose. Indeed, the surveyor who did that last survey for me certainly wasn't Gas Safe certified and made the same recommendation.

A survey for a buyer of a previous boat of mine called the authenticity of the boat's Gas Safe certificate into question as the surveyor didn't personally know the Gas Safe engineer who signed the certificate. (but the surveyor would have found the engineer's registration on the Gas Safe website, the list created to verify such persons)

Are we paying for survey that are created by surveyors that have run out of things to find on the boat, and are now making recommendations that affect items outside of their areas of competence and qualification just to increase the page count of their reports?
Click to expand...
My survey said that the engine was an MD2030 3 cylinder engine, it isnt its a 4 cylinder MD22! It said that the gearbox was shagged because of the smell of burned clutch plates in the oil, it doesnt have clutch plates, the smell was the normal hypoid gear oil smell. He said the B&G instrument system was shagged needs replacement, it didnt, its still working well 10 years later. So what did I pay £500 for? I suppose the drop in price to cover the supposed faults was worth it BUT if insurance companies are insisting on so called surveys such as these then we need to be making serious noises to them?
 
KAM said:
My surveyor recommend replacing standard gas hose with armoured. I just recieved the armoured hose but several issues. There is no date on the hose, it's not possible to check the condition of the rubber due to the armoured covering. It will still perish where the hose clips compress it. It's much stiffer so more difficult to ensure it's sufficiently clamped. Being heavier and stiffer there is more load placed on the cooker connection and rigid gas pipe supports on the hull. Is it really going to be safer. I'm inclined to keep the existing recently renewed un armoured hose as there has been no sign of chafe on the existing installation. Has anyone challenged this type of reccomendation.
Click to expand...
My surveyor "suggested" that I replace my existing armoured hose with standard hose for the very reasons that you state, no date and you can't check the rubber.
 
Beneteau381 said:
My survey said that the engine was an MD2030 3 cylinder engine, it isnt its a 4 cylinder MD22! It said that the gearbox was shagged because of the smell of burned clutch plates in the oil, it doesnt have clutch plates, the smell was the normal hypoid gear oil smell. He said the B&G instrument system was shagged needs replacement, it didnt, its still working well 10 years later. So what did I pay £500 for? I suppose the drop in price to cover the supposed faults was worth it BUT if insurance companies are insisting on so called surveys such as these then we need to be making serious noises to them?
Click to expand...

I do think that we need to be a little more upfront with the Surveyors we employ. These people are considered 'professionals'.

When we find 'discrepancies' like these in their reports maybe we should respond to the surveyor, noting the issues and inviting them to revise their report (at their own cost) and resubmit to us for acceptance. If the report isn't satisfactorily reworked to our satisfaction then communications with the IIMS/YDSA will ensue regarding the accuracy of their work.

We've paid good money for their report. They should give us a good (accurate) report for our money.
 
KAM said:
My surveyor recommend replacing standard gas hose with armoured. I just recieved the armoured hose but several issues. There is no date on the hose, it's not possible to check the condition of the rubber due to the armoured covering.....
Click to expand...

Absolutely, you've answered your own question.
 
KAM said:
My surveyor recommend replacing standard gas hose with armoured. I just recieved the armoured hose but several issues. There is no date on the hose, it's not possible to check the condition of the rubber due to the armoured covering. It will still perish where the hose clips compress it. It's much stiffer so more difficult to ensure it's sufficiently clamped. Being heavier and stiffer there is more load placed on the cooker connection and rigid gas pipe supports on the hull. Is it really going to be safer. I'm inclined to keep the existing recently renewed un armoured hose as there has been no sign of chafe on the existing installation. Has anyone challenged this type of reccomendation.
Click to expand...

You can safely ignore that recommendation, and use ordinary flexible hose. If your insurer insists that you follow the surveyor's recommendations, then challenge the recommendation. If necessary, involve a professional body such as the YDSA.
 
KAM said:
My surveyor recommend replacing standard gas hose with armoured. I just recieved the armoured hose but several issues. There is no date on the hose, it's not possible to check the condition of the rubber due to the armoured covering. It will still perish where the hose clips compress it. It's much stiffer so more difficult to ensure it's sufficiently clamped. Being heavier and stiffer there is more load placed on the cooker connection and rigid gas pipe supports on the hull. Is it really going to be safer. I'm inclined to keep the existing recently renewed un armoured hose as there has been no sign of chafe on the existing installation. Has anyone challenged this type of reccomendation.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's a universal recommendation to junk rubber for armoured, but I have done so in vicinity of the cooker for obvious reasons. Enter a date in the log when changed over and you have a reference point for eventual replacement. I guess you've still got plain old rubber at the gas bottle end, so you can adhere to the dates thereon if replacing both flexibles at the same time.

PWG
 
Perhaps the same surveyor should demanded that the anchor winch be overhauled but was not aware that the engine had to be running before using and was quite happy about fresh water in the bilges but condemned both the rudder (sleeveing stock cured it )and rigging despite riggers inspection report
 
The best of both worlds, in other words what I have done, is to use the normal rubber hose, but wind plastic spiral cable tidy round it. That way, it is protected against any possible abrasion, but can be checked visually.
 
My last survey a couple of years ago said that I needed to fill the gap between the flange on the rudder housing and the hull - which on inspection was not correct as then it would have been impossible to remove the gland as it's securing nuts would have been encapsulated. The gap means you can remove the gland for refurbishment - I pointed this to the insurance co when they asked if all the items had been completed. No comment from the insurance co.
 
The first boat I bought had armoured hose to the cooker. The boat and probably the hose were ~20 years old. First time trying to use the cooker there was a smell of gas. It turned out the armoured hose had mutiple pinprich holes caused by the failed armour. I've not been keen on it since.

Derek
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top