Cat A ocean standard need full revision

[Baggywrinkle]

The purpose of the RCD is to set some minimum standards that give buyers a general idea of the usage to which the craft can be put, and to ensure that minimum standard is met by all boats sold in the EU. That's what legislation does, balances the needs and safety of consumers with the needs of the industry and finds an acceptable middle ground.

Then manufacturers have a further choice, they can engineer the boats to meet those standards and leave it at that, or they can go above and beyond the standards if they feel there is a market for doing so. The RCD does not prevent the production of "blue water boats" whatever that would turn out to be in terms of specification and standard fit-out.

Anyone thinking of cruising in far off places should be qualified enough to know what to look for in a boat, and intelligent enough to make an informed decision. Any proposed A+ standard would and could not be applied retrospectively, and as the majority of boating is done on second hand boats, some of them 40-50 years old, who exactly does it help?

Charter companies, where the majority of new boat volume lies, aren't interested as they confine their fleets to harbour if the weather looks bad ... and charter boats, with charter inventories, aren't going to be found in the southern ocean in any significant numbers, I know Aussies and New Zealanders snap up ex-charter boats in the Med, have a Med holiday, and then sail them home, but the numbers are not statistically significant, and the casualties even less so.

So what exactly is the point? The people who are/were buying Krakens, Alures, Ovnis, HRs, Discovery 55s, Oysters, Gunfleets, Swans etc. etc. knew what they were buying without the need for an RCD A+ rating, and if we look at "blue water" catamarans, like Outremer, how does a cat get an A+ rating when it's angle of vanishing stability is also the angle of vanishing life expectancy? Every one of these manufacturers is not producing boats for the average sailor, the prices are beyond what the vast majority of leisure sailors can afford, and the annual volume hardly justifies any extra RCD regulation or certification. Go up even further in price and we end up with things like the Bayesian .... which turned out to be anything but Ocean capable.

The only reason that I can see for an A+ category, is as bragging rights to support arguments on the internet from people who see themselves as "blue water sailors" but would rather it was a more exclusive club. Wouldn't it be nice to have a bit of paper that puts all these production boat upstarts who are sharing the same anchorages in their place?

.. and then there is the next problem .... how is anyone going to be able to get the sailing community to agree on the definitive specification of a "blue water boat"? Even if the will was there, it would be like herding cats trying to produce a standard, those who consider themselves "blue water" sailors scoff at the system anyway, so as soon as a standard incorporates a parameter they believe isn't stringent enough, then we are back where we started and need an A++ category. What happens if the committee decide the hull needs to be aluminium or steel - a very sound choice for a "blue water boat" - well that's Kraken yachts screwed for a start.

IMO it's a snobbery issue, people who cruise far and wide make their choices and they make them work .... no further debate needed. One thing is for sure, Robin Knox Johnson was NOT on what would now be considered a "blue water cruiser" when he won the first Golden Globe Race, and everyone lauds him as an icon of the sailing world.

Stick with the current RCD, and the continuous amendments, and let it be IMHO.

 

[geem]

The purpose of the RCD is to set some minimum standards that give buyers a general idea of the usage to which the craft can be put, and to ensure that minimum standard is met by all boats sold in the EU. That's what legislation does, balances the needs and safety of consumers with the needs of the industry and finds an acceptable middle ground.

Then manufacturers have a further choice, they can engineer the boats to meet those standards and leave it at that, or they can go above and beyond the standards if they feel there is a market for doing so. The RCD does not prevent the production of "blue water boats" whatever that would turn out to be in terms of specification and standard fit-out.

Anyone thinking of cruising in far off places should be qualified enough to know what to look for in a boat, and intelligent enough to make an informed decision. Any proposed A+ standard would and could not be applied retrospectively, and as the majority of boating is done on second hand boats, some of them 40-50 years old, who exactly does it help?

Charter companies, where the majority of new boat volume lies, aren't interested as they confine their fleets to harbour if the weather looks bad ... and charter boats, with charter inventories, aren't going to be found in the southern ocean in any significant numbers, I know Aussies and New Zealanders snap up ex-charter boats in the Med, have a Med holiday, and then sail them home, but the numbers are not statistically significant, and the casualties even less so.

So what exactly is the point? The people who are/were buying Krakens, Alures, Ovnis, HRs, Discovery 55s, Oysters, Gunfleets, Swans etc. etc. knew what they were buying without the need for an RCD A+ rating, and if we look at "blue water" catamarans, like Outremer, how does a cat get an A+ rating when it's angle of vanishing stability is also the angle of vanishing life expectancy? Every one of these manufacturers is not producing boats for the average sailor, the prices are beyond what the vast majority of leisure sailors can afford, and the annual volume hardly justifies any extra RCD regulation or certification. Go up even further in price and we end up with things like the Bayesian .... which turned out to be anything but Ocean capable.

The only reason that I can see for an A+ category, is as bragging rights to support arguments on the internet from people who see themselves as "blue water sailors" but would rather it was a more exclusive club. Wouldn't it be nice to have a bit of paper that puts all these production boat upstarts who are sharing the same anchorages in their place?

.. and then there is the next problem .... how is anyone going to be able to get the sailing community to agree on the definitive specification of a "blue water boat"? Even if the will was there, it would be like herding cats trying to produce a standard, those who consider themselves "blue water" sailors scoff at the system anyway, so as soon as a standard incorporates a parameter they believe isn't stringent enough, then we are back where we started and need an A++ category. What happens if the committee decide the hull needs to be aluminium or steel - a very sound choice for a "blue water boat" - well that's Kraken yachts screwed for a start.

IMO it's a snobbery issue, people who cruise far and wide make their choices and they make them work .... no further debate needed. One thing is for sure, Robin Knox Johnson was NOT on what would now be considered a "blue water cruiser" when he won the first Golden Globe Race, and everyone lauds him as an icon of the sailing world.

Stick with the current RCD, and the continuous amendments, and let it be IMHO.

RCD 11 removed the word Ocean from Cat A. Is this amendment that improves boat safety or worsens it?
Current marketing info from manufacturers says boats are ocean capable. Which one is correct?

 

[ylop]

Current marketing info from manufacturers says boats are ocean capable. Which one is correct?

They could both be right!

 

[westernman]

If you want more than RCD Cat A, then go for MCA (MGN 280) Cat 0. That gives you certain safety features which are not necessary for RCD Cat A - such as water tight bulkhead, the ability to float if the boat has a large hole in one compartment, etc, etc.

That enables you to take paying passengers on your boat anywhere in the world (if you have a skipper and mate with commercial endorsement).

RCD IMHO is fit for purpose for what 99.9% of leisure sailors are looking for. The remaining ones know what they need and how to get it and how to ensure they got what they need.

 

[geem]

...

 

[SaltyC]

Maybe we need a Plimsoll line? WNA anyone?

 

[Baggywrinkle]

RCD 11 removed the word Ocean from Cat A. Is this amendment that improves boat safety or worsens it?
Current marketing info from manufacturers says boats are ocean capable. Which one is correct?

It hasn't made a blind bit of difference to the AWB market ... people still have the same choice as they did before, with the same level of safety ... as soon as someone comes up with a testable definition of what "ocean capable" really means no-one is any the wiser - but they won't because it is fundamentally meaningless as a measure. The Titanic was unsinkable until it sank.

Ocean capable for the vast majority of sailors means capable of the ARC .... which is not the adventure it used to be when my dad and his mates were having the same "blue water" discussions in the 70s/80s .... and most of the boats they lusted after wouldn't even be considered for round Britain, never mind the Atlantic circuit. I've sat there as a kid in pubs with my parents, and heard owners of wooden boats seriously claim that wood is the best material for a blue water boat because if you're in the middle of nowhere you can always find wood, and the tools to work it are simple - tell that to the crew of the Winston Churchill .... but if someone want's to sail to the Antarctic on a wooden boat, then let them get on with it IMO.

Moving to more modern boats, the Bayesean was sunk at anchor and up until that point, no-one would have believed it was possible, but that one event has made Perini Navi orders of magnitude worse than Bavaria with their Match 42 in terms of deaths per boat built. Mustique, a Moody 66, had it's rudder and skeg ripped off by Orcas and needed a helicopter with high capacity pumps to stop it sinking, that tells me that Orca attacks are a lottery. I know of a HR 36 which ripped its skeg off on rocks when the owner went hard over to avoid them - my brother used to borrow the boat, and while head-on a skeg may provide a degree of protection (even though the keel will hit first), from the side it is just a lever laminated to the hull. The HR needed an immediate lift-out and a complete interior out rebuild.

Basically I've been around boat owners way too long and have realised that those that know what they are doing just get on with it, but there is a persistent group who argue about a few degrees more on an angle of vanishing stability, or some other feature which is somehow going to save their lives, in an ocean? ... Get real, respect for the elements, good seamanship, modern weather routing, and modern communication and safety equipment, and a well maintained boat is orders of magnitude more important than whether your boat has a skeg or not, if the keel is encapsulated or not ... the only real item that helps is watertight bulkheads as mentioned by @westernman - and most AWBs got that at the bow when we stopped draining anchor lockers into the bilges - the bigger ones also have a watertight sail locker in the bow behind the anchor locker - however the rudder area remains vulnerable. We also used to make removable cockpit floors to gain access to the engine/propshaft ... their drainage was terrible, and a big wave can punch them in just like the windows of the Bav 47 mentioned earlier in this thread.

I always draw an analogy to cars, your car can have a 5 star crash rating, but depending of the specifics of the accident, you either survive or you don't, it's the same at sea. The two times in living memory, when large numbers of boats were subject to similar horrendous conditions were the 98 Sydney Hobart, and the 79 Fastnet, and they were both basically a lottery - a duck race - the two boats that beat the odds had one thing in common .... they just kept going and didn't really realise the danger they were in. The 35-foot (10.7 m) AFR Midnight Rambler, won the 98 Sydney Hobart on handicap and was the first boat of its size to reach the entry to Bass Strait in less than a day. In the Fasnet it was the Contessa 32 with a young crew who were having the time of their life, blissfully unaware of the chaos unfolding around them. Very different boats.

Realistically you can do the Atlantic circuit on any modern AWB of 40ft or more without any issues, but the debate continues - opinions are like ar$eholes - everyone has got one - and the main point is that no matter what boat you have, things can go badly wrong regardless .... we're talking about probability and percentages of percentages, when the biggest wild card has little to do with the boat design and much more to do with the skipper and crew.

 

[noelex]

It would be interesting to know how much a typical cat A certification costs the consumer.

 

[Concerto]

To new yacht owners who have little sailing experience, the RCD A rating appears more of a guarantee that their boat can can go anywhere including crossing oceans. They buy the boat after seeing one at a boat show or in a marina. Most buyers spend much more time below than looking at the sailing equipment. I can remember at a London Boat show about 12 years ago, I was told off for walking on the foredeck of a Bavaria. I have watched at boat shows that few potential customers even sit in the cockpit. These buyers think the RCD ensures the boat is safe, when in fact they are more interested in buying a floating caravan. People who have sailed, or better still raced, yachts for decades have a better understanding of what they like and dislike in a yacht. They understand the compromises they have to accept as no boat is ever perfect, new or secondhand.

This thread is about the RCD applying to bonded in windows. It only applies to new boats for the first sale. RCD does not look beyond that date otherwise brass skin fittings would not be allowed. RCD does not require any continuing certification that a boat continues to meet the RCD standard it was built to, unlike aircraft and cars. As I have already said in a previous post, RCD does not allow for easy entry for new builders, but acts as a protection for existing builders by allowing them to build to the minimum possible standard. Now add inexperienced buyers to the mix who want space below for lots of mod cons, cockpit and deck ares to sunbath, and lacking basic maintenance skills, I am surprised they are not more fatalities - perhaps because they never sail anywhere if there is any wind.

 

[Zing]

If you want more than RCD Cat A, then go for MCA (MGN 280) Cat 0. That gives you certain safety features which are not necessary for RCD Cat A - such as water tight bulkhead, the ability to float if the boat has a large hole in one compartment, etc, etc.

That enables you to take paying passengers on your boat anywhere in the world (if you have a skipper and mate with commercial endorsement).

RCD IMHO is fit for purpose for what 99.9% of leisure sailors are looking for. The remaining ones know what they need and how to get it and how to ensure they got what they need.

Those rules are now out of date. Current coding rules are found in the link below. Watertight bulkheads are only required in >15m boats BTW. They should be in all boats forward of the rudder as well as in the bow, coded or not in my opinion. Just as important as stability.

It’s a good general reference as there are a lot of other safety features in it that many owners might want to incorporate into their boats.

The sport or pleasure vessel code

 

[lustyd]

Maybe we need a Plimsoll line? WNA anyone?

You keep yer Plimsoll line away from my boat! I’d have to take off half the tools, spares and possessions

 

[flaming]

I am surprised they are not more fatalities - perhaps because they never sail anywhere if there is any wind.

I found myself largely agreeing with the rest of your post, but then you sadly just fell into the "modern boats are just flimsy rubbish" thing...

When I was growing up my Dad had a Westerly of roughly the same era as your Fulmar. A 1980 Griffon to be precise. When it was about 12-13 years old - i.e in the early 90s, there was a lot of repair work going on. It was not unusual for Dad (who really was an extremely talented engineer) to spend several full weekends per year fixing stuff. And this was on a boat that did maybe 10 summer weekends sailing per year, rarely in heavy weather and just cruising. The inner forestay came free once. Turned out it was just secured with some self tappers. The kicker broke its mountings more than once. Leaks were common, especially from the windows funnily enough.

My boat is from 2012, so it's basically the same age now. Last season we did 35 days racing. Pushing the boat hard in all conditions. Plus 2 weeks family cruising. My jobs list for this winter is only upgrades, couple of new footrests suitable for the kids etc. Nothing broke. Nothing needs replacing. The boat is so, so much more solid than that Griffon was, as is the kit bolted to it.

Which shouldn't be surprising. It's 30 years younger, 30 years more industry experience.

 

[Sea Change]

I found myself largely agreeing with the rest of your post, but then you sadly just fell into the "modern boats are just flimsy rubbish" thing...

When I was growing up my Dad had a Westerly of roughly the same era as your Fulmar. A 1980 Griffon to be precise. When it was about 12-13 years old - i.e in the early 90s, there was a lot of repair work going on. It was not unusual for Dad (who really was an extremely talented engineer) to spend several full weekends per year fixing stuff. And this was on a boat that did maybe 10 summer weekends sailing per year, rarely in heavy weather and just cruising. The inner forestay came free once. Turned out it was just secured with some self tappers. The kicker broke its mountings more than once. Leaks were common, especially from the windows funnily enough.

My boat is from 2012, so it's basically the same age now. Last season we did 35 days racing. Pushing the boat hard in all conditions. Plus 2 weeks family cruising. My jobs list for this winter is only upgrades, couple of new footrests suitable for the kids etc. Nothing broke. Nothing needs replacing. The boat is so, so much more solid than that Griffon was, as is the kit bolted to it.

Which shouldn't be surprising. It's 30 years younger, 30 years more industry experience.

What we (or at least I) really want is the best of all worlds.
Modern CAD, resins, vacuum infusion, and properly engineered details.
But used to build a conservative cruising boat with a strong skeg, practical layout (storage, not open space), and rigged for cruising rather than racing.

No doubt somebody will be along in a moment to tell me what to buy.

 

[flaming]

What we (or at least I) really want is the best of all worlds.
Modern CAD, resins, vacuum infusion, and properly engineered details.
But used to build a conservative cruising boat with a strong skeg, practical layout (storage, not open space), and rigged for cruising rather than racing.

No doubt somebody will be along in a moment to tell me what to buy.

Plenty of people also seem to want that. Certainly if you believed this and other forums.

But plenty of yards have over many years proved, by going bust, that not enough people are actually prepared to pay the amount of money that such a boat actually costs.

 

[lustyd]

Plenty of people also seem to want that. Certainly if you believed this and other forums.

But plenty of yards have over many years proved, by going bust, that not enough people are actually prepared to pay the amount of money that such a boat actually costs.

The number of people who even need a boat like that is very small in the first place. Even among ocean crossing sailors most are very cautious and won’t do passages that challenging, with most of them drifting downwind in season with good forecasts. We’re probably talking tens or maybe hundreds of people globally. Of those, how many would even buy a new boat, and how often would they do so?
Even if we assume some good numbers there, they won’t all agree on the boat/size/price they want so a builder will only get a small proportion of those sales and those will be split between models.

And then there’s the problem that old boats are considered indestructible by those people, so plenty of them around

 

[flaming]

The number of people who even need a boat like that is very small in the first place. Even among ocean crossing sailors most are very cautious and won’t do passages that challenging, with most of them drifting downwind in season with good forecasts. We’re probably talking tens or maybe hundreds of people globally. Of those, how many would even buy a new boat, and how often would they do so?
Even if we assume some good numbers there, they won’t all agree on the boat/size/price they want so a builder will only get a small proportion of those sales and those will be split between models.

Meanwhile yards building modern Ocean cruisers that have gone the other way - light, capable of planing, twin rudders etc.... The likes of Pogo, JPK, Pegasus.... They have multi year waiting lists.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

Plenty of people also seem to want that. Certainly if you believed this and other forums.

But plenty of yards have over many years proved, by going bust, that not enough people are actually prepared to pay the amount of money that such a boat actually costs.

Not just the cost, though I daresay that’s a massive disincentive. Loads of people talk about crossing oceans, God knows we’ve discussed it between ourselves and with sailing friends, some of whom have done it. Our mooring neighbour is slightly famous for it. But for 99.9% of even serious cruising sailors it’s just a dream. So those 99.9% get an attack of pragmatism, and buy something more suited to weekends in the next lock, or Falmouth, or Poole, with the odd foray across the channel. For which a boat set up for crossing oceans would be less enjoyable, less convenient. And most of the remaining 0.1% will do what T.D. our neighbour did, and buy a Vancouver or similar. He’s recently added a fathom to the size of his vancouver, but has realised he’s not going around again and for his current use, he’d be better off in a JPK, or even better, a Dragonfly. His words.

 

[Concerto]

I found myself largely agreeing with the rest of your post, but then you sadly just fell into the "modern boats are just flimsy rubbish" thing...

When I was growing up my Dad had a Westerly of roughly the same era as your Fulmar. A 1980 Griffon to be precise. When it was about 12-13 years old - i.e in the early 90s, there was a lot of repair work going on. It was not unusual for Dad (who really was an extremely talented engineer) to spend several full weekends per year fixing stuff. And this was on a boat that did maybe 10 summer weekends sailing per year, rarely in heavy weather and just cruising. The inner forestay came free once. Turned out it was just secured with some self tappers. The kicker broke its mountings more than once. Leaks were common, especially from the windows funnily enough.

My boat is from 2012, so it's basically the same age now. Last season we did 35 days racing. Pushing the boat hard in all conditions. Plus 2 weeks family cruising. My jobs list for this winter is only upgrades, couple of new footrests suitable for the kids etc. Nothing broke. Nothing needs replacing. The boat is so, so much more solid than that Griffon was, as is the kit bolted to it.

Which shouldn't be surprising. It's 30 years younger, 30 years more industry experience.

Bringing up old boats was not part of my comments. I stand by the comment that there are plenty of owners who are relatively new to sailing buy boats and find the RCD classification a guarantee that the boat is designed to be safe. They do not know about the difference to having a boat Coded, which is a far higher standard. In the past here used to be Lloyds 100+for yachts, I even remember this being mentioned in the late 1960's. This is still available for larger yachts, but to remain in class they have to be surveyed every 5 years. This article explains it quite well.

Yacht Buyer's Guide to Lloyd's Register

 

[justanothersailboat]

When I was growing up my Dad had a Westerly of roughly the same era as your Fulmar. A 1980 Griffon to be precise. When it was about 12-13 years old - i.e in the early 90s, there was a lot of repair work going on. It was not unusual for Dad (who really was an extremely talented engineer) to spend several full weekends per year fixing stuff. And this was on a boat that did maybe 10 summer weekends sailing per year, rarely in heavy weather and just cruising. The inner forestay came free once. Turned out it was just secured with some self tappers. The kicker broke its mountings more than once. Leaks were common, especially from the windows funnily enough.

It's definitely true that those old Westerlys had many good points but also a fair few snags or surprise weaknesses or cut corners - but I don't think new boats in general are all that proof against similar things. Based on the more modern boats I've been on I think you're pretty lucky with yours (but I suspect it's a serious cut above the larger-production average boats). They might be different compromises but the overall effect is similar. (I'm thinking of things like "that's prone to leaking, this shouldn't have had self-tappers, that spot is underbuilt" rather than the ever-popular-but-irrelevant-to-this-discussion matter of "is this cabin woodwork a nice bit of joinery" - which I think is different question)

On the other hand the vast majority of old boats (certainly including Westerlys) are extremely user-fixable and easy to change or upgrade. I think it's reasonable to be concerned when there are maintenance items with known limited service life that are both (a) hard to fix yourself and (b) hard to get someone in to fix in the conditions of the average boatyard. Especially if they are safety essentials. I do believe the creeping trend towards more sophisticated boat production has led to more things being like that - whether it's glued items cured in a controlled temperature profile and controlled humidity, more large custom parts rather than things simply made from stock materials, or whatever. I can't entirely agree with the "owner should just fix this maintenance item" view if it's practically very difficult to do so.

Another nice factor with old boats is there's no need at all to try to keep them original. I find that rather freeing :-D

 

[flaming]

Bringing up old boats was not part of my comments. I stand by the comment that there are plenty of owners who are relatively new to sailing buy boats and find the RCD classification a guarantee that the boat is designed to be safe.

Is there actually any evidence that they are not in fact safe?