Cat A ocean standard need full revision

[seeSimon]

It seems to me amazing that expensive and complicated items such as boats do not come with a rigorous maintenance schedule.

As many have observed it isn’t particularly helpful to a buyer of a 10 y/o boat to know that, when it was built, it met a specific set of standards without also knowing what maintenance was required over that 10 years to keep it at those standards and whether such maintenance was carried out.

Buying an aircraft the first things you’d look at would be the operational hours, maintenance requirements and maintenance log.

Cars have to pass MoT tests, so much of the work is done for you. (Plus with a servicing schedule - which can be cross checked for compliance)

Boats, on the other hand, sell on a row-away factor and maybe a few receipts that show the engine oil was changed and the topsides given a quick polish 5 minutes before the advertisement was written.

I generally agree with the above.

Personally, I see "yotting" as one of the remaining few personal freedoms that we have in an increasingly "nanny state".

However, I'd rather not extend that freedom to aircraft!

 

[Zing]

Coincidentally I was shown a failed coachroof front window on a Beneteau 473 yesterday, where the owner had engineered his own solution and had it copied by 30 odd other owners with loose and leaking windows. It’s a common issue clearly. Not good enough Beneteau. It should be possible in the current ocean A standard to specify a method to ensure this doesn’t happen. After all reliable bonded windows are a common feature in pretty much all boats now and nave been in all vehicles for many decades.

I suggest the standard needs modifying as failed windows are not acceptable in any boat even in B or coastal or inshore categories. It’s yet another reason for a lack of confidence in these standards along with the thru-hull failures scandal and multiple bulkhead failures. They need to up their game.

 

[lustyd]

Disagree.
Mine UK built by reputable professional yard, 10 years ago. It had no frits. Unsurprisingly the bond failed. Probably due to UV?
In my case turned out not to be a particularly big deal...but easily could have been.
I very much doubt that a tradional port light/window would have fallen out at 10 years old?

Besides, what is "properly maintained" ...exactly? By whom? Certified by whom? See benjenbav at #55.

As stated earlier, the adhesive has a 10 year life, so proper maintenance would be rebedding before 10 years.

 

[westernman]

As stated earlier, the adhesive has a 10 year life, so proper maintenance would be rebedding before 10 years.

What adhesive do they use for sticking in the windows in aircraft?

Surely that has a better than 10 year life and I don't think the windows are removed and rebedded every 10 years.
Ditto for the rest of a composite aircraft body such as a B787 Dreamliner. It is just stuck together with adhesive.

 

[lustyd]

What adhesive do they use for sticking in the windows in aircraft?

Surely that has a better than 10 year life and I don't think the windows are removed and rebedded every 10 years.
Ditto for the rest of a composite aircraft body such as a B787 Dreamliner. It is just stuck together with adhesive.

Aircraft windows attach from the inside, and I imagine do have a very strict maintenance period. I don’t know the details of the adhesive used, but it’s probably similar stuff I imagine.

Edit: that was interesting so I googled. 787 has maintenance free windows that last 20 years while prior models were inspected and replaced/rebedded every 6 years if there was any sign of degradation

 

[boomerangben]

Some interesting points being made on both sides.

Clearly hull windows sell boats and bonded windows also sell boats (indirectly by cost efficiencies). I do wonder if we are starting to see the thin end of a wedge of statistics about bonded windows. Perhaps the statistics will be skewed as awareness on social media owner groups makes preventative maintenance more common. Just as when buying a second hand boat we ask questions about sail drive seals, engine age, rigging age, keel bolts, etc we will add hull and topside windows to the list. Looking ahead as more people research their purchases via the internet and have AI scour the the web for answers, it may be that threads like this contribute to a negative reputation being assigned to bonded windows. Maybe more caution will be applied when choosing a new yacht, resulting in market forces driving a move away from them or more simply clauses start to appear in insurance condition as AI is used to gather statistics.

As for A+ certification……. I’m not sure. The weakest link in all of this is the human element and there’s no CE or ISO standard for us as skippers, crew, fitters etc. I don’t think we can rely on owners doing required maintenance, I cannot see adhesive manufacturers offering long term guarantees on their products or boat builders looking beyond the warranty they offer. If bonded windows sell boats, that is what we will get. Caveat Emptor.

 

[doug748]

Actually one just has to search on internet for problems for ARC boats to see a number of sinking or abandonment's to wonder about this statement

Yes, a few big items lost or abandoned due to damaged rudders. If wanting a trouble free voyage without the help of rescue services you might prefer:

Rudder with skeg
Long or longish keel
Solid construction
Conventional shaft drive engine without P brackets

Before worrying about stick on windows, though I don't fancy them myself.
Risk is a movable feast though, high rollers might prefer to get on the telephone and abandon ship rather than choose an unpalatable and less ostentatious design.

.

 

[potentillaCO32]

Keels falling off is a good headline maker, like a capsizing multihull. Both extremely rare, but people are irrationally fearful of them.

I am not sure it is that rare. A 2017 study by the ISAF identified 72 cases with 24 fatalities. They concluded there might be many more as many sinkings in blue water end up with all evidence at the bottom of the sea.

 

[seeSimon]

As stated earlier, the adhesive has a 10 year life, so proper maintenance would be rebedding before 10 years.

How can you possibly know Which adhesive was used? When exactly installed (build took >12 months) ? "Shelf life"/correct storage pad application protocols followed? Etc etc..

 

[noelex]

The standards are unfortunately counterproductive in some instances. When encountering poor design or build characteristics, a prospective boat buyer is easily reassured by a salesman pointing out the yacht has been independently certified to the highest Category A standard for ocean voyages.

Bad standards can do more harm than good, and the RCD European Union is an example of a bad standard.

 

[SaltyC]

How can you possibly know Which adhesive was used? When exactly installed (build took >12 months) ? "Shelf life"/correct storage pad application protocols followed? Etc etc..

Let me first say, I have concerns re Hull windows - they compromise the Hulls integrity, what was a unitary structure now has Holes (Stress Points?) sealed by plastic windows glued in. Does the Hull and the window have the same coefficient of expansion? If not it introduces shear stress to the adhesive.
How can you tell the condition of the adhesive when it cannot be seen / checked?
If (as many acrylic / plastic windows are) it is affected by UV then location needs to be taken into account, if buying pre loved how do you assess?
Having replaced windows on a Westerly GK24, they were 'plastic' with a 'sikaflex' seal, surface mounted and mechanically fixed. They were horrendous to remove and unstick! How do you remove flush mounted?? This sounds ;like a 'professional' job and the associated mortgage to fund.
They have been likened to Rigging / saildrive replacement. Both of these are mechanical fixings and easily dismantled. Rigging can be inspected and an educated 'guess' made as to condition. There are exceptions, I am aware of a mast lost with new rigging after 250 miles!! Saildrive is quite a simple process and relies on mechanical fixings, not the same scenario.

 

[PhillM]

1. Modern boats are clearly safe for ocean crossings. You just have to look at the ARC start line.

And some of those are not coded properly due to a loop-hole in the regs .... if you are in a race (and the ARC has a race fleet) then you can use any coding in order to participate. So a cat 2 boat can participate in the ARC even though it is not coded cat 0, which other, non-racing boats, must be if they are to carry paying crew/passengers.

I must say I was skocked when I found this pout but by that time I was committed to a boat that would, under normal circumstances, be restricted to 60NM offshore. Personaly, I think this is a scandal and one that needs to be addressed by the MCA.

 

[geem]

It’s also very far from common, even less so in boats properly maintained or within the expected life of the adhesive.
How old was your friend’s boat and what maintenance had they or previous owners done to the windows? I’m not saying mechanically fixed windows aren’t better, but I do think bonded windows are adequate. After all, the grid in your friend’s boat is bonded to the hull too with no mechanical fixings.

My friend doesn't go far. He uses it as a wingfoiling and kitesurfing base in Antigua. They arrive from Canada in January and fly home in May. The boat sits in a yard for the rest of the year.
He is selling it if you are interested. He just ordered a 50ft Pegasus from Croatia. It's in build at the moment. That also won't be going anywhere

 

[lustyd]

I’d have a 42DS in a heartbeat but it would need windows the one in Gosport we looked at had had the windows replaced but sadlybover budget

 

[geem]

I’d have a 42DS in a heartbeat but it would need windows the one in Gosport we looked at had had the windows replaced but sadlybover budget

This is a 45DS. To be fair, it's in very good condition for it's age because it sees no real use. It has North carbon sails. 2years old. The guy isn't short of money.
It's also got 3x280A eve lithium batteries with jk BMS. Installed by the owner under my supervision.

 

[lustyd]

Sorry yes DS45 even further from our budget

 

[Tranona]

However, none of us are here to write an academic paper, forums are great places for speculating..or "brain storming" as it might be called in some quarters these days?

Exactly what happens - individuals jump on their hobby horses and speculate. When challenged for evidence or an analysis of what the problem actually is there is deathly silence. Not one single evidenced example of a glued in hull window popping while under sail never mind a boat (or lives) being lost as a consequence. All we have had so far is one reported failure of deck saloon windows on one specific design, several mentions of one make of catamaran and one production boat builder - all coachroof windows. Bonded in hull windows have been in use for over 20 years and almost universal on production boats for the last 10 - literally tens of thousands of such windows in boats sailing all round the world in all conditions. Plenty of time for any weaknesses to show up - and yet nobody in this thread can give a documented example. never mind any rigorous analysis of the relevant ISO showing how it is ineffective and what revisions might be needed.

As to the CAT A+ there is a great deal of ignorance about the purpose of the RCD and how categories are established and the main differentiators between the categories is the expected weather conditions in the area of intended use. The more severe the greater the requirement for stability, recovery after knockdown, watertight integrity and type of equipment. As to standards of design and construction, these are covered by a range of recognised standards which the designer and builder needs to show have been used before the boat can be certified. It is never clear from the armchair critics what they would expect an additional category to look like. Suspect what they really want is boats such as were being built 40 years ago - skeg hung rudder, long keels (preferably encapsulated) high ballast ratios, mast head rigs, shaft drive engines, no windows in the hull, small bolted in coachroof windows and so on. There is nothing in the RCD that stops the design and building of a boat with these features - indeed there are more than one of that type still available. However that is not what buyers want - they have the choice but prefer the benefits that come from spade rudders, deep bolt on fin keels (or lifting keels and internal ballast), efficient all furling fractional rigs, saildrive engines, light and airy interiors and so on. Alternatively they can ignore all this and buy a multihull.

The purpose of the RCD was to establish a common minimum standard of design and construction in the EU and to provide information for consumers to help them choose a boat appropriate to their needs. The process is the same whether one is buying a boat to potter around on rivers or lakes or for a circumnavigation. At each level there is a huge variety of choice of products. The interesting thing with these threads is that the noisy critics of (usually) anything modern is that they are rarely buyers of new boats, nor even recent modern boats but own or lust after older boats. Their underlying (or even overt message) is that people should buy boats just like theirs or what they would buy. Who among new (or modern) boat buyers care what these critics say or do, particularly when the real evidence that is all around them shows that the majority of boats do not conform to outdated minority personal views.

 

[geem]

Exactly what happens - individuals jump on their hobby horses and speculate. When challenged for evidence or an analysis of what the problem actually is there is deathly silence. Not one single evidenced example of a glued in hull window popping while under sail never mind a boat (or lives) being lost as a consequence. All we have had so far is one reported failure of deck saloon windows on one specific design, several mentions of one make of catamaran and one production boat builder - all coachroof windows. Bonded in hull windows have been in use for over 20 years and almost universal on production boats for the last 10 - literally tens of thousands of such windows in boats sailing all round the world in all conditions. Plenty of time for any weaknesses to show up - and yet nobody in this thread can give a documented example. never mind any rigorous analysis of the relevant ISO showing how it is ineffective and what revisions might be needed.

As to the CAT A+ there is a great deal of ignorance about the purpose of the RCD and how categories are established and the main differentiators between the categories is the expected weather conditions in the area of intended use. The more severe the greater the requirement for stability, recovery after knockdown, watertight integrity and type of equipment. As to standards of design and construction, these are covered by a range of recognised standards which the designer and builder needs to show have been used before the boat can be certified. It is never clear from the armchair critics what they would expect an additional category to look like. Suspect what they really want is boats such as were being built 40 years ago - skeg hung rudder, long keels (preferably encapsulated) high ballast ratios, mast head rigs, shaft drive engines, no windows in the hull, small bolted in coachroof windows and so on. There is nothing in the RCD that stops the design and building of a boat with these features - indeed there are more than one of that type still available. However that is not what buyers want - they have the choice but prefer the benefits that come from spade rudders, deep bolt on fin keels (or lifting keels and internal ballast), efficient all furling fractional rigs, saildrive engines, light and airy interiors and so on. Alternatively they can ignore all this and buy a multihull.

The purpose of the RCD was to establish a common minimum standard of design and construction in the EU and to provide information for consumers to help them choose a boat appropriate to their needs. The process is the same whether one is buying a boat to potter around on rivers or lakes or for a circumnavigation. At each level there is a huge variety of choice of products. The interesting thing with these threads is that the noisy critics of (usually) anything modern is that they are rarely buyers of new boats, nor even recent modern boats but own or lust after older boats. Their underlying (or even overt message) is that people should buy boats just like theirs or what they would buy. Who among new (or modern) boat buyers care what these critics say or do, particularly when the real evidence that is all around them shows that the majority of boats do not conform to outdated minority personal views.

It's a forum. Get over it.
No where in any of my posts did i make this a new boat against old boat issue. It was an observation on ths trend for larger and larger hull windows in monohulls being awarded a cat A ocean standard.

 

[Tranona]

It's a forum. Get over it.
No where in any of my posts did i make this a new boat against old boat issue. It was an observation on ths trend for larger and larger hull windows in monohulls being awarded a cat A ocean standard.

They are in CAT A because they meet the requirements - it is not a "award" You have failed to provide any evidence that there is a problem with hull windows in the way you imagine. Not sure why you can make the claim that this is not "new" versus "old" as bonded in hull windows are not used in old boats then re-read your original post which is all about newer boats being inadequate and likely to fall apart with absolutely zero evidence that is the case. It is all just your prejudice. BTW the Bavaria 47 Ocean you quoted was over 20 years old when it foundered and the windows that failed were not bonded in hull windows. Although it met CAT A it was designed before the ISO for windows was established (2001) so fail to see why you think this is relevant. But maybe you used it because you were bored and looking to fill your time having a rant about something you seem to know little about.

As I said there is a great deal of ignorance as to what the RCD is about. Boats are placed in a category provided they are designed and built to the expected standards and meet the necessary stability requirements. So if the window size. construction, materials and method of attachment meet ISO 12216 requirements for CAT A then there is no reason not to be placed in that category. I have posted a link to the summary of the standard and of the changes in the recent revision. If you think that the standard is inadequate then do your homework, determine with evidence of where failures are and present them to the small craft Technical Committee at the ISO. If you are unable to do this then everything you write on the subject is just speculation - even by forum standards.

As to your proposed CAT A+ - standards already exist for all those issues you list, but there is nothing to stop builders doing "more" if their customers want and are prepared to pay. However there is no great agreement about what "more" means , nor what the labels such as "Bluewater", Expedition" etc actually mean, just as "Ocean" is a poor descriptor for the current CAT A. Remember the category is primarily defined by the windspeed and wave height in the area of use. Such conditions can be experienced in coastal and "offshore" sailing as well. The label is just a guide and surely intelligent boaters can make their own assessment of what additional features they might need for their planned voyages? - It is clear that most do evidenced by the wide variety of boats available in that category and the huge number of successful ocean passages completed. So who needs more prescriptive regulation when there is no systematic evidence that the current standards are inadequate? You might think they are, but it is I suggest a minority view.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

I am not sure it is that rare. A 2017 study by the ISAF identified 72 cases with 24 fatalities. They concluded there might be many more as many sinkings in blue water end up with all evidence at the bottom of the sea.

It didn’t take long to find the article. It seems to suggest that a proportion of those are simply hard groundings, and that proportion is unknown. And that a proportion of others are likely to be some time after a hard grounding. Hardly a design problem. How to mitigate that when buying second hand is an issue, for sure. Logically, I’d be tempted to suggest that once the keel is off, the remaining boat is less likely to sink. The crew are in no less peril, but the evidence will remain for a while. So I do not believe worrying about a keel falling off is logical if you know your boat’s history.