Crazy regs

[fisherman]

Seafish construction and use regs surveyor requires a 15ft open boat with outboard to have a watertight bulkhead midships, up to 200mm below the gunnel. Lethal, take a dollop and it will stay forward and sink the boat when the next one comes. I keep telling the owner to challenge this, he is too scared of upsetting the idiot who said this and making things worse.

 

[nickd]

Wow great recipe for disaster
I would take Mr Surveyor for a spin round the bay in it when its nice and choppy, see if he gets any more intelligent from experience

 

[Twister_Ken]

Raise it with the surveyor's boss, or licence issuer.

 

[duncan99210]

I could understand a bulkhead forward in a decked or partially decked vessel but it's madness for an open one for the reasons the OP raises.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

From the regs

Section 3.11 - Watertight subdivision
3.11.1 All vessels below 7m LOA are to be fitted with at least one watertight bulkhead positioned according to the vessel’s arrangement where it will be most effective to prevent flooding when in a damaged condition. To suit particular vessel arrangements, consideration may be given to the provision of intact buoyancy spaces below deck or floor areas in lieu of the provision of watertight bulkheads.

Maybe he should try adding some form of bouyancy?

 

[cryan]

I know Seafish surveyors were wanting railings fitted to one of my customers boats where he brings the bag in even though he already had railings fitted everywhere else. It is a under 10metre wooden traditional vessel built in 1966 with no real bulwarks and the gunwale only about 6 inches off the deck. He was trying to explain that to lift the bag with a decent catch over railings would make the boat really unstable but they were not interested.
He only had to get the survey because he let the ticket lapse whilst ashore tending to his dyeing father for six months. A real lesson in keeping up to date as letting tickets slip is an expensive business.
If your friend needs to fit a bulkhead he might be best fitting a bow cover like the east coast coble boys do to keep waves out.

 

[fisherman]

It will make the boat very difficult to work, every time he goes from hauler to engine he'll have to climb over it, it's above knee height. As above, the boat was registered but fell off due to disuse for a while, he bought it to replace one lost in the storms. I think buoyancy is the alternative, but he's more worried about that, nowhere to put it.

 

[Tidewaiter2]

It will make the boat very difficult to work, every time he goes from hauler to engine he'll have to climb over it, it's above knee height. As above, the boat was registered but fell off due to disuse for a while, he bought it to replace one lost in the storms. I think buoyancy is the alternative, but he's more worried about that, nowhere to put it.

How about closed cell foam blocks all round the sides all along, under any gunnel, like some of the older MKII Wayfarers had-would tend to keep it on even level even if fully swamped, depending on how much winching gear on board on sides- would not obstruct fore and aft access- then leave a gap by the hauler?
just a thought, without seeing it, mind.
Face the blocks with thin ply to stop damage?

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Two bulkheads? One well forward, one well aft. At least it would keep some working space clear. But I've never worked a fishing boat so that might be daft. :ambivalence:

 

[fisherman]

It's hardly bigger than a rowing boat, just a bit higher. I wonder how many instances there have been of flooding from a breached hull that this could address (although it wouldn't, it's going down regardless of bulkheads if holed) more important is getting the water to where the pump intake is, but surveyor not worried about that.

Here's one the same, except for the inboard engine.http://www.findafishingboat.com/cygnus/DB62175

 

[cryan]

I hear a lot of boys say they would rather buy a boat in survey than have to put an unlicenced boat through the new surveys. Your probably cheaper doing that too!

 

[fisherman]

Yes, same thing I've been told, a nightmare. This guy has spent £650 on the survey/application, plus the ongoing work (ply deck a bit soft, not structural, 10mm of GRP on top, rip it all out) now he's in too deep to stop. He only wants a punt to go within a mile of the gaps. I spoke to someone with a 50ft FV that fell off the register, another level of nightmare altogether.

 

[philip_stevens]

A mate of mine got over this problem, by bonding-in two 4inch pipes at deck level to allow the water to run aft and out through the transom. He fitted grills over the pipes to stop mackerel going back into where he had just pulled them from!

 

[Downsman]

Any chance of your mate rigging a set of long Morse controls from the outboard forward to alongside the hauler? Not ideal but it would save him having to high jump every time he went aft to move the boat.

 

[fisherman]

The freeing port idea is OK if boat is big enough, they would be submerged, this boat's deck is at sea level and can't usefully be raised anywhere near what Seafish would require. I built a 25ft boat in 1983, to what was then Seafish regs, nowhere near so stringent. As we were both over 6ft tall we made the deck to suit, and it was a loose deck, designed to get any water to where the pumps were ASAP. Subsequent owner sealed the deck and cut scuppers, from then on the boat was regularly for sale as everyone got a fright when carrying any load and the deck would not drain.
Morse controls addresses one issue, but what about when he's hauled a bin of nets and can't drag it aft to clear or shoot away? And there's still the boat's inability to carry water in one end and not the other, water under the deck is safe and removable, on top is free surface water and dangerous. He'll have to look at sealing the deck each side for buoyancy, with a central sump.

 

[prv]

The whole thing is clearly bonkers. Any chance of finding a different surveyor with a brain, or is there any kind of "appeals" type process against stupid decisions?

Pete

 

[Uricanejack]

My first question is who the heck are seafish surveys.

My guess a private contract from the MCA.

Not knowing much about current regs.
It is highly unusual for existing vessels to have to be upgraded to new regulations unless a specific date for requirement.

The regulation for subdivision does make sense for two reasons. First damage, hole the boat hopefully it will stay afloat.
The other is fee surface effect. Which can be deadly to small fishing vessels. often not fully understood by fishermen. there have been to many tragic results.

It does not take a lot of water in an open full length hold to be a problem.

By subdividing the virtual loss of stability by free surface is greatly reduced.

Put a couple of inches in a basin and try and carry it.

Bottom line a small open boat is more likely to flounder as a result of loss of stability due to the fee surface effect of the water shipped than due to the loss of buoyancy from the shipped water.

 

[Tidewaiter2]

The freeing port idea is OK if boat is big enough, they would be submerged, this boat's deck is at sea level and can't usefully be raised anywhere near what Seafish would require. I built a 25ft boat in 1983, to what was then Seafish regs, nowhere near so stringent. As we were both over 6ft tall we made the deck to suit, and it was a loose deck, designed to get any water to where the pumps were ASAP. Subsequent owner sealed the deck and cut scuppers, from then on the boat was regularly for sale as everyone got a fright when carrying any load and the deck would not drain.
Morse controls addresses one issue, but what about when he's hauled a bin of nets and can't drag it aft to clear or shoot away? And there's still the boat's inability to carry water in one end and not the other, water under the deck is safe and removable, on top is free surface water and dangerous. He'll have to look at sealing the deck each side for buoyancy, with a central sump.

I'm sorry if i keep on about Wayfarer dinghies, but that's what I know, and at 16ft about the same size.
There was a lot of work done/articles written on the MKII Self Drainer version, which had all these problems; sealed under deck bouyancy, loads of free surface water as a result, transverse bulkheads not possible, high up crew and kit wieghts. The ordinary MKII had transom pipes fitted eventually because of free surface effect/ overtopped lateral centreboard casing too.
They have foredecks tho', your pals has no deck or cuddy from the pics.

If you Google it, something useful may come up that your pal could use. Are there any boats successfully in survey he could get a look at nearby and talk to their users?

The transverse bulkhead requirement seems daft-nothing like that much water- 200mm from gunnel- it's gone without bouyancy (on the sides or at the ends)! Which is the safer option. Has this "surveyor" ever used a small boat under power in a heavy seaway? let alone with gear on board? What are his qualifications apart from paper?
I reckon a second opinion from the Appeals system- if any- is the way. No local brief/CAB member/councillor/MP who likes fish prepared to do a Pro Bono Publico for your mate.
Best of Luck, hope Common Sense wins for a change

 

[Nigel_Ward]

My first question is who the heck are seafish surveys.

My guess a private contract from the MCA.

Not knowing much about current regs.
It is highly unusual for existing vessels to have to be upgraded to new regulations unless a specific date for requirement.

The regulation for subdivision does make sense for two reasons. First damage, hole the boat hopefully it will stay afloat.
The other is fee surface effect. Which can be deadly to small fishing vessels. often not fully understood by fishermen. there have been to many tragic results.

It does not take a lot of water in an open full length hold to be a problem.

By subdividing the virtual loss of stability by free surface is greatly reduced.

Put a couple of inches in a basin and try and carry it.

Bottom line a small open boat is more likely to flounder as a result of loss of stability due to the fee surface effect of the water shipped than due to the loss of buoyancy from the shipped water.

http://www.seafish.org
http://www.seafish.org/industry-support/marine-survey

 

[alahol2]

How often does the boat have to be surveyed? If a bulkhead were built but it subsequently rotted away how long before it would be discovered and what would be the consequences?