Foredeck escape hatch vs foredeck seating

E

EricJ

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 Apr 2016
Messages
232
Location
Amsterdam
Visit site
I was reading through the Princess S60 test in last month's MBY. The boat has no skylight in the front cabin because of the foredeck seating. I have seen on smaller boats that the hatch in the front cabin is marked as escape hatch in case of fire. Just out of interest, does anyone know what the regulations say? Is a second exit from the accommodation level required for emergencies?

Thanks for your insights.
 
Last edited:
EricJ said:
I was reading through the Princess S60 test in last month's MBY. The boat has no skylight in the front cabin because of the foredeck seating. I have seen on smaller boats that the hatch in the front cabin is marked as escape hatch in case of fire. Just out of interest, does anyone know what the regulations say? Is a second exit from the accommodation level required for emergencies?

Thanks for your insights.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that it is a certification requirement, as mid cabins do not have an escape hatch. However, it is quite an omission, and I’m not sure I would be comfortable without a secondary escape option in the bows.
 
For what it’s worth, the coding requirements include two means of escape from any sleeping accommodation. I’m not sure about the RCD for private leisure use.

Pete
 
prv said:
For what it’s worth, the coding requirements include two means of escape from any sleeping accommodation.
Click to expand...
I can't for the life of me think of a pleasure boat - no matter how big, and whether coded or not - with two means of escape from ANY cabin. Coming to think of it, that's not even true for cruise ships and big ferries... :confused:

That said, I fully agree with rafiki: for a bow cabin, it is indeed an omission I wouldn't be happy to live with.
 
petem said:
Looking at the plans, that's what they do have. The hatch is covered by a cushion.
Click to expand...
Well spotted. I have now checked the 360 degree views on their website and when you zoom in you can see a panel above the bed that is probably removable. Same situation on the P68 and P75.
 
There’s a few voluntary classifications and codes out there for example but not exclusively RINA ,which has HQ in Genoa .
Its mostly the section that covers leisure / pleasure boats stuff like this — escape routes and other safety stuff some obvious, some a bit more subtle or out of sight built into the boat ,like watertight bulkheads , extensive fire suppression eg. Not just a gas canister but ,fuel shut offcocks ,air vent closure flaps spring loaded ready to be triggered , engine cut off s .
Another subtle eg are water run off or scuppers , the speed a flooded zone can drain like the cockpit or any other area .— a stability thingy
With that in mind looking at the for deck of the S 60 imagine it taking a “ green un “ ?? How fast is that water @ 1 ton / cubic meter going to drain off ? Where’s it gonna run slosh to ?
A lot of the stuff is behind the scenes like quality of fitting , seacocks etc
I guess following a RINA classification impacts in to ways
1- restrictionists on the design / artistic flare
2- well costs more basically as forced to go higher spec components for every bit.looses discretion to cut a corner or two

This one below has not got a cat in hells chance of being built to a RINA classification
If all that stuff flaps open in a big sea 200 miles from land or what ever ?
A nice example of “ design “ ruling and marketing to some extent .

View attachment 66994

Boat s that are build to the classification come with a signed certificate ,mine does btw .
So it can or was done subtler here .
The simplest designs are easier to follow the RINA
https://imgur.com/gallery/WzW6V
 
Last edited:
Portofino said:
Boat s that are build to the classification come with a signed certificate ,mine does btw.
Click to expand...
Porto, don't get me wrong.
You already know that I very much like Itamas, and I see nothing wrong with their design, for the type of usage they are aimed at.
But I wasn't aware that your boat is coded, and rather than proving how well built Itamas are, that strikes me as an evidence of how flexible classification societies can be.
Just assume a loss of power in rough seas for any reason (dirty fuel being a simple and not so unlikely one), and a floating anchor is your only chance to stabilize the boat enough to go inside the e/r to replace filters or whatever.
In more extreme conditions, a floating anchor could even be your only way to avoid capsizing.
Now, I have two words for anyone who should try to deploy a floating anchor in an Itama adrift in rough seas: good luck. :ambivalence:
 
MapisM said:
I can't for the life of me think of a pleasure boat - no matter how big, and whether coded or not - with two means of escape from ANY cabin. Coming to think of it, that's not even true for cruise ships and big ferries... :confused:

That said, I fully agree with rafiki: for a bow cabin, it is indeed an omission I wouldn't be happy to live with.
Click to expand...

:p completely departing from the spirit in which it was said, I have 4 means of escape :p. Each sleeping area has it's own escape hatch. Though I sincerely hope that is not equated to the likelihood of a fire!

94NvkTB.jpg
 
Well, every day is a school day, as they say... :)
Still, that's rather an exception than the norm, I reckon!
 
I suspect it has more to do with interior light. She is very light and "airy" inside but if you forget to put the blanking board across at night you can forget a lie in with the sunlight streaming in and if not will be woken with condensation dripping down. Pro's and cons.
 
The UK Boat Safety Scheme for inland waterways appears way more stringent than the Eu CE marking, which all leisure boats built after 1998 ( I think) need. This heavily focus’s on safety and environmental issues. However does not require a secondary escape route from a cabin. It does need ventilation. Generally the doors comply.
 
prv said:
...the coding requirements include two means of escape from any sleeping accommodation.
Click to expand...
Erm, they don't. I appreciate that it's not 100% crystal clear at first sight, and lots of coding surveyors espouse all sorts of things, but the rules do not require this. Otherwise most production boats would be un-codable.
 
jfm said:
Erm, they don't. I appreciate that it's not 100% crystal clear at first sight, and lots of coding surveyors espouse all sorts of things, but the rules do not require this. Otherwise most production boats would be un-codable.
Click to expand...

Ok...

I know you know about this subject, but I’m curious how they get around the relevant paragraph of MGN280:
fullsizeoutput_1678.jpg

Is every mid-cabin really an "exceptional case"?

Pete
 
I neither can nor want contribute to the rules interpretation, but if there's one thing which is crystal clear is that most boats would be un-codable, as jfm said, if what you are suggesting should be strictly applied.
Btw, an emergency escape in a mid cabin CAN indeed be done, with a hatch going through the p/h floor - in fact, I have seen it in some boats. It's in the non-bow guest cabin(s), that it's almost impossible to have that.
 
The aft cabin on my Moody336 (a raggie boat) had only one entrance/exit, via the galley! There were some opening windows onto the deck and one into the cockpit, but done big enough for even a child to fit through. It was a concern, and some newer versions had a hatch through the bulkhead into the shower compartment.
500814_4.jpg

In practice we didn't use the cabin "at sea", and had a big fire extinguisher and a fire blanket in the cabin to aid escape through a galley fire - if required. Also in the galley itself.
The tank full of 100 litres of diesel was in the cockpit locker above the cabin on the port side...
 
A1Sailor said:
In practice we didn't use the cabin "at sea"
Click to expand...
Actually, it's not like a fire in a marina gives much better chances to escape, compared to the same occurrence at sea.
One year ago, a Maiora 22 burned while moored in Loano Marina, and sadly claimed the life of three persons who were sleeping onboard... :(
 
MapisM said:
Actually, it's not like a fire in a marina gives much better chances to escape, compared to the same occurrence at sea.
One year ago, a Maiora 22 burned while moored in Loano Marina, and sadly claimed the life of three persons who were sleeping onboard... :(
Click to expand...
Indeed. My point about "at sea" was that you are less likely to have a sudden catastrophic collision in the dark leading to sinking in harbour. The fire risk, as you say, remains the same wherever you are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top