Gas or spirit?

Let us remember that we are dealing with a couple of lengths of rubber hose, some copper pipe and fittings.
Click to expand...

Over the years I have sailed on many boats belonging to other people - folk I would consider reasonably meticulous types and mostly skilled in their specialisations..... from airline pilots to investigative journalists..... and most of those had gas installations. Among those, I/we have frequently encountered rubber hose split/cracked where bent repeatedly due to gimballing, chafed where passing through bulkheads without grommets, crushed beneath spare anchor chain stored in the gas locker which moved in a seaway..... and copper pipe which work-hardened and split due to detached support clips out of immediate sight.

One pipe problem was discovered as a massive loss of diesel fuel into the bilges - the copper diesel return pipe had failed - but when investigated it was found the gas supply pipe was similarly inadequately supported. The whole lot, throughout, was therefore suspect and needed urgent replacement. God knows how long it had been 'loose' and about to let go.

I've found badly-corroded gas regulator valves in gas lockers which had to be thrown away. I've found 'jubilee-type' hose clips loose, and so badly corroded due to salt water action that they could neither be tightened nor released.

There's agreement that a 'professionally' installed and 'professionally' maintained gas system is probably of moderate risk BUT it is crucially dependent on regular 'professional' inspection and maintenance regimes. One might expect that of a professional engineer - like one of the respondents - on his own boat, but how many of the rest of us can spot a possible source of failure 'Just Like That' and actively and frequently search for them along all the out-of-the-way pipe runs and junctions?

How many readers/contributors to this thread have actually done a detailed inspection AND approved safety test of their entire gas installation in the past year? Past 3 years.....? Ever.....?

That's why some here consider the 'risk' to be other than small, and would encourage another close look.
 
I used to be a Sub Aqua Diving Supervisor (an Armed Forces qualification, part of the adventurous training scheme) and as such was surprised to discover I suddenly needed to complete formal risk assessments before taking soldiers on diving expeditions. Prior to this change, it was assumed that you, as a supervisor with extensive training, would have made an informal assessment before going diving.

So what? It turned what had been a simple system of not allowing people to do stupid things into a box ticking exercise that stopped people from doing stupid things....... And gave the lawyers someone to pin the blame on if you encountered a risk leading to an injury that had not been mentioned in the risk assessment. In practical terms what happened was that fairly rapidly a set of templates appeared, shared amongst those holding the qualification, which covered just about any risk you care to think of and measures to implement to manage those risks.

Instead of the paperwork for an exercise concentrating on how we were going to get soldiers involved in the whole process of planning and executing the expedition, it focuses on risk management and risk avoidance. The volume of paperwork grew from a few sides of paper to something resembling a draft novel, which few, if any, read in detail.

In the end, I gave up my qualification because I found that instead of being the safety supervisor for some diving, I had become the guru in how to fill out reams of paperwork.

Now, why tell the tale? It's because I fear that there is a danger that some folks, for the best of motives, will ride forth their risk assessment hobby horse, seeking to manage and eradicate all risks without thinking about the balance towards the other side of the argument. The blame culture is already alive and well: if something happens, it must be someone else's fault. It isn't you know, it's often the dead/injured persons own fault.

OK, where does that leave us regarding cooking arrangements? Well, it's simple to my mind. If you like cooking on gas on your boat, then do so. If you like using a spirit stove, feel free. If you'd rather have a Primus stove, go for it. Each of these cookers have their own hazards, advantages and disadvantages, it up to the individual to think things through and go for the method best suited to their own preferences. For me, it's a gas installation that was built in to the boat during build, cared for and checked on an annual basis.
 
"...........There's agreement that a 'professionally' installed and 'professionally' maintained gas system is probably of moderate risk BUT it is crucially dependent on regular 'professional' inspection and maintenance regimes...."



With that set up, the chances of failure are zero unless it is operated by an ape.
The really telling thing, for me, is that there are badly fitted, misbegotten, mangled and abused gas set ups across the land and the number of immolations is still so modest it is statistically irrelevant. With just a bit of effort it is not hard to keep on the right side of the ledger :-)

Anyroad

I happily used a Trangia on a small boat, for years, liked it a lot. Has to be the pick for simple kettle boiling. I also used a pressure stove with two burners it was ok but more fiddling for little extra benefit. Ditto the Origo I had briefly, with tanks you fill up with meths.
The worst inconvenience with burning fluid and vapour stoves is the fuss you have in order to re-boil a kettle It's the same routine if you are planning a 4 hour stew or warming up the peas for 10 seconds.

Looking at the OPs first post and his last I think there may be just a tadge of the troll about this thread - for that reason I am out.
 
Last edited:
duncan99210 said:
So what? It turned what had been a simple system of not allowing people to do stupid things into a box ticking exercise that stopped people from doing stupid things....... And gave the lawyers someone to pin the blame on if you encountered a risk leading to an injury that had not been mentioned in the risk assessment. In practical terms what happened was that fairly rapidly a set of templates appeared, shared amongst those holding the qualification, which covered just about any risk you care to think of and measures to implement to manage those risks.

Instead of the paperwork for an exercise concentrating on how we were going to get soldiers involved in the whole process of planning and executing the expedition, it focuses on risk management and risk avoidance. The volume of paperwork grew from a few sides of paper to something resembling a draft novel, which few, if any, read in detail.
Click to expand...

A similar situation to the French compulsory equipment situation. It is a requirement that certain equipment, quite a lengthy list, must be carried, some sensible, some rather less so (a heliograph?). Apparently many French yachtsmen carry all this stuff in one locker where it can be inspected easily by whoever wants to do so, rather than deployed around the boat where it might be useful.
 
vyv_cox said:
I have composed and then deleted my response to this diagram in the interests of forum harmony. Let us remember that we are dealing with a couple of lengths of rubber hose, some copper pipe and fittings.
Click to expand...

GHA said:
A moment on google show electrical problems to cause the majority of fires on boats, also petrol onboard as a significant hazard - following your risk assessment process, does this mean you have a boat with no outboard and no electricity?
Click to expand...

NormanS said:
Funnily enough, I did exactly the same, with the same thoughts. Isn't the delete button wonderful.
Click to expand...

Crikey! What is it with you guys? You don't want to manage any possible risks in using gas on board? Nowhere did I say you shouldn't use it. Nowhere did I say there were no risks associated with using any other form of fuel. Nowhere did I say there were no risks associated with using electricity. If you're dealing with something -- anything -- that's inherently risky, why on earth wouldn't you want to manage the risk? And if you want to have a boat with no gas, no petrol, no electricity, no outboard, go for it -- as I said, you pay your money and take your choice. I'm not about to prescribe what your decisions should be. Nor will I have to live with the consequences.

The fact is, if you could follow that model with an unjaundiced and unprejudiced eye, you would see that it's actually a very useful tool for deciding how to deal with any risks in whatever situation you might be facing. (Would you go bungee-jumping with your ankle tied off to a bit of 1/4" line, for instance?)

duncan99210 said:
OK, where does that leave us regarding cooking arrangements? Well, it's simple to my mind. If you like cooking on gas on your boat, then do so. If you like using a spirit stove, feel free. If you'd rather have a Primus stove, go for it. Each of these cookers have their own hazards, advantages and disadvantages, it up to the individual to think things through and go for the method best suited to their own preferences. For me, it's a gas installation that was built in to the boat during build, cared for and checked on an annual basis.
Click to expand...

Thanks for a sensible response, Duncan.
 
Calm down. All we're saying is that we know that there is a risk with using gas, as there is with everything in life. The difference is that most of us are quite capable of assessing the risk without ticking boxes on a spreadsheet. As it happens, most of us have chosen to use gas, and are prepared to take the necessary precautions to use it safely. No doubt, if we chose to use spirit, we would again take the appropriate precautions. Nobody is condemning you for using spirit. You can use an open fire on a slab of stone, as was practiced by the natives of Patagonia on their boats, but you will still have to take precautions. It's not rocket science, although that's maybe an unfortunate comparison in the circumstances.:D
 
Fimacca said:
cannot believe there are 15 pages of this !

whatever you feel you want on your own boat !!!!!
Click to expand...

I cannot believe you have not changed the setting for the number of posts per page to a higher value.

I'm only on page 3 although a couple more posts will take me to page 4
 
doug748 said:
....
Looking at the OPs first post and his last I think there may be just a tadge of the troll about this thread - for that reason I am out.
Click to expand...

It looks ever more like TPTB are trying to drum up forum traffic with controversial threads started by unconvincing posters with little or no track record, no personal info given.
It happens.
Forum hosts get paid per view by advertising.
Telling yachtsmen how to be micro-managed is always good for a few dozen responses.
 
Go on, I'll continue ....

To me it's all about what your boat was designed to have onboard. If you have gas locker etc then why not use gas.

My mab was never designed to have gas, so it doesn't.
 
Cripes! Over 4000-odd views; more than 150-odd response..... but NOT a troll, but an attempt at a reasoned discussion.

Among others, posts #142. #143, #145 - and even #146 are the voices dragging this thread back to 'reason'. Yes, I've used gas - safe and otherwise - on several seas, over some decades. I've used paraffin both for cooking and heating on boats, and in tents half-buried in the snow, off and on over even more decades. I have even watched the Blessed Jimmy Wharram light his magnificent firepit in the middle of his T46's decking, at sea, and watched it disappear into the Iroise as the first lumpy sea struck it from below....

Yes, I do have some time in.

Enough of that. If this thread stimulates a handful of readers to go check their own gas installations, then that's enough.

And that's enough.....

.
.
.
.
.
.
 
Last edited:
Took me a good while to go through all this!

All this about "taking all the right precautions, and gas will be fine" is all very well, and certainly an external gas locker, vented to the outside, gas sensors and solenoid valves would be the way to go. BUT if you have an old boat like mine, designed to have the gas locker down below inside, such exhortations are futile. The best I can do is try and remember to turn off the valve at the bottle every time I finish with the stove.

On the other hand, it's only a couple of feet of tubing to the cooker - less opportunity for leaks :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top