Important Decision.....Help Needed

Julie,

I have, and what you are implying simply isnt the case. Or at least, it isnt with my insurers (Navigators & General). There is nothing within the policy terms and conditions that refers to RCD Catagory as a guide to where the vessel can be used.

There are limits of course - mine include geographical limits (brest to elb as in most UK policies), a clause on not singlehanding at night, plus the speed boat anchoring clause which I had amended. There are also limitations on who can/cant use the boat etc etc but NONE of these relate to the RCD Catagory.

The simple reason is that is does not legally define where the vessel can be used. In fact, the RCD does not test what a vessel can be subjected to, it mearly shows a vessel has been tested to a certain level.

Think of this another way - when you code a boat for charter, you nominate which type of coding you wish to have carried out - from ocean to within 10 miles of a safe haven. Now, if you nominate to have the vessel coded for the lightest use, it doesnt suddenly mean that the vessel cannot perform to the higher catagory, it just means that higher catagory hasnt been tested.

The RCD Cat system is not only completely useless, in my opion it is increadibly misleading. If you think constuctively about it, how can a 28ft Bayliner and a 70ft Princess have the same RCD Rating? In fact, for people new to the sport, it could conceivably be dangerous. Mr Bayliner owner sees the CAT B princess leaving the marina in strong winds and a building sea and thinks, 'well, my boat is also CAT B - off I go...'

Now, I accept that the skipper makes the call but these ratings are suppose to give people a comparison so they have an idea about the boats capabilities when in fact they do the reverse. They are a half arsed hashed attempetd by a reglatory non-industry specific body to rubber stamp something that really is far more complex than the regulations allow for.

Dont get me wrong, I am all for CE marking products to ensure correct materials (resins, fuel lines, electrical conduits and componenets etc) come up to standard. It is the nominal catagorisation applied loosly that for is not only misleading, but is also counter productive.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks very much as always for all the constructive and informative input..... I feel assured by the general tone of the forum and will be proceeding at pace with the purchase....Roll on the summer!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont forget to post loads of pics of your adventures with the new toy
 
Another misleading aspect of the RCD classification is that they also summarise as inshore, offshore, ocean etc. In fact the RCD rating has nothing to do with the distance you can travel offshore as it only refers to the wave height and wind strength i.e. you can be 15 miles offshore and be within the RCD C rating as long as the higher waves are averaging less than 2 metres and the wind is blowing less than a force 6...... I am now understanding as to why this is a very misleading evaluation, particularly as manufacturers can self certify CAT C and D. The only I can see with insurance companies is if damage occures in waters that are clearly exceeding the RCD rating of the vessel. Thanks again for everyones contributions.
 
[ QUOTE ]
US coastguard rating is for this and other US sportcruisers?

[/ QUOTE ] There is no such rating by the USCG. They do have some qualifications for boats under the 20' size. And for commercial vessels. But nothing for the pleasure boats in between. However the USCG can order a vessel to return to port if they deem it unsuitable for a voyage. But that determination is up to the USCG Captain on the spot.

Kelly
 
Don't worry. The CE rating does NOT make the boat safe in bigger waves - that's down to you.

I had my cat C bayliner out in a F8 on 2 occasions. She's been to france and the channel islands, as well as being out in a huge swell in the north sea after a week of north easterly gales. She did london to the south coast via the thames estuary quite a few times. I've had to tack to avoid beam seas in conditions that I should have stayed home, but she was always fine.
 
I really wouldnt worry about the RCD classification, training, experience, equipment, planning and conditions are all far more important.

Nautorious took a 21ft Chapparel to the Channel Islands and France via Poole and the Solent with no problems at all.

You and your crew will give up and run for cover a long time before the 330 reaches the limit of its performance.
 
petem is right. This is a self certification, and the boat will not have been tested. A notified body will take a good look at the boat and confirm the cert rating. They will look at the bouyancy and ability to resist roll. A cat C boat is likely to be unstable in seas above 2m.
 
[ QUOTE ]
A cat C boat is likely to be unstable in seas above 2m.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is complete bollocks. All a CAT C Certification shows is a boat conforms to the stanadard of the CAT C requirement. It gives no indication as to its performace or not against CAT B or A
 
We have a Chaparral 290 and it is cat B, well I think it is. We have been through Bardsey with 30 foot waves and it has held up. I have never been worried that the boat will let us down, it is totally seaworthy (and a brilliant captain also - kipper). Looking on the Chaparral website it is shown as Yacht certified, which I thought was Cat B. 330 has 20deg V and we have 18deg V.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Do you feel like giving an indication why insurance would be a problem, rather than just adding confusion to the situation.


[/ QUOTE ]

The RCD requires a builders plate on each boat, indicating the maximum numbers of passengers allowed. If you take more passengers, and the boat capsizes due to overload, your insurance will take note.

Similarly with taking a cat C boat out in cat B conditions.

Categorisation does not imply an area. Classification indicates conditions. If you take a boat out in worse conditions than foreseen by the builder, it is at your own risk.And the insurance company might find fault with that.

It is not just the RCD that imposes categories, so do Lloyds for instance.
 
mrgrumpy2..... seems to be an issue or two here, as far as I am aware the Chapparal is a great bit of gear and as they say, if it ticks the boxes, do the deal.

I would be thinking though, for your own peace of mind, certainly some preliminary enquiries to your insurance company. Then come back and let the guys know the result.
 
The deal has been done.......delivery within a couple of weeks. I have spoken at length to a couple of insurance companies and the both have the same attitude 1) The RCD rating has no bearing on how far offshore the vessel can be used 2) If you get caught in conditions exceeding the RCD rating and have to make a claim then the claim would be honoured (easy to say) as long as the conditions were unexpected and you took appropriate care when planning the trip. 3) If you set out knowing the conditions were excessive then your claim for any damage would not be valid. There is clearly still wiggle room for the insurance company but if I'm honest I won't be out in any conditions that are approaching 2 metres anyway. Thanks to everyone for their contributions above.
 
[ QUOTE ]
1) The RCD rating has no bearing on how far offshore the vessel can be used 2) If you get caught in conditions exceeding the RCD rating and have to make a claim then the claim would be honoured (easy to say) as long as the conditions were unexpected and you took appropriate care when planning the trip. 3) If you set out knowing the conditions were excessive then your claim for any damage would not be valid.

[/ QUOTE ]

There you go.

With regard to point three, that is not to do with the RCD but more to do with insurnace in general. i.e if you set off knowing that the conditions may cause damage or total loss then it cannot be considered accidental and therefor any claim, regardless of catagory, would not be paid.

I wish this were a nail in the coffin of the misleading and completely useless RCD Catagories but that wont ever happen, while we have bods in power who legislate in areas they have no idea about.
 
Congratulations on the boat, hope it gets through survey OK. I've had 2 Chaparrals, and they were both really solid boats, so I wouldn't be concerned about the Cat C rating.
 
I agree that it might not be explicit. However, I think that it could be considered that you had operated the boat in a wreckless manner if it was avoidable. In other words, if you take a boat out in conditions that exceed the RCD tested category, and you are doing so knowingly, then you are doing so knowing that the boat hasn't been tested in those conditions. Thiscould be construed as operating the boat in conditiions that were unsuitable.

Operating outside the RCD tested category in unexpected or unforecast conditons is different and no what I am talking about here. I am talking about deliberate operation outside the RCD tested category.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, I accept that the skipper makes the call but these ratings are suppose to give people a comparison so they have an idea about the boats capabilities when in fact they do the reverse

[/ QUOTE ]
Not are far as I am concerned they aren't. They are to show that a vessel has demonstrated that it has met the test criteria under test conditions and NOTHING else. Anyone that uses it as a comparison of ultimate or even save capability is making a huge mistake.

That is why I believe that the nsurance could contest a claim where a boat is deliberately operated outside the tested category. They only have evidence available proves that the boat can cope with conditions up to the tested category... after that you are a test skipper!

I realise that the boat may be more than capable of coping with much worse conditions than tested and the insurance company may make a judgement call on what conditions they believe is sensible but as conditions worsen at some point they are going to consider it wreckless to go out and at that point the will potentially contest the claim. Both they and we only have the RCD category as written proof of capability and so after that it is a judgement call. A difficult insurance company could then, potentially, determine the RCD tested category as their limit of sensibility. I wouldn't want to put it to the test and that is why I always recommend that people do not operate their boat, willingly and knowingly, in a way that was avoidable, outside the RCD tested category.

If you want to do so then it isn't necesarily a bad decision (depending on a lot of other factors) but you are then relying on the insurance company having the same opinion as yourself and that is not at all certain that they will... that is all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top