He didn't withhold. At the time of posting on here he had misunderstood what had happened. It was only later after seeing the fine detail of the insurer's surveyor's report that I got the full facts and was able to construct the case that ultimately defeated Towergate. It was a bizarre set of facts that won't be repeated and doesn't affect any discussion on seacock bonding, so is kinda irrelevant
Bene are expert cost cutters. You don't have to bond seacocks and the boat is likely CE cerifiable without bonded seacocks. If you bond them now that cannot cause seacock fizzing. My own boat is sitting in the sea in Antibes right at this minute with bonded seacocks and nothing is fizzing. (She is being lifted next Monday so I'll make sure 2x on that!).
Hang on there! You've read the RH report and you can see that the statements I referred to are utterly unsubstantiated. That makes the report second rate on that score, though of course it was a good report in bringing to folks attention dezincification of brass. As regards your sentences 3+4, I wasn't talking about you. As regards MAIB it would be nice to think they used the best experts out there but they are a government department with costs to keep under control, and your view that they would use a top expert to look at a seacock on day boat that got wet without anyone drowning might be a bit out of kilter with reality. Fact remains that we have on the one hand internet momentum behind the "don't bond seacocks" view which I think stems from the RH MAIB report (and, in my book, some mis-reading of that report) while on the other hand plenty of engineers and the world's quality yachtbuilders bond their seacocks.
Yikes, I'm not sure where you got my CV from
)) but I have a degree in engineering. From Imperial. You, and your surveyor?
)Yikes, I'm not sure where you got my CV from
Anyway I'm happy to disagree as I said earlier. Also as said earlier, my main concern is that this forum is "right": there is a string of posts above saying it is generally accepted that seacocks shouldn't be bonded, and for the benefit of folks who might read this in the future I wanted that balanced by mention of the facts that there is a considerable weight to the opposing view, and many (perhaps most, but I don't know that) serious yachtbuilders including just for example Oyster always bond their seacocks. Folks can decide for themselves of course (and hey, thanks to various collective efforts including yours we're all insured for this nowadays
Wot you need is Male BondingI think it's best if we just agree to disagree on bonding, too many experts (and amateurs like most of us on the forum) with differing views but little in the way of definitive science. It's not worth falling out about.
Yes, we have managed to persuade at least one insurer to change their policy wording regarding corrosion but I've still replaced all but one of my underwater fittings with composite
Yikes, I'm not sure where you got my CV from
Anyway I'm happy to disagree as I said earlier. Also as said earlier, my main concern is that this forum is "right": there is a string of posts above saying it is generally accepted that seacocks shouldn't be bonded, and for the benefit of folks who might read this in the future I wanted that balanced by mention of the facts that there is a considerable weight to the opposing view, and many (perhaps most, but I don't know that) serious yachtbuilders including just for example Oyster always bond their seacocks. Folks can decide for themselves of course (and hey, thanks to various collective efforts including yours we're all insured for this nowadays
maintain the boat's electrical wiring in good order.