longjohnsilver
Well-Known Member
Expect they sed leave them open to allow fresh water to drain out and therefore prevent possible frost damage.
Seacocks (shutting)
- Thread starter jonlaw
- Start date
Mirelle
N/A
I am amazed by people who leave the cockpit drain seacocks open
I don't see the point of closing the heads and engine seacocks and leaving the cockpit drain seacocks open - a cockpit cover is all that is needed to keep the rain off, and it keeps the cocpit nice anyway!
My boat, like the one that Vic S describes, had the cockpit drain seacocks open for more than thirty years when I bought her - they were located in a hopelessly inacessible place and too small anyway. I replaced and moved them.
After the engine exhaust skin fitting came apart with one light tap from a hammer (!) I got religion about that one, too, and fitted a Blakes' seacock - which also gets turned off every time.
I don't see the point of closing the heads and engine seacocks and leaving the cockpit drain seacocks open - a cockpit cover is all that is needed to keep the rain off, and it keeps the cocpit nice anyway!
My boat, like the one that Vic S describes, had the cockpit drain seacocks open for more than thirty years when I bought her - they were located in a hopelessly inacessible place and too small anyway. I replaced and moved them.
After the engine exhaust skin fitting came apart with one light tap from a hammer (!) I got religion about that one, too, and fitted a Blakes' seacock - which also gets turned off every time.
Pye_End
Well-Known Member
Re: I am amazed by people who leave the cockpit drain seacocks open
Think it depends partly on what is above and below waterline. Can't see above waterline as a risk whilst moored.
Think it depends partly on what is above and below waterline. Can't see above waterline as a risk whilst moored.
ajt
Well-Known Member
As a broker I agree you will have to check your own policy but as a general rule, it is considered that you take due care and attention to avoid any insurance losses.
Personally I turn off everything and shut all seacocks, I have the same routine when arriving or leaving the boat but I have forgotten once or twice and had to go back to the boat, not to much of a problem as the boat is five minutes from home.
Any excuse to spend more time on the boat
Personally I turn off everything and shut all seacocks, I have the same routine when arriving or leaving the boat but I have forgotten once or twice and had to go back to the boat, not to much of a problem as the boat is five minutes from home.
Any excuse to spend more time on the boat
muckypup
Well-Known Member
I always let the engines warm up before going anywhere and I can reach the exhause outlets very easy. if they are still cold they the water is doing it's job. If it takes skin off, then it's proably time to shut the engines down quick. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
S.
S.
Mirelle
N/A
Up to a point, Lord Copper!
..because the waterline may change.
I do close the above-waterline bilge pump and engine exhaust seacocks, because, for instance, the boat might take on water from another source, or might part her mooring, ground, and heel over.
But I agree that a cockpit drain in the transom, well above water, won't be a problem.
..because the waterline may change.
I do close the above-waterline bilge pump and engine exhaust seacocks, because, for instance, the boat might take on water from another source, or might part her mooring, ground, and heel over.
But I agree that a cockpit drain in the transom, well above water, won't be a problem.
Birdseye
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
It wouldn't have crossed my mind to make an insurance claim if I'd left the engine seacock shut and wrecked the engine. Do they really cover that risk?
[/ QUOTE ]
I doubt it. There is a difference between accident and carelessness/ stupidity
It wouldn't have crossed my mind to make an insurance claim if I'd left the engine seacock shut and wrecked the engine. Do they really cover that risk?
[/ QUOTE ]
I doubt it. There is a difference between accident and carelessness/ stupidity
Pye_End
Well-Known Member
Is there?
How do you define the two?
How do you define the two?
G
Guest
Guest
There are lots of legal precedents through the years defining negligence, gross negligence and deliberate actions, so not too difficult to work out the difference between those on the one hand and an accident where you weren't negligent on the other.
You can't insure yourself against your own deliberate action even if you and the insurance company wanted to, and I think insurance policy would normally stop you insuring yourself against your own gross negligence too. Can't remember whether my policy mere negligence (ie. that's not gross), but I reckon many insurance policies would exclude it.
You can't insure yourself against your own deliberate action even if you and the insurance company wanted to, and I think insurance policy would normally stop you insuring yourself against your own gross negligence too. Can't remember whether my policy mere negligence (ie. that's not gross), but I reckon many insurance policies would exclude it.
Pye_End
Well-Known Member
Scenarios -
Sailing along, colour plotter in cockpit, hit a sandbank, sink. Feel very careless afterwards.
Sailing along, hit a buoy. Feel very stupid afterwards.
Do you expect insurance to pay up on these occasions?
Sailing along, colour plotter in cockpit, hit a sandbank, sink. Feel very careless afterwards.
Sailing along, hit a buoy. Feel very stupid afterwards.
Do you expect insurance to pay up on these occasions?
G
Guest
Guest
You mean a bit like that motor boat a couple of months ago that was being delivered from France and hit a buoy and (if I remember correctly) the insurance company refused to pay out because the delivery skipper and crew were being really negligent travelling fast at night relying too much on the chartplotter?
I think that the insurance company would refuse to pay out if given all the circs I was being really stupid.
I think that the insurance company would refuse to pay out if given all the circs I was being really stupid.
Pye_End
Well-Known Member
Well I know somebody who was insured for hitting a buoy!
I would like to bet that after the majority of insurance claims somebody thinks 'if only I had done this, it would not have happened', whether it would be checking gear or manoevering boats differently.
If you think about it, it is the reason we insure.
Go on, give me some examples where insurance did not pay up.
I would like to bet that after the majority of insurance claims somebody thinks 'if only I had done this, it would not have happened', whether it would be checking gear or manoevering boats differently.
If you think about it, it is the reason we insure.
Go on, give me some examples where insurance did not pay up.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Indeed, and if they were to cover leaving the engine seacock closed wouldn't it be a great temptation for folks who have suffered a cooling failure to claim the damage was caused by forgetting to open the seacock? I haven't checked through my policy but I would imagine that if I were to claim for damage due to cooling failure the insurers would expect a very plausible explanation as to how this was an insured risk rather than poor maintenance or equipment failure.
However, if the engine failure (due to leaving the seacock closed) resulted in other damage - e.g. engine fails while leaving the berth - then I suspect that the consequential damage might be insured. But I don't know any of this, I am only speculating.
However, if the engine failure (due to leaving the seacock closed) resulted in other damage - e.g. engine fails while leaving the berth - then I suspect that the consequential damage might be insured. But I don't know any of this, I am only speculating.
G
Guest
Guest
Luckily I haven't ever had to claim, so can't give direct experience of not paying up /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif Here for example are the terms of Pantaenius - who I believe have a blue chip reputation for paying out - have a look at Clause 7(b) of their standard terms.
It comes down to how horribly negligent you've really been. Generally if you've taken all reasonable care then you should be OK in terms of paying out, hopefully. Less reputable insurance companies may be inclined to try to use it as an excuse for getting out of paying, and may have less generous negligence clauses - often the cheaper the policy the less it's likely to cover.
It comes down to how horribly negligent you've really been. Generally if you've taken all reasonable care then you should be OK in terms of paying out, hopefully. Less reputable insurance companies may be inclined to try to use it as an excuse for getting out of paying, and may have less generous negligence clauses - often the cheaper the policy the less it's likely to cover.
Avocet
Well-Known Member
I have a seacock on the heads inlet and the heads outlet, the sink, the engine and two cockpit drains - so that's 6 seacocks. I always turn the engine one off and the two heads seacocks. The sink one is above the waterline but that is also generally off unless I'm emptying the sink - in fact, it's easier than putting the plug in - just turn the seacock off!
I do, however, always leave the cockpit drain seacocks open. The boat was built like that. From each drain there is a short length of pipe (about 5") to the seacock directly below it. Given that there is about 1.5" of pipe on the stub of the cockpit drain and another 1.5" on the seacock, that leaves an "exposed" 2" of pipe in between. The pipe is double clipped top and bottom AND if I wanted to take the pipe off either spout, I'd have to take the cockpit drain out of the fibreglass anyway because I can't pull the pipe down far enough to clear it!
Now SURELY common sense would suggest that it didn't matter tuppense whether I left these two open or closed?! If an insurer refused to pay out on that I'd be feeling VERY hard done by - especially if it wasn't the cause of the sinking!
I do, however, always leave the cockpit drain seacocks open. The boat was built like that. From each drain there is a short length of pipe (about 5") to the seacock directly below it. Given that there is about 1.5" of pipe on the stub of the cockpit drain and another 1.5" on the seacock, that leaves an "exposed" 2" of pipe in between. The pipe is double clipped top and bottom AND if I wanted to take the pipe off either spout, I'd have to take the cockpit drain out of the fibreglass anyway because I can't pull the pipe down far enough to clear it!
Now SURELY common sense would suggest that it didn't matter tuppense whether I left these two open or closed?! If an insurer refused to pay out on that I'd be feeling VERY hard done by - especially if it wasn't the cause of the sinking!
Pye_End
Well-Known Member
Yep. See what you mean. As I say, how do you define these terms? Really only through historical cases and what the courts decide I suppose.
Still don't think it is as obvious as you think.
Still don't think it is as obvious as you think.
G
Guest
Guest
Would agree that it's not always obvious eg. what's negligent when you're fresh may not be negligent when exhausted after a long passage - but just meant that as to HOW you define it, you look back at the guidance in the case law, which there's plenty of - maybe too much!
charn
New Member
Thanks for the reply.
She will be on the water. possibility of frost.
She will be on the water. possibility of frost.
fisherman
Well-Known Member
If you were to ask Sunderland Marine I think you will find they cover everything, even what might be described as negligent. However, when I moved my cover to elsewhere, Sunderland were charging nearly 10% of sum insured.