Habitable boats

Chris
It is amazing what one can survive in but to me habitable has broader meaning.

This is a snippet from the documentary Solo - Lost at Sea:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvCt3AVWr2s
If you get a chance to watch the full documentary you can see how Andrew's condition deteriorates. The kayak is simply not large enough to allow normal human function for the required period.

The boat actually survived enabling them to recover some of the videos and photos he took. It is difficult to understand the circumstances where he got separated from the boat. He may have been hallucinating. One of the problems with hypothermia I believe. So the ability to get dry and warm are critical to survival in colder climates. In hotter climates the sun and heat take their toll.

So I guess "habitable" ranges from survival through comfortable to luxurious. I lean more to the survival end because I view boats as disposable. None are a good investment in my experience and my disposable income does not go far beyond survival with regard to bad investments on boats. I certainly do not share my wife's liking for ocean liners - far too stable and crowded for my liking.

Rick W

 

Unfortunately perhaps, the young couples of today are not like the young couples, triplets, etc, of my generation... Young people nowadays are seeking what people of my age would characterize as excessive comfort and unnecessary luxury. I think that if we increase minimum headroom, space in general, the number of young people that will come into sailing would also increase. I prefer half of the today boats to be out of the race, if the number of tomorrow boats would have doubled. There are hordes of modern young people out there who could more easily seduced into sailing, should this activity distance itself from the strange feeling of sleeping into claustrophobic low cabins.
But the most important things are,
1., to narrow the number of essential qualities that should characterize the "habitability" of a boat, and,
2., to put some quantitative specific numbers on them that would permit us to measure what we are talking about.

 

apex/Richard

One of the problems of "defining" "habilitable" is that is does become 1) subjective and 2) even if a level of consensus is reached, apply legislation renders the well intended philosophy behind it, meaningless.

The current ISO 12217 rules for example...what utter rubbish. The rules and reg's for compliance are far more complex than any HSC boat...for what?..small air pipes and others etc. The ISO is ostensibly a "surveyor's guide for compliance" which has been made into a set of prescriptive rules. It requires a desk jockey to explain the reasons for said and why...but don't expect any sensible answer.

The further towards the ends of any spectrum one approaches, normal "laws" break down. Small boats as such, fall into these categories. Some require legislation for very good reasons, many others do not.

Incompency and accidents by those that shouldn't be out at sea where deaths have occurred, are ultimately responsible for such "rules and reg's". It has become all part of the mitigation process for insurance and ***-covering....wasn't me, i told them so!

 

Rick has actually raised an interesting point. What is considered "habitable" in a very cold climate, is very different from a warm/hot climate. Will this ever be factored in...doubt it..or if it is, poorly!

 

Ad Hoc, Xarax,
well, I thought just to start a "list" of what could be named habitable, and by no means I claim that to be cast in iron, nor even sensible in every case.
Just my thoughts of what would be the absolute minimum I could think of. Of course, the bigger the better, but we have been asked of the min.
And I agree that one could (should) make a difference according to climates the vessel is designed for. My recommendation for water storage refers to that point.

Richard

 

I guess you contributed in the public consultation when these were first drafted.

But if not now is the time to send in your comments (or post them here) because the RCD and ISO standards are currently up for review.

I have been on the ISO stability working group that developed ISO12217 for about 15 years as a "multihull specialist" so know the problems we faced.

One of those was that, despite the fact that the WG comprised "stability experts" there were some even more "expert" people who form the "powers that be".

For example, after much discussion our WG proposed that recreational craft should be divided into 6, or possibly 7 different categories. So we were very surprised to find our proposals were thrown out and instead all boats would have to fit in only 4 categories, ie Cat A ocean, B offshore, C coastal, D lakes and rivers.

Thus the Cambridge river punt is lumped in with boats that navigate the river Rhine or Lake Superior, while most dinghies are in Cat C (ie coastal sailers). As most cabin boats are considered more stable than a dinghy it means most are in Cat B or A, so in effect there are only two categories that cover small cruisers right up to those designed to sail round Cape Horn in winter.

So I would agree that although there is much scope for improvement, our hands are tied by the "powers that be" - I call them that as I have no idea who they are

Richard Woods of Woods Designs

www.sailingcatamarans.com

 

Richard

I'm on one of the MCA committees and also on LRs Technical Committee. The only way to move these "powers that be", are with well documented evidence that counters their proposals. If you can't the rule stands....like it or not.

Since everyone is a critic, but one needs to quantify the criticisms.