ABYC Standards

[BandB]

I disagree with the suggested ABYC standards.

Ah, but this is where I have the problem with anything that isn't transparent. You say you disagree with the suggested ABYC standards, but you probably haven't seen those standards and may be disagreeing with a surveyor's interpretation or even mis-interpretation of those standards.

Not just on this but on many things in life I've heard non-existent laws quoted or policies (banks are the worse on that one), I've seen people misapply rules that you don't have access to. Someone tells me something is against a rule or law or policy and I want to see the rule or law or policy they're referring to. I'm use to dealing with quite a few rules makers over the years such as OSHA, EPA, the SEC, the IRS, and others and there are always so many nuances. There are requirements vs. preferences. There is often more than one way to meet the "regulation." The problem is if they have the rules and you don't, you're always subject not just to the rules but what they might think the rules are.

I think the rules are necessary and I insist ABYC is followed for lack of anything else. I, however, do not like their proprietary use and/or misuse of the rules as if some secret society. In today's age there is no valid reason for them not to be fully available online to everyone. In fact, I think they are in a way demeaning their own certification. It's as if they're saying the value of an ABYC certification is we have access to these rules you don't, as opposed to we have training and skills in the use of these rules.

We're in a time in which every maritime regulation is available online for free, every state law, every IRS regulation, every building code in most places. For a very small fee, every court case in most jurisdictions. For classed boats, those standards are available online. There is something inherently wrong with the lack of transparency. The rules are valuable. Their secrecy is inexcusable.

And my view is one shared by many of their members. I look at the member benefits they offer:

• 24/7 online access to the Standards and Technical Information Reports for Small Craft
  
• Technical assistance via phone from ABYC Technical Department
  
• Listing in online directory for members and certified technicians
  
• Mailed quarterly member magazine, the Reference Point, and emailed a monthly newsletter
  
• Member discounts on all ABYC certification courses
  
• Member discounts on all publications and products sold in the ABYC Ship’s Store
  
• Access to variety of webinars and educational videos on the ABYC website
• Use of ABYC logo to promote your business and access to marketing toolkit

Are they saying that take away the first of those benefits, it's not worth being a member? Apparently.

Are they saying that members don't really have any special skills or knowledge, just access to the rules? Apparently.

Do they even realize the absurdity of how they conduct their business? Apparently not.

 

[sunchaser]

In 2012 we were considering new builds from Nordhavn, Dashew and KK. In all cases the subject came up of building to standards, code and class. The three sell internationally and build their vessels to comply, as best can be discerned.

After that new build consideration I do not recall any ABYC standards that seemed too silly other than unfathomable location for battery on off switches and starter fusing. One thing I did note was Dashews far exceeded any other builder for bulkheads, water intrusion, crash proof flooding, sealing of through hulls and capsize protection.

On mature vessels, ABYC does seem though more a tool for surveyors and insurers to wag their finger on than anything else. My insurer has a boat type, year and brand they like to request a "current" survey on. This probably makes sense - profiling if you will.

Do any on TF have information on current recreational boat builders that intentionally flout ABYC?

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. TD. You raise valid points. One would like to think that AYBC is, in fact, based on safety and best practices and I think it can be argued that their "suggestions" are. The problem arises when "someone", be-it a "surveyor" or insurance company determines that what was perfectly safe yesterday is now unsafe due to revised "suggestions" and NOT common sense.
Case in point NOT in reference to AYBC. Our last insurance company changed their policy regarding hurricanes about 3 years ago. When renewal time came around, we dutifully arranged for the necessary 5 year survey and in reviewing the new policy we discovered that we were required to haul our vessel IF it was to be in the path of a named storm. No haul, no coverage. As it turns out we were docked in a recognized hurricane hole. Nothing had hit the area for over 85 years. The closest facilities for haulage were on the Outer Banks of NC, an area that regularly gets hammered (sometimes 2 or 3 times a season).
I asked our agent what the rationale was for moving our boat from a safe location to an area where it was sure to be slammed I was informed it was a new company policy. Results? New insurance company.

 

[sunchaser]

RT

Lotta good being on dry land did for the vessels caught up in Sandy. Wonder if your ex-insurers language now stipulates move vessels to Catskills?

 

[BandB]

Greetings,
Mr. TD. You raise valid points. One would like to think that AYBC is, in fact, based on safety and best practices and I think it can be argued that their "suggestions" are. The problem arises when "someone", be-it a "surveyor" or insurance company determines that what was perfectly safe yesterday is now unsafe due to revised "suggestions" and NOT common sense.
Case in point NOT in reference to AYBC. Our last insurance company changed their policy regarding hurricanes about 3 years ago. When renewal time came around, we dutifully arranged for the necessary 5 year survey and in reviewing the new policy we discovered that we were required to haul our vessel IF it was to be in the path of a named storm. No haul, no coverage. As it turns out we were docked in a recognized hurricane hole. Nothing had hit the area for over 85 years. The closest facilities for haulage were on the Outer Banks of NC, an area that regularly gets hammered (sometimes 2 or 3 times a season).
I asked our agent what the rationale was for moving our boat from a safe location to an area where it was sure to be slammed I was informed it was a new company policy. Results? New insurance company.

We once had a major hurricane in Jamaica in which we had zero damage to the building, no storm damage as such, just some flood damage. The insurer said we must have the owner (Jamaican government) rebuild it to 150 mph standards plus needed a sprinkler system. We switched insurers.

 

[caltexflanc]

Just because something says "non-profit" doesn't mean a lot of people aren't making money (or a few people making a lot of money) ;-)

I don't have much of an opinion either way. What I do have a problem with are insurance companies and lenders hanging their hat on the ABYC AS IF it was a set of standards or building codes. We have all bought boat (or nearly all of us) where a surveyor said that something was "unsafe" or "didn't met ABYC", then the insurer insists it get corrected up to "code" or no deal. FFW to an accident or claim and the insurer will therefore use this and a basis for claim denial. Will it hold up in court? Who knows, but I'll bet there are some cases out there that have been litigated. Anyway, why are we seemingly force into compliance by a set of best practices, when, in reality, are not even enforceable standards or codes?

That is my main problem with this.

So tell us Tom, who is making a lot of money at ABYC? Name names please!

 

[Brooksie]

Interestingly there is an article in Pro Boat Builder this month saying basicly that ABYC, without discussion or warning, has made cleanout ports on diesel tank sides non-compliant. They can henceforth only be on the top of the tanks to meet their specifications. The article's author is suggesting that except for very large vessels this will end the ability to check and/or clean tanks. If my experience with surveyors holds true, they will soon be asking for removal of "non-compliant" tanks when they see side cleanouts.

 

[Larry M]

Has BoatUS written articles about ABYC? They are one of the largest boating lobbies but also in the insurance business.

 

[psneeld]

I think the snowball is already halfway down the hill and getting bigger.


In today's world...who is going to endorse anything less than 100% safe?


Even though that is a nebulous target...as long as someone with any kind of reputation says so....it would be hard to go against a recommendation....


Sure some things are almost scientific fact...but look at all the boating discussions here that are really only opinion.


Gosh forbid someone starts quoting anchor tests as a "standard" to be used just because a couple companies and experienced boaters endorse the test....but it is headed that way versus the opposite.

 

[Marin]

...ABYC, without discussion or warning, has made cleanout ports on diesel tank sides non-compliant. ....If my experience with surveyors holds true, they will soon be asking for removal of "non-compliant" tanks when they see side cleanouts.

This is where common sense needs to be applied. The standard itself would seem to make sense; side inspection ports do carry the risk of leaking due to poor or deteriorating seals, bad design and fabrication, etc. Eliminate the side inspection port and you eliminate that set of risks.

But it's obvious from a long history worldwide that side inspection ports can be made to be more than reasonably free of risk. Sure, it requires an owner to keep an eye on them, but individual responsibility is a requirement for life, be it having to do with the condition of one's boat or how much attention one pays when walking while texting or e-mailing. You can get dead either way and in my opinon that risk is solely in the hands of the individual.

We should not avoid new ideas which improve safety, efficiency, and so forth. But at the same time we should use commmon sense when determining when and where to apply these new ideas. To build on psneeld's comments, it seems that for a whole lot of reasons humans in more advanced societies are increasingly sucumbing to nanny state mentality.

My own opinion is that the fundamental reason for this is the fact that with the possible exception of sloths and male lions, humans are the laziest living things on the planet, so anything that relieves us of having to think or do anything requiring effort on our part becomes desirable.

So the reality is that we have set up the environent where organizations like ABYC and all the rest can create rules, regulations, or standards that direct our lives. So the bottom line with what ABYC does and our acceptance of it is that it's our own damn fault.

But that's a big-picture view and it's inevitable, I think. But in the meantime, if enough common sense prevails to create and apply the ABYC standards and recommendations sensibly, I think having these standards and recommendations is a good idea.

 

[angus99]

Interestingly there is an article in Pro Boat Builder this month saying basicly that ABYC, without discussion or warning, has made cleanout ports on diesel tank sides non-compliant. They can henceforth only be on the top of the tanks to meet their specifications. The article's author is suggesting that except for very large vessels this will end the ability to check and/or clean tanks. If my experience with surveyors holds true, they will soon be asking for removal of "non-compliant" tanks when they see side cleanouts.

Well, if this is true, it's absurd. How would this advance safety? You would have to have access ports on the decks for many boats to open the top-mounted inspection ports on saddle tanks, creating more opportunities for water intrusion and rust. Either that, or redesign many boats so that saddle tanks are totally accessible from above while you're inside the boat. And how well can a tank be cleaned and inspected from 5 feet above? If this discourages tank cleaning--or leads to half-assed cleaning--how is having dirty tanks in a rough seaway safer than having inspection ports on the sides of tanks?

I am in favor of sensible, reasonable standards and regulations to protect boaters from those who challenge Darwin's theories whenever they go boating. I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bath water and faulting all regulations every time somebody comes up with one that's absurd or overly aggressive. That said, ABYC's approach seems opaque to me and utterly counterproductive to their stated mission. The fact that their standards are frequently misused by surveyors, banks and insurance companies only compounds, IMHO, a problem that begins with ABYC.

 

[psneeld]

Well, if this is true, it's absurd. How would this advance safety? You would have to have access ports on the decks for many boats to open the top-mounted inspection ports on saddle tanks, creating more opportunities for water intrusion and rust. Either that, or redesign many boats so that saddle tanks are totally accessible from above while you're inside the boat. And how well can a tank be cleaned and inspected from 5 feet above? If this discourages tank cleaning--or leads to half-assed cleaning--how is having dirty tanks in a rough seaway safer than having inspection ports on the sides of tanks?

I am in favor of sensible, reasonable standards and regulations to protect boaters from those who challenge Darwin's theories whenever they go boating. I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bath water and faulting all regulations every time somebody comes up with one that's absurd or overly aggressive. That said, ABYC's approach seems opaque to me and utterly counterproductive to their stated mission. The fact that their standards are frequently misused by surveyors, banks and insurance companies only compounds, IMHO, a problem that begins with ABYC.

Exactly...I'll take my chances with a minor diesel leak over losing an engine at a critical time.

I have seen this same crap in both boating and aviation safety for nearly 40 years now. One accident and new standards or procedures are developed often by people without LOTS OF REAL OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE.

It is one thing to publish warnings, another to avoid that in a new build if possible...but to portray it as more important a safety issue than clean tanks goes back to my other post ....BULCRAP!!!!.....there is a weighted set of issues here....not an absolute. If they publish that...great but from my ABYC experience.....probably not.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Ms. HM. "...ABYC standards are not regulations or "codes,"...they are not enforceable... and most insurance companies insist they be followed." The very fact that one cannot get insurance without following AYBC "guidelines" neutralizes their lack of enforcability. Non compliance (based on the OPINION of a "surveyor" who may or may not be "qualified")=No insurance. Simple as that. I agree that one must make every effort to be as safe as possible but the sway AYBC holds over the average boater is, as mentioned, a license to print money by those unscrupulous individuals who wish to take advantage of such "unenforceable" codes.

 

[boatpoker]

I like the concept of AYBC standards, and I want my boat to comply with them.
I think that having standards in place provide a set of best practices that can and should be used by persons working on boats.

That said, the standards need to be easily assessable. I do not mind paying a fee (everything costs) but the standards need to be access able to be effective.

I think the current AYBC policy of only allowing marine professionals or students access to the standards defeats the whole purpose which should be to promote safety and safe installation practices..

ABYC Standards are available to anyone with a credit card.
Don't believe me ? Call them with your Visa in hand.

 

[BandB]

ABYC Standards are available to anyone with a credit card.
Don't believe me ? Call them with your Visa in hand.

Well, they should be available free online and printed at a minimal cost to cover the cost of printing. Non-profit, industry organization, just seems to be operating like every other private membership organization.

 

[boatpoker]

Well, they should be available free online and printed at a minimal cost to cover the cost of printing. Non-profit, industry organization, just seems to be operating like every other private membership organization.

Do you work for free ? Do you think the costs involved in creating these standards are "minimal" ?

 

[Tom.B]

So tell us Tom, who is making a lot of money at ABYC? Name names please!

I only point out that, just because ANY group claims to be non-profit, that people working there are working for free or there isn't a lot of money in the mix. All they have to do is spend what they earn and show zero profit (over simplification) Peggy brought up that the ABYC is non-profit as an argument that they aren't in it for the money. I just pointed out that people that run non-profits aren't always good samaritans. The ABYC might be awesome, but not all non-profits are. You're smart enough to understand that. I don't even know why I bothered to reply.

 

[boatpoker]

Then there's my pet annoyance that now, under recently passed new regulations

Don't see how you can compare legal regulations with voluntary (ABYC) standards.... apples and coconuts.

 

[jungpeter]

To Miss Peggy Hall:

Right on the money. Thanks for your (as always) valuable input.

Regards,

Pete

 

[caltexflanc]

I only point out that, just because ANY group claims to be non-profit, that people working there are working for free or there isn't a lot of money in the mix. All they have to do is spend what they earn and show zero profit (over simplification) Peggy brought up that the ABYC is non-profit as an argument that they aren't in it for the money. I just pointed out that people that run non-profits aren't always good samaritans. The ABYC might be awesome, but not all non-profits are. You're smart enough to understand that. I don't even know why I bothered to reply.

You made the implication, you choose to back it up or not. You chose not. It's like people who say that anyone who owns a "big" boat is a multimillionaire and robber baron... so if they are going to imply that, I'd like some facts myself. Or are you indeed a robber baron?

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. bp. More like oranges and tangerines. Yes, AYBC "standards" ARE voluntary but today's boat owner is held ransom by "surveyors" who actually have the power to make it impossible to buy any insurance that one wishes to have for an item as simple as a hose clamp (for example). In today's litigious society, one would have to either be a fool or have deep pockets to venture forth without insurance.
I have commissioned several surveys and I actually look forward to the exercise because I want to know what shortcomings my vessel may have that actually reflect directly on the safety of said vessel.
It has been discussed before and YOU may be a qualified, straight up, reasonable guy but not every surveyor is like you nor may every technician who you hire be AYBC "certified".

 

[what_barnacles]

I only point out that, just because ANY group claims to be non-profit, that people working there are working for free or there isn't a lot of money in the mix. All they have to do is spend what they earn and show zero profit

Hillary's foundation is non profit.

 

[boatpoker]

Greetings,
Mr. bp. More like oranges and tangerines. Yes, AYBC "standards" ARE voluntary but today's boat owner is held ransom by "surveyors" who actually have the power to make it impossible to buy any insurance that one wishes to have for an item as simple as a hose clamp (for example). In today's litigious society, one would have to either be a fool or have deep pockets to venture forth without insurance.
I have commissioned several surveys and I actually look forward to the exercise because I want to know what shortcomings my vessel may have that actually reflect directly on the safety of said vessel.
It has been discussed before and YOU may be a qualified, straight up, reasonable guy but not every surveyor is like you nor may every technician who you hire be AYBC "certified".

True, but if you hire unqualified people you have to bear responsibility for that. The idiots in the business (in any business) would not exist if people did some due diligence and did not hire them.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. bp. So it's my fault that the NAMS/SAMS certified surveyor or the AYBC technician is incompetent? Fancy letters behind a name do not a professional make BUT they will allow me to get my insurance renewed. Hiring anyone can easily be a "shot in the dark" proposition if one does not have any references other than the person's "cerification". Let me assure you, the idiots in the business DO exist and they continue to exist. How they remain in business is beyond me.

 

[Marin]

Very few of us on this forum are experts at the whole "boat" thing. By which I mean systems design, structures and materials attributes, manufacturing techniques, and underlying quality of workmanship.

So we have to rely on people in the industry who are experts on these things. But.... are good, bad, and indifferent surveyors and it is on us to hire one who's competent, honest, and credible. That I think sums up boatpoker's position and I have no quarrel with it.

I've said this before and I'll say it again that I believe a huge part of having a successful experience with a boat is being a good judge of character: surveyors, mechanics, electricians and electronics people, and so on. But being a good judge of character is not an automatic guarantee you'll always hire the best person.

Humans are very, very good at projecting the image they want to project and it can sometimes be very difficult to see through that image to the real person behind it. Sometimes what you see on the outside is what you get and sometimes it's not. This, I think, is the gist of RT's position. And I have no quarrel with it, either.

As I've mentioned in other threads, my wife and I picked up the expenses to take a good friend with a lifetime career in the boating industry at a very prestigious company with us to California to inspect, sea trial and have surveyed the boat we ultimate bought. We did this because we were in no position to accurately and credibly evaluate all aspects of the boat we were going down to look at, nor were we in a position to judge the competence of the hull/systems and engine surveyor's we'd hired other than the recommendations we'd been given. Unless an electrical panel was actually on fire, I was in no position to judge if it was installed properly and wired safely. But our friend was.

We knew the friend we took to California to look at the boat was honest, experienced, objective, and credible because we'd known him for years and were well aware of his reputation. But what about the surveyor you just met, or is little more than a name on a recommendation list?

I don't have any magic formula for how to be an infallible judge of character, credibility, and honesty. There are certainly ways of stacking the deck in your favor but there is no sure thing.

But it's a tough call and sometimes--- sometimes--- experience comes by getting burned. Hence the frustration expressed by RT and others. But this doesn't change the validity of boatpoker's position: the responsibility to hire competent people is still on us.

So you do the best you can. We just spent four months and a lot of money dealing with a complex and frustrating problem with our PNW boat. We were confident the people doing the work were competent and credible, and as an added check I ran everything they were doing and proposing to do past the aforementioned friend. With that problem behind us, a new unrelated problem was just discovered. Like the first one it's fairly serious but unlike the first one it's pretty straightforward and the fix is obvious.

But... the person qualified and equipped to perform the fix in our harbor is a total unknown to us. So we have elected to take the recommendation of our diesel shop and hire this fellow to perform the work. We'll see.......

 

[BandB]

I can only say how I select vendors. I start with recommendations from those I really trust and know have requirements and standards equivalent to mine. I don't ask others for recommendations as I don't know what they base them on. I interview someone I'm thinking of doing business, in some ways like I do potential employees, just less thorough. But I don't lob softballs in interviews or just socialize and cover things gently. I ask hard questions that I think will separate them. I review all I can find out about them, including how they run their business, how long they've been where they are, why they left a previous location, how much backlog they have piled up and I ask opinion questions so I can get their views. If they are electricians and they tell me ABYC is a pile of crap, then I won't deal with them. If they talk ugly about other people in the area, especially those I respect. And I only deal with well written contracts. I look at how they do business overall, not just their specific skill as I'm not hiring them, but about to enter into a business arrangement with them. I also do check them out including credit reports.

Basically I deal with vendors as I have in business for 25 years. While my boat is pleasure and recreation, getting service is a business act.

Now we get our major work done by a large well known boatyard. We know we pay a higher rate, but the work gets done right and they stand behind it if it isn't. It's also done when promised. And we go back over and over. If there's an issue we address it immediately with them but it's based on a long time relationship so they know we're not complainers.

Now, I don't profess that my methods will necessarily work for others, just that they work for me.

 

[boatpoker]

Greetings,
Mr. bp. So it's my fault that the NAMS/SAMS certified surveyor or the AYBC technician is incompetent? Fancy letters behind a name do not a professional make BUT they will allow me to get my insurance renewed. Hiring anyone can easily be a "shot in the dark" proposition if one does not have any references other than the person's "cerification". Let me assure you, the idiots in the business DO exist and they continue to exist. How they remain in business is beyond me.

No argument from me .... and they will continue to exist as long as people hire them. Neither CMS, AMS, PE, MD, Ma nor any other title guarantees quality. I know a couple of doctors that i would not let bathe my dog. It's my responsibility to qualify the people I hire for any function. The certifications are simply a baseline for further investigation.
Bottom Line ... I control my own fate and I choose to do that in part by educating myself about the people I do business with and not rely solely on the alphabet soup that follows their names.

 

[BandB]

I know a couple of doctors that i would not let bathe my dog. It's my responsibility to qualify the people I hire for any function. The certifications are simply a baseline for further investigation.
Bottom Line ... .

I remind myself occasionally that half the doctors out there finished in the bottom half of their class.

 

[Peter B]

Don't see how you can compare legal regulations with voluntary (ABYC) standards.... apples and coconuts.

Not living in the US of A, (not everyone does you know), so the ABYC, whatever that stands for, is irrelevant to me, I was just talking about the annoyance in general of bright spark folk in high places coming up with regulations, especially when made retrospective, irrespective of how practical that might be, just to try and make our world idiot proof, whatever the cost and inconvenience. I thought you would probably agree with that..?

PS. to BandB...watch it with those doctor jokes. You have to have some clues to even get in, but for the record, I'm a quack, and I graduated equal top of my year. I don't claim to be a boat expert, but I do have a 'thing' about safety...and I can categorically state, we cannot make the would idiot proof, no matter what we do...

Cheers,

 

[FF]

".and I can categorically state, we cannot make the would idiot proof, no matter what we do..."

Why would you want to?

DARWIN improves the breed.