Leisure
boating is such a great adventure for the soul; the freedom of ones
own boat, being responsible for its well-being and then drinking in
to the full the pleasure it brings.
Literally
anyone can participate. However, the knowledge and skills needed to
properly maintain a boat are often not part of the owners work life
or previous life experiences. Therefore when an aspect of the boat
needs attention, the owner may be unaware of the implications of an
action, omissions of a process or shortcoming of a provider.
The
catch is, a boat is quite a complex vehicle; irregular structures,
wide variety of materials, numerous diverse systems and various
methods of achieving the same outcome. Often these are maintained under trying working conditions, divided available time
and with limited financial means.
We
have noted over time, articles appearing about sailors having endured
some sort of emergency at sea resulting from gear failure. By
observation, we contend that the majority of the dramas should not
reasonably have happened at all. Two recurrent themes appear as root
causes; a lack of basic sound practices and the failure of processes
supplied by service providers.
Let's
take a brief look at the two themes; firstly basic practices. There
are no visible, collected set of Standard Operating Procedures for
the maintenance of a leisure boat. While many books exist
to guide the owner, none is the "last word", so a number
must be digested to arrive at sound practice. There is no widely
recognised and uplifted learning course on boat maintenance and no
requirement to be competent outside the wider aspects of safe
navigation remits.
To many, this absence of "stifling" formalities is part of the freedom package; one can largely do ones own thing. Herein lies the trap; how does one "definitely know" that all the boat is correctly configured - especially those items whose failure has an immediate effect on the safety of the boat and it's occupants?
To many, this absence of "stifling" formalities is part of the freedom package; one can largely do ones own thing. Herein lies the trap; how does one "definitely know" that all the boat is correctly configured - especially those items whose failure has an immediate effect on the safety of the boat and it's occupants?
A
recent example appeared in AndrewSimpson's article
in Practical Boat Owner No. 563 Summer 2013 page 22, on clevis pin
retention. The accompanying photo showed the most basic and cheapest
split ring (less effective that one uses on a set of keys) in a
poorly installed state both for integrity and prevention of an injury
to the crew. This type of retainer is not uncommon on a yacht yet it
is well away from sound engineering practice for critical systems
such as rigging. If we take a parallel safety of life world example,
aviation, clevis pins are common. The Maintenance Manual would have required the fitment of a thin flat washer,
then a split pin /
cotter pin - which while simple in design, requires the application of good maintenance
practice to install.
This
centres on a firm pin-to-pin contact seating of the head where the
split pin enters the clevis pin and the method of working the split
pin legs. Best practice sees the bending of each protruding leg back
snugly around the circumference of the clevis pin and cutting the
excess length off so the leg end closely nestles up against the split
pin head where it enters the clevis pin. This method prevents
vibration, rotation and "hides" the sharp ends, so
preventing injuries.
Next,
professional maintenance services. Again, there are few visible
standard operating practices and procedures by which an owner, who
has sought help to ensure a best outcome, can evaluate what has been
delivered with what was required. In practice, choice of provider is
a mix of anecdotal reputation, time in business and judgement of the
apparent knowledge and skills of the provider.
A
recent article in Yachting Monthly No. 1287 Summer 2013 page 34 is of
topical interest. Before setting out on an ocean voyage, two
committed sailors knew their yacht's rigging had been "professionally
overhauled" over time by three providers and it was checked
daily on the voyage. Nearing St. Lucia, a lower shroud failed and
soon afterwards the rig was lost. Beyond their rescue and survival,
they were delayed for five months.
What
really caused all this? Well, as the boat was over thirty years old
and as with most leisure boats, it's maintenance history may not have
been precise. While the standing rigging had been recently replaced,
it is conceivable that many of the key fittings and fasteners may
well have been original and so had been subjected to unknown loadings
and load cycles leading to metal fatigue.
Here
is the trap; in the case of mechanical force-bearing items, it is "what lies beneath" that is critical and
no simple visual examination can determine the condition of a key
fitting or fastener relative to its design specification when it's
life and load history is unknown. The cost of applying
non-destructive testing techniques to these critical parts (as in
aviation) would likely be more costly than key component replacement.
So, to balance the practice and the pocket, 100% replacement of the
key items would be a sound choice, restoring the rigging design
integrity, minimising the risk of mechanical failure leading to
exposure to life-threatening dangers, saving an insurance claim and,
in this case above, five months of the owners lives "doing
nothing".
In
essence, there are many risks in a long voyage, so inexpensively
"making ones own luck" has great benefit. How many
maintenance providers would recommend this practice as "normal"
and how many owners would ask for this manner of service?
