Empathy List Archives

C&

Candy & Gary

Tue, Jan 2, 2007 1:53 PM

Bob Austin quoted me and went on to say (with apologies to Bob for
transposing the first line of his message to the end, done to facilitate
my reply):

"Gary said:

"I cannot understand why engine room doors/hatches are so often
placed virtually on the transom (witness last year's loss of the brand
new sportfisherman enroute to some Florida boat show when the
professional delivery crew had engine trouble and left the door open
only to be pooped by a wave and quickly sunk, with loss of all hands)."

I believe that he was referring to a loss of a Carolina 35 sportfisher, which
is a quite traditional boat."

Gary replies:

Yes, indeed. That is the incident I had in mind. Thanks for filling in the
detailed reference I was too lazy to cite properly. Mea culpa. And yes, the
design is not particularly exceptional. Design work -- in boats or about
anything else -- is neither absolute nor static. It is in every way a complex
juggling of tradeoffs and compromises; all done by mere mortals with varying
and incomplete appreciation of past successes and failures; done amid a great
rush of improving technologies, changing conditions and contradictory
constraints; striving to satisfy some technologically naive sales manager's
notion of what a vanishingly small portion of the fickle public will want
badly enough to pay for. Is it any wonder that seaworthiness -- whatever you
like to think that is -- is imperfectly realized in every boat. To paraphrase
George Orwell, 'All boats are created seaworthy, but some are more seaworthy
than the rest.' Feel free to substitute any other subjective value here as
well: luxurious, powerful, thrifty, strong, sleek or cute.

Bob goes on to say:

"The boat was new and a ceramic shaft/boot failed, allowing ingress of large
amounts of water into the engine room. It is not clear what happened next,
but the engine room hatch (which was not on the transom, but was in the floor
in the forward part of the cockpit and the rise to the steering station, was
opened, and a wave apparently swamped the boat." <snip here to reply>

Gary replies:

Ah, dead men tell no tales. I'm sure that the above facts are what I recall
hearing about, but unhappily we can only speculate about the detailed chain of
events and can only cast implications about causes. Good guesses in this
case, but still guesses.

Bob continued:

"There were a number of errors, but not necessarily that of boat design."

Gary replies:

I beg to disagree. Placement of engine room hatches is by definition entirely
a matter of boat design. I'm sure the men lost in that incident thought of
the engine room hatch placement as an error as soon as the sea started pouring
in. I'm not particularly experienced in inboard sportfisher design, but it
seems to me that just about all of them must have engine rooms more or less
below a large cockpit, and generously sized hatches in the sole would be seen
as a plus by buyers imagining easy maintenance access etc.. These fishermen
would also probably want these hatches to be flush with the sole, not raised
on tall trunks. Unhappily, we have centuries of experience swamping boats
with large cockpits, particularly when the boat has lost propulsion and is
wallowing in rough water. I believe that some designers fail to adequately
value these risks.

In my judgment the severity of the penalties for failure dictate that
designers of any boat that could be subjected to rough water should exercise
extreme prudence in the realm of 'seaworthiness.' It should clearly trump
issues such as perceived easy maintenance access. Sure, ya gotta have access,
but at what cost? My suggestion is to provide complete engine room access
only from inside the boat. My PDQ 34 does this (not a sportfisher of course).
A distant second choice would be to have both a sturdy outside hatch for use
only in non threatening situations together with an inside access that would
allow secure routine checks and underway maintenance, and most particularly
would allow emergency access to the entire suite of equipment. My original
comment was based on the photos of the Manta forty-something power catamaran
shown on their web site. Clearly seen, they have made an engine room
hatch/door out of most of the transom of each hull. They also have an inside
access (one image seen peeking through with both open). The inside access
appears adequate in the tiny photo, and I know from my PDQ that inside access
below a bunk (in both cases) works quite well. The transom door compromises
hull stiffness and strength. The now more flexible hull promotes door
leakage, and in extreme conditions perhaps door failure. My doorless transom
shares none of these risks.

And finally, Bob's opening line:

"Although I agree with the function being more important than the form in a
boat, one has to be cautious in making assumptions about seaworthiness."

Gary replies:

We fundamentally agree. No two boaters can be expected to hold identical
perceptions or values and that provides for the blazing diversity of boats you
see around us everywhere. I too would particularly advise caution in making
assumptions about seaworthiness. I would advise designers to always keep
safety at sea paramount in their constellation of design values; that buyers
carefully consider these issues; and that boat users strive to accumulate all
the personal and group experience and wisdom they can find so that they can
prudently enjoy their boats.

Accumulating that group experience is exactly what this forum is about. I
said some stuff. Bob shared his views. I responded to his message, and all
the while the readership is busy considering the whole deal. Winners all
around.

Cheers,
Gary Bell

Bob Austin quoted me and went on to say (with apologies to Bob for transposing the first line of his message to the end, done to facilitate my reply): "Gary said: "I cannot understand why engine room doors/hatches are so often placed virtually on the transom (witness last year's loss of the brand new sportfisherman enroute to some Florida boat show when the professional delivery crew had engine trouble and left the door open only to be pooped by a wave and quickly sunk, with loss of all hands)." I believe that he was referring to a loss of a Carolina 35 sportfisher, which is a quite traditional boat." Gary replies: Yes, indeed. That is the incident I had in mind. Thanks for filling in the detailed reference I was too lazy to cite properly. Mea culpa. And yes, the design is not particularly exceptional. Design work -- in boats or about anything else -- is neither absolute nor static. It is in every way a complex juggling of tradeoffs and compromises; all done by mere mortals with varying and incomplete appreciation of past successes and failures; done amid a great rush of improving technologies, changing conditions and contradictory constraints; striving to satisfy some technologically naive sales manager's notion of what a vanishingly small portion of the fickle public will want badly enough to pay for. Is it any wonder that seaworthiness -- whatever you like to think that is -- is imperfectly realized in every boat. To paraphrase George Orwell, 'All boats are created seaworthy, but some are more seaworthy than the rest.' Feel free to substitute any other subjective value here as well: luxurious, powerful, thrifty, strong, sleek or cute. Bob goes on to say: "The boat was new and a ceramic shaft/boot failed, allowing ingress of large amounts of water into the engine room. It is not clear what happened next, but the engine room hatch (which was not on the transom, but was in the floor in the forward part of the cockpit and the rise to the steering station, was opened, and a wave apparently swamped the boat." <snip here to reply> Gary replies: Ah, dead men tell no tales. I'm sure that the above facts are what I recall hearing about, but unhappily we can only speculate about the detailed chain of events and can only cast implications about causes. Good guesses in this case, but still guesses. Bob continued: "There were a number of errors, but not necessarily that of boat design." Gary replies: I beg to disagree. Placement of engine room hatches is by definition entirely a matter of boat design. I'm sure the men lost in that incident thought of the engine room hatch placement as an error as soon as the sea started pouring in. I'm not particularly experienced in inboard sportfisher design, but it seems to me that just about all of them must have engine rooms more or less below a large cockpit, and generously sized hatches in the sole would be seen as a plus by buyers imagining easy maintenance access etc.. These fishermen would also probably want these hatches to be flush with the sole, not raised on tall trunks. Unhappily, we have centuries of experience swamping boats with large cockpits, particularly when the boat has lost propulsion and is wallowing in rough water. I believe that some designers fail to adequately value these risks. In my judgment the severity of the penalties for failure dictate that designers of any boat that could be subjected to rough water should exercise extreme prudence in the realm of 'seaworthiness.' It should clearly trump issues such as perceived easy maintenance access. Sure, ya gotta have access, but at what cost? My suggestion is to provide complete engine room access only from inside the boat. My PDQ 34 does this (not a sportfisher of course). A distant second choice would be to have both a sturdy outside hatch for use only in non threatening situations together with an inside access that would allow secure routine checks and underway maintenance, and most particularly would allow emergency access to the entire suite of equipment. My original comment was based on the photos of the Manta forty-something power catamaran shown on their web site. Clearly seen, they have made an engine room hatch/door out of most of the transom of each hull. They also have an inside access (one image seen peeking through with both open). The inside access appears adequate in the tiny photo, and I know from my PDQ that inside access below a bunk (in both cases) works quite well. The transom door compromises hull stiffness and strength. The now more flexible hull promotes door leakage, and in extreme conditions perhaps door failure. My doorless transom shares none of these risks. And finally, Bob's opening line: "Although I agree with the function being more important than the form in a boat, one has to be cautious in making assumptions about seaworthiness." Gary replies: We fundamentally agree. No two boaters can be expected to hold identical perceptions or values and that provides for the blazing diversity of boats you see around us everywhere. I too would particularly advise caution in making assumptions about seaworthiness. I would advise designers to always keep safety at sea paramount in their constellation of design values; that buyers carefully consider these issues; and that boat users strive to accumulate all the personal and group experience and wisdom they can find so that they can prudently enjoy their boats. Accumulating that group experience is exactly what this forum is about. I said some stuff. Bob shared his views. I responded to his message, and all the while the readership is busy considering the whole deal. Winners all around. Cheers, Gary Bell

BH

Bert/Noelle Harrott

Tue, Jan 2, 2007 4:10 PM

I think we can all agree that good design is essential whether boxy or
curvy. Seaworthiness should never be compromised in favor of style or
convenience. Convenient engine room access should never be gained at the
expense of the safety of a vessel. In direct reference to the catastrophic
effects that the intrusion of seawater into the engine room or boat
interior can have, did anyone else notice the extensive corrosion on the
drive train on Manta's display boat at the 2006 Miami Boat Show? The design
of those huge apertures at the transom near the waterline, appeared to have
exacted some detrimental effects on this "show-boat".

-------Original Message-------
Regards, Bert& Noelle Harrot

From: Candy & Gary
Date: 1/2/2007 5:53:54 AM
To: Power Catamaran List
Cc: Bob Austin
Subject: [PCW] Boxiness

Bob Austin quoted me and went on to say (with apologies to Bob for
transposing the first line of his message to the end, done to facilitate
my reply):

"Gary said:

"I cannot understand why engine room doors/hatches are so often
placed virtually on the transom (witness last year's loss of the brand
new sportfisherman enroute to some Florida boat show when the
professional delivery crew had engine trouble and left the door open
only to be pooped by a wave and quickly sunk, with loss of all hands)."

I believe that he was referring to a loss of a Carolina 35 sportfisher,
which
is a quite traditional boat."

Gary replies:

Yes, indeed. That is the incident I had in mind. Thanks for filling in the
detailed reference I was too lazy to cite properly. Mea culpa. And yes,
the
design is not particularly exceptional. Design work -- in boats or about
anything else -- is neither absolute nor static. It is in every way a
complex
juggling of tradeoffs and compromises; all done by mere mortals with varying
and incomplete appreciation of past successes and failures; done amid a
great
rush of improving technologies, changing conditions and contradictory
constraints; striving to satisfy some technologically naive sales manager's
notion of what a vanishingly small portion of the fickle public will want
badly enough to pay for. Is it any wonder that seaworthiness -- whatever
you
like to think that is -- is imperfectly realized in every boat. To
paraphrase
George Orwell, 'All boats are created seaworthy, but some are more seaworthy
than the rest.' Feel free to substitute any other subjective value here as
well: luxurious, powerful, thrifty, strong, sleek or cute.

Bob goes on to say:

"The boat was new and a ceramic shaft/boot failed, allowing ingress of large
amounts of water into the engine room. It is not clear what happened next,
but the engine room hatch (which was not on the transom, but was in the
floor
in the forward part of the cockpit and the rise to the steering station, was
opened, and a wave apparently swamped the boat." <snip here to reply>

Gary replies:

Ah, dead men tell no tales. I'm sure that the above facts are what I recall
hearing about, but unhappily we can only speculate about the detailed chain
of
events and can only cast implications about causes. Good guesses in this
case, but still guesses.

Bob continued:

"There were a number of errors, but not necessarily that of boat design."

Gary replies:

I beg to disagree. Placement of engine room hatches is by definition
entirely
a matter of boat design. I'm sure the men lost in that incident thought of
the engine room hatch placement as an error as soon as the sea started
pouring
in. I'm not particularly experienced in inboard sportfisher design, but it
seems to me that just about all of them must have engine rooms more or less
below a large cockpit, and generously sized hatches in the sole would be
seen
as a plus by buyers imagining easy maintenance access etc.. These fishermen
would also probably want these hatches to be flush with the sole, not raised
on tall trunks. Unhappily, we have centuries of experience swamping boats
with large cockpits, particularly when the boat has lost propulsion and is
wallowing in rough water. I believe that some designers fail to adequately
value these risks.

In my judgment the severity of the penalties for failure dictate that
designers of any boat that could be subjected to rough water should exercise
extreme prudence in the realm of 'seaworthiness.' It should clearly trump
issues such as perceived easy maintenance access. Sure, ya gotta have
access,
but at what cost? My suggestion is to provide complete engine room access
only from inside the boat. My PDQ 34 does this (not a sportfisher of
course).
A distant second choice would be to have both a sturdy outside hatch for use
only in non threatening situations together with an inside access that would
allow secure routine checks and underway maintenance, and most particularly
would allow emergency access to the entire suite of equipment. My original
comment was based on the photos of the Manta forty-something power catamaran
shown on their web site. Clearly seen, they have made an engine room
hatch/door out of most of the transom of each hull. They also have an
inside
access (one image seen peeking through with both open). The inside access
appears adequate in the tiny photo, and I know from my PDQ that inside
access
below a bunk (in both cases) works quite well. The transom door compromises
hull stiffness and strength. The now more flexible hull promotes door
leakage, and in extreme conditions perhaps door failure. My doorless
transom
shares none of these risks.

And finally, Bob's opening line:

"Although I agree with the function being more important than the form in a
boat, one has to be cautious in making assumptions about seaworthiness."

Gary replies:

We fundamentally agree. No two boaters can be expected to hold identical
perceptions or values and that provides for the blazing diversity of boats
you
see around us everywhere. I too would particularly advise caution in making
assumptions about seaworthiness. I would advise designers to always keep
safety at sea paramount in their constellation of design values; that buyers
carefully consider these issues; and that boat users strive to accumulate
all
the personal and group experience and wisdom they can find so that they can
prudently enjoy their boats.

Accumulating that group experience is exactly what this forum is about. I
said some stuff. Bob shared his views. I responded to his message, and all
the while the readership is busy considering the whole deal. Winners all
around.

Cheers,
Gary Bell

Power-Catamaran Mailing List

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.2/613 - Release Date: 1/1/2007
2:50 PM

.

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type image/jpeg which had a name of BackGrnd.jpg]

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of imstp_chubbi_en_by_im.gif]

I think we can all agree that good design is essential whether boxy or curvy. Seaworthiness should never be compromised in favor of style or convenience. Convenient engine room access should never be gained at the expense of the safety of a vessel. In direct reference to the catastrophic effects that the intrusion of seawater into the engine room or boat interior can have, did anyone else notice the extensive corrosion on the drive train on Manta's display boat at the 2006 Miami Boat Show? The design of those huge apertures at the transom near the waterline, appeared to have exacted some detrimental effects on this "show-boat". -------Original Message------- Regards, Bert& Noelle Harrot From: Candy & Gary Date: 1/2/2007 5:53:54 AM To: Power Catamaran List Cc: Bob Austin Subject: [PCW] Boxiness Bob Austin quoted me and went on to say (with apologies to Bob for transposing the first line of his message to the end, done to facilitate my reply): "Gary said: "I cannot understand why engine room doors/hatches are so often placed virtually on the transom (witness last year's loss of the brand new sportfisherman enroute to some Florida boat show when the professional delivery crew had engine trouble and left the door open only to be pooped by a wave and quickly sunk, with loss of all hands)." I believe that he was referring to a loss of a Carolina 35 sportfisher, which is a quite traditional boat." Gary replies: Yes, indeed. That is the incident I had in mind. Thanks for filling in the detailed reference I was too lazy to cite properly. Mea culpa. And yes, the design is not particularly exceptional. Design work -- in boats or about anything else -- is neither absolute nor static. It is in every way a complex juggling of tradeoffs and compromises; all done by mere mortals with varying and incomplete appreciation of past successes and failures; done amid a great rush of improving technologies, changing conditions and contradictory constraints; striving to satisfy some technologically naive sales manager's notion of what a vanishingly small portion of the fickle public will want badly enough to pay for. Is it any wonder that seaworthiness -- whatever you like to think that is -- is imperfectly realized in every boat. To paraphrase George Orwell, 'All boats are created seaworthy, but some are more seaworthy than the rest.' Feel free to substitute any other subjective value here as well: luxurious, powerful, thrifty, strong, sleek or cute. Bob goes on to say: "The boat was new and a ceramic shaft/boot failed, allowing ingress of large amounts of water into the engine room. It is not clear what happened next, but the engine room hatch (which was not on the transom, but was in the floor in the forward part of the cockpit and the rise to the steering station, was opened, and a wave apparently swamped the boat." <snip here to reply> Gary replies: Ah, dead men tell no tales. I'm sure that the above facts are what I recall hearing about, but unhappily we can only speculate about the detailed chain of events and can only cast implications about causes. Good guesses in this case, but still guesses. Bob continued: "There were a number of errors, but not necessarily that of boat design." Gary replies: I beg to disagree. Placement of engine room hatches is by definition entirely a matter of boat design. I'm sure the men lost in that incident thought of the engine room hatch placement as an error as soon as the sea started pouring in. I'm not particularly experienced in inboard sportfisher design, but it seems to me that just about all of them must have engine rooms more or less below a large cockpit, and generously sized hatches in the sole would be seen as a plus by buyers imagining easy maintenance access etc.. These fishermen would also probably want these hatches to be flush with the sole, not raised on tall trunks. Unhappily, we have centuries of experience swamping boats with large cockpits, particularly when the boat has lost propulsion and is wallowing in rough water. I believe that some designers fail to adequately value these risks. In my judgment the severity of the penalties for failure dictate that designers of any boat that could be subjected to rough water should exercise extreme prudence in the realm of 'seaworthiness.' It should clearly trump issues such as perceived easy maintenance access. Sure, ya gotta have access, but at what cost? My suggestion is to provide complete engine room access only from inside the boat. My PDQ 34 does this (not a sportfisher of course). A distant second choice would be to have both a sturdy outside hatch for use only in non threatening situations together with an inside access that would allow secure routine checks and underway maintenance, and most particularly would allow emergency access to the entire suite of equipment. My original comment was based on the photos of the Manta forty-something power catamaran shown on their web site. Clearly seen, they have made an engine room hatch/door out of most of the transom of each hull. They also have an inside access (one image seen peeking through with both open). The inside access appears adequate in the tiny photo, and I know from my PDQ that inside access below a bunk (in both cases) works quite well. The transom door compromises hull stiffness and strength. The now more flexible hull promotes door leakage, and in extreme conditions perhaps door failure. My doorless transom shares none of these risks. And finally, Bob's opening line: "Although I agree with the function being more important than the form in a boat, one has to be cautious in making assumptions about seaworthiness." Gary replies: We fundamentally agree. No two boaters can be expected to hold identical perceptions or values and that provides for the blazing diversity of boats you see around us everywhere. I too would particularly advise caution in making assumptions about seaworthiness. I would advise designers to always keep safety at sea paramount in their constellation of design values; that buyers carefully consider these issues; and that boat users strive to accumulate all the personal and group experience and wisdom they can find so that they can prudently enjoy their boats. Accumulating that group experience is exactly what this forum is about. I said some stuff. Bob shared his views. I responded to his message, and all the while the readership is busy considering the whole deal. Winners all around. Cheers, Gary Bell _______________________________________________ Power-Catamaran Mailing List -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.2/613 - Release Date: 1/1/2007 2:50 PM . [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type image/jpeg which had a name of BackGrnd.jpg] [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of imstp_chubbi_en_by_im.gif]

RD

Robert Deering

Tue, Jan 2, 2007 5:13 PM

Gary wrote: "I'm not particularly experienced in inboard sportfisher design,
but it seems to me that just about all of them must have engine rooms more
or less below a large cockpit, and generously sized hatches in the sole
would be seen as a plus by buyers imagining easy maintenance access etc..
These fishermen would also probably want these hatches to be flush with the
sole, not raised on tall trunks. Unhappily, we have centuries of experience
swamping boats with large cockpits, particularly when the boat has lost
propulsion and is wallowing in rough water. I believe that some designers
fail to adequately value these risks.

In my judgment the severity of the penalties for failure dictate that
designers of any boat that could be subjected to rough water should exercise
extreme prudence in the realm of 'seaworthiness.' It should clearly trump
issues such as perceived easy maintenance access. Sure, ya gotta have
access, but at what cost? My suggestion is to provide complete engine room
access only from inside the boat. My PDQ 34 does this (not a sportfisher of
course).
A distant second choice would be to have both a sturdy outside hatch for use
only in non threatening situations together with an inside access that would
allow secure routine checks and underway maintenance, and most particularly
would allow emergency access to the entire suite of equipment."

Gary, consider a few points:

A hatch needs to be large enough to remove and replace an engine.
That's not just "perceived convenience" if you've ever had the pleasure of
replacing an inboard engine. That defines the minimum size of your opening.
And it should be directly over the engine, not inside the cabin. Besides, a
fishing boat devotes a lot of space to the cockpit, so your interior cabin
probably won't have room for aft cabins and engines. Imagine your PDQ 34
with a 8 foot cockpit running the width of your boat - you just lost your
aft cabins - are you now going to put engines inside what remains of your
cabin?
To perform proper maintenance and repairs you need to reach all sides of
the engine. Providing easy access for maintenance is also a lot more than a
"perceived convenience". Maintenance that's difficult to do doesn't get
done. And a poorly maintained boat is an unsafe boat. Having an access
hatch forward inside the skinny cat hull only gives you access to the front
of the hot engine which is kind of pointless. That also compromises hull
integrity (my next point).
Each engine room should be completely separated from the rest of the
hull with watertight bulkheads. Designed properly a boat should be able to
remain stable even with one of the engine rooms flooded. The two hulls
should also be isolated from each other so flooding can't spill across to
the other hull through cable trays or other penetrations. The bulkheads
also help with noise, fumes, and fire suppression.
Since we're talking catamarans, it's unlikely that you'll experience two
mechanical failures at the same time, so you should be able to continue to
make headway on one engine until you're out of harm's way. Each engine
should be "self sufficient" with it's own fuel supply, fuel filters,
starting battery, etc. In any event, it would be imprudent to have both
cockpit hatches open at the same time in rough conditions, but at some point
it becomes an issue of operator stupidity rather than design deficiency.
Remember that the cockpits on catamarans sit a lot higher off the water
than most monohulls. I've owned a catamaran for 10 years and never come
close to being pooped, despite being in some pretty snotty water. I hear
the same thing from blue-water cat sailors. Sure, it can happen, but the
odds are low.

Bottom line - I think your points have some merit for monohulls, but
catamarans provide so many inherent opportunities for enhanced safety that
you need to approach safety with a different mindset.

Gary wrote: "I'm not particularly experienced in inboard sportfisher design, but it seems to me that just about all of them must have engine rooms more or less below a large cockpit, and generously sized hatches in the sole would be seen as a plus by buyers imagining easy maintenance access etc.. These fishermen would also probably want these hatches to be flush with the sole, not raised on tall trunks. Unhappily, we have centuries of experience swamping boats with large cockpits, particularly when the boat has lost propulsion and is wallowing in rough water. I believe that some designers fail to adequately value these risks. In my judgment the severity of the penalties for failure dictate that designers of any boat that could be subjected to rough water should exercise extreme prudence in the realm of 'seaworthiness.' It should clearly trump issues such as perceived easy maintenance access. Sure, ya gotta have access, but at what cost? My suggestion is to provide complete engine room access only from inside the boat. My PDQ 34 does this (not a sportfisher of course). A distant second choice would be to have both a sturdy outside hatch for use only in non threatening situations together with an inside access that would allow secure routine checks and underway maintenance, and most particularly would allow emergency access to the entire suite of equipment." Gary, consider a few points: 1. A hatch needs to be large enough to remove and replace an engine. That's not just "perceived convenience" if you've ever had the pleasure of replacing an inboard engine. That defines the minimum size of your opening. And it should be directly over the engine, not inside the cabin. Besides, a fishing boat devotes a lot of space to the cockpit, so your interior cabin probably won't have room for aft cabins and engines. Imagine your PDQ 34 with a 8 foot cockpit running the width of your boat - you just lost your aft cabins - are you now going to put engines inside what remains of your cabin? 2. To perform proper maintenance and repairs you need to reach all sides of the engine. Providing easy access for maintenance is also a lot more than a "perceived convenience". Maintenance that's difficult to do doesn't get done. And a poorly maintained boat is an unsafe boat. Having an access hatch forward inside the skinny cat hull only gives you access to the front of the hot engine which is kind of pointless. That also compromises hull integrity (my next point). 3. Each engine room should be completely separated from the rest of the hull with watertight bulkheads. Designed properly a boat should be able to remain stable even with one of the engine rooms flooded. The two hulls should also be isolated from each other so flooding can't spill across to the other hull through cable trays or other penetrations. The bulkheads also help with noise, fumes, and fire suppression. 4. Since we're talking catamarans, it's unlikely that you'll experience two mechanical failures at the same time, so you should be able to continue to make headway on one engine until you're out of harm's way. Each engine should be "self sufficient" with it's own fuel supply, fuel filters, starting battery, etc. In any event, it would be imprudent to have both cockpit hatches open at the same time in rough conditions, but at some point it becomes an issue of operator stupidity rather than design deficiency. 5. Remember that the cockpits on catamarans sit a lot higher off the water than most monohulls. I've owned a catamaran for 10 years and never come close to being pooped, despite being in some pretty snotty water. I hear the same thing from blue-water cat sailors. Sure, it can happen, but the odds are low. Bottom line - I think your points have some merit for monohulls, but catamarans provide so many inherent opportunities for enhanced safety that you need to approach safety with a different mindset.

power-catamaran@lists.trawlering.com

Boxiness