Well if you have a GRP vessel with no mains electricity and a simple electrical system with no major electronics and you have an inboard engine with standard stainless shaft and bronze prop and no major metallic underwater installations, then probably not. The seacocks are generally too far apart to have any interaction and iron keels do not generally need protection. This can change if your vessel has circuitry issues with stray currents, so if possible always leave batteries isolated when leaving the boat and if you see signs of stray current damage , investigate. It will often be issues related to electric bilge pumps live all the time, alternator issues on the engine or damp and loose connections within the bilges.. However, if you have more complex electronics then you might want to fit an anode to protect the P bracket and the stern gear. I would definitely advise you NOT to connect seacocks to an anode at any time as, if the anode connections become high resistance then one seacock becomes an "anode" for another seacock if they are wired together. Not all bronze fittings, even from the same manufacturer are exactly the same metallic structure. Fitting shaft anodes can be a standby "just in case"solution in some cases. Remember that if an anode to to protect the shaft, propeller and P bracket, there must be a low resistance , less than 1 ohm, connection to the anode. Bear in mind that anodes are produced in three different metals, Zinc for seawater and aluminium or magnesium for different salinity of fresh water. Zinc will not work in fresh water.

However do not fit anodes to timber vessels as these destroy the timber surrounding the anode and wired and protected items such as the stern deadwood where the shaft passes through. The strong alkali formed when the anode is working destroys the lignin in the timber. Damage caused by anode wired to stern gear on timber yacht.

Most insurance companies do set an arbitrary limit on the age of stainless steel rigging. In truth it is likely that most stainless steel rigging will be perfectly sound for many years beyond that 10 years. The difficulty is that there have been cases where stainless steel rigging has failed close to 10 years of age and, so far as the insurance companies go it is obvious that if they are going to limit the claims and ultimately their profits, they would prefer you to spend money to ensure that they do not have to. Unless there is a fault in the manufacture of rigging then most rigging will fail at the terminations either top or bottom and very seldom between those points. Unseen corrosion where the swages and terminals are located and work hardening just as the rigging comes out of the swage or terminal are usually the biggest factors. Faulty wire construction will usually shows failure well within 10 years and, in most cases within a season or two. Obviously vessels that are raced regularly do tend to give more cause for concern with regard to work hardening and stainless steel is known to work harden far in advance of mild steel.

Just be aware that in the event you are unhappy that you have been advised to replace the rigging because of the age limit then you cannot be enforced to do this but of course, in the event of any failure following that advice then technically you would not be able to make a successful claim. Mast and rigging replacement can run into many thousands of pounds. However, galvanised rigging is not subject to these time related replacements. Provided there is no structurally weakening corrosion on the rigging then the rigging is considered safe for as long as it remains corrosion free. The big advantage galvanised rigging is the cost it is a fraction of the cost of stainless steel however, very few modern masts are suited for galvanised rigging as the specialised connections for aluminium masts are not compatible with the fittings available for galvanised rigging. .
You will notice that stainless steel rigging has either copper talurits or stainless steel swages but galvanised rigging will use aluminium talurits or be hand spliced. If ever you notice stainless steel rigging with aluminium talurits then it must be deemed as totally unsafe for rigging purposes. Aluminium and stainless steel when mixed together will have serious issues with corrosion.

Virtually every grp boat over a certain age will have minor areas of damage to gel coat caused by contact damage, over stressing and deterioration. Naturally not all of these were always require attention and it will be the job of the surveyor to identify the cause and any repair or response needed. Scratches and scars and gel coat would not generally be considered structural, simply cosmetic. Other areas such as hard spot cracks and impact damage star crazing are fairly easy to see and, again it would be up to the professionalism and experience of the surveyor to decide whether they are in need of repair or are of no consequence other than cosmetic.

Hard spot cracks are very easy to dismiss as scratches however, these can be significant as they will always occur over internal hard spots such as bulkheads or internal plywood stiffening such as bunk top construction running fore and aft. They take the form of sometimes a single or sometimes multiple lines in the gel coat running directly on the skin of the hull at the point of the internal support. This can also occur on deck particularly on cored decks where core failure is occurring. Occasionally the core failure will start and end at a cliff edge point beneath the deck surface. At this point of the cliff edge the deck flexes on one side and is rigid on the other side of the cliff edge and a crack will occur on the deck. When hammer testing a hull or deck it can be easily identified where there is a hard spot. Hard spots beneath the waterline are more serious than a hard spot above waterline but both can be serious long term as they are inclined to deteriorate. There are localized repairs that will eradicate these issues. This is time to speak to a surveyor if uncertain.

It might surprise many that you should not use graphite impregnated grease in stern tubes as graphite grease behaves like a metal in these circumstances with regard to galvanic action. This will quite commonly lead to pitting and damage to the stainless steel shaft so always avoid this type of grease. Either use a specific grease made particularly for stern tubes or simply use a basic multipurpose grease.

 

 

Well this is so dependent on the person who is asking the question and why they're asking it. If you are buying a vessel and you intend to obtain insurance for her then bear in mind that in some cases depending on the age and the value of the vessel the insurers may request a structural survey. Obviously, in this event there'll be no point in purchasing the vessel then having a survey to afterwards to find out things you wish you'd known before hand so, get a survey before you purchase. An issue that many people are unaware of is that on the small print of any insurance cover is a requirement to maintain the vessel in good structural condition at all times. This means not relying on the insurance company to repair an on going issue if the vessel has been involved in an incident because of this. Things such as a sea cock that cannot be closed and is left open on the mooring and pipework fails unseen allowing the vessel to flood or even sink can be an area where a claim on the insurance company, despite you having paid full premium for many years and have never been asked for a survey, will still be seen as null and void and not their responsibility because of their claim that the vessel was not maintained. In those areas where you are slightly uncertain of the implications of any issues on the vessel then do get a professional survey

This is a very understandable question as survey on a vessel of value of say £5000 is exactly the same cost as the vessel the same length that is valued at £30000. It certainly does seem somewhat unfair. In defence of that I should point out that irrespective of the value of the vessel, two vessels of the same length should take the same amount of time and the same amount of report writing as each other and more often than not the older vessel will have the longer report because there will almost certainly be more things that any owner would need to be aware of. However, although I cannot speak for other surveyors I will always do my best to try and keep costs as low as practical in all cases. I do offer alternative types of survey which many insurance companies will be happy to accept which offer slightly less information but still adequate for most purposes at a much more reduced cost. Safety Inspection which covers the most relevant things on a vessel's structure, Update inspection if a previous survey is available that can be updated with agreement from the insurers. It is always worth speaking to me to see what can be done or achieved..

Legally you're not required to do anything with regard to any faults found on your vessel. It is your boat and at this time, unless you are using the vessel for commercial purposes where the rules are very different, there are no enforcement rules upon the condition of your vessel other than obviously complying with environmental rules about pumping diesel and petrol and oil overboard and any local enforcement rules etc. However bear in mind that the insurers do have a say in what they will insure and they will often be guided by the surveyors report. In the reports that I carry out then the recommendations are broken up into three categories. one star * for long term advice, two star ** for do something at some stage , and three star *** these items are important . The ratings are not a rating of cost. The three star *** items are generally significant to the safety and use of the vessel but not necessarily expensive as it can simply be a loose pipe clip on an underwater skin fitting for instance. It could lead to sinking but cost of rectification is zero. Then we get to other areas which in some cases can be a one star * item which will not cause catastrophic failure and be urgent, but can be quite costly in the long-term such as a severely worn teak deck. However, the report will always explain everything in clear English.. The insurers cannot enforce you to undertake improvements but they can (and do) make the insurance invalid if a claim results from an area that they wanted improved to avoid this claim. On major claims the insurers will send their own claims assessor to establish the cause of the claim and the accuracy of any repair or equipment replacement estimate/s. In the event of break in, it is not unknown for the claim to be refused if it is deemed the vessel was not secured or locked at the time of the theft. This is a difficult area because a determined thief can cause hundreds of pounds worth of damage forcing entry on a vessel with strong locks, but an unlocked vessel invites the opportunist thief..

I would always advise the client to be present when the survey is being undertaken irrespective of whether you are buying the vessel or if you own the vessel. The advantages are that when you eventually read the report the areas that have been commented on you will understand immediately because as the survey progresses the owner/client/purchaser will be shown all of the areas of interest at that time. As an owner you would like to make sure that the surveyor does the job properly and it can also be helpful for the owner to be present in the event the surveyor has questions which only the owner could answer.
If you are the purchaser, then again you have the opportunity to ask questions of the surveyor about areas noted. It is not that unusual for both the purchaser and the seller to be present at the same time. It is also helpful when the owner is present in that the owner can be helpful in moving things around in their vessel to make the inspection it easier. All in all it is a good idea generally.

There are so many variables to this particular question. On older vessels, possibly in excess of 20 years of age then high moisture meter readings are almost going to be a certainty but high readings on their own without any other visual or physical issues should not really be seen as abnormal. Physical problems can relate to delamination which would have associated high meter readings but this would be found by hammer testing, and blistering caused by osmosis would also be accompanied by high readings. Blistering can also be caused by gel coat faults which would not be considered as serious as blistering deep within the laminate.
On later vessels vinylester resins superseded polyester resins and are known to be more resistant to osmosis blistering. This is one area where the advice of an experienced surveyor can be helpful and of value in ascertaining the consequences of high moisture meter readings. A vessel can have high readings for almost decades without developing delamination or osmotic blistering.

There are still some ongoing issues with vessels that underwent a major anti osmosis treatment many years ago in that the treatment was premature and ultimately perhaps not needed or, in some cases the treatment only lasted a few years and deteriorated back to a position worse than it was before the treatment was undertaken. These are difficult vessels.. I recently looke at one vessel that has had two sets of treatments including gel coat removal and laminate planing (removing the laminate to get back to sound laminate). This was a Westerly Fulmar and the contractors had never checked the hull thickness and ultimately in a couple of places on the underwater hull, you could flex the hull with a hammer shaft it was that thin.

Hmmm.... Thinking about this, the issue that comes up more often than others is underwater skin fittings and sea cocks, not necessarily corrosion although this does play a significan part, but mainly sea cocks that are seized or beginning to seize up. The other issue with skin fittings and sea cocks is that some are in extremely difficult places to access on a regular basis and as such they are usually left on all of the time which means they also suffer from lack of use and start to seize up meaning that if you needed to access and in an emergency they cannot be turned off.

This is not a scenario that anyone would ever want on their own boat yet it can be so easily avoided. Next on the list would probably be Gas Systems in that the flexible pipework is damaged or deteriorating due to age (it really should be replaced after five years, if you look carefully on the pipework there is a date of supply along with the date of the required standard which will be some years before) the other issue with Gas Systems is the installation of the bottle and drainage overboard, occasionally the Gas Storage unit is also in very poor condition. Somewhere high on this list will be the engine installation, it is surprising how many engine installations have pipes and wires literally touching and rubbing against part of the engine. I perhaps look at one in three vessels where fuel pipes in particular are rubbing against part of the engine structure and damaging the pipe with extreme cases of nearly rupturing the pipe. This also happens with exhausts. The rubber exhaust passing close to or through plywood bulkheads and rubbing through on the edge of the bulkhead. A fuel pipe that rubs through will be catastrophic. The other area on engines is the engine mountings themselves which overtime grow soft and gradually the metal parts of the mountings come too close together and start vibrating against each other causing a noticeable rattling as well as upsetting the engine alignment. Sail drive installations have their own issues with water ingress into the gear box which, if remains unseen for a long time will destroy the gearbox and corrosion problems both with the sail drive gaiter steel pressing and the sail drive unit itself. The anodes must be carefully monitored and replaced in plenty of time.

These photos show the keel matrix and a cracked beam as a result of grounding

When any vessel does go aground it can be a harrowing experience. Unfortunately it can also be harrowing for the structure of the vessel as well. So much depends on the circumstances of grounding and the design of the vessel as to whether serious damage could have occurred. The traditional long keel vessels such as the Timber Hillyard design or the 1980's grp Rustler 36 or Nicholsen 32 will fare much better than a modern deep fin keel design swuch as a Sigma 36 for instance. The main issue is the speed of going aground, the type of bottom that was struck and the circumstances getting off.



If a long keel vessel on a gently shelving soft mud bottom then likelihood of damage is quite low, the likelihood of damage to pride is quite high! The other extreme of a deep aspect narrow fin keel vessel going aground on a hard bottom at speed is quite high as what happens is that basically the vessel trips on her keel and tries to pull the keel down from the hull at the front and quite often successfully pushes the hull up at the stern of the keel. The internal supporting matrix will quite often fracture as a result of this stressing. Therefore when fin keel vessel has gone aground at speed and more importantly the boat has come to a dead stop very quickly and then this would be a suitable time to investigate. Firstly one would inspection the internal hull at the forward and aft end of the keel and obviously, be aware of any water ingress at any point which was not there previously. This is also the case with bilge keels particularly iron ballast bilge keels as these also can strain the hull. In extreme cases this can be an event which you will be wise to inform your insurers about as some damage may not be accessible until the vessel is out of the water.

Most fibreglass yachts built up until the 1970s were or what is known as a single skin hull and deck. Simply put that means that the hull is just one thickness of fibreglass. This single skin varies in thickness from the keel to the top of the hull, the thickest part of the hull being at the keel. Majority of vessels had a extremely thick and relatively heavy hull compared to vessels constructed now. They were quite expensive in material and resins. Similarly with the deck and superstructure construction which would have been again, one thickness throughout. In order to resist flexing then this single laminate thickness have to be quite heavy and strong.

Gradually builders and designers recognized the fact that they could reduce the weight of the deck and superstructure and keep the rigidity very high by introducing a cored deck structure. This uses a thinner single skin of substantially less weight but bonded to this on the underside of the moulding is an internal moulding of similarly relatively light weight but with an air gap between the two. This air gap was then filled with expanding foam or sometimes a balsa wood core was fitted between the two mouldings and all fully bonded together to make one rigid relatively lightweight moulding. This was very good and resisting any flexing and had ultimate rigidity without the excess weight that would have been needed handed been a single skin. This type of deck structure is common on virtually every vessel from the the 1900s. Some builders like Westerly Marine originally used plywood panels bonded to the underside of the deck in areas where there was a risk of deck flexing. The Westerly Centaur had plywood panels bonded to the underside of the foredeck. The downside of this fully cored type of construction is that if water finds it's way between the two skins then it will eventually rot and the balsa wood and cause any foam within to absorb water and deteriorate. Once this deterioration has occurred then the three components of the cored deck become separated and the single outer skin which is the deck that one walks on, starts to flex because it is much lighter than the original stronger single skin. The repair of this can be extremely difficult and, in some cases more expensive than the value of the vessel.

This photo shows an early cored deck structure that has completely failed

Builders have been reticent to incorporate the structure into the hull structure however, it is beginning to become evident from some builders now. It is particularly common in parts of the bilge construction where the two mouldings, internal and external are bonded together with a structural foam core further bonding the two skins together.

When a vessel is surveyed then hammer testing is undertaken at the beginning to first establish whether the deck and hull are cored as this can be identified by hammer testing and secondly whether there is any obvious core failure which again is easily detected by hammer testing. Finally moisture meter readings would be taken, particularly on deck to isolate the areas of moisture ingress into the core.

Rudder failure is obviously very serious and catastrophic in many instances. There are many reasons for these failures, some of them stem from the original construction and some stem from accident damage.
Fibreglass rudders are predominantly made in one way, the fibreglass blade is moulded in two halves, similar to two trays that are put together rim to rim. The rudder stock is fitted into the void between these two trays and there you have the basis of the rudder. Where the stock enters the rudder mouldings the stock will generally have some form of tang welded on to the stock at 90°, perhaps two of these or more in some cases. These tangs are then bonded to one of the inside of the tray mouldings.

These photos show a bent rudder stock and a damaged rudder at the rudder stock point of entry into the rudder

The other side of the moulding (the tray) is then bonded to the other tray. That basically is your rudder. The difficulty arises with the type of rudder stock and the metal used and the type of tangs welded to the rudder stock. The builders made every attempt to fully waterproof the rudder but it is inevitable that water will enter the rudder after a few years. Once seawater is within the internals of the rudder it can cause corrosion internally and unseen.

One builder many years ago used a mild steel rudder stock with mild steel tangs welded to the rudder stock. Inevitably the water got in and corroded the rudder tangs and the next thing that happened was the rudder stock merely went round within the rudder without moving the rudder and in some cases the rudder actually fell off. For many years most builders used stainless steel for the tangs and for the rudder stock but in recent years some of the European builders have used heavy weight alloy rudder stocks with alloy tangs. Unfortunately these large diameter rudder stocks started showing signs of severe corrosion at the exposed part of the rudder stock between the hull and the top of the rudder. In some cases the corrosion was so significant that the top of the rudder split open because of the corrosion deposits causing expansion. This has resulted in a necessary replacement of the rudder in some much later boats than might be anticipated after I might say, a considerable cost.



The other issue with rudders is those that are not protected with a skeg have been damaged by coming into contact with the bottom or heavy objects thus causing the rudder stock to bend and in some cases, structural damage to the hull at that point.

When surveying checks are made on the alignment of the rudder to make sure it has not been bent, further checks are made to make sure that there is no separation of the two halves of the rudder caused by failure at the point where the rudder stock enters the rudder and the top and cheques as best as possible to see if there is any relative movement between the rudder and the rudder stock which might suggest there is internal bonding failure of the rudder tangs or corrosion of the rudder tangs.

Well, by the time that you read this, the initial emergency is over now I hope and the boat is safe and secure. If that is not the case then the initial thing to do is to secure the vessel both in ensuring she is watertight and safe and secure on her mooring or if she is ashore, make sure that no further damage can occur.

If there is a possibility of underwater damage that cannot be seen then initially you must arrange for the vessel to be lifted out of the water as soon as possible. The insurers will pay this cost if it reduces the risk of a higher claim if the vessel was to sink.
If it is accident damage caused by another vessel then take photographs of the other vessel and as much information as is possible with regard to ownership and contact details. Seek out witnesses. You may well find that in busy areas there will be CCTV cameras operating in places such as Yarmouth Harbour and marinas.
If there are no witnesses and you were not present when the incident occurred your choices are somewhat limited that initially contact your insurers just to tell them that your vessel has been damaged. They will ask you the details and almost certainly ask you to get a quote for repairs. Most insurers ask for at least two quotes.
If the location of the vessel is in the Poole, Weymouth or Portland areas then feel free to contact me and I would be very happy to inspect and assess the damage for possible repair/estimate.
Outside of these areas it is generally not practical of me to quote for repairs because of the distance involved however, if the damage is extreme and there are concerns about the cost of the damage vs. the value of the vessel which is quite common on older vessels then the insurers should send their own assessor down however, they are somewhat reluctant to do that initially until they have received estimates. These unfortunately, tend to take some time and you may find it quicker to contact me directly and see if I can help in any way to hasten things on, perhaps by carrying out a limited inspection to confirm that the damage is severe and bypass all the rigmarole of getting estimates and waiting for them to be compiled which, in the event of a serious injury to the vessel might mean that the repair estimates are not comprehensive enough. The easiest thing is simply to call me and have a conversation about things and I will do my best to advise on the situation at that time.

Generally no, it is not illegal but perhaps not ethical. However if you required some joinery made or something not related to the survey report then there would be no issue. If I have not surveyed the vessel then more than happy to estimate the cost of a repair or improvement. Generally the area of shipwright work is limited to Poole, Wareham, Weymouth and Portland. To see the extent of repairs and improvements then check this page out. One advantage of being a shipwright is the experience to be able to advise how a repair or improvement noted on an inspection can be undertaken as I have actually done the majority of repairs that might be needed. On every report where repairs are advised then there is always a detailed overview on how the repair can be done, This is very different to a surveyor simply telling the client a repair is required. The repairs that can be undertaken extend from structural repairs on timber masts to hard spot fractures on GRP hulls where an invisible repair is paramount, to damaged timber rubbing strakes and hull planking repair on timber yachts.
New cockpit nearing completion on timber Wandered Class

 

There are a few things that are not covered in most surveys , one of these is the engine . In most cases the engine installation will be checked for faults such as engine mountings or casting corrosion or obvious oil or water leaks . the engine will generally be turned over by hand to see if there is any compression there , this is particularly important in a vessel that has not been started for a considerable time to make sure that the engine has not seized with lack of use . But unfortunately particularly with a vessel that is ashore , it would not be possible or feasible to start and run the engine and check the gearbox for correct working . In many cases, it is likely there will be some previous information on the engine but occasionally the engine has to be taken on trust unless you get a specialised mechanical inspection where oil analysis and other detailed tests on the engine are undertaken . However, this is not particularly common unless of course it is on a power driven vessel with considerable size engines which ultimately can represent a a significant proportion value wise of the complete vessel in which case you may feel a separate engine engineers survey would be of value .

The other area that is not commonly closely inspected is the mast above deck level . This is eyed from the deck for any obvious distortion or wall damage, but areas of corrosion around terminals would be virtually impossible to see . A judgement is made on the condition of the mast based on the areas that can be accessed But this is not a definitive judgement and most vessels are surveyed with the mast in position , there is always paragraph in the report suggesting that the mast is removed from the vessel for later inspection . This would normally be acknowledged by the insurance company as a necessity at some stage . Of course, this can be somewhat modified if the vessel has been subject to new rigging in recent years as there would have been some sort of professional inspection at that time .

Electronic equipment is notorious for unpredictably and particularly on vessels that have not been used for some time, electronics can misbehave . Additionally, electronic instrumentation cannot really be checked in real life situations as most vessels will be ashore for inspection so unfortunately it is only possible to switch on the instrumentation and basically see if it appears to be functioning . for the best advice I am able to give is to never pay a premium for electronics that have no guarantee as electronics nowadays do seem to have a short lifespan and if they do not go wrong in that short life span they certainly become outdated relatively quickly . The main issue with this type of installation is the environment they are operating in and many instruments now have internal memory batteries which can ultimately fail and in some circumstances leak into the circuitry boards and damage the instrument sometimes beyond repair .

By all means, if I encounter something which I know is going to be an expensive area to attend to or I am aware that it is something that you have not realised was there then I will suggest to you whether or not you want to proceed with the survey and if it is an early part of the survey that the fault has been discovered then we will cancel the survey and make a substantial reduction in cost as there is no point in me continuing with the survey when I know that ultimately Irrespective of what we subsequently find you will not purchase the vessel . That is a waste of your money . If you are not present then I will also telephone you to tell you I have found something of importance and did you want me to continue .

The easiest way to describe how many pages are involved in a survey is to go to this Sample GRP survey Bavaria 34 and see for yourself , most surveys will be of this length and sometimes longer . Many people do not realise how many hours it takes to write a report and it will be generally longer to write the report than it is to do the inspection . Based on the standard type of report of a vessel up to around 38 feet for a GRP hull, you will receive a draftt report of the inspection within 24 hours, the purpose of this draft report is so that you can spend some time reading it and absorbing it and in the event that there are areas which you might require further explanation on then this can be amended on the final report and the final report can be with you generally within one or two working days of you noting any areas that would benefit from clearer understanding . Timber vessels may take a shade longer but follows the same process .

GRP and timber hulls do have initially the same method . The use of a small hammer in lightly hammer testing the whole of the hull above and below the waterline can be very indicative of issues , on fibreglass and grp hulls hammer testing can indicate where bulkheads are , it can identify areas of thin laminate and voids in the laminate and soft laminate which is more common than some people may imagine . On timber the hammer testing identifies areas of deteriorating and softened timber through rot , areas of unusually hard timber where quite often some hard fillers have been applied to possibly cover areas of rot and hammer testing is probably the most important primary tests for timber fibreglass and steel . It is completely non destructive and can start as the basis for further investigation if this is required . This also will be undertaken on the deck of fibreglass boats to establish whether the deck is a single skin or a coerd skin and similarly with timber boats in identifying areas of rotted plywood or rotted or deteriorating structure beneath paintwork and coatings . Obviously, the visual assessment of any vessel is important in looking for areas of distortion and suspicion of surface finishes . Each type of construction has its own idiosyncrasies and this is when experience comes into play . On fibreglass vessels there are occasional cracks known as hard spot cracks which sometimes do not look particularly significant but seriously structural , I still see some hard spot cracks on vessels that previously have been described as scratches by former surveyor . Again, this is a question of experience combined with hammer testing and the understanding of what the surveyor is looking at and testing.. Hard spot cracks on fibreglass hulls are always located over some internal stiffening such as a bulkhead or a fixed shelf where the hull or laminate flexes either side of this fixed structure and causes a hinge effect fracture
Here is one, but sometimes all you might see is just one vertical line and not necessarily a series of lines as can be seen here . The hard spot cracks can also run horizontally .