Aha! I have a copy of the survey report
All is good ... well ish
The first item of some concern is that Toby found very high moisture levels over the whole of the bottom. This is a bit of a puzzler. There are no signs of any structural problems or delamination though which is good.
I've been giving this some thought and doing some research and I've concluded that it's almost certainly a false indication (to some extent at least) due to the unusually thick layer of epoxy on the hull. "Erbas" was professionally peeled (had the gelcoat removed in other words) and dried out for 18 months before having a whopping eleven, yes eleven, coats of epoxy applied below the waterline in 2000 / 2002
It seems unlikely that she'd have been totally dry even after 18 months so doubtless that process sealed some moisture permanently into the hull where it'll do no harm at all if it hasn't done so already but given that even a coat of antifoul can mess up a moisture meters readings, what is eleven layers of epoxy going to do to it?!
So after due consideration, unless the insurers take fright at it, we're going to take note and do nothing!
We've got a couple of items to sort out - slightly surprised to be advised that there appears to be no split pin or securing grub screw on the propeller nut. Surprised because it's a new propeller fitted this year and the current owner over-engineers everything to the highest standards with nothing left to chance (I guess on submarines you don't get to call out the RNLI for a tow home when it goes pear shaped!). So we'll have to have a look at that and do something about it - shouldn't be too much of a problem to drill a hole and fit a split pin.
We knew the fire extinguishers on board were a bit dated so that came as no surprise. I'm also no fan of dry powder and the automatic in the engine bay will get swapped for a halon substitute automatic. The engine and ancillary gear will still be serviceable after that goes off whereas the dry powder jobby might (if we're lucky) put the fire out but it will also ruin anything hot it comes into contact with
The two big AFFF foam extinguishers will be transferred off old Brigantia and they'd be my weapon of choice for most shipboard fires especially involving petrol for example (although that will be less of an issue now of course but we'll still be carrying some for the tender outboard). They're not ideal for alcohol fires though as the alcohol prevents the foam film from forming properly. However, an alcohol fire is very susceptible to simple action with a fire blanket or, if necessary, a bucket of water so I'm not overly concerned.
The one area where I do have a concern is an electrical fire inside equipment such as the Sterling battery management unit or the inverter (acquired from the Bosuns Stores last weekend and to be fitted in due course!). This is the one area where the otherwise utterly useless CO2 extinguisher comes into its own. Or better yet a small Halon but we're not allowed those because so many of them were set off it buggered up the ozone layer. Trouble is, you can't get the little aerosol gas extinguishers any more and the smallest CO2 job is still a pretty big beast. Dry powder is an absolute no-no as far as I'm concerned in this application because it will mullah every piece of hot electrical equipment, faulty or otherwise, it comes into contact with. Worse, it's not that good at dealing with fires inside enclosures because, unlike a gas based extinguisher, the powder isn't great at penetrating through vents and apertures and then flooding the inside of the casing. We're thinking on that one.
The one bone of contention is over the glassing in of plastic skin fittings. It's been recommended as standard practice but I'm not in favour of it at all! In theory, it protects the fitting in the event of something hitting it. In practice, what is going to hit a skin fitting underneath the cabin sole? (It does nothing to protect the fitting from external damage but as the fitting is all but flush with the hull that's unlikely to happen anyway)
What is more, glassing in the fitting renders any inspection or maintenance of the nut and seal all but impossible without totally removing the fitting and replacing it with a new one. I prefer to be able to examine the nut and check it is secure and the fitting is undamaged and, if necessary, to be able to dismantle, re-bed and refit the fitting in the event of any leakage
And the final killer blow is that I strongly suspect that any attempt to glass in a skin fitting in an older hull is doomed to failure anyway. In the unlikely event of the fitting being struck with sufficient force by a heavy enough object to shear it off, I would put a not inconsiderable sum of money on the same circumstance simply removing the fitting AND the lump of mat and resin which for a certainty won't bond well to the existing hull interior surface
Other than that, nothing much to write home about. Need to check and replace if necessary the anode bolts although I suspect they'll be up to snuff given how well maintained she is.
So now I am waiting on the insurers acceptance of the survey and my additonal comments thereon and if all is well we move on to the penultimate step - paying for her!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment