Paul C

Woah hang on..........for Cat D RCD/RCR requirements, the boat builder themselves can self-certify. So you can't say "the boat doesn't comply" if its been certified as complying!! Only a suitably qualified surveyor can negate the original compliance, or at least fail it on a PCA. If the issue is, you BELIEVE the boat doesn't meet the underlying standards, but it has RCD/RCR, then that's a different matter. An internet forum expert, no matter how experienced, isn't the builder and isn't a qualified surveyor.

Well.....no. There should never (in normal use) be any current from hull to negative terminal of the battery. The bonding is done to ensure eg a circuit breaker pops in a fault condition rather than raising the potential of the hull. If the hull is being used as a return path, it either indicates a faulty installation of something, or a stray connection by something else to the hull (which is also a fault).

But that would be a voltage drop between nominally grounded (negative) points which would always been seen, to a greater or lesser extent, in normal use. We're talking about the fault condition of a current flow between battery negative and hull, which should never occur.

The easy way to do it is go on Midland Chandlers website and pick one item from every category they list.

I suspect on a graph of cost vs compliance, an asymptote is reached rather than an axis.

Maybe.......but then it depends on their approach to how thorough to be. At the end of the day, we're dealing with a fairly simple metal fixing on a steel hull which can be easily visually inspected and assessed for ultimate strength. Thus suitability for the intended job, and pass/fail of that item on the PCA, is not contentious. Since the requirement isn't quantitative, I understand where you're coming from. An analogy might be towbar fixings or artic 5th wheel kingpins etc. The manufacturer engineers these and specifies all the pertinent physical aspects (material, size, fixtures, inspection/maintenance schedule) to it gives clarity on what might be a 'grey' area into a black/white issue.

The PCA surveyor has looked at 1 boat (the OP's) and deemed that the T-stud on that boat isn't strong enough. It doesn't mean that other T studs on other boats aren't strong enough.

Sorry to not answer the question, but it needs clarification. Firstly, when you say multimeter, do you mean a multimeter set to read voltage? Or something else? Because its a multimeter........it can read resistance and current (and probably a few more things) too. Its worth clarifying, although I'm 99% sure you do mean DC voltage. But never assume.... Secondly, a voltmeter reads potential difference between 2 points. So when you say "connect the negative to the hull" what do you mean? The negative (black) lead of the multimeter? Where is the other lead connected - the hull too? The negative battery terminal? etc. Also worth mentioning, the (thick) cable that connects the battery negative to the hull doesn't carry any current in normal operation. Its only in fault conditions it would carry current. The idea being, that if a wiring fault occurred which let a positive wire touch the hull, instead of raising the potential of the hull it would flow a current which would trip a circuit breaker or maybe blow a fuse if fitted. Yes in normal non-fault conditions, you'd want to see 0.000V between the battery negative and the hull.

Maybe I needed to preface it with "all else being equal" I'd go for ignition first? Obviously there's some boats which hide away the ability to stop the engine quickly in an emergency. And having the ignition inside makes running the engine while moored up in the rain, nicer.

The 3 bar will probably achieve a higher percentage of the nominal flowrate in its specification, all else being equal. So you'd need to make some kind of adjustment on the mixer shower, with the mixer control you already have. But as stated before, it won't ACTUALLY be anywhere near 3 bar (or 2 bar) the pump is pressurising the water to, it will be in the order of 0.1-0.5 bar as determined by the pipework inner diameter, length, number of bends/fittings etc and how much open the tap/flow control lever of the shower is.

Ah is a terrible unit.

reminds me of the inclined plane on the Elbląg Canal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbląg_Canal

I would say that epoxy filler is appropriate for areas such as cabin sides, where you might want a cosmetic improvement. For underwater areas of the hull, the cosmetic aspect is not relevant - but protecting it for the future, given the discovery or knowledge of pitting, is. At a minimum, it would be a good idea to bang on some blacking, but ideally fill the pits with weld (very easy to do with a MIG welder), then prep and black it.

1) If ever someone fell in near the prop of our boat, the first thing I'd do is go for the ignition and kill the engine. 2) Our boat has a lifering which is reachable from the controls/stern deck while driving. Never needed it, probably wouldn't bother to deploy on a shallow/normal section of canal, but we occasionally go on deeper canals and rivers so its there ready for use.

Bow thrusters and their use are a contentious subject. The reason bow thrusters are rarely found in a hire boat is because it costs money, it’s not necessary and the types of manoeuvres they are helpful for, aren’t normally done by hire boats. These types of things are, for example, long stretches in reverse, or mooring backwards onto a marina berth. An owned boat might have a linear on-canal mooring where the water point, or pump out, is the other end of a long line of moored boats. So an extended reverse, the forwards again into the mooring, might be not too uncommon for a liveaboard. A hire boat is much more likely to be on a progressive cruise, so can avoid going backwards (at all, if it’s a cruising ring). Similarly, hire boats tend not to visit marina berths. Even then, you can go in forwards and reverse out, to make it much easier. There are weak reasons for reversing in eg mains hookup or door access that a liveaboard or marina moored boat might favour. And if the hire base is within a marina, typically the boat is collected facing out from the berth, then you drive in return forward and during the turnover the staff would turn it. If you did reverse out it doesn’t need BT and the staff doing the handover would probably do it. Dint get me wrong, there’s a few instances where a BT is handy to have, and it can make the boat do things one without can’t, but there’s always a way round the issue.

I think we know this was a rhetorical question but.....no, the above two posts (including the enormous copy & paste) relates to COUNCIL TAX, not PLANNING PERMISSION.

Sometimes it is the physical nature of the building itself which decides whether it needs planning permission or falls under ‘permitted development’; and sometimes it is the use, or more accurately the frequency of use.