Visit our Popular Forums

Chief Engineer · 17-11-2009, 18:57

I have been on a number of vessels following a "survey".

On 4 of them the Racor 500FG filters were deemed unsuitable for use because they didn't have the flame shield. "Filter located in engine compartments must be......blah blah blah."

Interesting note....the 500fg cannot be retrofitted with a flame shield and be in compliance.......according to racor literature.......

The 900 and 1000 series can.

cat man do · 17-11-2009, 19:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief Engineer

I have been on a number of vessels following a "survey".

On 4 of them the Racor 500FG filters were deemed unsuitable for use because they didn't have the flame shield. "Filter located in engine compartments must be......blah blah blah."

Interesting note....the 500fg cannot be retrofitted with a flame shield and be in compliance.......according to racor literature.......

The 900 and 1000 series can.

So move the fuel filters out of the engine room?
Would that work?

Mine will be anyway, but then I don't have to adhere to US survey requirements

**skipmac** · 17-11-2009, 19:19

I was told the same on my survey but ignored the recommendation. Maybe I'm wrong but think the likelhood of a diesel fire about zero. I've even tried to use some old diesel to light a brush pile and had to try pretty hard to get it to light with a match. So am I courting death or is this just one more example of over compensation in safety regulations?

Oh yes, I was told by a Racor dealer that I could add the heat shield later but he could be wrong.

**David M** · 17-11-2009, 19:24

Heat shield or not I don't think makes much difference. What is far more important is to have a remote pull cable to shut off the fuel valve at the fuel tank, as well as a way of flooding the engine space with CO2 remotely or some other extinguishant.

**bstreep** · 18-11-2009, 09:27

Relocate the fuel filters. Stupid rules, but if, by chance, there is a fire, an insurance company could refuse to pay because of this.

Chief Engineer · 18-11-2009, 09:31

I find it very humorous that some of the "Name Brand" Sailing Vessels mount their fuel tanks in the engine space.......and they are worried about a fuel filter??????

Quote:

Originally Posted by bstreep

Relocate the fuel filters. Stupid rules, but if, by chance, there is a fire, an insurance company could refuse to pay because of this.

MJWEENZ · 18-11-2009, 09:58

Good point, Chief.
I can’t tell you how many gasoline powered cruisers I have been on with the tanks mounted right beside of or in front of the engines.
Mike
s/v Fair Wind

Blue Stocking · 18-11-2009, 10:41

FIRE RISK

Flammable liquids have two critical temperature factors:

A. Flash point is the lowest temp. at which the liquid will vaporize naturally and ignite when a flame is applied.

B. Auto ignition temp is the lowest temp at which the vapors will combine with free Oxygen in the atmosphere and spontaneously ignite without an outside ignition source.

For gasoline A is -45F and B is 950F
For No 1 diesel A is 150F And B is 450F

So diesel, in theory, has greater potential to vaporize, and auto-ignite if sprayed on a hot manifold.

As a fire investigator from '63 to '80, I had to argue pros and cons of keeping engines running while fueling in marinas.

Shutting down won out, but more because of the potentail of errant spark in the gasoline engines causing ignition of fueling vapors.

Every boat fire I investigated was caused at start up after fueling gasoline engines.

NFPA and USCG are very emphatic on this issue, but get one of them aside over a beer, and see what they say.

My figures I am recalling from memory, correct me if I am wrong.

PLease investigate for yourself, BUT run those blowers anyway.

**David M** · 18-11-2009, 10:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief Engineer

I find it very humorous that some of the "Name Brand" Sailing Vessels mount their fuel tanks in the engine space.......and they are worried about a fuel filter??????

Dang Chief...what could be more counter to common sense than that? ...especially with those plastic tanks.

donradcliffe · 18-11-2009, 13:04

I think the requirement for the shielded filter is only on UGC inspected vessels for commercial use.

Chief Engineer · 18-11-2009, 13:08

Although he did get a bunch of other things "wrong"

Quote:

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

I think the requirement for the shielded filter is only on UGC inspected vessels for commercial use.

He found a bunch of other things....that when I checked them, could not in all honesty replace them.....He looked at surface rust and assumed a lot.

sded · 18-11-2009, 13:15

From the "Ask the US Coast Guard" column:
"USCGBoating
Chromer

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 874 Re: Ask the U.S. Coast Guard
Quote:Originally Posted by CCollar
USCGBoating,

This is a question regarding fuel system components on a recreational vessel. I was recently advised that the fuel filter/strainer on my diesel vessel must conform to the Fire Test provision (as speced in 46 CFR?) -- that is, the filter bowl must either be metal, or have a metal flame deflector shield. Yet 33 CFR typically governs rec boats, and only specifies this provision for gasoline fuel systems.

I've also noticed that Racor recently changed their website to update their fuel strainer catalog, now divided into "on-road" plastic/lexan strainers and "marine" metal/metal shielded categories. (Also -- interesting note -- Racor notes in their catalog that installing a flame shield on the plastic bowl does not conform to USCG regulations.).

So, my question: are diesel powered rec vessels mandated to use metal or metal-shielded fuel filers/strainers, and if so, when did this change in regulation occur?

Thanks!

Craig

You are correct, the fuel system requirements for recreational boats are for gasoline systems only however, If you can afford to go to the ones that afford a higher level of protection I would consider it.

Dan"

Chief Engineer · 18-11-2009, 19:21

I checked 33 CFR and could find nothing about flame shields for diesel engines' filters.

Please correct me if I am wrong...if any surveyors are "lurking"