Fiberglassing over escape hatch openings, is this legal in the USA?

[Ken Pole]

Tjere apparently has been a recall on some Goiot hatches.

[roland stockham]

In my view the escape hatch is a necessary safety feature. When the yard said the CG would not certify it if they removed the hatch they were quite right. If you apply for a CG certification of your boat to carry paid crew or operate commercially you would have to replace the hatches. As a recreational boat they are recommended not compulsory.
As a suggestion why not keep the hatches and get whoever fitted them to look at the seal fitting, if done correctly they should not leak. BUT I would be concerned about having a large underwater opening on any boat (including those for motor legs!) Seals can always fail... I would want to double the hatch rather than remove it. This could either be a second opening hatch fitted over the current one or some form of breakable/cutable membrane over the outside with a hammer or knife attached - think the break glass on a fire point. Just an idea.

[waterman46]

Originally Posted by Nahbrown

Our hatches were getting salt creep so we had the seals replaced and Now they drip water.


I decided that I wanted them sealed permanently and have requested quotes from a few places. One yard responded that the Coast Guard wont certify our boat if we do this job.

I was under the impression that escape hatches were a European requirement.

Thoughts or references?

What? Certified? We don't have such silly rules on this side of the pond. The CG does not certify boat modifications if the boat is not used for commercial purposes such as carrying passengers. For private use, their authority is thankfully limited to stopping folks from "manifestly unsafe" operation of boats, and requiring basic safety and environmental equipment. Its a free country and its your boat, do as you wish. But think about the resale value.

[contrail]

As a long time operator of a charter catamaran, let me say that I do not know of many boats whose hatches do not leak. Nor do I know of a single case where crew escaped a capsized cat through said hatch. I also know of quite a few cats in which the escape hatch failed, leading either to the sinking of the boat or to lots of drama. In my considered opinion, they are a bureaucratic over reach and most certainly NOT a contributor to safety. The OP is not nuts....I have considered doing the same. I doubt if there would be any problem checking with your insurance company. Whether they OK'ed it or not, I do not know, but I am in the process of buying a cat that never had one, and the surveyor was not put off. As for "inspection", the cat would most likely be used, if in charter in the US, as a "non-inspected" vessel, with a MARAD waiver. If you look at most of the posts on this thread, many come from monohullers, and may thus lack a deeper understanding of the issue. If you believe that the EC always makes good safety decisions, you have only to look at their record on brass thruhulls and ball valves.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by contrail

As for "inspection", the cat would most likely be used, if in charter in the US, as a "non-inspected" vessel

Just for clarity ... CFR Title 46, Chapter 41, Uninspected Passenger Vessels makes no mention of escape hatches.

[Tortuga's Lie]

Another consideration would be if an uncontrollable fire broke out, the escape hatch could be the only exit point. Think of that charter dive boat a couple of years ago in California where 34 people died because the only exit was blocked by the fire. There was an escape hatch but it apparently led to the main cabin, which was engulfed in fire too.
I thought the escape hatch made for wonderful ventilation on an Antares 44 that I sailed on for almost a month. We could open it up at anchor and the breeze through it was great plus you could keep it open in the rain. Some hatches may be too low to the water to make this viable though. Just gotta remember to shut it when away as it becomes an easy access point for thieves.

[sailingchiro]

Mine were glassed in prior to my ownership. They made no mention of the hatches during the inspection for inspected vessel. Mine was made in Rhode Island. Isn't the 44 lagoon French built. Can it become inspected?

I have heard of more vessels flooding from hatches than crew needing the hatches. Accept for the youngster that opens them because it is cool. Just like the portholes. I can't tell you how many times we have water coming in through a porthole that a guest opened. I can't imagine a escape hatch at water level. Talk about ruining your day.

[Martkimwat]

Originally Posted by contrail

As a long time operator of a charter catamaran, let me say that I do not know of many boats whose hatches do not leak. Nor do I know of a single case where crew escaped a capsized cat through said hatch. I also know of quite a few cats in which the escape hatch failed, leading either to the sinking of the boat or to lots of drama. In my considered opinion, they are a bureaucratic over reach and most certainly NOT a contributor to safety. The OP is not nuts....I have considered doing the same. I doubt if there would be any problem checking with your insurance company. Whether they OK'ed it or not, I do not know, but I am in the process of buying a cat that never had one, and the surveyor was not put off. As for "inspection", the cat would most likely be used, if in charter in the US, as a "non-inspected" vessel, with a MARAD waiver. If you look at most of the posts on this thread, many come from monohullers, and may thus lack a deeper understanding of the issue. If you believe that the EC always makes good safety decisions, you have only to look at their record on brass thruhulls and ball valves.

Too true. I happen to know a former boat builder who was one of the individuals that were instrumental in creating the European RCD rules. He just couldn't get the point that if you specify that a through hull fitting has to last for 5 years, manufacturers will create through hull fittings that will only last for a tad over five years. It's just wrong thinking.

[sailingchiro]

As a thought, it is well known that a turtled cat can stay afloat quite awhile-days or even months. Any thoughts what happens when the air escapes such as a open hatch on the bottom of the boat-ie escape hatch. Just curious. Thoughts?

[GRIT]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

USA - Title 33, Federal Code of Regulations covers requirements for pleasurecraft construction and makes no mention of escape hatches.

Canada - Transport Canada, TP1332 covers the requirements for pleasurecraft and does have some specifications for escape hatches.

ABYC H-3 also has requirements.

Your insurance underwriter will almost certainly require ABYC compliance

Boatpoker, could you point out the section of the rules regards escape hatches in Canadian built boats for me please?

I built our boat to TP1332 specifications; the folks at the ministry helped me interpret the rules, and no-one said anything about escape hatches.

We have the infernal things, leaking as it seems they all do, only because my wife wanted them. They're good for letting in air at anchor, and water at sea.

Overall, I'd prefer not to have them.

Thanks Boatpoker.

Cheers.
Paul.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by GRIT

Boatpoker, could you point out the section of the rules regards escape hatches in Canadian built boats for me please?

I built our boat to TP1332 specifications; the folks at the ministry helped me interpret the rules, and no-one said anything about escape hatches.

It's not too specific and refers to "egress" and "exit" rather than escape (as do all other standards) but here it is

TP1332 10.2.1

https://tc.canada.ca/sites/default/f...ed/tp1332e.pdf

[GRIT]

Thanks Boatpoker.

I suppose a deck hatch could qualify, as per those rules. As you said, they're not overly specific, or onerous. Even the dimensions are flexible, if needed.

It's good to know I'd be ok even without the leaky escape hatches.

Thanks for looking that up for me.

Cheers.
Paul.

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by Nahbrown

Our hatches were getting salt creep so we had the seals replaced and Now they drip water.





I decided that I wanted them sealed permanently and have requested quotes from a few places. One yard responded that the Coast Guard wont certify our boat if we do this job.



I was under the impression that escape hatches were a European requirement.



Thoughts or references?

Boats are not "certified" by the USCG.

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by Franziska

This, and if you still want to glass it over, just use a very light cloth which you may be able to break when trying to get out.

You could even do this even just as a super light layup on the inside and add a Kevlar thread around the intented breaking seam.
Pull it hard and it will break your sealing glass skin...

I do not know of a single instance where the "escape" hatches on a Lagoon have ever been used for that purpose. Does anyone?

The only "purpose" I have ever seen them serve is creating maintenance hassles and swamping boats when they fail or are left open.

I would be just fine, in fact relieved, to glass those dangerous things over. Resell would be my only concern...because this false idea of an "escape" hatch is a wide spread marketting gimmick that naive future buyers may indeed think is actually a saftey feature (they are in fact a danger feature). Insurance underwritters, who seem to be uniquely clueless about boats, could also be operating under this delusion.

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by Pillroller

Notwithstanding the danger of glassing over an escape hatch, your insurance company would refuse ANY payments as you had wrongly modified your vessel.
I would not even try to ask the insurance company, it could give a wrong impression as to your competence.

I see this warning all the time but a careful reading of all the boat insurance policies I've had in my life not a one has included a clause about "wrongly modifying my vessel". Do you have firsthand experience with this happening to you or someone you personally know we'll and know of the incident? Does anyone else?

Just curious how this legally plays out, given that we all "modify" our vessels in some way be it to install cup holders or something more major like and air conditioner or a holding tank. What standard decides my new holding tank is "wrongly modifying" my vessel versus "rightly" doing so?