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

[fritzthecat]

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?

Hi, i have a Marquise 56 and lost the screen of the escape hatch on passage on the open sea.... since then I glassed both . A friend forgot to close one of his hatches and almost lost the cat. These escape hatches are only on french cats..... USELESS RISK

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by fritzthecat

Hi, i have a Marquise 56 and lost the screen of the escape hatch on passage on the open sea.... since then I glassed both . A friend forgot to close one of his hatches and almost lost the cat. These escape hatches are only on french cats..... USELESS RISK

Absolutely!

[chrisr]

Originally Posted by Happ

Why California? USCG is a national branch that actually has the right to board any vessel anywhere in the world.

sorry : that is rubbish. if your USCG tried to board us anywhere outside the usofa there would be a whole bucket load of trouble

cheers,

[doctorbill]

What about 3M 4400?

[Breaking Waves]

Originally Posted by chrisr

sorry : that is rubbish. if your USCG tried to board us anywhere outside the usofa there would be a whole bucket load of trouble

cheers,

This is off topic . . . but I think you would be surprised . . . USCG has bilateral arrangements with most of our allies, allowing them to board if they have some reasonable reason to do so. At most, they need to make a 5-minute call to a friendly Australian official in Washington to get them extra CYA permission.

Programs like this one: "Through TSC, the USCG regularly exercises 11 bilateral fisheries law enforcement agreements with countries throughout the Pacific islands region. These agreements enable USCG and U. S. Navy (USN) vessels and USCG law enforcement personnel to work with host nations to protect critical regional resources"

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by RnJBSailing

It is the boat BUILDER that legally certifies a boat is built to legal requirements (including safety). They must build a boat to meet the ABYC (and/or any country/local/state) standards where they build/sell their boats. The ABYC HANDBOOK discusses the multihull "hatches" specifically, which are for emergency egress (exit!).

If you glass them in and later something happens YOU could be in some legal jeopardy for removing a major safety feature.

Fix the hatch as others have said...it's just part of owning a cat in the dealing with leaks from time to time in those hatches.

No boatbuilders dont have to build to anything to ABYC for other than reasons of their own risk. ABYC is voluntary. I have managed a new boat building business.

[GRIT]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

. Of course, if in the course of this boarding the team should see a few bales of cocaine while diligently verifying the vessel's identity, it does make it much easier to get a statement of no objection to seize them from their flag country.wink:

No winking about it. That's an illegal boarding. It makes you wonder where those bales may have come from; perhaps you brought them on yourselves? How do the rest of us know where you draw the line?

If you're willing to break the law yourselves, to supposedly enforce the law, then you're not to be trusted enforcing it in the first place.

A vessel's state can easily be checked over internet (and I know you have that on USCG boats). A photo of the boat, AIS, Flag, owner and owner's address are all available without ever getting closer than you need to take a photo.

Any boarding to "check a boat's statelessness" is a typical over-reach, which is common for LEO's. It's illegal, whether you're held accountable or not.

I say again. Those countries that have agreements with the US, are obviously giving authority to board, in certain circumstances.
But to board with the excuse of checking for statelessness, or on a whim, is hogwash.

I've seen it, and dearly wish there was something that could be done about it. Unfortunately, when a bully's better armed than you, it's better to comply than die.

A LEO who abuses the law deserves no respect, and makes the job harder for law abiding LEOs everywhere. I have good friends, in several countries, who are law abiding LEOs, and that's their take on LEOs who abuse their powers. It makes their jobs that much more dangerous.

That's my last deviation from the thread's topic. Go ahead and have the last word.

Apologies, again, to the group. Please carry on.

Cheers.
Paul.

[chrisr]

Originally Posted by Breaking Waves

This is off topic . . . but I think you would be surprised . . . USCG has bilateral arrangements with most of our allies, allowing them to board if they have some reasonable reason to do so. At most, they need to make a 5-minute call to a friendly Australian official in Washington to get them extra CYA permission.

Programs like this one: "Through TSC, the USCG regularly exercises 11 bilateral fisheries law enforcement agreements with countries throughout the Pacific islands region. These agreements enable USCG and U. S. Navy (USN) vessels and USCG law enforcement personnel to work with host nations to protect critical regional resources"

apologies to all for going off topic but cannot let this go unanswered

key here is "to work with host nations"

while there may be a few nation states around the world that have some understanding allowing uscg to operate, i believe this will be to assist that nation state to apply it's laws (not to act like cowboys) and invariably there will need to be a representative of the nation state onboard when uscg acts on behalf of the nation state

that having been said, the statement that 'uscg can board any vessel anywhere in the world' is just plain wrong. i've just spoken to a mate in the nsw water police and his opinion is that if such was to happen here, the uscg would be in breach of laws including piracy and likely illegal entry into australia. same applies in most territorial / EEZ waters

while thuggery and guns might allow uscg to board small boats from small countries on the high seas, i'd like to see them try it with eg a chinese or russian vessel - they won't even dare do it in the disputed south china sea area.

(ps : and don't kid yourself that there are too many 'friendly australian officials in washington')

again apologies - thread drift over

cheers,

[fxykty]

Our escape hatches don’t leak. Is this really a very common issue?

We keep them open when berthed and when anchored in protected anchorages. Early on we forgot to close one and drowned a SSB radio - a fairly expensive lesson. Checking the escape hatches are closed is part of our predeparture check.

Practical usage? Not sure about that, though it would allow us to re-enter the boat in case of an inversion - swimming in via the cockpit and salon would be a non starter. Same for getting out if asleep in a hull during an inversion.

But it is fun for practical jokes - my wife has now convinced two female friends that peeing out the hatch is just the thing to do on our boat. It’s possible but does require some contortions.

[UFO]

Just caulked mine up as both were leaking - Worked a treat


I do keep a small pointed hammer to break them though if needed in each cabin.

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by chrisr

sorry : that is rubbish. if your USCG tried to board us anywhere outside the usofa there would be a whole bucket load of trouble

cheers,

So if you're 15 miles off Miami carrying a multi-ton load of cocaine all you need to do is throw up and Australia flag and proclaim that "there would be a whole bucket load of trouble" if you're boarded, then no worries mate, you're safe!

Like I carefully explained, doesn't work that way. If the Coast Guard had a dollar for every sea lawyer who threatened a "bucket load of trouble" they wouldn't need any congressional appropriations!

[chrisr]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

So if you're 15 miles off Miami carrying a multi-ton load of cocaine all you need to do is throw up and Australia flag and proclaim that "there would be a whole bucket load of trouble" if you're boarded, then no worries mate, you're safe!

Like I carefully explained, doesn't work that way. If the Coast Guard had a dollar for every sea lawyer who threatened a "bucket load of trouble" they wouldn't need any congressional appropriations!

in the highly unlikely event that we are ever 15 miles off miami then we are in usofa territory and uscg can do whatever they like, irrespective of flag. never disputed this.

the assertion was that qte 'uscg can board any vessel anywhere in the world' uqte

this is utter nonsense. if uscg tried to board us 15 miles off sydney, they would be in a whole bucket load of trouble as they would be breaking so many laws it's hard to know where to start

cheers,

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by chrisr

in the highly unlikely event that we are ever 15 miles off miami then we are in usofa territory and uscg can do whatever they like, irrespective of flag. never disputed this.

the assertion was that qte 'uscg can board any vessel anywhere in the world' uqte

this is utter nonsense. if uscg tried to board us 15 miles off sydney, they would be in a whole bucket load of trouble as they would be breaking so many laws it's hard to know where to start

cheers,

Again to apologize for the thread drift, but seriously, if one isn't even aware of what constitutes international waters (12 NM offshore, with a bunch of caveats I'm happy to discuss if you are familiar with them), then why would one think one was in any position of expertise on international law to tell someone who literally did this for a living that they're wrong?

International law is a somewhat arcane and very different thing from what folks generally think of as "law". If one hasn't taken some courses or studied it, they're going to be sea lawyering their way around with their personal opinion on how they think the world should work, which can vary vastly from how the world actually works.

In reality the Coast Guard is not an organization of jack booted thugs hanging out 15 miles outside Sydney boarding Australian cruisers. But it wouldn't be at all uncommon for you to find them 500 miles offshore from American Samoa a whole lot closer to Australia than the mainland U.S., and under international law they legally can board your vessel regardless of your feelings on the matter or the fact there is a picture of your boat on the internet or anything else that has been brought up here. The chances they will are vanishingly small, but that doesn't change the fact that they can. You can certainly disagree with if this is right or not, but unless you have some background in international law, I'd respectfully submit that you aren't in a position to determine its legality under international law. One would hope that instead of yelling at the messenger about how wrong thy are, one would thank them for informing them of something they didn't previously know and be happy for the opportunity to learn something new? And maybe, if one found the whole area of international law interesting, take some courses or do some research to learn more?

[belizesailor]

No need for those of you taking thread off course to apologize...just act...and move the unrelated conversation to another thread. In fact there is an active thread on the boarding subject right now.


https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink/top...ink_source=app

[Dsanduril]

Under 46USC70503 the USCG can board any vessel “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” Much of what this entails was settled in United States vs. Aragon when the US boarded a vessel on the high seas that turned out to have a very small decal of an Ecuadorian flag on the stern.

Jurisdiction of the US covers any vessel in US waters, any US flagged vessel anywhere, and under 46USC70502 “a vessel without nationality.”. To claim nationality:

(1) possession on board the vessel and production of documents evidencing the vessel's nationality as provided in article 5 of the 1958 Convention on the High Seas;

(2) flying its nation's ensign or flag; or

(3) a verbal claim of nationality or registry by the master or individual in charge of the vessel.

Once a claim of nationality (other than US) is made it is illegal (and very well decided in case law) for the US to board, or continue a boarding, a non-US vessel outside US waters - with the significant exception of bilateral agreements, but in that case the US is technically acting as an enforcement arm of the nation with whom they have a bilateral agreement.

All of the above is based on 46USC705xx, the Marine Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA), which was found unconstitutional last year and may end up at the Supreme Court (United States v. Davila-Mendoza).

Defendants, three foreign nationals in a foreign vessel in the territorial waters of Jamaica, were arrested by the United States Coast Guard with the consent of the foreign country and prosecuted in the United States for drug-trafficking crimes under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA). Defendants pleaded guilty and preserved their right to appeal the denial of their motion to suppress.

The Eleventh Circuit vacated defendant's convictions, holding that the MDLEA is unconstitutional and exceeded Congress's authority under the Foreign Commerce Clause. The court also held that, as applied to defendants, the MDLEA was not a valid exercise of Congress's authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause to effectuate the subsequently enacted 1989 Convention Against Illicit Traffic Treaty and the 1997 Jamaica Bilateral Agreement between the United States and Jamaica.