Pacific 22 commercial coding

b-pacific · 23 February 2011, 07:58

Hi
I am trying to get a Pacific 22 coded and hope someone out there might have the stability data and swamp test data. It is a Victoria built boat so I don't know if they were any different from the halmatic ones.

Any help would be much appreciated.

Work going on! why 'o' why were brass screws used to hold down the ply covers?? When they all shear off when trying to take them out. Will one large hatch across the back work??

Leg ready for priming - eventually

B-Pacific

Pete7 · 23 February 2011, 10:37

Which organisation are you using as the coding authority? When I coded my P22 in 2003 I used YDSA so if you use them they should have the documentation on file under the boat name of "Old Spice".

Howver, it wasn't a drama to do the stability test in accordance with the yellow book (MGN 280) and use live bodies to sit and move around the boat with the tubes inflated and deflated etc.

This gives more information as does the MCA website (MGN 280).

http://www.ydsa.co.uk/mca.html

Pete

Pete7 · 23 February 2011, 10:39

Use a piece of Ali chequer plate across the stern with a hatch in it, much easier and change the exhaust hose before you seal it down.

Pete

martini · 23 February 2011, 15:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by b-pacific

Work going on! why 'o' why were brass screws used to hold down the ply covers??

A bit late now but it's much easier to just crowbar the deck off then use a bolt extractor mounted in a cordless drill to remove the screws left behind

b-pacific · 23 February 2011, 19:44

Thanks for that - I'll see how I go on with the YBDSA.
I think I'm going to make an ali hatch that cover all three compartments at the back, so access to the whole back end is easier. Ric

Searider · 24 February 2011, 20:50

I surveyed Old Spice for Pete for MCA coding and took the view that with the very low original transom the boat didn't swamp.

No problems for coding stability wise.

b-pacific · 26 February 2011, 19:40

Thanks for that -
Unfortunately someone started the coding process and the transom has been raised. It seems most surveyors go by the book and require the correct height of transom above the waterline, unable to make a measured decision based on the history of the boat. I feel it has made the boat less safe, as she will hold a huge amount of water, all of which now has to drain out of the drains rather than over the transom. Ho hum.

It seems sensible to to the full on the water tests as the whole seating and helm positions have been changed from the original.

Ric

Searider · 28 February 2011, 23:16

Hi Ric,

If the boat is different from "standard" or pete7s "Old Spice", then yes - you need to carry out the swamp test.

I would suggest you call some of the surveyors in your area and find one who has experience of carrying out swamp tests. It needn't be as traumatic as it sounds.

Duncan

Ian Austin · 01 March 2011, 08:26

Hi
I had mine coded by Mecal and there was a bit of an issue with the free board, that was until the suveyor contacted His boss and they then measured from the top of the engine box, i was told it was because the engine box is classed as sealed

b-pacific · 01 March 2011, 19:50

Thanks for that Ian - Mecal started the coding process and it was their surveyor that required a transom extension that has brought it up to the height of the engine compartment. Plus new tube drains had to be made rather than the originals, these reduced the drain area by 2/3rds. So I've now removed them and am fitting gasketed hinged flaps to open them up to a better size.

Out of interest, how many were/are you coded for and did it take long to get on the plane. Plus how did you get round the emergency steering bit. I plan to fit a by-pass on the pipes and somehow fit a tiller to the top of the leg!
Ric

C2 RIBS · 01 March 2011, 20:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by b-pacific

. Plus how did you get round the emergency steering bit. Ric

We had a stainless bar made which is about two foot long and bent to fit around transoms etc. One end fits onto a position on the engine by the steering yolk , the bar is stored in a locker. I will try to post some images tomorrow eve.

Ian Austin · 01 March 2011, 23:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by b-pacific

Thanks for that Ian - Mecal started the coding process and it was their surveyor that required a transom extension that has brought it up to the height of the engine compartment. Plus new tube drains had to be made rather than the originals, these reduced the drain area by 2/3rds. So I've now removed them and am fitting gasketed hinged flaps to open them up to a better size.

Out of interest, how many were/are you coded for and did it take long to get on the plane. Plus how did you get round the emergency steering bit. I plan to fit a by-pass on the pipes and somehow fit a tiller to the top of the leg!
Ric

Hi Ric
My pac had no modifications to the origional setup to get through the codeing, if you are having trouble send me a PM and i will send you the suveyors phone number, he should be able to speak to your surveyor and point him in the right direction

there is no reason to alter the transom, i still had the origional scuppers.

Had mine coded for 6 but said i could push to 9 if i wanted.

Emergency steering is a peice of p*ss, fit an outboard

, i know you can have a pair of oars for secondary propulsion but you wont get far with them, outboard works well here to.

weight distrubution is more the key to get onto the plane, sit 4 adults on the back of the engine box and i doubt it will get there.

C2 RIBS · 02 March 2011, 16:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by C2 RIBS

We had a stainless bar made which is about two foot long and bent to fit around transoms etc. One end fits onto a position on the engine by the steering yolk , the bar is stored in a locker. I will try to post some images tomorrow eve.

I need to wake up, I can see you have no outboard so my system is useless for you. Guess secondary engine outboard reserve

DGR · 03 March 2011, 18:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by b-pacific

...Mecal started the coding process... ...Plus how did you get round the emergency steering bit. I plan to fit a by-pass on the pipes and somehow fit a tiller to the top of the leg!

Firstly - sorry to crash a PAC thread!!

Secondly - my Ribcraft was coded by MECAL (Cat 4)- the emergency steering that I had was in the event of a failure - I identified which pipes I would need to cut to relieve the pressure to move the outdrive leg, and then I had a wooden contraption (v. small) that fitted onto the top of the leg, to which I could fit a paddle as a tiller (I had to carry paddles as a secondary form of propulsion...

). MECAL were happy with that as a 'get you home' solution.

My advice would be to speak to the assessor to see what he wants - the guy that came out to mine was really good and spent a couple of hours helping me rig the boat whilst we discussed the coding!!

b-pacific · 03 March 2011, 19:40

Its interesting that they were happy that you could cut the pipes, I assumed there would have to be a by-pass valve. It does make easier to crack open a couple of joints - but messy.

I can't find anything in the Yellow Code book about emergency propulsion. Is this in the new consolidated code?. My experience is that it is completely unrealistic to move most RIBs with paddles. The vast majority of coded motor vessels are single engined and they don't have a requirement for emergency propulsion
Ric