From another list:

RULE 33(a) is amended to read as follows:

(a) A vessel of 12 meters or more in length shall be provided with a
whistle, a vessel of 20 meters or more in length shall be provided with
a bell in addition to a whistle, and a vessel of 100 meters or more in
length shall, in addition, be provided with a gong, the tone and sound
of which cannot be confused with that of the bell. The whistle, bell,
and gong shall comply with the specifications in Annex III to these
Regulations. The bell or gong or both may be replaced by other equipment
having the same respective sound characteristics, provided that manual
sounding of the required signals shall always be possible.

Please note that the bell is no longer required on a vessel 12 meters or
more but less than 20 meters in length.

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/navrules2003.htm
_______________________________________________

Yep! That's the argument I made with the surveyor a couple years ago..

Steve
s/v Good Intention

Looks like that revision was effective only as of Nov 2003.

Question now is what are the regs inward of COLREGS demarkations?
I think state or Army Corps regs govern. Local water smokies could catch us
on a technicality.

Len

--
Eliminate "ns" for email address.

Yep! That's the argument I made with the surveyor a couple years ago..

Steve
s/v Good Intention

The "Inland Rules" would govern. Since the Inland rules are trying to
mirror the International closely and considering the reasoning for the
change (vessel size), I would bet that once they create the inserts to
correct your rules book, you will find this applying to both
international and inland.

Len Krauss wrote:
Looks like that revision was effective only as of Nov 2003.

Question now is what are the regs inward of COLREGS demarkations?
I think state or Army Corps regs govern. Local water smokies could catch us
on a technicality.

Len

State regs will often replicate Fed, e.g. in Oregon the 'bell' is
called out as required equipment ala what COLREGS were (or are for a
little while longer :-)

(Note that at least in Oregon, no usage rules, just you need to have
one.)

Might take a while for states to catch up. So.......

-al-


On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:10:51 GMT, otnmbrd
wrote:

The "Inland Rules" would govern. Since the Inland rules are trying to
mirror the International closely and considering the reasoning for the
change (vessel size), I would bet that once they create the inserts to
correct your rules book, you will find this applying to both
international and inland.

Len Krauss wrote:
Looks like that revision was effective only as of Nov 2003.

Question now is what are the regs inward of COLREGS demarkations?
I think state or Army Corps regs govern. Local water smokies could catch us
on a technicality.

Len

A surveyor has no business in this kind of thing.

Doug
s/v Callista

"Steve" wrote in message
...
Yep! That's the argument I made with the surveyor a couple years ago..

Steve
s/v Good Intention

"Doug Dotson" wrote in message
...
A surveyor has no business in this kind of thing.

Doug
s/v Callista


The seem to think they have a responsibility to verify all the safety
equipment..

I even had one surveyor who insisted (strongly recommended) that I have MOB
gear aboard even though she knew I was a single hander.. Said the insurance
companies wanted info in boat safety equipment.

Yah! I agree. But I know that they poke their nose into everything but the
areas they should be looking, like spungy decks, etc.

For the last insurance survey I went so far as to remove the life raft since
it was past it's inspection date and I didn't want him to list it and that
fact.

Both of the last two surveyors I have had were recommended by my insurance
company, even though I was paying for the survey.

Steve
s/v Good Intentions

I just wish there were some sort of standards for surveying. Each
surveyor seems to have their own personal issues they concentrate
on while glossing over or ignoring others. One surveyor listed a
number of "required items" which I complied with. A couple of
years later another surveyor listed "required items" that required
me to undo most of what the previous surveyor listed.

Doug
s/v Callista

"Steve" wrote in message
...

"Doug Dotson" wrote in message
...
A surveyor has no business in this kind of thing.

Doug
s/v Callista


The seem to think they have a responsibility to verify all the safety
equipment..

I even had one surveyor who insisted (strongly recommended) that I have
MOB
gear aboard even though she knew I was a single hander.. Said the
insurance
companies wanted info in boat safety equipment.

Yah! I agree. But I know that they poke their nose into everything but the
areas they should be looking, like spungy decks, etc.

For the last insurance survey I went so far as to remove the life raft
since
it was past it's inspection date and I didn't want him to list it and that
fact.

Both of the last two surveyors I have had were recommended by my insurance
company, even though I was paying for the survey.

Steve
s/v Good Intentions

Doug Dotson wrote:
I just wish there were some sort of standards for surveying ...

There are, only they are not widespread in the US. Almost all European and
many southern hemisphere countries have such regs. FWIW we sometimes see
Lloyd's specs in the US, but there is little indication that a _requirement_
for this will spread any time soon.


--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.tripod.com

"Doug Dotson" wrote in message
...
A surveyor has no business in this kind of thing.


Why do you say that?

I have had several surveys done, and each time I had the option of a
"limited" survey focusing on a specific item or a "general" survey that
covered overall value, integrity and condition.

The insurance company is going to want the overall survey, and they will
want to know that the vessel has all the "recommended" safety equipment,
which is often over and above the required list. In order to provide such a
survey to the insurance company, the surveyor DOES have the business of
being in this kind of thing.

Rod McInnis