Engine room systems design parameters (safety.)

How many realise that any vessel over 25m MUST have a gravity fed main-engine fuel system (day tank or self-replenishing type), and that it is an absolute requirement by Lloyds as well as most certification societies? How many realise why and how this affects basic safety, as well as half a dozen other elements of operation?

How many know and understand the actual parameters of legal engine room ventilation systems and that these also affect insurance status. How many know why these rules exist? Or that the majority of yachts do not comply, even though the legal systems are usually cheaper to construct?

As, amongst other things, a surveyor, I see that many in the yacht construction industry have, and are still being, either horribly cynical, naive, or wholly negligent (and stupid) by not adhering to these absolutely basic safety design parameters, and I'm tired of being expected to ignore the rules.

There seem to be about a dozen areas where required design parameters are being ignored completely on supposedly 'quality' new yachts, sometimes all of them on one vessel, and yet they still get an MCA sticker.

The problem has always been endemic in US and 'southern European' vessels, and has now even appeared on one or two vessels from younger Northern European companies. This is the last straw. I trusted the low countries!
I believe it's about time that real yard-engineers and older wiser (sea-time experienced) designers, engineers and captains started to make a noise.

So this is to ask if other's have noticed this over the years, or even care, and, if so, anyone would like to get together (initially over a beer, not a boardroom table) and do something about it?

I have found that many yachts, supposedly complying, are nowhere near as far as e.r. systems parameters are concerned. Further, have found most inspectors totally unaware of the problems or their possible consequences.
Maybe one should point out that, in general terms, the noted German and Dutch yards know what they are doing and rarely make these mistakes.

Why the sarcasm? Is this not considered a serious enough subject? Quite obviously, in relation to fuel supply, one is referring to compression ignition engines in vessels over 25m. As for sneering at one's use of the word 'any'; suggest you read the pertinent sections and you will see that Lloyds, quite understandably I feel, seem to have made the same miniscule error.

Lloyds syndicates .... (something.)
Agreements on marine construction...(etc.)
Power driven vessels over ... (etc.)
Post bunkers fuel supply and control systems....
Was part of your engineering syllabus.

First, I posted this to open a serious professional discussion, not a competition in smart answers.
Second, the 'regulations' as such, either insurance or industry, probably weigh about a ton and I hold only a very few dog eared copied pages of the relevant sections from past chiefs, masters and my school days at Warsach etc.
Third, the point does not dispute the rules correctness or not. Nor their efficacy. The latter has been 'evolved' by better men than me over half a century or more, and it was those men, some of whom did not survive the process, that pushed for E.R. parameters to be updated.

My point is simply to ask why, today, commercial (cargo carrying etc.) ships are built to one tried and tested standard while yachts (ie. people carrying.) , except by those yards in Holland, Germany and a few other places, seem to be able to constructed completely outside the standard parameters and still be considered (and certified) as safe. Does nobody else notice this?

This forum was really for marine engineers. But to answer your question in simplest possible terms, gravity supply provides numerous safety advantages such as instant starting (essential in the days of direct drive.), impossibility of air ingress into system, initial fuel settlement, accurate usage calibration, accurate fuel quality control checking, instant bleeding etc.
There are numerous other practical advantages as well, but these are too many really to list here.
The fire issue is not really an issue and, surprisingly, the manifold complexity is usually less than seen on (incorrect) constant suction supply type.
Hope this helps. But as I mentioned, this forum was really to ask engineers etc. if something should be done to correct the slackness in the construction certification.

Yes, sort of, if we are only discussing day tanks. Gravity feed (ie. lack of air in system.) is just one of numerous safety and practical advantages, not the least of which is the engineers proper practical control of the main engine to get a reliable supply of clean fuel.
This is not about the rules. It's about practical everyday safety. I only used the rules to point out that if Lloyds demand it, it's probably worth considering.

But I also now regularly see stuff like incorrectly panelled deck-heads (to hide wiring etc. one supposes.), air supply systems that blow (sometimes salty) air onto engines instead of sucking off the hot, feedways that terminate above the bilge, negative engine room pressures, incorrectly installed fire systems, plastic pneumatic shut off control lines, programmable main engine control systems without bypasses.etc.
The list goes on and on and, sometimes, there are eight or ten of these basics on the same CERTIFIED boat!
It's like betting on an inside royal flush, never mind a straight.

..and I keep finding 'day tanks' below the injections systems....and sized so as to require constant replenishment ..... maybe someone could explain to this old fool the advantage in that?

Listen, I don't know all the ****ed rules in my head, only those sections that have been written in stone, and which I've been using, since Christendom. And I don't admire your tone that suggests some dishonesty on my part.
The 'rules' are not the point.
The simple point is that the e.r. installation and systems engineering in 'yacht' yards, seems to totally ignore most of the fundamental RULES and if it's a good idea, or not, just to leave it that way.
Or if anyone cares.
If you can't bring positive discussion to that discussion, then please ignore it. And if you want to read the exact regulations, the Lloyds syndicates full definitions included, word for word to check my veracity, then call Ince and Co in London and ask them. But to any engineer, most installation parameters are tried and tested common sense, and he doesn't need to carry about the bible to do his job.

I already answered this question. I don't store the entire Lloyds construction regs here. I also don't store the entire Monaco traffic regulations in my car ... but I happen to know it's 100% legal for me to drive without a seat belt here. Get it?
If you don't BELIEVE me then OK ... ignore me. And I'm not about to do proven notarial due diligence into regulations for those I'm just trying to advise on safety.

This is a SAFETY ISSUE. The POINT IS that many (in my mind the majority) of yachts presently being produced outside northern Europe seem to be ignoring MANY of age old fundamental safety design parameters that have been developed over many, many years, and are STILL getting certified.
And yet this happens rarely in commercial shipyards. Why? Does anyone care, or is image and the naive client's money now everything, even to the classification auditors?

I apologise if my English is such that I gave the impression that the rules were the issue. They were not. I meant to use them only as an eye opener to the problem.
Lloyds rules are often sometimes over-stringent, and sometimes seem even designed to trip up claimants.
But the fact remains that most societies (..not RINA ... unsurprisingly.) have long demanded similar systems parameters for a very good reason.

Sarcasm? Is it immoral or in some way wrong to want to discuss and focus on an increasingly problematic safety issue with other engineers? Sorry, I don't get it. But then that wouldn't be the first time.