Well heres an update, sort of.
I spoke with an engineer from transport canada today, as well as my builder afterwards. Before I begin Id like to make it clear that I respect the work my builder does as well as his company, and Im not trying to drag his name or his companys name through the mud, but I do take issue with one design aspect in particular of the build. Its hard to discuss this candidly without sounding like Im taking shots at him, and its something Ive tried to stay mindful of ever since the sea trial when I first confirmed that there was an issue with how the deck sat in relation to the waterline. I respect the fact that he has many years experience as a builder at various local shops on the island, but with that said Ive also been operating boats all my life and I feel pretty confident in my own ability to assess how safe a vessel is and how a safe vessel should operate. Everything that I say here is said with the utmost respect for my builder, the process, and the boat in question. Its a quality vessel that provides a smooth ride and has some awesome features, but there are issues in the design that make it likely not the vessel for me.
After poring over countless TC pdf files, it turns out the 3" deck height minimum when under full load, and with anti-flowback devices, is for boats built up to 2005. Anything built after 2005 falls under whats set out in various ISOs - Insustry Organization Standards. For boats in the class and size of the one in question, a lot of it comes down to a practical floatation and stability test. Crudely put, the engineer I spoke to with TC advised me to get 5 people and some weight to simulate gear and pile it all in 1 corner and see what happens. He suspected as did I that this would put the deck below the waterline, but emphasized that this is the only way to know for sure. In order for it to be TC certified as a passenger vessel, I would have to pay an engineer to perform this test and give it a rating (effectively a rubber stamp by the engineer and builder that guarantees its safety for x amt of people and x amt of weight) and then submit the paperwork to TC. So in effect I didnt get any hard and fast answers to my questions but I got a general sense of what would be acceptable.
Personally I feel that if the deck isnt dry under fully loaded conditions during a stability test, its not something I want. When I ordered the boat I made it clear that I wanted an offshore style hull with a self bailing deck and foam floatation, with everything done to TC certifiable standards for guiding. Like Ive said before if Im investing this much money in a vessel that I plan to keep for many years to come, I dont want to have to settle on things like standing water in the stern. The TC engineer agreed although he wouldnt say how exactly standing water in the stern would affect the TC certification. With a known builder who has a proven design this isnt normally a problem but it seems to be bit of a grey area in this scenario.
So after all of this, I spoke with my builder. He told me that he had added some weight to the bow chain locker (100lbs) as well as more weight in the bow storage compartment (200lbs) and then filled a container in the stern with 120 litres of water, and had 2 friends standing on the transom to simulate a full load. He said the boat sat above the waterline and no water entered the deck. He also mentioned that he had added some isolation valves throughout the boat, and I believe he may have moved the gas tank and widened the pod a few inches. To me these are bandaid fixes and Im not satisfied with them. Additionally, the test described above is not how a real stability test is performed. We went back and forth a bit and I reiterated my preference that he sell the hull to someone else and start my build over if that was possible. He suggested that I come to Campbell River and see for myself the results of the changes he made. I am sure that in theory a balance could be achieved by juggling the weight in the boat, disregarding the effect on the stance of the boat and its performance, but in a practical sense thats not what a stability test is about, and the only purpose his test serves is to mask the issue. Boats are not always perfectly balanced. When guiding, often people will rush to one side of the boat to get a glimpse of the action. Sometimes the boat will be loaded with fish and ice as well as passengers and that amount of weight cant always be managed in an ideal way. Sometimes weight shifts. Sometimes youll take a wave over the side or bow. Things happen on the water, and a stability test is designed to test the safe limits of a vessel - not to hide them from view.
So where does this leave me? I guess I have to take a trip to CR next week and perform my own stability test, which will be much more rigorous than a simple balancing act in disguise. I suspect the deck will sit under water with a heavy load in one corner, water will seep in through the ping pong style scuppers, and Ill be left feeling the same way about the issue that I felt before I made the 7 hour round trip. Perhaps Ill be proven wrong but at this point I feel quite strongly that the best solution is to part ways with this hull and have it built with higher sides and a higher seated deck.
Congrats if you made it through reading all that.
