An opinion in support of the proposed lifting device/hoist for gin pole replacement • The proposed lifting device/hoist will speed up the mast stepping and unstepping process significantly, lessen the chances of damage from unanticipated wave action, and improve the safety of the overall operation. • The powered rotation capability of the proposed lifting device will allow for boats with shorter masts to safely set the hoist away from the mast and have it stay in the same place while hoisting. The current gin pole swings toward the mast when hoisting because the polypropylene line stretches. This movement causes damage to the masthead equipment on boats with shorter masts right now. If you have a vessel with a shorter mast, the new lifting device will make the likelihood of damaging the masthead equipment significantly less than the current gin pole. • The greater height and rigid placement of the proposed lifting device/hoist will enable masts less than 38 feet to be hauled quickly and with minimal damage relative to the current gin pole. • The servicing of our current gin pole involves climbing 15 to 20 ft up and working off a ladder at that height. This is dangerous, and subject to potential serious injury. The proposed lifting device/hoist can be serviced from the ground safely and easily. A member or members can easily be trained to perform the servicing of the equipment if we feel the cost to have it done outside is too high (point of information - the hoist company that has submitted drawings and proposals per the presentation will provide winter/spring maintenance, and store the hoist, for $500 per annum). • By the letter of the Massachusetts law, all of our current yard equipment including the gin pole requires the operator to be licensed if used to hoist over 500lbs or lift anything more than 10ft. in the air. This law has been on the books for decades, and according to conversations with several individuals at the Department of Public Safety, has never been enforced at yacht clubs. They indicate that the intent of the law was never meant for circumstances like yacht club lifting devices – and thus is considered in the broad area of “unintended consequences”. Currently, most (100s) of the clubs (and more every day) in Massachusetts have some sort of powered hoists, and have for years and years. • As explained during the hoist presentation at the November meeting, the proposed lifting device/hoist will be built to a minimum standard – with the only significant difference between a 500 lb capacity powered device and the 3 ton capacity powered device being the strength of the electric motor doing the hoisting. The cost difference between the two motors is insignificant given the increased uses and ease of operation of the proposed lifting device/hoist. • Annually, about 20-30 club members step/unstep masts with the current gin pole considered by many to be dangerous, difficult to use, and just plain outdated. 1 Additionally, over 40 boats use the yard crane truck to step and unstep their masts – which is hard to use (sight problems), must be positioned by a yard crew member, and cannot handle real tall masts. And, some members need to hire an outside contractor to step/unstep their masts due to size of their rig. Not to mention the numerous members who might do quick bottom cleanings and repairs/maintenance if an appropriate lifting device was available for their use. The proposed lifting device/hoist would meet all of the above needs in a safer and more efficient fashion, and as a result service far more members’ needs, than the current gin pole. • The travel lift is an inefficient tool for hauling small boats that have single point hoist capabilities or can fit in the lifting strap arrangement that most clubs use with their hoists. The savings of wear and tear on the travel lift alone makes the proposed lifting device/hoist worthwhile. • The current budget includes no new fees or costs associated with the proposed lifting device/hoist. The proposed lifting device/hoist can easily be funded by our current budget. Dues at JYC have remained nearly stationary for the past 7 years including the current proposed budget. John Denman Jr. - Executive Committee Director 2
© Copyright 2024 ExpyDoc
