Coast Guard Approved Flame Arrestor

[Shriveguy]

Hello To All:
While moving my boat from its old home in Seattle to it new home in the South Puget Sound (Lakebay, WA) I experienced some engine trouble - I have been working out the bugs on the A-4 in our boat for quite a while and thought after many hours of running the motor at the dock that we had finally figured it out (dirt in the idle jet) - we got through the locks just fine, hoisted our mainsail and away we went, only to run out of wind a short time later - so back to the motor we went - after about an hour of running at cruising speed the motor started to spit and sputter occasionally, but would come back to running o.k. - then the sputtering got worse and she died (right in the ferry lanes) - we still had the main hoisted, but the wind was less than 1 knot and sporatic in direction - we were sitting ducks - we called the Coast Guard to allert them to our position to avoid being run over by a ferry - after a while we got a little wind, hoisted the jib and got out of the ferry lanes - then the calvary arived - the Coast Guard did a boarding and inspection of our boat, and she passed with flying colors, with the exception of the flame arrestor - I have the original style flame arrestor on our late model A-4 - it is complete and in good working order - the Coast Guard said that it was not a Coast Guard approved flame arrestor - is this true, or are they just misinformed - please help

James

[Bradley]

Bump...

The Friendly Coasties of Puget Sound told me the same thing when the boarded me to do an inspection in February.

[luvmyi36]

I was boarded about 2 years ago by the USCG. They were VERY thorough in their inspection of my boat, including the flame arrestor. Mine is the factory installed (I think) version, and they had no problems with it. I also had just purchased new flares, and on the old pack had written "EXPIRED, For training purposes only" in big black Sharpie. This was one of the first things they checked, and I think once they saw that I had taken the time to actually write that on the packaging the rest of the inspection went smoothly. That said, I also would be interested in hearing a verdict from somebody more knowledgable on the subject.

[sastanley]

Pictures! USCG approved

Hi there..
I realize this thread is a little bit old, but since it has recent replies and I happen to have the carb partially disassembled and sitting on the workbench in the garage for cleaning, I could snap some pics!

The paint is peeling off, but if they'd cranked their heads around to the side of the housing (and upside down looking at the orientation!), they'd see that it is stamped right on there. "U.S.C.G. APPROV'D"

These pics are from a late model Atomic 4 in Catalina 30 hull #511. All original, except for the Indigo PCV kit, and an MMI manifold (not pictured).

I ran out of carb cleaner so it lays still half apart on the workbench...the stuff that came out of it looked like brown varnish...tomorrow's project.

Edit - Wow, this forum software is great..I uploaded huge unedited pics and was able to delete them myself! Please see the next post for manageable picture sizes.
Please ignore my messy workbench.

-Shawn

[sastanley]

whoa...pics - resized

Sorry I didn't realize how big the pictures were..
here they are in a more manageable size, I hope!

[Don Moyer]

Each time I have checked in with the Coast Guard on this point (which I admittedly haven't done in some years), I've been told that the patent number on the original OEM flame arrestor as was originally accepted by the Coast Guard for use on the Atomic 4 has no expiration date. Unless something has changed more recently, I assume that is still the case.

I have found it to be very useful in these episodes to always ask inspectors for a specific reference in whatever regulatory document they are using in making a particular determination. Otherwise, it can take a considerable amount of time to research the large body of Coast Guard regulations to see what (if any) provisions may have changed.

Don

[HOTFLASH]

Flame Arrester-CG Approval Issue-Some Answers

To law abiding A-4 owners, I am no sea lawyer, but---

I did a little research, and though it is not yet complete, I want to report my findings to date, with references to the documentation. You can tell I am (have been) an academic, can't you! Here is more detail than you may wish to know, but gets us on the way to dealing with the problem. I checked the CG site listing the CG approved equipment,

<http://cgmix.uscg.mil/Equipment/Default.aspx>

Under "Backfire Flame Arrester (for Carburetors)" Series 162.015, I found the listing of many Bendix flame arresters, all various version of Model 175. I have not yet checked if the flame arresters for the A-4 are among them -- I am not on my boat, but I bet they are, given Don's message above. Their approval status is "Former, May Use" which checking with the definition page

<http://cgmix.uscg.mil/Equipment/Definitions.aspx>

says "FORMER-MAY USE" means "Product is no longer approved for production but previously produced items may continue to be used as long as in good and serviceable condition."

The question I have is how to best arm oneself when accused of a violation by the CG, or when having a Vessel Safety Check by the Power Squadron or CG Auxiliary, if the equipment is not stamped "Coast Guard Approved". Is having the model number stamped on it enough? These were approved in the early 60's, perhaps before the requirement of the "CG Approved" label. We need to have some way to defend ourselves! How best to do that?

Don, can you check with your CG sources about that?

Mary

[jhwelch]

I have been stopped by the Coast Guard twice. The first time people
came on board and, among other things, they looked at my engine
from the top, so I guess they saw the flame arrestor in place; it was
only a quick glance.

-jonathan

[Don Moyer]

Mary,

Thank you so much for your research.

Since the frame around the arrestor element already has the words "Coast Guard Approved" stamped on the side, I thought the inspector in Shriveguy's original posting was suggesting that the original Coast Guard (CG) approval had been discontinued for some reason. Now, on the assumption that it's more likely that the inspector simply missed the CG Approval stamp, the problem will hopefully simply disappear.

However, even if (as you also seem to assume) the inspector was in fact challenging the currency of the CG Approval, it seems to me that your research is already adequate to defend the position that the flame arrestor is indeed in the status of "Former-May-Use" (as long as it is in good condition, etc, etc).

Don

[Don Moyer]

Mary,

I forgot to respond to the second part of your question which had to do with components that have no Coast Guard (CG) approval stamp, but which an inspector claims needs one. In answering this part of your question, it may be helpful to describe the process we went through when developing the aftermarket flame arrestor and PCV kit currently shown in our online catalog to solve the problem of original flame arrestors are becoming quite scarce.

In selecting a suitable flame arrester element for our aftermarket kits, we were told by a CG representative that it's sufficient (at least on recreational vessels) to have an SAE number (Society of Automotive Engineers) stamped on the product. We therefore have on file a CG letter which tells us that SAE J-1928 (the number on our flame arrestor) indeed meets their requirements for marine use in general, and on the Atomic 4 in particular.

While this experience tends to inform us of at least one method of demonstrating CG approval of a particular component, arming ourselves to deal with every possible challenge that a particular inspector might raise seems to me to begin with an inclusive list of every component or sub-assembly on the Atomic 4 that reasonably requires a CG rating. I'll try to remember to place a call tomorrow to the same CG office that has been very helpful in the past and see if I can get definitive guidance in this matter.

Don

[sonador]

Flame arrestor cleaning

I pulled my flame arrestor off today so that I could fog the carburetor. It looks awfully dirty. Any suggestions on cleaning the flame arrestor? Can I use carburetor cleaner? Compressed air? Wire brush? I'd hate to ruin it, it looks delicate.

[SEMIJim]

I pulled my flame arrestor off today so that I could fog the carburetor. It looks awfully dirty. Any suggestions on cleaning the flame arrestor? Can I use carburetor cleaner? Compressed air? Wire brush? I'd hate to ruin it, it looks delicate.

It's tougher than it looks, I think. I didn't have any carb cleaner handy, so I just gave it a few good squirts of WD-40, wiped off the excess and blew it out with my air hose.

Carb cleaner would probably work better

Jim

[Dave O]

A maintenance manual I have says:

Clean by soaking in mineral spirits and allow to dry. If available, use compressed air to assist cleaning.

I personally let it soak for a couple of days in a jar of mineral spirits, then clean lightly between the fins with an old toothbrush (kept for that purpose) and let it air dry.

It is a bit more robust than it looks.

Dave

[Jesse Delanoy]

I was boarded by the coast guard a couple of years ago in the mouth of the Potomac River. They specifically asked me if I had a flame arrestor on my engine. I told them yes, and they looked in the engine compartment, and were completely satisfied.