Can the X be Coast Guard Documented?

[Gone2long]

Hello threadmates,

Couldn't find a thread that fit exactly my concern, so I figured, with everyone here talking about various out-of-country destinations, this might be the best place to ask.

In particular, I am wondering if anyone knows whether a MacGregor X can be Coast Guard documented, and if any of you world travellors out there have documented yours.

The USCG site has an interactive "Form #5397" which allows an owner to enter the boat's specs in order to determine if she would qualify for documentation. In order for the Mac to qualify, it would need 5 gross tons of "volume". NOT WEIGHT, and this measurment is determined by the overall measurements of the boat. In order to qualify the Mac seems to require 4-5 feet of "depth". This measurement is an imaginary, vertical line drawn from the bottom of the hull to the deck at mid-ships. If anyone knows this exact measurement, I would greatly appreciate your sending it to me.

I selected the "power boat" hull design offered on CG form #5397 and estimated the boat's depth to be 4'. I entered that number, along with a length of 26 feet and a width of 7 foot 9 inches into USCG form #5397. The form then automatically calculated the volume and came up with a total net and gross volume of "5 tons" noting that the X met the minimum requirement to be CG documented. However, I just wanted to check with real owners to hear what your experience may have been before filing for documentation.

Does anyone know for sure if the X qualifies, and has anybody documented theirs? Did I select the right hull, or must I select the sailboat "no keel" hull design? Seems like the X may not qualify if such a hull specification is selected.

Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

G2L

[Catigale]

Pretty sure:

1 It can be documented

2 Someone has done so on this forum - try a couple other searches

WHy do you want to do this? You cannot escape state registration btw - the most common 'reason' for this Ive heard..so you end up paying two sets of fees.

[mastreb]

I just bought an M, and BoatUS wouldn't do the financing because they said it was too small to be Coast Guard documented.

I went to the USCG site explaining it, and found the volumetric formula used to determine what's going on. It turns out that "tonnage" refers to how many tons of "cargo" (when the rule was created, this meant "coal") that the boat could potentially carry. By my math, the M weighs in at 4.5 tons, validating the fact that it's too small. Other sources say that boats less than 27' long won't qualify, and this seems to be borne out by my calculations.

That's not to day it can't be done by fudging numbers on the registration. I seriously doubt anyone comes out with a measuring tape and finds out what you're doing.

But I'm not sure why you'd do this if you didn't absolutely have to--it's an additional added cost with little benefit if it's not required for financing.

I wound up financing through BofA by the way, got a 5.6% interest rate on $29,400. They require that the boat cost 10% more than they're going to finance.

Just my two cents.

[tom clayton]

the only reason i can see and its a good one is if you want your boat to be seen on AIS display at least thats how i understood it?

[vizwhiz]

I went to the USCG site explaining it, and found the volumetric formula used to determine what's going on. It turns out that "tonnage" refers to how many tons of "cargo" (when the rule was created, this meant "coal") that the boat could potentially carry.

I'm sure glad you could explain...the only explanation I could think of was that they wanted to know how much space it would take up on the seafloor if it sank!

[mastreb]

I'm sure glad you could explain...the only explanation I could think of was that they wanted to know how much space it would take up on the seafloor if it sank!

It took some real digging, let me tell you! So yes, it's a "volume" expressed as "the volume that 5 tons of coal takes up". So know that a full Mac 26 will only really carry about 4 tons of coal if you're planning on turning it into a collier's scow.

[daydreamerbob]

the reason is...they want to title the boat and place a lien on the title - and hold title until the loan is paid. at least i think that is the reason.

[Catigale]

BOATUS aggressively courted by business when I bought Catigale, so if they are asking for Documentation to finance, thats new. It also doesnt make sense to me.

AIS can broadcast your MMSI without CG Documentation - I believe vessel name is also included in the boradcast if you program it in.

ss

[jimmy alonso]

Hi This can be a reason MadMike wrote:

"I've set up my boat to drop the mast safely at sea and it's still a pain even in the daytime in moderate seas (4-8 ft). Did this so I could drop the mast to get into French Islands in the Caribbean, I had to declare a rigging failure at sea , otherwise the French do not let boats registered in individual states (U.S. documented boats only)into their waters."

My boat is registered in Puerto Rico don't know if I'll ever make it to a french island I hope so San Martin not that far 80 miles from the BVI .
Dunno if i be kicked out

[DaveB]

I had to hire a Lawyer (Boston) that had major knowledge in Documentation back in 1980 for my 35 ft. Alberg to cruise the World.
Cost me over $1500 and many papers to file over a 4 mo. period.
Only reason I did it was the protection from other Countries trying to make claim on my boat and US protection.
In todays World I don't think it means much but could if your boat is held up in Cuba or other places were they can take hold of a Boat without warning and can detain it or keep it.
I doub't the US will try to get your boat back, just look at Somaila High Jacks.
A Documented Vessel is also Gov. Property when it comes to War time and can commision your boat.
Most States require Registeration of your boat in a short period of time if Documented and on a slip/mooring.
In Florida if you are documented you are most likely to be boarded if the officials do not see Regestrations numbers on the Bow.
Bottom line, don't document!
Dave

Hello threadmates,

Couldn't find a thread that fit exactly my concern, so I figured, with everyone here talking about various out-of-country destinations, this might be the best place to ask.

In particular, I am wondering if anyone knows whether a MacGregor X can be Coast Guard documented, and if any of you world travellors out there have documented yours.

The USCG site has an interactive "Form #5397" which allows an owner to enter the boat's specs in order to determine if she would qualify for documentation. In order for the Mac to qualify, it would need 5 gross tons of "volume". NOT WEIGHT, and this measurment is determined by the overall measurements of the boat. In order to qualify the Mac seems to require 4-5 feet of "depth". This measurement is an imaginary, vertical line drawn from the bottom of the hull to the deck at mid-ships. If anyone knows this exact measurement, I would greatly appreciate your sending it to me.

I selected the "power boat" hull design offered on CG form #5397 and estimated the boat's depth to be 4'. I entered that number, along with a length of 26 feet and a width of 7 foot 9 inches into USCG form #5397. The form then automatically calculated the volume and came up with a total net and gross volume of "5 tons" noting that the X met the minimum requirement to be CG documented. However, I just wanted to check with real owners to hear what your experience may have been before filing for documentation.

Does anyone know for sure if the X qualifies, and has anybody documented theirs? Did I select the right hull, or must I select the sailboat "no keel" hull design? Seems like the X may not qualify if such a hull specification is selected.

Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

G2L

[vizwhiz]

I'm sure glad you could explain...the only explanation I could think of was that they wanted to know how much space it would take up on the seafloor if it sank!

It took some real digging, let me tell you! So yes, it's a "volume" expressed as "the volume that 5 tons of coal takes up". So know that a full Mac 26 will only really carry about 4 tons of coal if you're planning on turning it into a collier's scow.

Aaahhhh...so they only care if 5 tons of coal or more is sitting on the bottom...I get it now.

[Gone2long]

Thanks threadmates for your many responses.

Sorry I have not responded sooner, but I thought that I would be notified (via email) of any responses on this thread. Since I have never received any such notification, apparently I was mistaken, so please accept my apologies.

To address some points and concerns expressed herein, allow me to mention that I want to document the boat because I am buying it in Macao and because I live as a permanent resident in the Philippines. The boat must be "de-registered" in Macao, and I cannot "re-register" it in the PI without blue water sailing it 500 nm directly to the PI or 350 nm to the PI via Taiwan, where I will need registration documents to clear customs.

Ideally, using the USCG on-line system, I could document the boat before leaving Macao, and that would facilitate not only the Macao de-registration but my clearance of customs at Taiwan, thus allowing me to harbor hop south to the PI and allowing me to avoid the direct, and rather dangerous 500nm voyage from Macao straight to PI.

Also, even if I could get past Taiwan customs with a mere bill of sale, registering the boat in the PI is expensive, may subject me to import taxes of up to 65%, and may require that I register it in my wife's name, since I am not a Philippine citizen. As I am sure everyone now understands, documenting with the USCG seems the best and easiest way to go, given my circumstances.

All that having been explained, I am seriously interested to know if, as one person writing on this thread has suggested, someone has actually documented their Mac with the USCG.

As noted previously, if I use the USCG interactive documentation form, choose the planing hull configuration, and I enter the boat's dimensions, the Mac X qualifies for USCG documentation. If one chooses the sailboat hull configuration available on the form, the X will not qualify.

Any further suggestions or reactions would be duly appreciated, and my empathy to the threadmates above who have faced similar, bureaucratic obstacles, for vaguely similar reasons.

Thanks for your help, and best regards to all.

G2L

[mastreb]

As noted previously, if I use the USCG interactive documentation form, choose the planing hull configuration, and I enter the boat's dimensions, the Mac X qualifies for USCG documentation. If one chooses the sailboat hull configuration available on the form, the X will not qualify.

The X does have a planing hull and is a powerboat, so I see zero issues with selecting the planing hull to get it documented. Just do that if it works--seriously nobody will be by to make measurements and you've got a good case as it is.

Matt

[Gone2long]

Matt,

Thanks for your reply. Just out of curiosity, do you consider the M hull to be a sailboat hull as opposed to the X being a planing hull. This seems important if I am going to go through the USCG documentation process for the X, when the M is the most recent design. I'm worried that the USCG might lump all designs together, and if they consider the M as THE mac 26 design, they may want to consider the X as a sailboat design as well.

Thanks for your help,

G2L

[mastreb]

Matt,

Thanks for your reply. Just out of curiosity, do you consider the M hull to be a sailboat hull as opposed to the X being a planing hull. This seems important if I am going to go through the USCG documentation process for the X, when the M is the most recent design. I'm worried that the USCG might lump all designs together, and if they consider the M as THE mac 26 design, they may want to consider the X as a sailboat design as well.

Thanks for your help,

G2L

I don't consider either one of them to be sailboat hulls, as they both plane easily and neither has the roundness of a full keel sailboat hull. The X is more of a planing hull than the M however.