Originally Posted by Foxy
However, the other time I often become involved is when the surveyor finds a "hidden defect" often with a moisture meter. The first thing I do is look on the inside of the boat where they got the "suspect reading". Half the time there is a water tank or a bottle of some kind of liquid there. They find "voids" in the laminate where it transitions from core to solid or where there is a stringer, floor, or bulkhead on the opposite side.
I think a surveyor should be able to accurately detect most problems in the hull and deck & rigging, check out the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems. They should be able to tell you if more involved tests are warranted. If the report came up missing obvious problems and incorrect information, why would you pay them?
I have a friend surveyor that developed a sophisticated way of perfecting readings when they are suspect on the moister meter. He is in the process of patenting it. He can get images that are are very clear. We can really see the different hull layers, if there are delamination, water or if the core is not glued anymore.
Recently I had a bad accident (not my responsibility) and I sailed almost a 1000nm myles to have the boat surveyed by him and repaired on a shipyard that he trusts. And I was right, if not for him and the evidence he could prove with that device the insurance instead of paying 12000 euros for the repair (the core under the force of the blow was badly compressed and in some places it is not glued anymore) would only have paid 5000 euros for "cosmetic" work. He charged 600 euros for his work that the insurance is going to pay anyway.