Boarded By The Authorities

[jfm]

The discussion with Tranona was about whether the SSR certificate is a meaningful document. Just because French officials are impressed by it doesn't make it a meaningful document in terms of confirming anything valid about the boat to which it refers or the person who is presenting it

Er no. The relevant discussion was
Deleted User: "SSR is rubbish eg it doesn't prove title"
Tranona #33 "Well yep, but actually it isn't meant/doesn't purport to prove title"
Deleted User #35 "I never said it proved title! I said the opposite". = non sequitur

SSR certify DOES provide prima facie evidence of nationality, which is its purpose

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Er no. The relevant discussion was
Deleted User: "SSR is rubbish eg it doesn't prove title"
Tranona #33 "Well yep, but actually it isn't meant/doesn't purport to prove title"
Deleted User #35 "I never said it proved title! I said the opposite". = non sequitur

SSR certify DOES provide prima facie evidence of nationality, which is its purpose

We're getting ourselves into Pedants Corner here but what Tranona actually said was

Sorry but you are just wrong. It does not intend to be a register of title.

To me that reads as if he is countering a statement by me that it is meant to be a register of title, which I never said

 

[jfm]

To me that reads as if he is countering a statement by me that it is meant to be a register of title, which I never said

That is the mix up. You misread T's post. He wasn't countering any statement by you. Indeed you never said SSR proved title. T was merely saying "Hey don't criticise SSR for not proving title because it never purported to prove title"

We're getting ourselves into Pedants Corner here

Agreed, and happy to move on. It's no big deal!

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

You misread T's post.

He misread mine Yup moving on

 

[Tranona]

Would a passage plan, in the form of a route created on an iPad/plotter suffice? Whilst I keep an hourly log of position and other details whilst en route, my passage planning all goes on the iPad, then synced to the plotter, which the AP then follows.

Unfortunately as jfm noted earlier and as you will see on the RYA site explaining the issue, neither SOLAS nor the MCA define what constitutes an acceptable passage plan, only where it is necessary which is essentially outside certain tightly controlled waters, usually estuaries and harbours.

Guess the test of appropriateness would be both the form and the adequacy for the proposed voyage, but that would be for a court to decide. Commercial operations such as sailing schools and charter operators would be expected to provide operating procedures for their skippers, but there are only suggestions of formats for private skippers. Seems no cases of ad hoc requests to see plans for private skippers, nor as far as I can see any prosecutions, even after incidents.

Bit different in the commercial world where there have been prosecutions. The catch all section of the Act is is section 100 which concerns safe operation of the ship, and lack of a plan would fit within that. However it is very difficult to gain a successful conviction as you would see if you followed the Hot Liquid case. If it had been left to the majority verdict of the YBW jury, the skipper would have been hung drawn and quartered followed by keel hauling - or was it the other way round. And yet no convictions, although he did have to resit his Yachtmaster.

Long winded way of suggesting you have nothing to worry about. You rely on electronics, others prefer pencil and paper. Nobody is going to seriously question what you do!

 

[Cardo]

Unfortunately as jfm noted earlier and as you will see on the RYA site explaining the issue, neither SOLAS nor the MCA define what constitutes an acceptable passage plan, only where it is necessary which is essentially outside certain tightly controlled waters, usually estuaries and harbours.

Guess the test of appropriateness would be both the form and the adequacy for the proposed voyage, but that would be for a court to decide. Commercial operations such as sailing schools and charter operators would be expected to provide operating procedures for their skippers, but there are only suggestions of formats for private skippers. Seems no cases of ad hoc requests to see plans for private skippers, nor as far as I can see any prosecutions, even after incidents.

Bit different in the commercial world where there have been prosecutions. The catch all section of the Act is is section 100 which concerns safe operation of the ship, and lack of a plan would fit within that. However it is very difficult to gain a successful conviction as you would see if you followed the Hot Liquid case. If it had been left to the majority verdict of the YBW jury, the skipper would have been hung drawn and quartered followed by keel hauling - or was it the other way round. And yet no convictions, although he did have to resit his Yachtmaster.

Long winded way of suggesting you have nothing to worry about. You rely on electronics, others prefer pencil and paper. Nobody is going to seriously question what you do!

Thanks, clear as mud! I'll stick to what I'm doing, and if the Spanish authorities wish to argue, well, fortunately for me I have local blood so can give as good as I get. I doubt anyone else will care!

 

[prv]

The little SSR chit does not look particularly impressive, though as it is smaller and less ornate than the A4 plastic of Part 1. Not a patch on the old Blue Book though!

I keep my ship's papers in a faux-leather A4 folder with plastic pockets inside - the sort of thing a downmarket but pretentious restaurant might present its wine list in. The documents that are smaller than A4 are each lightly stuck to the middle of a sheet of stiff paper before being inserted into a pocket. The first such item is the SSR, so although the chit itself is the same unassuming little thing, the act of opening this great leather book to reveal the mounted certificate lends it a small degree of extra gravitas.

Pete