BSS

[byron]

[ QUOTE ]


The original BSS was a typical instance of what can get produced by a committee locked in a landlocked room who have no idea of industrial or for that matter their own countries marine standards....

[/ QUOTE ]

Here speaks a man who was a ship's Chief Engineer, no doubt Beryl will think that despite his lifetime at sea his views are pathetic too.

 

[Bilgediver]

Here speaks a man who was a ship's Chief Engineer
**********************************************

So long ago I hardly remember!

 

[Bilgediver]

BSS and common sense!
_________________________________________________

If ever I saw a contradiction....



/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[Bilgediver]

Some rules were later relaxed and many seem to be too open to interpretation

____________________________________________________

This is exactly the problem and gas lockers in particular!!!!

 

[Steve Clayton]

[ QUOTE ]
Some rules were later relaxed.....

[/ QUOTE ]
Like in the first rules where 240v mains had to be multi-strand wire. Guy with single strand shells out 1500 £notes to comply. Shortly thereafter BSS says single strand is OK so he goes to court and gets all the money back (+ a bit more) from BSS central

 

[Andrew_Fanner]

Early rules made the fridges in widespread use non compliant. Problem was, no fridge that complied wiht the regs was actaully marketed...

Its time I got cert renewed, the >£120 I resent though, I'd be far more willing to comply if it cost £20, and that's one of the reasons why I can never support compulsory compentence licences, the cost will just spiral.

 

[byron]

One of the big problems was that they didn't have a Grandfather Clause. This was pointed out to them before they even instituted the BSS. Net result was boats that couldn't comply for one reason or another were forced off the Thames.

 

[boatone]

The principle of a compulsory safety test regime I have no problem with. In fact, I would like to see the EA make it mandatory that all craft registrations provide evidence of current 3rd party insurance as well as the BSS.

The problems arise in three areas:
1. The content of the requirements
2. The competency/fairness of the testing personnel
3. The cost of providing the service

Some of the complaints here (not all) are not really about the scheme itself but about ham fisted workmanship which has nothing at all to do with the scheme. The fact that someone actually uses an examiner to, seperately, carry out work needed to comply is incidental and the quality of that workmanship should not be levelled at the scheme itself.

Cost is bound to be an issue. No way is any scheme, however simple, going to be capable of delivery for around £20 or so. A vehicle MOT is now £54 and you deliver and collect the vehicle to/from the testing station, not to mention that it is only one element of the garages activities. However, you pay that EVERY year so £208 over the four years that a BSS lasts.

I agree that the implementation is hit and miss and there is too much room for interpretation.

This is one area where we, as an informed and interested group, could perhaps influence things that affect us ?

Can anyone rember the username of the BSS guy that used to post on here? If so, I'll get in touch.

 

[apollo]

No, sorry Tony but my reading is that most complaint ARE about the scheme and perhaps the fact that the people that defined the requirements had never set foot on a boat in their lives.

Classic examples are the need for huge ventilation on boats that go to sea, changing armoured fuel lines for rubber ones cos they have a BS on them ....
Later on they calmed down a bit once peeps had spent a fortune altering their boats and that is why people sued for the money they wasted on unecessary alterations.

I have a mate who was a BSS examiner (who you have met at TVR) - he will tell you all you need to know.
He has resigned from being an examiner.

Like the owl and the pussycat, he goes to sea in a beautiful pea green boat!

 

[boatone]

Ok....I have changed the word 'most' to 'some' and my comments re those still stand.

I wasnt saying there arent other issues...in fact I said there are problems with content, interpretation and costs... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

My concern was that we shouldnt mix up unrelated complaints with the scheme itself. Bad workmanship by a contractor might have resulted from work to comply being carried out, but the bad workmanship is not the fault of the BSS.

I do question the whole integrity of the scheme, and think much needs to be done to reinforce and improve it. The 'divorce' of the BW and EA partnership cant have helped.

 

[Forbsie]

[ QUOTE ]
Can anyone rember the username of the BSS guy that used to post on here? If so, I'll get in touch.

[/ QUOTE ]

BSSOFFICE

 

[nickcred]

got to love Beryl......pops up, flings an inflammatory comment or two....disappears and does not conclude her argument......unfortunately the BSS did not stop the boat fires or help those who suffered from them. In essence the scheme is something I agree with....a safety check. It's the ever changing rules and what was ok this year is now deemed unsafe 4 years later and unlike some changes not based on new findings but on the "we were wrong previously" sorry it cost you a fortune, did not improve safety and no you can not have a refund. That is the wind up.

 

[bendyone]

Mans coming tonight to do it. Brought a new fire ex. just to be on the safe side.

 

[Brayman]

Why, is he likely to catch fire?

 

[bendyone]

[ QUOTE ]
Why, is he likely to catch fire?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends if he passes it or not /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[Bilgediver]

No but he has a thing about Kites and dates!!!!

 

[bendyone]

He didn't turn up! I spoke to him and will now come on Sunday. I suggested he could just post one but he felt he needed to see the boat /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[boatone]

[ QUOTE ]
No but he has a thing about Kites and dates!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't thinks he has, actually. Used to require that extinguisher showed evidence of servicing but now, i believe, just wants to see that there is adequate provision and that they 'appear' to be ok - eg little meter thingy in the green.

 

[dombuckley]

[ QUOTE ]
[Used to require that extinguisher showed evidence of servicing but now, i believe, just wants to see that there is adequate provision and that they 'appear' to be ok - eg little meter thingy in the green.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is typical BSS. The reason they need regular maintenance is not so much recharging the propellant, but the powder becoming compacted with age. You can have all the pressure in the world, but if the powder has compacted, you'll just get a fart of gas and no powder - not much help in a fire-fighting situation.

Just don't get me started on gas hoses: the number I've seen that were 15, 20 years old, with perishing rubber and corroded fittings, but were still passed by the examiner.

 

[bendyone]

All done, passed /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif no more than 15 minutes.