"Education not Legislation"

[nct1]

Re: \"Education not Legislation\"

The driving test does not mean you are an experienced driver, it just means you did not scare the examiner witless on a given day.

You learn as you go along, but I suggest that having taken the test you are fully aware of the causes of your mistakes.

My mind tells me that a dayskipper test should be compulsory for coastal sailors, but it also tells me that the policing of it will involve additional taxation, so it's a tricky one.

Maybe a compulsory flag is needed for all sailors with less than 100 hours so we can give them a wide berth /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[pendlecats]

Re: \"Education not Legislation\"

I suggested a flag for training once - I'll not do that again soon.

The guy mentioned by the OP will do one of three things; Gain experience to everyone's benefit (possibly not capable), Give up (or dragged off by family) and (very unlikely) he could be a Darwin award winner in the making.
As others have said the excellent safety record speaks volumes for keeping it as it is. Though IMHO insurance companies may drive this more than the gov.

I still think boats under instruction should fly a flag /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Sgeir]

Re: \"Education not Legislation\"

Where did you say this incident happened?

 

[jonjo]

Re: \"Education not Legislation\"

[ QUOTE ]
The mantra of the RYA for as long as we can remember - but is it really the best option?

Last night I watched a small (about 20ft) yacht come storming up to a slipway, doing 16+ knots with the benefit of a 60hp outboard weighing down the back end.

[/ QUOTE ]
Such an extreme and daft incident does warrant serious discussion, the same oddball examples of driving happen on the road every day.

Fortunately the guy's experience of boat ownership is going to be so expensive he will give up and trying something else.

 

[jimbaerselman]

Re: \"Education not Legislation\"

[ QUOTE ]
Accidents that result in injury and loss of life are so rare in comparison with the level of activity, and so different it is only possible to identify common events leading up to incidents.

[/ QUOTE ] Which is why I don't advocate legislation for training or examination; just legislation for compulsory third party insurance - if your vessel is capable of damaging people. Which will take a bit of definition . . .

 

[dt4134]

Re: \"Education not Legislation\"

A little learning is a dangerous thing. I've met people with Day Skippers tickets who are a complete liability. I've met others who were just inexperienced but who would have been very challenged actually skippering a boat. In the end however the Day Skipper level is just a step on the way to becoming an experienced, reasonably competent skipper.

What would happen then if the government came along and said that's sufficient. It's obvious that most people wouldn't take the next steps. And yet it's more likely that they'd set the level lower than Day Skipper.

In the end the current system works. If it ain't broke don't fix it. People like those described in the OP stick out like a sore thumb - they either take advice, do training or give up.

 

[TiggerToo]

Re: \"Education not Legislation\"

[ QUOTE ]
People like those described in the OP stick out like a sore thumb - they either take advice, do training or give up.

[/ QUOTE ]

.. and aren't they a god-send for the gel coat repair professional?

 

[Babylon]

Re: \"Education not Legislation\"

[ QUOTE ]
I am not in any way a fan the snide superiority imbedded in your post. Have you never in all your experience f u c k e d up? I know I have.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course everyone has at some stage or another f u c k e d up, but the incident referred to by the OP isn't exactly a case of a intelligent, cautious, switched-on sailor making a rare unseamanlike error. Its more a case of an ignorant idiot being an ignorant idiot on a spectacular - and potentially very dangerous - scale. Nothing here to do with snide superiority or carping at another's misfortune.

 

[Refueler]

Re: \"Education not Legislation\"

[ QUOTE ]
So, if we don't have some sort of minimum standard set by exam or certificate, the minimum should be compulsory third party insurance. Perhps for over a certain power or size.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a person has a recognised mooring - Club, HM, Marina etc. then that requirement is already in place. Even moorings that are personal laid and not part of a club / HM's etc. will be subject to local bye-laws requiring min. Insurance.
The only boats that really are without insurnace are the slipway launched jobs that 'moor' at home drive-way.

 

[Refueler]

Re: \"Education not Legislation\"

[ QUOTE ]
The same cannot be said of the ICC, which is a significant step DOWN from the level that the RYA regard as the minimum qualification to use the word "skipper" - day skipper.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect ... check the minimum qualifications required to obtain an ICC without Test and you will see that.

The ICC anyway is not set or dictated by any UK authority or RYA - it is actually set by UNECE as an International minimum standard as per Res. 40.

IMHO - the ICC may be a reasonable start point. I am not pro licencing, but live in a country that requires it. Others have said that providing a min standard licence will likely lead to not taking higher levels. Not true as here many who obtain CSDD min Licence then move up to the Yacht Captain training in Riga.

There are a lot of assumed 'theories' bouncing round not only on this subject but many others as well - that actually checking out indicates may not be valid.

 

[flaming]

Re: \"Education not Legislation\"

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The same cannot be said of the ICC, which is a significant step DOWN from the level that the RYA regard as the minimum qualification to use the word "skipper" - day skipper.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect ... check the minimum qualifications required to obtain an ICC without Test and you will see that.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the point. The RYA are the body in charge of administering the ICC in this country and will, quite correctly, issue the ICC without further testing to anyone holding a HIGHER qualification alredy issued by them, DS, CS and YM.

The ICC for power boats is widely agreed to be at the same level as Powerboat level 2, see here for example. Which is less than DS.

I know there are different types of boating, and someone taking a ski boat out into the Solent for an afternoon probably doesn't need Yachtmaster levels of competence, and powerboat 2 levels of competence would be apropriate.

But someone taking a small yacht across the Thames Estuary in bad weather will need significantly higher levels of competence.

So where do you pitch "the test"? Is it low, hoping that people will recognise where they need extra training, or high to ensure that people have all the skills they need?
It worries me that it would be the former, and frightens me that it might be the latter!

 

[maxi77]

Re: \"Education not Legislation\"

I must admit I have always echoed the RYA mantra on this and do think it should be the best way, I do think you get more people better qualified that way than you do by imposing a minimum standard.

The real challenge though is to persuade the numpty you reported and the many others like him that he will enjoy his boat more if he can handle it properly, though perhaps his wife is hoping he will become one of those statistics whcich is why she won't let him do a course. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Shorn100]

Re: \"Education not Legislation\"

Are our accident statistics that good? The RNLI launches over 8000 time a year. Then there's the launches by the independant lifeboats. And not to forget the myriad rescues by other boats.

If it were not for the sake of others coming to the rescue, the accident stats would be disastrous.

I think the RYA are wrong but agree I wouldn't know where to start in implementing a suitable test for everyone.

Shorn

 

[Tranona]

Re: \"Education not Legislation\"

You need to look at the reasons for the launches. From memory number 1 by a long way is engine failure followed by fouled sterngear. You have to go a long way down before you get to causes that suggest lack of competence as a reason for the incident.

Also if you are interested look at the MAIB reports, or at least their annual digests which pick out the key lessons and again you will find very little that suggests lack of competence as a cause of serious incidents.

 

[Refueler]

Re: \"Education not Legislation\"

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The same cannot be said of the ICC, which is a significant step DOWN from the level that the RYA regard as the minimum qualification to use the word "skipper" - day skipper.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect ... check the minimum qualifications required to obtain an ICC without Test and you will see that.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the point. The RYA are the body in charge of administering the ICC in this country and will, quite correctly, issue the ICC without further testing to anyone holding a HIGHER qualification alredy issued by them, DS, CS and YM.

The ICC for power boats is widely agreed to be at the same level as Powerboat level 2, see here for example. Which is less than DS.

I know there are different types of boating, and someone taking a ski boat out into the Solent for an afternoon probably doesn't need Yachtmaster levels of competence, and powerboat 2 levels of competence would be apropriate.

But someone taking a small yacht across the Thames Estuary in bad weather will need significantly higher levels of competence.

So where do you pitch "the test"? Is it low, hoping that people will recognise where they need extra training, or high to ensure that people have all the skills they need?
It worries me that it would be the former, and frightens me that it might be the latter!

[/ QUOTE ]

But your later statement here is similar to the driver getting his Car licence and then driving on the Motorway. I think we can all come up with scenarios where any licence will be inadequate - I have Senior MN Tickets and ICC / Cevni etc. - but regard myself as still learning each time I go out in thge boat. You will never cater for the OP's idiot as he will continue whatever happens - he confirmed he knew he was lacking by saying he can boat without licence !

Impossible to cover for all - I've known brilliant watchkeepers / deck officers who couldn't pass exams and stayed at 1 ring ... what does that prove ?

 

[dt4134]

Re: \"Education not Legislation\"

[ QUOTE ]
The RNLI launches over 8000 time a year.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the RNLI say quite openly that the launch in a large number of cases mainly for the training. There's logic in that, but it means you can't assume that all those boats would be in danger if the RNLI didn't launch.

 

[maxi77]

Re: \"Education not Legislation\"

Equally many RNLI launches are not for people in boats, but pedestrians cut of by the tide or bathers playin with floaty toys.

It would be however interesting to see just what proportion of launches for recreational boaters that they launch for are appropriately certificated

 

[Tranona]

Re: \"Education not Legislation\"

Well worth reading the Annual Operational Review. Some highlights from the 2008 Review

5 year figures

Launches unchanged at 8000+/- 5%
"Lives saved" declining from over 400pa to less than 300

2008 figures

Gave assistance in 60% of launches
20% of launches either hoax, false alarms or nothing found

53% of launches for pleasure craft
16% of launches for sailboat auxiliaries (approx 1300)
14% for other non powered craft
23% Power craft

There is a table of reasons for launches, but it covers all launches, not broken down by type of casualty. However over 30% overall are for mechanical failure and less than 20% for reasons that might have been connected with competence (grounding, adverse weather conditions, capsize etc) - although not enough detail to really draw any conclusions.

Even allowing for the imprecise nature of the data this does not suggest that sailing (in particular) gives rise to a large number of incidents in relation to the perceived level of activity. Incidents that are sufficiently serious to justify an MAIB investigation and report are also few - usually less than 10 in any one year - and as I have noted earlier, rarely is there any evidence of incompetence as a cause.

No reason to get complacent, of course, but it puts the headline reports of the odd "idiot" which started this thread into perspective.

 

[maxi77]

Re: \"Education not Legislation\"

Thanks, though those figures of course don't cover either the skill level of the skipper nor his level of certification. Like you though I surmise from the fact that the few captain calamities we have are reported in the news indicate they are a very small population. If they were an 'every day' occurence they would have to do a bit more than get towed in a couple of times to get the headlines spot.

My answer to the woman in the OP is perhaps if he did take some training he may not kill you or the kids.

 

[snowleopard]

Re: \"Education not Legislation\"

One important point is that incompetence on the water is far less likely to result in injury or death to oneself or a third party than a similar level of incompetence on the road.

The biggest danger to our freedom to navigate is the tabloid 'this must never happen again' mentality. A single well-publicised accident could tip the scales.