toad_oftoadhall
Well-Known Member
Thanks for your permission, I am doing so. Please answer post 51, or if you made a mistake simply say so.
Post 51: http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?365510-ICC&p=4266286#post4266286
ICC
- Thread starter 1bobt
- Start date
Thanks for your permission, I am doing so. Please answer post 51, or if you made a mistake simply say so.
Post 51: http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?365510-ICC&p=4266286#post4266286
jimbaerselman
Well-Known Member
Yes, I made a mistake in interpreting the origins of the specific time limitations applying in RYA issued ICCs. I acknowledged this in post #44. Perhaps you missed this?
toad_oftoadhall
Well-Known Member
Ok.
Yes, completely missed it, please accept my apologies, post 51 was totally needless.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
No. It is easy for you to ask the MCA why they adopted the policy, not for me to say. It is not "my reason" - I have no say in the matter, just telling you where I got my information. Are you really so thick and helpless that you cannot ask simple questions of the people who set the policy.
If you are frightened of appearing foolish when you ask you can always frame the question in a Freedom of Information request. There is no conspiracy - just policy from a government department.
toad_oftoadhall
Well-Known Member
Please Cite. I see no reason the RYA's chosen renewal period would need to be 'in line' with "professional seafarers certificates" and the legislation itself doesn't require the renewal period to be in line with anything at all. I'm sure you'll be happy to share your source for this so we can all bring ourselves up to speed.
nortada
Well-Known Member
ICC 5 Year renewal v Valid for life aka Day Skip, Coastal, Yachtmaster et al.
Debate the rights & wrongs how much you like but have you ever heard of an organisation cutting off an income stream?
Like turkeys voting for Xmas.
On a broader note, have you noticed folk with a weak or unsubstantiated argument go for character assassination, using words such as 'idle', 'ignorant', 'lazy', rather than reasoned debate?
Says a lot more about the poster than their point of view.
Debate the rights & wrongs how much you like but have you ever heard of an organisation cutting off an income stream?
Like turkeys voting for Xmas.
On a broader note, have you noticed folk with a weak or unsubstantiated argument go for character assassination, using words such as 'idle', 'ignorant', 'lazy', rather than reasoned debate?
Says a lot more about the poster than their point of view.
Last edited:
macd
Well-Known Member
Nail, head.
toad_oftoadhall
Well-Known Member
On a broader note, have you noticed folk with a weak or unsubstantiated argument go for character assassination, using words such as 'idle', 'ignorant', 'lazy', rather than reasoned debate? Says a lot more about the poster than their point of view.
Excuse the thread drift, but yes. Strangers to fact & reason fluently churn out logical fallacies [1]. I often wonder if they know they're doing it, it's certainly obvious to the people reading.
[1] ...and the Ad Hom is always in there!
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Think you will find that reasoned debate has no impact on certain people, when they display the characteristics stated.On a broader note, have you noticed folk with a weak or unsubstantiated argument go for character assassination, using words such as 'idle', 'ignorant', 'lazy', rather than reasoned debate?
Says a lot more about the poster than their point of view.
Try this one. If you did not know why a government department chose a particular policy would you ask some bloke on a forum? -or would you pick up a phone and ask the government department? Would you carry on for several years asking the same question, receiving advice on where to get the answer. Is such behaviour normal?
Tranona
Well-Known Member
I am not ASSERTING anything. I am passing on information for your benefit. Why do you find it so difficult to follow the advice in the last quote?
If you believe the information to be invalid then disclose your source.
If you believe the information to be invalid then disclose your source.
toad_oftoadhall
Well-Known Member
Off hand there are five reasons to be wary of your assertion:
1) The legislation [1] itself doesn't require the renewal period to be in line with anything at all.
2) AFAICT there's no reason that the RYA's chosen renewal period would need to be 'in line' with "professional seafarers certificates".
3) Other countries choose dates that are not in line with thier commercial qualifications.
4) The complete absense of any evidence whatsoever to support the assertion.
5) As Dr Johnston said: "to revenge reasonable incredulity, by refusing evidence, is a degree of insolence, with which the world is not yet acquainted; and stubborn audacity is the last refuge of guilt. [2]
So you refuse to reason with facts because it has no impact on a tiny subset of the people who will read them? What about the majority who respect fact and reason?
Here is your assertion:
[1] Here: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2011/sc3wp3/ECE-TRANS-SC3-147-re1e.pdf
[2] Post 65 speaks volumes to those who accept Johnston's logic.
sailinglegend420
Well-Known Member
My ICC expired three years ago and I refused to pay another £40 for 5 years just to get a renewal. You could photograph the original and changed the dates in Photoshop and print it out. See if a copy is acceptable. If you do photocopy yours it comes up with VOID VOID VOID all over it. A high pixel camera can cure that problem! In Turkey at the moment and never been asked for an ICC.
Last edited:
macd
Well-Known Member
I was kind of thinking along those lines, sailinglegend, so thanks for the tip.
For what it's worth one of the other bodies competent to bestow ICCs on us Brits, International Yacht Training Worldwide, also issues them with a five year life. This suggests (I won't put it stronger than that) that the five-year notion perhaps derives from the MCA, under whose authority they are issued.
For what it's worth one of the other bodies competent to bestow ICCs on us Brits, International Yacht Training Worldwide, also issues them with a five year life. This suggests (I won't put it stronger than that) that the five-year notion perhaps derives from the MCA, under whose authority they are issued.
toad_oftoadhall
Well-Known Member
Could well do.
Thanks for the mention of IYT Worldwide, to me unexpected:
IYT Worldwide also has had approval from the M.C.A. (Maritime and Coastguard Agency of Great Britain) for many years to issue ICCs to United Kingdom passport holders and various other countries on their approved list.
If their web site is correct [1] it really does look as though they are the issuing body, not just examining for RYA ICCs.
http://www.iytworld.com/documents/ICC Revalidation WW Feb 2013.pdf
Can't imagine they get much renewal trade from UK residents - the RYA do it for ~£7 less.
Even the cheaper RYA renewal doesn't look as good as the option chosen by most of the World - don't buy one.
[1] Much of it isn't.
toad_oftoadhall
Well-Known Member
Well blow me:
Firstly the RYA's stated reason for the 5 year ICC renewal from the Horse's Mouth:
"The ICC has 5 years vaidity(sic) - so that the details of the candidate can be kept current as well as providing the RYA with the ability to update the certificates at appropriate intervals."
http://www.dockwalk.com/essentials/docktalk.aspx?g=posts&t=44980
Not sure what IYT worldwide's excuse is.
IMV the thread is well worth reading from Chris Taylor's post onwards. (The original complaint that starts the thread is utter tosh and not worth reading IMV.)
One interesting quote: "IYT worldwide has several members on the MCA Yacht Qualifications panel the RYA has none". I wonder if the RYA have so much influence they don't need to be on the panel or if there's another reason? Falk implies the original statement is false but the seems a mass of wiggle room so I'm not reallythat convinced yet.
Another interesting quote: IYT examinations can be carried out by personnel from within the school where training has been conducted
One more interesting fact BWSW are also an issuing authority (presumably not for sail but that's not clear):
http://www.bwsw.org.uk/coaching-and.../international-certificate-of-competence-icc/
No hysterical claims that it's compulsory abroad from the BWSW, they simply say: "ICC is generally accepted in any area where proof of competence is required", £25 to renew but you have to be a member.
Many thanks macb, three competing issuing authorities, every day's a school day.
Firstly the RYA's stated reason for the 5 year ICC renewal from the Horse's Mouth:
"The ICC has 5 years vaidity(sic) - so that the details of the candidate can be kept current as well as providing the RYA with the ability to update the certificates at appropriate intervals."
http://www.dockwalk.com/essentials/docktalk.aspx?g=posts&t=44980
Not sure what IYT worldwide's excuse is.
IMV the thread is well worth reading from Chris Taylor's post onwards. (The original complaint that starts the thread is utter tosh and not worth reading IMV.)
One interesting quote: "IYT worldwide has several members on the MCA Yacht Qualifications panel the RYA has none". I wonder if the RYA have so much influence they don't need to be on the panel or if there's another reason? Falk implies the original statement is false but the seems a mass of wiggle room so I'm not reallythat convinced yet.
Another interesting quote: IYT examinations can be carried out by personnel from within the school where training has been conducted
One more interesting fact BWSW are also an issuing authority (presumably not for sail but that's not clear):
http://www.bwsw.org.uk/coaching-and.../international-certificate-of-competence-icc/
No hysterical claims that it's compulsory abroad from the BWSW, they simply say: "ICC is generally accepted in any area where proof of competence is required", £25 to renew but you have to be a member.
Many thanks macb, three competing issuing authorities, every day's a school day.
Last edited:
toad_oftoadhall
Well-Known Member
Now, on the face of it we do:
"The ICC has 5 years vaidity(sic) - so that the details of the candidate can be kept current as well as providing the RYA with the ability to update the certificates at appropriate intervals." - Richard Falk
http://www.dockwalk.com/essentials/docktalk.aspx?g=posts&t=44980
macd
Well-Known Member
What a load of doublespeak. Does this guy Falk have political ambitions?
To keep some liveaboards "current", they'd need a new one every week.
"Providing..the ability to update the certificates"...perhaps to preclude the, er, creative self-certification alluded to by sailinglegend420 in post #72? Which in turn is only necessary because the damn things expire every five years.
It's a qualification (and a pretty meagre one, at that), not a licence. It can't suffer banning or endorsements. It's for life. So why isn't the scrap of paper? In fact, in that respect why isn't it just like the Short Range Certificate (which it quite closely resembles), which has no expiry date. (Oddly enough, the international agreement which gave rise to the ICC says it should physically be much like a credit card. Which it ain't.)
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
Apologies for bumping this but it may have been overlooked in this riposte. Personally, I find it relevant as it may lead to the end of the ICC and the 5 year renewal.
Implication..... no revenue stream???
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
Foot. Shot in.
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
Sailing schools have to pay the extra for the ID course completion card. Passing that cost onto the customer is a non starter, school absorbs it. 400 customers? That's 2 grand a year.
40 quid every 5 years? Same 400 peeps, 16 grand, mmmm.
I don't get it.
40 quid every 5 years? Same 400 peeps, 16 grand, mmmm.
I don't get it.