Licence to sail

[Magic_Sailor]

"Crap"

I never cease to be amazed at the way we feel we can dismiss others in this way. I suspect you'd be much more circumspect if we met face to face.

My point was that the training prior to the exam is the thing which teaches good seamanship and tolerance - not the exam itself.

However, like many other courses; GCEs, car test you name it - you have to take the exam to prove you've completed the course and taken some of it in.

Magic

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://hometown.aol.co.uk/geoffwestgarth/myhomepage/travelwriting.html>Click for website!</A>

 

[Magic_Sailor]

Yes I do

Remember, I wasn't aiming at perfection - merely an improvement.

When I learnt to drive I remember that some emphasis was placed on tolerance etc.

During my YM course I learnt tolerance of others - on board my own boat as well.

Magic

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://hometown.aol.co.uk/geoffwestgarth/myhomepage/travelwriting.html>Click for website!</A>

 

[oldharry]

I shall have retired befoire I am qualified to do

Its nothing to do with competence. Its nothing to do with ability. Its nothing to do with experience. What it is is a growing fixation endemic in this country to 'having a bit of paper' which is supposed to prove that you have what I can only presume to be 'standard knowledge' - presumably as defined by some Brussels beurotwat.

This then allows them to punish you for not conforming to 'standard knowledge', and to charge you for the priviledge of acquiring and using it.

My better half having for a good many years a Social Services manager - and, I can say without bias, an extremely good one - has now been told she has to take a training course to qualify to do her current job of 12 years standing. The reason - to make her a better manager? No way - her bosses see her as one of the best. To improve her knowledge and skills base? - again, no way. She could write the Training Manual.

The true reason? Current Government regulations require that x percent of managers in her line 'must have a relevant qualification'. She is already highly qualified, but her degree and diploma are no longer ' recognised qualifications' for her work. The fact that they actually way exceed the base specs is irrelevant.

I too am being told at the age of 60 that I need to undertake training to be qualified to do my specific job - after 8 years in it, and with some 30 years experience in related fields. And I am expected to start at the bottom with the teenagers. I shall have retired before I am qualified to do the job I will by then have done for 14 years!

And dont forget - this sort of thing is happening in Social Services all over the country.

And who pays for all this re-training?

You do of course. Thats why our Council Tax bills are rocketing.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[beancounter]

Magic,

sorry, but I'm with the "no" lobby on this one. I have thoroughly enjoyed my RYA training, mostly on dinghies, and latterly offshore. However, IMHO the attitude of the trainee to the training is important. Depending on one's personality, the training can lead to:

a) an understanding of one's limitations

b) knowing just enough to be dangerous

Would compulsory training prevent the more cavalier amongst us being at the (b) end of the spectrum? Training undertaken begrudgingly to get the ticket would not prevent those with gung-ho tendencies causing trouble for themselves & others.

Also, would the rise in the requirement for training that a compulsory licence would need result in a dilution of the quality of the training given? That would be a risk, certainly in the short to medium term.

cheers

John





<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Gordonmc]

After reading the posts there is one thing not in dispute... the value of courses in equipping folk with some basic skills and, yes, providing the motivation to further the process by going to more advanced levels.

The dispute arises over compulsion. Step back and consider the effect of some form of legislation which enforced a licencing scheme. The first would be imposition of fees to cover the cost, not njust of the exam itself, but of future enforcement.

If you have any doubt about that look at the Ship Radio Licence arrangements where our £22 goes to pay for one thing ... its own collection and enforcement. No practical contribution and a dissincentive to the ownership of VHF for safety reasons.

Rather than loook at the analogy of driving licencing it might be more constructive to look at the example of the Insititute of Advanced Motorists. Most members join and take the course and exam because they want to be better drivers. They have the added advantage of reduced insurance premiums and face loss of membership if they are convicted for motoring offences. There is a continuing motive to drive well... and guess what ... its a voluntary scheme.

So it boils down to the need for encouragement of good practice which should go to every part of the industry from marine insurance and port authorities to brokers.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tome]

Sailing without restriction is one of our few precious freedoms, and you'd cast it away because there are a few plonkers around?

One of the reasons I did my YM was because of the short-sighted wish of some to see compulsory licensing. I did mine voluntarily in part so that, should such a proposal materialise, I could argue against it from a position of strength.

After 30 odd years and many thousands of miles sailing did I emerge a better sailor for doing the YM? Certainly I learned a few new tricks, but that's probably true of every trip I do.

Suspect your bit of paper has gone to your head here, Magic_Sailor!



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Sybarite]

Re: I shall have retired befoire I am qualified to do

Talking about social services. My sister is a senior school nursing sister. For her thirty years of service she got a special bonus from the local trust - £50 !

She also got a Christmas bonus £1 which was withheld to go towards the cost of the Christmas staff lunch.

Beef over.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ponapay]

That\'s the trouble with

bureaucrats and accountants, they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Experience counts better than accountants.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[RichardPerou]

Despite my fear of flaming from the licence and franco phobes I think that it is worth considering the French test. Last time I looked (in the 'Livre d'abord') it asked is that you have a basic knowlege of the collision regs, basic equipment that you should carry and weather and safety sources.

Do we send our kids out without a grounding in road safety?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[beancounter]

Re: That\'s the trouble with

I won't take that personally.....

(see bio)

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Violetta]

Vive la France!

But, with respect, the relevant question is not "is the test simple?" or "sensible?" or anything else about the nature of the test itself. The question is "can it be shown to make a significant impact on safety at sea?" (Or possibly "can it be shown that French sailors are consistently safer than British ones?")

In other words - does it make a significant difference (significant enough to justify the cost) and if so, what difference does it make? It is demonstrable output that is important here, not input, however "sensible" that input may appear. This is a question that could reasonably be investigated and should be, before any decision is taken.

<hr width=100% size=1><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by Violetta on 17/04/2003 14:58 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[Peppermint]

Re: Vive la France!

Quite right Vi. But I suspect that the real reasoning will be does this earn revenue and give us control? HMG could come up with figures till they're blue in the face and we won't belive them.

There is an industry that is based on giving people the idea thar sailing is tough, difficult & dangerous. If the RYA & the BMFI want to promote sailing looking at the upside might work better.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[bigmart]

Re: Vive la France!

The RYA have produced figures that appear to say there is no appreciable improvement in countries where licensing is a statutory requirement. In many cases the opposite is true.

It should also be remembered that the price you have to pay for licensing is a lot more expensive than purely financial. The real question here must be "What is it that those who seek to legislate expect to gain?". Without a large & active police force on the water there can be no advantage whatsoever. When was the last time that you told a Policeman about someone who was speeding, on the road & they were reprimanded for it. It just can't happen.

Local byelaws are enforced by Harbour Authorities & more major infringements are policed by the MCA. Beyond that licensing only serves to collect money to pay for the collection of the license fee. What is the point in that given that others have established that we already have one of the best safety records in the world.

Martin

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[kgi]

Re: Vive la France!

I have to agree with everything you have said in your posts on this thread, i have seen YMs who shouldn't have been in charge of a mirror dinghy, but also day skips that looked like they had been sailing all there lives !!!!! personally i hold a day skip ticket' and have absolutely no intention of spending more money chasing another peice of paper, i actually learnt more about sailing by crossing the atlantic in my own boat than i think the RYA can ever teach you, and a lot of people when talking in the cockpits on an evening with rum in hand ( like you do) said the same, i probably learnt more from other cruisers sitting in there cockpits than i ever did doing DS, all the tickets give you is a foundation to work from......do they need to be law....no i don't think so...........keith

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[billmacfarlane]

No

No I'm not. I've got horrendous toothache which is why I'm writing this at 0245 in the morning. Hopefully normal service will be resumed later this morning albeit minus one wisdom tooth when hopefully I can find an emergency dentist. Please ignore the above rant which I can't believe I wrote.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Neal]

Oi! Take that back!...

I'm on the 'don't legislate but encourage' side of this debate. I've 40+ years of sailing since a lad, RYA qualifications, and I'm an accountant.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[TheBoatman]

Re: Oi! Take that back!...

Has any one thought that if compulsory lic came in then the RYA may lose the"contract" to a government quango. Maybe thats why they fight so hard to keep the status quo? After all its a large percentage of their revenue.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Magic_Sailor]

No, that's not true - nor was it my point which maybe I didn't make plain enough.

It's not the piece of paper - it hasn't gone to my head.

When I did the 5 day course (prior to the exam) I undertook it on the basis of "I'll learn something here - and if I pass the exam as well then all well and good but not that important".

I certainly did learn something (although you are correct that you learn a new trick on most passages). Apart from the sailing tricks I also learned a bit of humility and consideration - which was the orginal point of the posting. It reminded me of when I was learning to drive and I distinctly remember being taught consideration for others on the road.

And that was the basis of thought processes (such as they are).

Incidentally, I'm not one for pieces of paper for their own sake. Most of the well certificated people I've met through work turn out to be not so good at the "actually gettingthings done" stakes.

So I guess my point was that I wanted to get people on the course to learn a whole range of things - one of which is consideration for fellow sailors - and the only way to ensure this was some sort of licence at the end.

Magic

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://hometown.aol.co.uk/geoffwestgarth/myhomepage/travelwriting.html>Click for website!</A>

 

[snowleopard]

room for compromise?

heaven forbid we should follow the french example with heavy fines for going too far offshore in a boat the officials consider 'unsuitable'. under that regime blondie hasler would have spent his life in jail.

on the other hand, when i found myself head-on with a rib whose young owner thought we drive on the left and was determined to get between me and the wrong side of the channel i did start to wonder if at least a basic knowledge of the rules of the road is essential.

to my mind, the problem is how to police a minimal level of safety without getting the beaurocratic jobsworths involved?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Gunfleet]

Re: room for compromise?

Actually the kit the French want you to carry offshore is very likely less than most of us would carry offshore. And their licensing system standards for skippering are below day skipper YM standard. In other words there's no advantage in making our system like the Europeans except to those who want to run a bureaucracy paid for by the rest of us.

<hr width=100% size=1>