MCA targets uncoded race yachts

[newtothis]

Slightly odd timing for this. I don't imagine there are an awful lot of commercial race yachts sailing coded or uncoded right now.

MCA targets uncoded race yachts
Action will be taken against uncoded commercially operated sailing yachts engaged in racing, the Maritime & Coastguard Agency (MCA) has warned, following the conclusion of legal proceedings against two vessels.
The MCA has agreed to discontinue prosecution against the owners of Scarlet Oyster and Playing Around, under the condition both enter into a written agreement to ensure their vessels are coded when engaged in any commercial activity.
The outcome reaffirms the agency’s committed position to ensuring all vessels hold the correct documentation.
Small, commercially operated yachts must hold a valid code certificate when being used for any commercial purposes, including racing and training, while vessels must also only operate within the category of water for which they have been authorised. A failure to comply will result in enforcement action with the MCA committed to maintaining the rigorous standards of the UK Flag.
Despite initiatives to address concerns raised in 2019, such as publication of the information leaflet ‘Are you in code mode’ and officers attending Gran Canaria for the start of the ARC, investigations were begun into several yachts.
The Regulatory Compliance Investigation Team found a number of breaches, resulting in the owners receiving official cautions, paying several thousands of pounds in intervention costs to the MCA and ensuring their vessels were coded for future commercial use. Other yachts were sold or removed from the UK flag and no longer entitled to be UK registered.
Mark Flavell, Lead Investigator at the MCA as part of the Regulatory Compliance Investigations Team, said: “A misinterpretation of the code concerning yachts engaged in racing had developed. The MCA want to send a clear message and dispel this misinterpretation.
“Commercially operated vessels, including those engaged in racing, must be coded. This is to ensure commercial vessels are subject of an independent survey and inspection regime. The aim being, as with any scrutiny of commercial operations, is to keep employees and public safe.
“We will not hesitate to take enforcement action against yacht owners who don’t want to hear this message and fail to get their yacht coded.”

 

[dom]

Agree re timing, but sensible measures to address wides misunderstanding.

 

[dunedin]

Does this relate back to Cheeki Raffiki as well?

 

[PhillM]

Interesting about the ARC. Lots of owner advertise for crew but then charge a significant fee. There has for some time been those that used the crew fees to pay all their entry and running costs (and perhaps make a profit) but to do so under the radar. I think it’s good that commercial activity is noted as such and standards enforced.

 

[RJJ]

Interesting about the ARC. Lots of owner advertise for crew but then charge a significant fee. There has for some time been those that used the crew fees to pay all their entry and running costs (and perhaps make a profit) but to do so under the radar. I think it’s good that commercial activity is noted as such and standards enforced.

Scarlet Oyster and Playing Around look to have been very much "over" the radar, advertising themselves as charter yachts.

Isn't that the gist here...rather than the numerous yachts that ask for a per capita share of entry fee and rations?

 

[dunedin]

Scarlet Oyster and Playing Around look to have been very much "over" the radar, advertising themselves as charter yachts.

Isn't that the gist here...rather than the numerous yachts that ask for a per capita share of entry fee and rations?

Dont know about Playing Around, but Scarlet Oyster has done the ARC Racing division plenty time, and very successfully as well. Also plenty of other events. Looked to be a well run ship. I assumed they had paying crew, but was not something thought about.
Seemed the type to be seamanlike, but does sound like they and MCA apparently had different views of the rules regarding boats involved with racing. Now seems to be clarified.

 

[Greemble]

The timing is possibly to give a 'heads up' to everyone of the intention to enforce the rules this coming season, rather than waiting until the racing starts, then hitting operators hard later in the year.

It also gives even fewer excuses to anyone that might get caught.

 

[Sandy]

The timing is possibly to give a 'heads up' to everyone of the intention to enforce the rules this coming season, rather than waiting until the racing starts, then hitting operators hard later in the year.

It also gives even fewer excuses to anyone that might get caught.

My thoughts entirely. I can hear the barrister for the prosecution having a field day with the defence when something got to court.

 

[38mess]

Why not, shouldn't take much to get a well found yacht coded.

 

[Mark-1]

Why not, shouldn't take much to get a well found yacht coded.

Requires structural changes for larger distances offshore - waterproof compartment in the bow.

 

[duncan99210]

Requires structural changes for larger distances offshore - waterproof compartment in the bow.

I’d always thought that the “we‘re racing” exemption was not a dodge round the coding requirement but was to allow yachts normally restricted to ”no more than 60 mile from safe haven” to make long passages when racing without the need to have watertight compartments and the like. It seems like the yachts targeted weren’t properly coded for any charter activity, hence the threat of enforcement action.

 

[dunedin]

I’d always thought that the “we‘re racing” exemption was not a dodge round the coding requirement but was to allow yachts normally restricted to ”no more than 60 mile from safe haven” to make long passages when racing without the need to have watertight compartments and the like. It seems like the yachts targeted weren’t properly coded for any charter activity, hence the threat of enforcement action.

I thought that was the “loophole“, or rather different interpretations of the rules, that allegedly arose around the Cheeky Raffiki case? I think it was suggested she was not coded, and MCA argued such boats should be under the rules. But that is just what I think I saw written at the time, and may not apply. And that specific case is now played out with the various proceedings, which would give the best record.

However, this could be part of an ongoing process by MCA to avoid misunderstandings around the application of the rules going forward?

 

[flaming]

Does anyone know if this is a result of an actual change?

My impression was always that yachts engaged in racing, for example a boat doing a Fastnet or an ARC with a paying crew, did not need to be coded as there was always an exemption for racing provided the yacht met the ISAF code for the race. Which seemed fairly sensible to be honest.
The debate around the Cheeky Rafiki use of this was that the wording said something like "and passage to and from the race" which they tried to claim included the Atlantic crossing home from the ARC, and the MCA said, no, this was meant to cover the few miles between your berth and the race start, and not an Atlantic passage... Which also seemed sensible...

But have they changed the rules to mean that commercial yachts will now need to be coded for Atlantic passages whilst actually racing, or are they trying to claim that this has always applied?

 

[Seven Spades]

It is quite interesting I think that for years a lot of owners have been bending the rules by selling slots on their boats in the ARC. I wonder if they will go after YouTubers who are offering "experience weeks" to their Patrons. Distance Shores for example is a UK flagged vessel.

 

[duncan99210]

As I said above, my understanding is that the “being used for racing“ exemption was to cover a yacht being more than 60 miles from a safe haven. That meant that yachts like Cheeki Rafiki (which had been coded but her survey was out of date) could do things like the ARC (a race) without needing to make structural alterations to meet the requirements of the coding category for being more than 60 miles from a safe haven.
From the fairly thin details in the OP, it would appear that there were boats in the ARC which were operating as chartered racing boats. They should have been coded under the MCA rules but weren’t and that’s what the MCA were flagging up: if you’re letting folks use your boat as “paying crew” you’re effectively acting as a chartered boat and need to have MCA coding in place.

 

[RJJ]

It is quite interesting I think that for years a lot of owners have been bending the rules by selling slots on their boats in the ARC. I wonder if they will go after YouTubers who are offering "experience weeks" to their Patrons. Distance Shores for example is a UK flagged vessel.

At some point it's a grey area, right? I mean, depending what we're up to, I regularly ask people for a contribution to per-capita mooring fees and food expenses. When racing, I've also been expected to contribute to entry fees from time to time. I'm aware of race boats where the crew chips in for a new sail every year...it all helps...

Cruising, I've always figured that I'm OK outside the code if I can show that I've also paid my share; nobody's covering my own costs or my family.

But for the ARC, a share-of-entry plus food could easily get close to £1k. Anything over £2k and I'd say profit is being taken.

 

[flaming]

From the fairly thin details in the OP, it would appear that there were boats in the ARC which were operating as chartered racing boats. They should have been coded under the MCA rules but weren’t and that’s what the MCA were flagging up: if you’re letting folks use your boat as “paying crew” you’re effectively acting as a chartered boat and need to have MCA coding in place.

But that's my question. It has always been my understanding that chartered boat was fine in a race without coding if you conformed to the ISAF code applicable to the race.

Reading the Cheeky Rafiki MAIB report again is interesting. This was the code at the time.

‘28.1 A coded vessel chartered or operated commercially, for the purpose of racing need not comply with the provisions of the Code whilst racing, or whilst in passage directly to or from a race, provided that the vessel complies with the following:-
1. It complies with the racing rule provisions of either the International Sailing Federation (ISAF) or the Union Internationale Motonautique (UIM).
2. It complies with the racing rule provisions of the affiliated Member National Authority, of either the ISAF or UIM, in the country where the race takes place.
3. It complies with the safety rule provisions of the race Organising Authority affiliated to the Member National Authority and thereby recognised by the ISAF or UIM to organise races in the country where the race takes place.
4. If it is a yacht racing offshore, it complies with the appropriate parts of the ISAF Offshore Racing Committee’s special regulations or the similar requirements of the affiliated race Organising Authority.
5. When on charter and in passage in any Area Category to and from the race, the race equivalent safety cover shall be in force, or the vessel is to be in its coded condition for the passage.

38 28.2 A non-Coded vessel may be chartered or operated commercially for the purpose of racing, or whilst in passage directly to or from a race, provided that it is registered and licensed by an ISAF or UIM affiliated Member National Authority as a vessel chartered or operated commercially for the exclusive purpose of racing and provided the vessel also complies with the provisions of

28.1.1 to 28.1.5… 28.3 The relief from the compliance with the provisions of the Code…, does not apply to a vessel taking part in an event created and organised with the intent to avoid the provisions of the Code.’ [sic]

At the time, the emails between the MCA and stormforce indicated that they were quite happy that the boat had crossed the Atlantic quite legally in the ARC.

On 26 March 2014, the MCA stated in an email to YDSA ‘…not sure how it got to the Caribbean from the UK on a Cat 2 Certificate, especially as they are using it commercially out there?’ This email was forwarded by YDSA to Stormforce Coaching, who responded directly to the MCA on 27 March 2014 ‘…Just to clarify, the yacht crossed the Atlantic in the racing division of the ARC under ISAF regulations. She will not be carrying any paying passengers for the way home…’
On 28 March 2014, the MCA responded, stating ‘Paying passengers are only one element of the definition. If the voyage is a relocation voyage for commercial purposes, the vessel is almost certainly not being used as a pleasure vessel.’

Subsequent to the accident, the MCA has stated that for the return crossing of the Atlantic Ocean ‘the vessel should have been appropriately coded or complied fully with the relevant merchant shipping legislation that would otherwise have applied’.

Which says to me that they were happy with the explanation of the ARC trip out.

What has changed? An actual regulation, or a new reading/ interpretation of it?

 

[duncan99210]

Flaming, don’t think anything’s changed, just that if a yacht is racing it is exempt from the part of the coding rules about not being more than 60 miles from a safe haven. It must still be coded. My reading of the OP is that the boats concerned weren’t coded, hence the MCA actions against the owners.
The only way to make oceanic voyages which aren’t part of a race is to comply to the highest standards under the coding system (not sure what the classifications are called) which enables you to be more than 60 miles from a safe haven. But to get that classification required a series of watertight compartments which is difficult if not impossible for many smaller boats.

 

[flaming]

Flaming, don’t think anything’s changed, just that if a yacht is racing it is exempt from the part of the coding rules about not being more than 60 miles from a safe haven. It must still be coded.

That's not my read of the code I quoted, specifically "28.2 A non-Coded vessel may be chartered or operated commercially for the purpose of racing, or whilst in passage directly to or from a race, "

So these boats are not coded, but are racing. Where is the breach?

My reading of the OP is that the boats concerned weren’t coded, hence the MCA actions against the owners.

Agree with what the MCA are now doing, but that doesn't seem consistent with the text of the code. Hence my "what's changed" question.

 

[capnsensible]

The stumbling block is stability. See here:

https://www.rya.org.uk/SiteCollecti...MCA Documents/SS1 - (Sailing Vessel) 2019.pdf