MCA targets uncoded race yachts

[flaming]

Are bareboat operations what the MCA are targetting here?

Obviously not, by going out to the ARC and targeting Scarlett Oyster and Playing Around, they're quite clearly going after the offshore race charter boys.

But it's the law of unintended consequences... By removing the "you don't need to be a coded boat at all to charter when racing" clause they've made life a lot harder for a whole segment of race boat owners who used to bareboat charter out their boats for an event or 2 per year to help with the costs.

But then you still have the clause that coded boats don't have to be compliant when racing... So what is the gap that's actually being closed here? Is it just the right to inspect?

 

[Mark-1]

Are bareboat operations what the MCA are targetting here?

If it's on a business footing , would you be allowed to charter a boat to any random bunch of unqualified people?

Yup. No legal requirements for quals AFAIK in any of the countrys I've chartered in, including the Uk. "Equivalent experience" is usually in the contract.

 

[TernVI]

.....

I think you will find the rules are quite specific about 'the public' vs 'family and friends'.

If Ryanair makes a loss on a half empty flight, it's still commercial. Profit is not the only factor here.

 

[Mark-1]

I think you will find the rules are quite specific about 'the public' vs 'family and friends'.

If Ryanair makes a loss on a half empty flight, it's still commercial. Profit is not the only factor here.

I hadn't meant to post that, YBW kept it on my buffer. Deleted.

 

[Lucy52]

So, if as it seems to be a commercial undertaking and the boat has to be coded, wouldn't it follow that the skipper, if it were a skippered voyage or race, also have to have commercial endorsements?

 

[TernVI]

So, if as it seems to be a commercial undertaking and the boat has to be coded, wouldn't it follow that the skipper, if it were a skippered voyage or race, also have to have commercial endorsements?

I would think so. Possibly you might need another qualified, commercially ticketed person too?

I'm wondering if the MCA just don't want some activities on the UK register, or whether this is belatedly bringing us into line with other EU countries?

 

[Lucy52]

I would think so. Possibly you might need another qualified, commercially ticketed person too?

I vaguley remember that was one of the things said at the time of Cheeky Rafiki, that there needed to be another qualified person on board.

 

[capnsensible]

Manning requirements for small commercial vessels can be found in MGN 280. This link from the RYA refers.

https://www.rya.org.uk/training-support/Documents/MCA_manning_requirements.pdf

 

[Uricanejack]

Obviously not, by going out to the ARC and targeting Scarlett Oyster and Playing Around, they're quite clearly going after the offshore race charter boys.

But it's the law of unintended consequences... By removing the "you don't need to be a coded boat at all to charter when racing" clause they've made life a lot harder for a whole segment of race boat owners who used to bareboat charter out their boats for an event or 2 per year to help with the costs.

But then you still have the clause that coded boats don't have to be compliant when racing... So what is the gap that's actually being closed here? Is it just the right to inspect?

Which unintended consequences?

The rules about pleasure vessels and contributions are presumably unchanged. So chipping in is presumably still ok.
The lines of where chipping in becomes paying a for passage presumably unchanged. What contributions are allowed and what crosses the line will still be the same.

You pointed out the rule about racing has changed, which makes perfect good common sense.
Any vessel on a commercial voyage should meet the minimum legal requirements for the voyage.

Im not so sure casually bare boat chartering on a few occasions would have been entirely kosher anyway. Leading to all sorts of problems if things went wrong.
The bottom line will be clearer now. In order to charter out a boat as a bare boat charter. The boat will have to comply with the requirements. Whatever they may be.
which will provide better protection for both the owner and the charterer if there was to be an unfortunate event.

having chartered boats in the past, I certainly had the expectation the boats I chartered. met all requirements when I chartered them , I chartered through companies I presumed were reputable and expected knew what was required.
just as if I rent a car.

I have been asked by a friend if I would be willing to rent him my boat for a week. hand shake cash nobody else any wiser.
A private deal between friends. What could go wrong?
My answer sorry no. The risk of casually renting the boat just not acceptable.
I did consider lending without a charge. Which would be ok provided I checked with insurance.
In the end I decided it still wasn’t worth the risk,

So if an owner wants to off set some costs by chartering the boat out. The owner probably should make sure all the T‘s are dotted and the I‘s crossed. Then everything is above board.

 

[flaming]

Which unintended consequences?

The rules about pleasure vessels and contributions are presumably unchanged. So chipping in is presumably still ok.
The lines of where chipping in becomes paying a for passage presumably unchanged. What contributions are allowed and what crosses the line will still be the same.

You pointed out the rule about racing has changed, which makes perfect good common sense.
Any vessel on a commercial voyage should meet the minimum legal requirements for the voyage.

The coded boat can still be outside of the code when racing, providing it meets the ISAF code appropriate for the race. In the past a non coded boat could also be used provided it conformed to the ISAF code. Given that the coded boat does not have to meet the code whilst in the race now, what is the safety gap that is being closed? How does it make sense to exclude non coded boats from race charter, when you allow coded boats to be outside of the code when racing?
I could understand this more if they were saying that you needed to be code compliant when racing. But I don't understand the logic of saying that you must be coded, but then whilst racing you can change the boat to only be compliant with the ISAF code. How does the fact that the boat was code compliant last week, but is now only compliant with the ISAF code, make things safer?

Im not so sure casually bare boat chartering on a few occasions would have been entirely kosher anyway.

Yes, it was entirely kosher for race charter, and was not uncommon.

The bottom line will be clearer now. In order to charter out a boat as a bare boat charter. The boat will have to comply with the requirements. Whatever they may be.
which will provide better protection for both the owner and the charterer if there was to be an unfortunate event.

This has always been the case. The difference is that in the past it was enough for a racing boat to be ISAF compliant for the category appropriate with the race it was taking part in. It actually still is, except that it must also be coded, but can then revert to ISAF only during the event.

having chartered boats in the past, I certainly had the expectation the boats I chartered. met all requirements when I chartered them , I chartered through companies I presumed were reputable and expected knew what was required.

If you're chartering for cruising, then that is the MCA code. No question and nothing has changed. If you are chartering a racing boat to take part in Cowes week, for example, then it will need to meet cat 4 of the ISAF code in order to enter the race. Always had to, still will. Only now the MCA say the boat also has to be coded. But doesn't have to be code compliant whilst racing.

Can you see why I'm struggling with the logic of this?

I have been asked by a friend if I would be willing to rent him my boat for a week. hand shake cash nobody else any wiser.
A private deal between friends. What could go wrong?
My answer sorry no. The risk of casually renting the boat just not acceptable.
I did consider lending without a charge. Which would be ok provided I checked with insurance.
In the end I decided it still wasn’t worth the risk,

So if an owner wants to off set some costs by chartering the boat out. The owner probably should make sure all the T‘s are dotted and the I‘s crossed. Then everything is above board.

Race charters always were. When you were chartering a racing boat you knew that it would be compliant to the ISAF code. Charter outside of racing has always been subject to the MCA code. Your example would always have been very dodgy, unless you are talking about a boat compliant with the ISAF rules and competing in a race.

 

[Uricanejack]

The coded boat can still be outside of the code when racing, providing it meets the ISAF code appropriate for the race. In the past a non coded boat could also be used provided it conformed to the ISAF code. Given that the coded boat does not have to meet the code whilst in the race now, what is the safety gap that is being closed? How does it make sense to exclude non coded boats from race charter, when you allow coded boats to be outside of the code when racing?
I could understand this more if they were saying that you needed to be code compliant when racing. But I don't understand the logic of saying that you must be coded, but then whilst racing you can change the boat to only be compliant with the ISAF code. How does the fact that the boat was code compliant last week, but is now only compliant with the ISAF code, make things safer?

Yes, it was entirely kosher for race charter, and was not uncommon.



This has always been the case. The difference is that in the past it was enough for a racing boat to be ISAF compliant for the category appropriate with the race it was taking part in. It actually still is, except that it must also be coded, but can then revert to ISAF only during the event.


If you're chartering for cruising, then that is the MCA code. No question and nothing has changed. If you are chartering a racing boat to take part in Cowes week, for example, then it will need to meet cat 4 of the ISAF code in order to enter the race. Always had to, still will. Only now the MCA say the boat also has to be coded. But doesn't have to be code compliant whilst racing.

Can you see why I'm struggling with the logic of this?



Race charters always were. When you were chartering a racing boat you knew that it would be compliant to the ISAF code. Charter outside of racing has always been subject to the MCA code. Your example would always have been very dodgy, unless you are talking about a boat compliant with the ISAF rules and competing in a race.

I can see, Not liking the change.

The rules have apparently changed. Presumably in direct response to the loss of Cheeki Raffiki. Which highlighted an apparent loophole used by several other commercial operators.
So why change the rules for other races? What’s the logic?

The logic to me, is making the rule consistent. so coding is required for chartering. to my mind this is more simple and clear.

For my personal boat, meeting the requirement for a local event was quite easy. For an offshore race it was rather more arduous and I didn’t bother.
by my reading of the thread. There is no change to the requirements to enter a race. If it’s your own boat there is no requirement to be coded. So nothing has changed in that regard.

If I were part of the MCA. my logic would be. We don’t control or set race requirements. Our MCA inspectors may not be familiar with race requirements.
So the problem would be how do you audit them. or How do you hold the MCA accountable for rules the MCA doesn’t set.

The MCA often delegate Inspection to classification society like Lloyds. But Those society report to the MCA and get audited by the MCA. The MCA delegates to the RYA. but the RYA reports to the MCA.

I do see on a few occasions there is now an extra layer of embuggarance.

If I want to charter a boat to enter a race. Presumably I would want it to be compliant with the rules for the race.

So this leaves a few specialized charter boat owners. Who would have to comply with both the MCA code requirements and the Race requirements.
How much would be involved in qualifying for both I have no clue, I expect the majority of requirements will be similar for shorter races inside the requirements for basic coded boats.
So probably not to difficult to achieve, will it be worth the embuggarance for once or twice a year, possibly not. How much does it cost to stay coded?

The greater impact will be on the offshore races. A lot of boats which can enter the race will not be able to meet higher coding requirements which get into subdivision and reserve buoyancy ect.

The logic is directed at commercial operations. Not amateur sailors.

Im not familiar with UK rules, regulations or statistics for small commercial vessels. When I left the UK 30 plus years ago, regulations for small charter vessels were almost non existent, And they were pretty much non existent here.

Here a small number of high profile incidents, have resulted in stricter regulations and enforcement over those 30 or so years.

I expect this is where the logic comes from. A small number of high profile incidents resulted in an important person in regulatory body getting egg on face.

I also get the impression from a distance. The MCA appear to be taking a bit of a heavy hand in general.

 

[flaming]

The rules have apparently changed. Presumably in direct response to the loss of Cheeki Raffiki. Which highlighted an apparent loophole used by several other commercial operators.
So why change the rules for other races? What’s the logic?

The logic to me, is making the rule consistent. so coding is required for chartering. to my mind this is more simple and clear.

But it isn't, that's my point! Because you do not need to be code complaint when racing commercially. You need to be ISAF compliant.

For my personal boat, meeting the requirement for a local event was quite easy. For an offshore race it was rather more arduous and I didn’t bother.
by my reading of the thread. There is no change to the requirements to enter a race. If it’s your own boat there is no requirement to be coded. So nothing has changed in that regard.

None of this discussion is about private boats racing privately, sorry if that has been unclear. It's about boats chartered for races.

The greater impact will be on the offshore races. A lot of boats which can enter the race will not be able to meet higher coding requirements which get into subdivision and reserve buoyancy ect.

Except it won't, because again you can be coded for near shore charter, then race offshore commercially provided your boat is ISAF compliant. That's my point. What is the logic of requiring a race charter boat to be coded if you do not require it to be code compliant when racing?

 

[capnsensible]

But it isn't, that's my point! Because you do not need to be code complaint when racing commercially. You need to be ISAF compliant.


None of this discussion is about private boats racing privately, sorry if that has been unclear. It's about boats chartered for races.



Except it won't, because again you can be coded for near shore charter, then race offshore commercially provided your boat is ISAF compliant. That's my point. What is the logic of requiring a race charter boat to be coded if you do not require it to be code compliant when racing?

To and from the race?

 

[Deleted member 36384]

Perhaps the MCA are thinking about consequences post incident. A coded boat for an ocean race, would perhaps be safer than an uncoded boat that complies with the ISAF rules. If you need to be coded now to charter to race, that addresses risk. If you are allowed to race where alternatives are accepted, the MCA may think, so what, the boat is coded. It is a back door way of getting stability and other stuff in place for offshore races up to 150 miles from SH or ocean crossing where crew pay to take part. Think about Cheeki Rafikee and what could have been different if the coding was in place place for ocean passage.

I don’t know what the differences are between ISAF and Coding for ocean, so my point may be moot.

 

[flaming]

To and from the race?

Was covered under the previous rules.

 

[flaming]

Perhaps the MCA are thinking about consequences post incident. A coded boat for an ocean race, would perhaps be safer than an uncoded boat that complies with the ISAF rules. If you need to be coded now to charter to race, that addresses risk. If you are allowed to race where alternatives are accepted, the MCA may think, so what, the boat is coded. It is a back door way of getting stability and other stuff in place for offshore races up to 150 miles from SH or ocean crossing where crew pay to take part. Think about Cheeki Rafikee and what could have been different if the coding was in place place for ocean passage.

I don’t know what the differences are between ISAF and Coding for ocean, so my point may be moot.

I could accept that if they were insisting that the boat be code compliant when racing, but they are not...

ISAF cat 3 (so overnight, cross channel type racing) has this to stay on stability.

3.04 Stability - Monohulls Mo3 3.04.1 Able to demonstrate compliance with ISO 12217-2* design category B or higher, either by EC Recreational Craft Directive certification having obtained the CE mark or the designer’s declaration * The latest effective version of ISO 12217-2 should be used unless the boat was already designed to a previous version Mo0,1,2,3 3.04.2 Where compliance in accordance with 3.04.1 cannot be demonstrated, able to demonstrate either:
Mo3 a) i a STIX value not less than 23; and Mo3 ii AVS not less than 130 - 0.005*m, but always >= 95°, (where “m” is the mass of the boat in the minimum operating condition as defined by ISO 12217- 2); and
Mo3 iii a minimum righting energy not less than m*AGZ>57000 (where AGZ is the positive area under the righting lever curve in the minimum operating condition, expressed in kg metre degrees from upright to AVS); or Extract Mo3 b) Stability Index in ORC Rating System of not less than 103; or
Extract Mo3 c) IRC SSS Base value of not less than 15

Cheeky Rafiki was already outside of the code for her delivery back. I agree that this might well be the impetus, and I applaud that, but I'm just wondering what the actual benefit is?

 

[capnsensible]

Looks from the op, as flaming mentioned, the arc is the target. I strongly suspect that this has been bubbling away for many years.

A good friend of mine was prosecuted by the MCA and was fined seventeen grand. This was around 15 years ago. He tried to play the small print in the rules, I think. I won't go into that on a public forum but there was a lot of mitigation and some stirring of the pot.

Doesn't seem much has changed. Earlier in the thread I mentioned about helping and observing boats trying for code zero. It's almost as if the stability rules are written to dissuade it. I don't know.

People have been making money on the edge for a long time, Mebbe the MCA have had enough? Having chatted to their 'enforcement team' I'm sure that they are keen to investigate.

Reflagging seems to be a solution for those with money who want to make money......

 

[Uricanejack]

But it isn't, that's my point! Because you do not need to be code complaint when racing commercially. You need to be ISAF compliant.


None of this discussion is about private boats racing privately, sorry if that has been unclear. It's about boats chartered for races.



Except it won't, because again you can be coded for near shore charter, then race offshore commercially provided your boat is ISAF compliant. That's my point. What is the logic of requiring a race charter boat to be coded if you do not require it to be code compliant when racing?

I must be missing the point. Probably because I don’t know what either set of rules actually require.

The ARC is probably the target of the changes, apparently the rule stretching by some commercial participants has probably brought attention and buggered it up for everyone else. Which is kind of how regulation works in general regardless of industry. shit happens new rules get written and everyone else has to comply.

The MCA don’t appear to be interfering with racing. So for the most part racing will be unaffected.
The MCA appear to be flexing some muscle on commercial operations taking part in racing. The result commercial operations probably will have to comply.

I suppose you can call it collateral damage. The rule loop hole which previously or currently allowed a near shore coded boat to enter an offshore race commercially now appears to be closed.
Is it safer? I couldn’t say. The Fastnet race disaster was over 40 years ago in a different era when regulation was a non issue. Haven’t heard of a reoccurrence.
So overkill? Possibly, I’m not aware of a recent history of problems with commercial offshore racing. So I wouldn’t disagree with you.

Ocean racing has had a few recent incidents even though the boats were coded.

I doubt the MCA will show up on mass at the average event in Cowes. unless of course something happens.
Clearly if they went all the way to the canaries, The MCA must have a bee in the bonnet about the ARC.
If I had been in the habit of chartering a boat out for racing. The logical course of action would be to check with the MCA just to be sure what is and is not allowed.

 

[Strikeliner]

Errr, Is the ARC actually a race? I don't think so. It's the Atlantic Rally for Cruisers.

Different I think. The World Cruising Club have their own specific requirements that apply to boats taking part. Not Harmonised code of practice or World sailing but pretty similar.

 

[Deleted member 36384]

Errr, Is the ARC actually a race? I don't think so. It's the Atlantic Rally for Cruisers.

Different I think. The World Cruising Club have their own specific requirements that apply to boats taking part. Not Harmonised code of practice or World sailing but pretty similar.

It is promoted as a race and a rally, has posted results for two different classes and includes corrected times and awards prizes. It also has a Notice of Race. If it looks like a duck etc. There is no obligation to race. Other companies that want sailors to pay them to take part advertise it as a race. See links : -

World Cruising Club

https://www.worldcruising.com/content/S637178951276672440/ARC Notice of Race 2020.pdf

https://www.worldcruising.com/content/S637440589680391970/Division 1 Class A & B.pdf

More than just a boat race, ...

Our definition of a rally is safe and social cruising. We offer an element of fun competition, but it isn't a race! Rallies are about crossing oceans with friends; feeling confident and prepared on departure day; having support and friendship at sea; and providing a welcome to salute your achievement on arrival.

The Atlantic Rally for Cruisers (ARC) - Hamble Point Sailing School

The Atlantic Rally for Cruisers (ARC) is a famous annual transatlantic event that is the largest Trans Ocean race of its kind in the world.
The Atlantic Rally for Cruisers (ARC) Race organisers ensure a high level of safety and also organise some great social events suitable for the whole family. The ARC yacht race takes you across 2700 miles of the Atlantic Ocean from the Canaries to the Caribbean on the trade wind route intended to give optimum exciting downwind sailing.