PB2 - Under 16 endorsement? WTF?

HI Alicatt.

I was wrong about the age limit but I'm pretty sure that if you have PBL2 and take the online PPR course, which is around £40 - you can then drive a 24m vessel commercially & with passengers.

As I said it is a strange qualification. An anomaly..
 
obmij said:
It's a weird qualification PBL2.

You can stick a commercial endorsement on it and (theoretically) carry 12 px in a 24 meter commercial vessel!

The commercial endorsement consists of an online course and a basic medical to check you have a pulse and are not colour blind.
Click to expand...
It’s actually a bit more onerous than that, to get a commercial endorsement of a PB2 you need:

- the PB2 certificate
- a PPR certificate (the online course I think you refer to)
- a medical, which is considerably more than having a pulse - expect at the very least restrictions if you are type 1 diabetic, epileptic, have certain heart conditions etc. none of which would automatically stop you driving a car
- a sea survival certificate
- a vhf operators certificate
- a first aid certificate

And for renewals 150 days at sea in last 5 yrs.

And that will let you operate a vessel in daylight and favourable conditions within 3 NM of a stated departure point.
 
Last edited:
Mark-1 said:
It doesn't seem to be a "don't blame us warning" or a "kids require supervision", it seems to specifically be a limitation on a qualification that doesn't qualify you to do anything and isn't compulsory.

Mind you, we haven't seen the specific text.
Click to expand...
I may have this wrong, but I thought is was a certificate that someone has shown a level of competence that meets the course/exam requirements. Pretty basic- even a child can pass!!
It is not any sort of qualification,is it?
I guess the 16 year limit is that they are testing the boat handling skills only, not that a Child ( which I guess has some legal implications as regards liability/responsibility in the UK) has been assessed for suitability. Kind of see why they might not want to go down that road!
I don't see the under 16 age requirement limits anything you choose to do. The age limit simply states you can't do it under the auspices of the Certificate- whatever they might be!
Fairly sure this was in there when my kids did this test 20 odd years ago.
 
gjgm said:
I may have this wrong, but I thought is was a certificate that someone has shown a level of competence that meets the course/exam requirements. Pretty basic- even a child can pass!!
It is not any sort of qualification,is it?
Click to expand...

I think that's right, so how can it be restricted? It makes no sense.

gjgm said:
I guess the 16 year limit is that they are testing the boat handling skills only, not that a Child ( which I guess has some legal implications as regards liability/responsibility in the UK) has been assessed for suitability. Kind of see why they might not want to go down that road!
I don't see the under 16 age requirement limits anything you choose to do. The age limit simply states you can't do it under the auspices of the Certificate- whatever they might be!
Click to expand...

Yes, and it's the "auspices of the Certificate" that I'm questioning. It appeared to me to be a totally meaningless 'restriction', and nobody on this thread seems able to provide any meaning so I guess my gut feel was right. My question was looking for the detail of your "whatever they might be".

Of course, none of us have seen the actual text. Perhaps it just says 'The RYA recommend kids are supervised in boats' which would be reasonable and the sailing schools are using a weird form of words to indicate that.
 
gjgm said:
I guess the 16 year limit is that they are testing the boat handling skills only, not that a Child ( which I guess has some legal implications as regards liability/responsibility in the UK) has been assessed for suitability. Kind of see why they might not want to go down that road!
Click to expand...
I can see the logic but does this imply that because on a hypothetical course a 15.5 yr old and 16.5 yr old both do the same training and are issued with the certificate with only the younger one getting the endorsement that the older one is being assessed as “suitable”. Does it suggest that a 12 year old old who does the course and never steps aboard a powerboat for 4 years is suddenly suitable?

Any sort of certification (even a course completion certificate) leads to all sorts of questions about the implications.
 
This may be a remnant of EU ... as over here in Latvia - Latvia claims that the 16yr endorsement is EU condition ...

I first encountered this when I was prosecuted for having a drink on my boat on the river some years ago ... the person actually helming / looking after the boat was my Nephew - under 16 ... but boat was then SSR (UK Pt3) .. so Latvian rules were ??.

Court refused stating that Latvian Rules stated 16yrs .. and that I as OWNER was responsible ... unfortunately over here - a lot of Soviet era thinking still prevailed and despite Lawyers arguing facts - I still lost.
 
Where I am in Belgium the minimum age for a Vaarbewijs or stuurbrevet (Sailing or steering licence) is 16 years, you can apply to do the exams at 15 but the licence will not be valid until you pass your 16th birthday
FOD said:
  • What are the conditions to apply for a steering license?
      • Minimum age: 16 years (registration for the exam is possible from 15 years old)
      • Medical certificate (max. 3 months old when applying for a certificate)
      • Passed the theory exam (max. 3 years old)
      • Passed the practical exam (max. 3 years old)
      • Important!
      The exams are constructive. To obtain the general steering license, you must also pass the 'limited' theory exam (max. 3 years old). Or be in possession of the limited steering license.
Click to expand...
Beperkt en algemeen stuurbrevet
 
I was solo helming an Humber Inflatable with a Chrysler 15hp when I was about 10.
Somehow, I survived.
 
What is the OPs, Mark-1, beef/issue here? He doesn't state why he is not happy, dare I say, upset, at the endorsement.

The terms are clear, if he or his daughter doesn't like the endorsement then don't take the course to obtain PB2.

Does he want her to have PB2 for insurance reasons? Or does she want it? Or what is the reason?

My son did it at 14, as I wanted him to have some official tuition, albeit basic. Both to improve his boat handling and to give him a bit more confidence.

If she just wants to blat around in a boat 13 or so, it isn't necessary. She can do that without PB2. She can take the course to "prove" a minimum skill level ( that varies a lot depending school & instructor )

16 is aligned to the ICC requirements I believe, kids can drive at 70mph down the motorway at 17, so I don't understand people asking why not 18?

Taking a course, whether RYA, or other, is a sensible, responsible step.

May she enjoy boating and remain safe, regardless of taking the course or not.
 
mww said:
He doesn't state why he is not happy, dare I say, upset, at the endorsement.

The terms are clear, if he or his daughter doesn't like the endorsement then don't take the course to obtain PB2.
Click to expand...
I don’t want to put words in Mark’s mouth but I think half of his “issue” is what the wording actually says - the terms are definitely not “clear” if you google it you will find at least three different variations on what the endorsement might say, from different schools. Which if any is right? Why does the RYA website not explicitly say when the endorsement is like it does on the inland waterways course?
mww said:
My son did it at 14, as I wanted him to have some official tuition, albeit basic.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you could help marks first question then and post the exact wording that appears on his certificate (and an idea how recent).
 
ylop said:
I don’t want to put words in Mark’s mouth but I think half of his “issue” is what the wording actually says - the terms are definitely not “clear” if you google it you will find at least three different variations on what the endorsement might say, from different schools. Which if any is right? Why does the RYA website not explicitly say when the endorsement is like it does on the inland waterways course?

Perhaps you could help marks first question then and post the exact wording that appears on his certificate (and an idea how recent).
Click to expand...
His certificate had a stamp/endorsement when issued, he is older now and only the original school could remove the endorsement. So, sorry but I cannot now provide the exact wording. It was very basic as I remember, a few words, not a comprehensive paragraph. It spelled out he was under 16, the RYA PB2 is basic, but shows others you bothered to undertake that training. Whether their care that the holder is under 16 is their business, not the RYA

>> Now I have found an old pdf of his pb2. There is a green circle/stamp on it that says "under 16" across 2 lines The diameter is width of the A in RYA logo and is immediately below it. It also says "Tick here if endorsement applies. See logbook for details." This is not ticked.
I do not have the logbook.

At 16, as he was a member of the RYA he was given an ICC for Power up to 10m and also Personal Watercraft. I am pretty sure for obvious reasons we didn't apply for an ICC before he was 16.

It wasn't a hinderance to us - we tended to take bare boat day charters, both ribs and 'non ribs', usually 7-8m in the med & canaries. His details were always recorded alongside mine - I was clearly with him.

I encouraged my son to do the 2 day course (let's get it in perspective) to build his confidence when he was boating with friends in their family boats etc. To understand more and be confident to say when things are clearly wrong.

We still need to know why Mark-1 considers the endorsement a hinderance. - well he implies he does I suspect that any operator. harbour/marina commission would have far more strenuous requirements regarding age t operate a vessel. A PB", even endorsed is a good sign.

Hopefully some of that is helpful!
 
mww said:
What is the OPs, Mark-1, beef/issue here? He doesn't state why he is not happy, dare I say, upset, at the endorsement.

The terms are clear, if he or his daughter doesn't like the endorsement then don't take the course to obtain PB2.

Does he want her to have PB2 for insurance reasons? Or does she want it? Or what is the reason?

My son did it at 14, as I wanted him to have some official tuition, albeit basic. Both to improve his boat handling and to give him a bit more confidence.

If she just wants to blat around in a boat 13 or so, it isn't necessary. She can do that without PB2. She can take the course to "prove" a minimum skill level ( that varies a lot depending school & instructor )

16 is aligned to the ICC requirements I believe, kids can drive at 70mph down the motorway at 17, so I don't understand people asking why not 18?

Taking a course, whether RYA, or other, is a sensible, responsible step.

May she enjoy boating and remain safe, regardless of taking the course or not.
Click to expand...

I don't have any beef, I was just curious what it actually meant. Why would I have a beef about a restriction that doesn't seem to restrict, and why online does everything have to be a complaint or an argument? Can't we just work out what the rules are without a squabble?

Anyhoo, the main reason for getting PB2 is that she enjoys doing structured 'training' and its time in a RIB which she enjoys, and a course was available for £60 which is cheap AFAIC.

The secondary reason is that this coming season she'll be a dinghy sailing Assistant Instructor. AI doesn't require PB2 but being allowed to drive the RIBs makes the kids more useful as instructors; is a bit more responsibility and a badge of honor for them.

But, as I say, the main reason is because a cheap course was offered and she just fancies doing it. She doesn't need PB2, it doesn't matter if she passes or fails, and if she didn't think she'd enjoy the course she wouldn't be doing it.

(If later on she wanted to be a Dinghy Instructor that would require PB2 but you have to be 16 to do that so the 'restriction' will be over and who knows if she'll still be interested by then.)
 
Last edited:
mww said:
We still need to know why Mark-1 considers the endorsement a hinderance. -
Click to expand...

I don't, in fact I couldn't see how it hinders in any way at all, that's why I've posted a question on a forum to find out specifically what the restriction is. Do you think it hinders anything? What does it hinder?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top