petrol fuel tank goose neck

[onleyb]

Hi people, at the moment my fuel tank vent comes up parallel with the filler pipe and emerges from the hull below the deck filler position. It does not have a goose neck. Looking at the boat safety scheme this is incorrect and the vent should vent higher than the filler or have a swan neck at the same height as the filler. Can you tell me what is the idea of the swan neck? And why the vent needs to be higher? I thought the idea of the vent is to prevent over filling so you can see fuel coming out of the vent at a level lower than the deck filler. If the vent is higher than the filler this will not happen. Confused.

 

[mriley]

This is one BSS rule that really bothers me. They say that there should be no vertical distance between the top of the swan neck and the filler, presumably so that if you over-fill it will glug out of the filler rather than out through the vent and into the river. I have a swan neck, whose highest point is about 12" below the filler. This apparently is not acceptable, and it means major (ie expensive) work to modify my boat (two fixed copper vent pipes pretty much inaccesable). I cannot see how I can unwittingly overfill the tanks to the extent that it flows out of the vent - I have accurate fuel gauges visible from the filling point, and a gadget purchased from the US to catch any overspill through the vent, but this is apparently not acceptable to BSS. In the US they rely on personal responsibility not to pollute the waterway (with v hefty on-the-spot fines for any pollution) - a far better system IMHO - if someone's going to pollute they'll do it whether they've got high swan necks or not.

 

[BSSOffice]

[ QUOTE ]
I have accurate fuel gauges visible from the filling point, and a gadget purchased from the US to catch any overspill through the vent, but this is apparently not acceptable to BSS. In the US they rely on personal responsibility not to pollute the waterway (with v hefty on-the-spot fines for any pollution) - a far better system IMHO - if someone's going to pollute they'll do it whether they've got high swan necks or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi
Write (email or snailmail) to my colleague, Phil Rickett, technical manager, with more details and pictures (if it adds further helpful info). I would not like to predict compliance or not. However your interpretation of the compliance option is right AFAICT, but that does not necessarily mean you fail to comply through another route. Phil will be able to make a judgement based on the information you supply.

If anyone has not seen it yet, the new Guide on our website has an improved illustration of the venting arrangements in Chapter 2 on page 13. http://www.boatsafetyscheme.com/downloads/BSS_Guide_chap2.pdf

Although pollution is one risk, the spread of fire is the other risk being minimised by this requirement compliance option. With the practicalities of most of the navigation authorities we work with, I don't think the enforcement route is realistic.

Regards

 

[Greg2]

Don't suppose you know what the evidence base is to support the BSS do you? This is a serious question and is not intended as a dig.

We are in the process of having it introduced on the Broads and it is fair to say that it doesn't have a lot of support. It seems to involve a lot of expense and hassle for many people to make alterations, many of which appear to cater for the extremely slight chance that something might go wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in responsible boat ownership and know that there are those about that don't, but I can't help but feel that many of the rquirements are unnecesary.

 

[onleyb]

Hi Greg, I am also on the Broads. Fortunately for me my fuel filler pipes/ vents are easily accesible. But other areas are not. I.e twin fuel tanks have been built in with berths on top! I found a serious safety problem when attempting to change my deck fillers (suspected moisture ingress) I found the vent pipes totally disintegrated because of the use of the wrong tubing. This had been installed from new. I think the boat safety scheme should encourage inspecters/ boaters to start a "near miss" scheme to report incidents like I found on my boat to prevent this hazard from causing injury to other boaters. And yes my back ground is health and safety! Err sorry but the swan neck is for???

 

[D3B]

Hi Greg
think you know i was on the River Ouse in Cambridge before i moved to the Broads. They have had BSS for some time.
I had a quite old Freeman 24 a few years ago and when the cert needed renweing it failed on cooker ventilation. the examiner was very helpful and explained that some things were not always applicable to some older boats cause it would mean MAJOR surgery to correct. it appears there is some flexibliity in the examination, not to be confused with bending the rules of course.
Just a general statement on the BSS.
Doug

 

[BSSOffice]

Hi again
Three great questions.

Greg2's first point on over-arching justification is explained in last years consultation document on our website. Individually each option or checklist item is explained in the text of the 2005 Guide also on the web. I would add as an aside the following key points, but I'm keeping it brief.
The regulatory side of the Scheme only tackles the risk of fire, explosion and pollution. Electrocution, fire escape, carbon monoxide poisoning and other first-party risks feature in our informed advice policy (see below)
Since Sept 2002 examiners have formally notified us of over 500 immediately dangerous boats, eg gas leaks, petrol leaks etc (evidence suggests that there has been under reporting)
Two-third of the risks we manage on behalf of the nav authorities are based on user actions. These are not a feature of the BSS requirements or certification process. the other third are. We use advice and information whereever this is thought to be more effective than regulation.
The BSS requirements do not exceed the safety requirements in the RCD. The RCD goes beyond the BSS for example in looking at stability and hull structures.
It is very difficult to prove a negative, but where the Scheme has been running on the Thames incidents have reduced, but the reliability of the recording and reporting over the years is another matter.

REPORTING
Near misses, close run things and other similar descriptions, reports of these are very useful as are reports of actual nasty events. The better our statistics, the better is our risk analysis and the beter focussed our awareness drives can be. Any reports are welcome on bss.enquiries@boatsafetyscheme.com

FLEXIBILITY
As intimated in my post above, the Scheme for private craft now has goal-setting requirements which have replaced much of the strict construction stuff. They are also risk based. In April this year, quite a number of checks disappeared and all bar one of the age-related exemption levels were incorporated into the requirements eg vent lines where 9.5mm dia are accepted, but 12mm are the recommendation (RCD asks for 12mm).
Examiners have no discretion other than the notes that you can view in our 2005 Guide. Their checking procedures are exactly the same as you can read.
However, with goal setting requirements, if you have strong and reliable evidence that your boats meets the goals through another compliance route - so be it. Indeed, we can then offer that option to boaters in a similar situation.

Note for Greg2. Martin Broom of Broom boats is active on one of our policy making committees. He is just one of the people who have been involved in the requirements modernisation over the past 24 months. We also have another Broom owner, David Dunning of the The (formally Trent) Boating Association on our committee. Please feel assured that all aspects of Broom compliance with the BSS requirements has been much discussed and changes have been introduced through that discussion

I rushed through loads of stuff here. Chapter 1 of the Guide has more detail.

I am going to Norwich next week to discuss with the Authority as to how we can help explain more, alert people to the Scheme and reassure people who have a more 'lurid' understanding of the Scheme than its reality.

Any technical or policy queries can be addressed to the email address above or phone 01923 201278, fax 01923 201420 or drop us line to BSS, Willow Grange, Church Road, Watford WD17 4QA. The manager's name is Graham Watts. On the technical and quality assurance side of Scheme is Phil and Dave. Di and Tracy provide our admin support. I am the communications manager.

Hope this helps. I try and keep my posts here short and quick. Apologies if I haven't covered anything in enough detail.

 

[Dave_Seager]

I think that the intention is that the fuel level will rise in the filler pipe before it starts to overflow from the vent. If the pump has an automatic cut out, like those at roadside filling stations, then the pump should shut off before any fuel is spilled.

 

[mriley]

I heard today that the BSS office have approved, in principle, (and after a 5 month wait - for which they apologised) my US gadget (the Davis 'no-spill') as being compliant with the requirement to have the top of the swan neck at least as high as the filling point. I think this is very reasonable on the part of BSS, and a sign of some flexibility, common sense, and a view that personal responsibility and proper risk management has to play a part.

 

[BSSOffice]

[ QUOTE ]
(and after a 5 month wait - for which they apologised)

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed we offered no excuses. This is not the sort of timescale we aspire to and we will do better next time. /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Regards