RCD

[jimboaw]

Just read the horror story in the Oct. mag re RCD compliance. Am I right in thinking that a boat built in the EEC prior to June 98 would be exempt??. Currently trying to prove my boat was in Saint Helena in 1997!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[webcraft]

I read the story too. The message I got was that it is cheap and relatively simple to get registration in Cat D - sheltered inland waters. Your boat is then legal and you can sell it or sail it - it's up to you if you take it into waters above its RDC category.

Did I get that right? If so, there's no real problem for people wanting to import boats. Or am I misreading the situation?

- Nick



<hr width=100% size=1><font size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.bluemoment.com>http://www.bluemoment.com</A></font size=1>

 

[Talbot]

I would be surprised if an insurance company did not try to wriggle out of a payment if the boat was being used outside its RCD classification.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Lizzie_B]

Strangely enough the RCD actually states that its categories are 'not intended to restrict the use of a vessel to any geographical location' and that the RCD is not to do with safety, but 'harmonisation' of trade within the EU. If you think about it all boats within the EU or EU dependant territories before its introduction in 1998 are exempt any of its requirements, no matter what sort of wreck they might be, and also all boats within the new member states until the date of joining (April2004) are exempt no matter what state they are in. I have never been asked by an insurance company to prove the RCD status of a boat and the vast majority of secondhand boats in Britain don't even have one. I think insurance companies would have a tidal wave of complaints if they tried some blanket get out. All the companies I've dealt with have assessed each vessel individually and tailored my premium to the sort of sailing I tell them I want to do and my experience. I'm not sure what went on all together in that YM story, but one thing that does rankle is that you have to pay to get hold of the actual standards you are required to comply with, let alone the cost of complying with them, though I have to say, some of them are no more than I would want to do on a boat anyway. I do think a certain group of surveyors who masquerade as RCD consultants are rather wrapping the whole thing up in mystery in order to protect what they see as a steady stream of income.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Bergman]

Agree absolutely

The significant point for me is the nonsensical ruling that a production boat built in EU before RCD will have dozens of examples sailing about in EU waters with no need for any certification.

However if you import an identical boat from same moulds by same builder you have to go thro the rigmarole.

Absolute nonsense

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Shanty]

Yes, I got the same impression - sounds like the guy was trying to get his boat into one of the other categories, and was faced with a great deal to do. If you are right, and Category D is cheap and relatively simple, then the logical approach would be to go for D automatically, unless you are a volume producer, and want to use the RCD as a marketing tool.

Its high time we had a Lynch a Bureaucrat Week.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Aeolus_IV]

If we lynched one a week all year it wouldn't be enough.

Jeff.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://users.swing.be/FDB/centurion/index2.html>Centurion 32 Web site</A>

 

[jamesjermain]

You are right. Category D is self-certified and virtually cost free. It says the boat is safe on a pond or sheltered ditch (read inland lake or canal). It means the boat can be used legally in this country and, because there is no law against using a boat anywhere, it is free to roam throughout European waters including across the North Sea and into the Atlantic.

The drawback is selling the boat. The next potential owner might not be too happy to see that someone reckons the boat is only suitable for inland waters even though it has a deep, full length keel, AVS of 140 degrees, STIX of 40 etc. Even if he realises the situation, he might use it as a bargaining tool.

<hr width=100% size=1>JJ

 

[kingfisher]

It is up to the manufacturer to state what category his craft falls into. So if you import a USA boat, you can classify it under D. Even if it is an Island Packet.
It doesnt stop you from taking it further out. All it does, is limit the manufacturers'/importers liability.
So if you take it out in anything worse than D conditions, it is your responsablility if something brakes.

Manufacturers are therefore constantly pressed between easy classification (C or D) and sales arguments (this thing is class A-B and can go virtually anywhere).

I found the latest article a whole lot of scaremongering. They stopped short of blaming the RCD for the bad summer weather. In one sentence the editor claims it caused the demise of the local production and at the same time that it prevents cheap imports from coming in. Please decide. Either it protects the local market, by stopping cheap 3rd country imports or it destroys it from overregulation; but you can't use both arguments at the same time.

If you are against classification and certification, then at least have the decency to argue against Lloyds classification as well.

Maybe you prefer that we don't have a EU system? Than you would have te same problems as you have now with US imports, but then you would have them with buying boats in the Netherlands. Manufacturers would have to change their boats if they want to ship them to France. That would be good for industry.

And I cannot believe that anyone would argue for no regulation at all.

The RCD is not perfect, but it is certainly the lesser of two evils. Once they understand what it is all about, editors will stop writing scare stories and maybe help work out the glitches.

<hr width=100% size=1>Group of people on the pontoon: skipper is the one with the toolbox.
http://sirocco31.tripod.com

 

[AndrewB]

\"And I cannot believe that anyone ...\"

"... would argue for no regulation at all."

Just try us!

What have we yachties really gained since RCD was implemented in 1996? Are yachts generally stronger and safer than they were? Many believe the RCD has meant they have been built DOWN to comply minimally with the new standards. Essentially the yacht market was cleared out leaving the way for a few volume manufacturers. So one thing we did gain was perhaps the last we might have expected - a lot of much cheaper, though arguably much nastier, mass-produced yachts of uniform appearance.

The laugh was really on the BMIF which had lobbied hard for RCD in the UK, believing it would be protectionist. Effectively it finished off many of the British marques, and most of the traditional low-volume builders.

The Lloyds A1 standard is a quite different case, in that it was voluntary. It certainly wasn't perfect either, there were a series of rudder failures in yachts built to the standard (but how has the RCD improved that?).

As for 'ironing out the glitches', anyone who has had a go will be all too aware how impossible it is for consumers to lobby effectively (as some of us tried regarding the amendment directive 2003/44/EC) in such a byzantine system. The interests of the big manufacturers are paramount.

 

[Bergman]

"So if you take it out in anything worse than D conditions, it is your responsablility if something brakes."

If the boat is classified A whose responsibility is it?

Do you really believe this ridiculous regulation puts any resposibility or liability on the manufacturer?

Surely not


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[kingfisher]

BMIF

There is no denying that the RCD favours the mass-producer. Every New Approach directive does, from the RCD to the PED.

French manufacturers were getting the upper hand, and the fear was that, by dominating the market, they would be able to impose their standards on the rest of Europe's boating industry. So BMIF tried to beat them to it, by lobbying for a EU-governed system.

The RCD makes no claims about being the best system, it imposes the *minimum* safety requirements. Manufacturers are still free to use much tougher schemes (kite-mark, lloyds,...) for commercial reasons (e.g. Volvo and safety).

The ammendement brought in the latest development, that New Approach Directives not only should protect the safety of the user, but also protect the environment. Problem is that the pressure groups are no longer manufacturs and users, but that the environmentals get involved. They have a different agenda than the boating community.

Again, the RCD is not about building the safest boat possible, it is about (trying to)providing the same level playing field for all the manufacturers.

Oh and yes, the RCD has severe consequences on the responsability and liability of manufacturers and importers. With the Machinery directive (another New Approach directive), it took the industry over 10 years to realise what those were. Pity it will take the boating industry the same time.

<hr width=100% size=1>Group of people on the pontoon: skipper is the one with the toolbox.
http://sirocco31.tripod.com

 

[Twister_Ken]

Re: BMIF

Group of people on the pontoon: skipper is the one clutching a hanful of EU safe sailing directives.


<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>