Recreational Craft Regulations 1996 (SI1996 No 1353)

[gjeffery]

I have been reading the UK implementation of the EU Recreational Craft Directive. This has passed into UK law without parliamentary debate and with little public awareness. I worry about a number of aspects, particularly the high cost, for individuals and small enterprises, of demonstrating compliance; also the difficulties for those who may have to sell relatively new boats.

Boats are classified into into four categories. For instance, Class B Offshore certifies the boat for use in wave heights of up to 4m and wind "force" of up to aand including 8 in the Beaufort scale.

The regulations do not say how such compliance is to be assessed. Does anyone know? Is it entirely subjective? Perhaps there is a validation of the designer's calculations (but based on what principles, and are these applied consistently across the EU)? Tank tests? Static stability determinations? Hopefully, the committee who wrote the legislation take the boat to sea and test it to destruction.

Does anyone know if subsequent adaptations to compliant boats invalidate their compliance certification?

Other curiosities and anomalies exist - but it is sufficient, for now, to say that the wording of the document leaves rather more for judicial interpretation, technical arguments, and legal emoluments than I am used to when working with other UK legislation that relates to safety critical conditions.

I would be grateful if anyone can shed light on these mysteries. Possibly, this could be a suitable topic for a (long) technical article in PBO!

 

[airbubble]

Re: Recreational Craft Regulations 1996 (SI1996 No

Sorry sir, but only your last line makes me respond. As the CE regulations are a trade regulating set of rules, they should not concern the private owner, unless he builds a boat himself AND wants to sell it in the first 5 years, so i do not think it is relevant reading or for PBOners. As soon as you buy a privately built boat after the first five years, the CE regs are not relevant, and it does not matter (legally) whether this boat complies or not.
Same if you want to import a non-compliant boat into the EU; as long as you do not sell it during five years, no worries. On the continent everybody has understood this by now and there is no fuss anymore about the CE. Only the yards worry about the difficulties of obtaining new rules or guidelines. Even when a yard does not totally comply, he only gets into trouble if another yard (or a customer who has found himself in trouble because the boat proved not to be compliant- eg steering system fails and there is no emergency system) accuses and sues him for non compliance.
Categorisation is based on stability calculations and freeboard/downflooding angles/heights.
The rules or guidelines are not meant to be read by customers (no offence intended) but are for the instruction of technically trained professionals, who will understand all the terms and processes used, another point why i think it will not make interesting PBO material.

KR

 

[AvanLoon]

Some time ago I found on the Web (where? sorry, I was just surfing) two documents who may have your interest:
* RSG guidelines for the Recreational Craft Directive
* Recreational Craft Directive an comments combined to the directive
Since I don't know how to add atachments to this message, you must find a way to send me your mailadress. Then I maybe can send them in a direct message to you?
Apart from that, a search on the web under 'recreational craft' produces lots of interesting connections.
Kind regards

 

[Avocet]

There's a bit of me wants to agree with the first respondent - after all, car manufacturers have had to undergo "type approval" for years now and the current EC system makes the Recreational Craft Directive look pretty straightforward in a lot of areas. I mean, you don't check up on what tests a car had to pass before you buy one (do you?!)

On the other hand, if you want to know how they end up awarding the CE mark to a boat builder, why the hell shouldn't you? Try searching for the "Eur-Lex" website. With enough messing about I'm sure you'll be able to download the relevant text at no cost. I don't know the URL off the top of my head but with patience, I'm sure it will be possible.

One issue that worries me somewhat is my growing doubt that all the type approval legislation has made cars any safer than they otherwise would have been - I believe that consumer pressure does that more effectively. I've a feeling that all the Directives just force manufacturers to design cars that "pass the test". I also see no reason why this shouldn't happen with boats in a few years. The "Eurocrats" don't trust us to make an informed choice about what we sail (drive) - but then, they seem to want to tell us what shape our bananas should be and whether we can call our chocolate "chocolate"!

 

[BrendanS]

>>I mean, you don't check up on what tests a car had to pass before you buy one (do you?!)<<

I don't, but many people buy cars based on official crash test results.

There are many posts asking about rough weather handling capabilities of vessels, and I personally don't think that the CE mark goes far enough in this regard, or even answers the questions..... will this yacht take me round the world safely, or will this powerboat actually handle a force 7 in the English Channel or did it get its rating on a calm American lake with a bunch of theoretical calculations

 

[halcyon]

It's ok having standard regs, if you have stanadrd interpretation of them.
Back in the 70/80 they bought in harmonised trailer brake regs, and systems that were passed by the German TUV could be transported to the UK centre at MIRA and fail totally. The problem was the UK interpretation, we took the worst possible case, Germany a practical interpretation. The outcome was it was simpler for UK customers to buy European made units than UK ones.

Will the same happen with boats??????????????????????

Brian

 

[kingfisher]

More info on CE-marking

1) Start with [link]http://www.eotc.be/newapproach/cdrom/index.htm[/link]
BTW gues who helped draft it?

2) Read the blue guide
[link]http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/legislation/guide/legislation.htm[/link]

3) On the RCD
[link]http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/maritime/maritime_regulatory/rc_switchboard.htm[/link]

BTW: the "for personal use" exception doesn't work for imported boats, as those are "brougt on the EER market" by the user.
I quote: "An owner who buys a boat in a third country (whether new or second hand) and sails to EEAterritory, or returns an existing boat to EEA territory, is considered to be an importer." RECREATIONAL CRAFT DIRECTIVE AND
COMMENTS TO THE DIRECTIVE COMBINED, p.17

Henk de Pauw
CErtif Services

Group of people on the pontoon: skipper is the one with the toolbox.
http://sirocco31.tripod.com

 

[AndrewB]

If only we were so lucky.

Sorry Airbubble, but a great many of us have been put out by the RCD, which applies not only to the yacht itself but to many component parts. Only if you buy and own a bog-standard European built production yacht and get all spares from the manufacturer are you likely to avoid problems.

For example, last year I needed to replace all the portlights aboard my 1985 yacht. The old ones have been withdrawn following the RCD and because the replacements must be fully framed, they cannot be made to fit. Result: the headlining and all the top of the yacht had to be ripped apart to cut new ports. This tripled the cost of the job and put the yacht out of action for two months. Of course, I could have attempted a DIY bodge-up ... no thanks.

A real grouse is that the RCD effectively prevents us from buying outside the EU, in particular second-hand yachts, and so is inflationary.

 

[AndrewB]

I think it is unfair to imply that the yachting press has provided little information. Looking back through copies of YM/PBO I can see odd pieces right back to 1992, with longer articles in 1994 and 1998 which were crucial dates. Marian Martin had a column in PBO at that time in which she aired issues. As others point out, the standards are incredibly detailed, though as you say the stability tests are what received most attention.

The trouble is that it all sounded so boringly bureauocratic that the average yachtsman took absolutely no interest - and I'm sure the mags realised it would hardly sell extra copies. Ironically the RCD got most of its backing from the British Boatbuilding Federation, who seem to have believed it would give them a more level playing field in Europe and be protectionist further afield. In fact it has helped to sink many of our yachtbuilders, since it favours the mass production company prepared to build "down" to the RCD standards (which while they cover many things, ignore such trivia as hull strength), rather than the low volume quality builders.

If, with hindsight, you are concerned about the RCD, then perhaps you should be getting hot under the collar about the proposed amendments. These are currently at committee stage, and under EU rules these can only be made every 10 years or so, so whatever the men in suits decide on, Joe Yachtsman will be stuck with for a long time. These amendments are causing deep concern, particularly the implications of the changes to the noise and emissions standards. For further information see: http://www.boatsyachtsmarinas.com/html/legislation.html

 

[gjeffery]

Thanks for that. I think most of the material published has been concerned with concept, rather than detail. I have found a rather detailed concordance to the RCD, published on the web by the EU, but this demonstrates the need to keep abreast of the RCD requirements. Perhaps, since 1998, maters of detail have become more prominent Matters such as the effect of modifying a plated boat. A significant modification, eg installing a new head, or change in wiring, could require recertification. Similarly, a rebuild on a pre 1998 boat could be deemed to require certification.

The incorporation of the RCD certainly reduced the traditional freedom to sell a boat. This is much more constrained than say, selling a car. The chap who converts a lifeboat has to hang onto it for 5 years before disposal - irrespective of how his circumstances may change.

The response from airbubble is informative, as it indicates that enforcement of the RCD on the continent seen as is a matter for civil litigation but after a loss has been incurred. In the UK, the regulations are enforcable pro actively, by Trading Standards, within the domain of crimninal law.

Is it correct that windows must now be framed, and that screwed on perspex is no longer acceptable?

I would still like to know how conformity with the stability essential requirements is assessed, and if there is continuity between different states and indeed, different notified bodies. If this is capable of beeing explained to judges, juries and trading standards officers, then I am sure that it is within the grasp of practical boatowners.

 

[spark]

The BMF website has some free downloads that help to explain the RCD. There's also a management manual for £65, which may or may not be informative (I have yet to make the investment).

http://www.bmif.co.uk/html/publications.cfm/menu,research/page,research

 

[kingfisher]

Re: If only we were so lucky.

"A real grouse is that the RCD effectively prevents us from buying outside the EU, in particular second-hand yachts, and so is inflationary."

Depends how you look at it. It also protects the EU manufacturers interests.

What about the time that everything in the UK was in imperial and the rest of the civilized world used metric. Again a non-tariff barrier to int'l trade. But no complaints then? My boat was designed by Angus Primrose and built by a Spanish yard in 1973. So everything Angus designed is in imperial, everything the yard put in is in metric. Makes my DIY life a logistical nightmare.

Now that we have the same standard over the whole EU, you can go and buy your boat in France/Germany/Holland. And many people do, especially British. But still you criticise. So you've gained some freedom. But now you start nagging that we should open our markets to the world. Let's adopt the US standards then?

As for portlights: the RCD, as other New Approach directives rely on harmonised standards. The latest adition is the standard on....
Small craft —Windows,portlights,hatches,deadlights and doors —Strength and watertightnessrequirements (ISO 12216:2002)
EN ISO 12216:2002 (published in OJ C318/9 19/12/2002)

The ISO refers to the fact that they simply adopted the international standard. Most of the RCD standards are in fact ISO standards. So if your new hatches didn't fit, it means your old ones weren't according to Int'l standards.

So you're actualy complaining that you couldn't find an exact copy for your portlight. The problem dates from the time when portlights were not standardised. Now that they are trying to standardise everything, you still blame them?

Basically you want standardised portlights, on the one condition that they follow your standards.


Group of people on the pontoon: skipper is the one with the toolbox.
http://sirocco31.tripod.com

 

[AndrewB]

RCD Specifications

Most of the detailed specifications are embodied in lengthy ISOs. For example the stability assessment is ISO 12217. This is published in three volumes, costing 60 Euros or so, which is presumably why none of us can quote it. It must be uniform across states, but it is possible that it contains some discretionary elements.

There is nothing stopping an owner screwing on replacement perspex windows he's had cut, but if you want to buy stock portlights, you'll find they are now all framed. Blame the RCD, I was told. I can't claim to have checked the standard myself, but it sounds likely. The RCD is very detailed on portlights, with different minimum specifications depending on both the category of yacht and where on the yacht they are fitted.

I agree with you that the way in which the RCD is enforced is a very grey area. There was an interesting thread on the BYM board some months ago where a poster called New Bee was trying to get advice from the Trading Standards Office, and finding them very ill-informed and not wanting to know. However the RYA legal department may have knowledge of test cases.

 

[AndrewB]

The eternal optimist!

"The problem dates from the time when portlights were not standardised. Now that they are trying to standardise everything, you still blame them?"

The makers claim was they were no longer able to supply the old portlights as a result of the RCD. So it was a case of my choice being narrowed.

The great enemy is change. I don't care what standards there are - as long as we stick to them. If we were now adopting a once and for all standardisation, the price of which was some temporary inconvenience, then I would agree with you. But the fact is today's "standards" are simply not going to remain stable that long. We are being conditioned to accept rapidly changing standards - and the forced obsolescence which that entails.

 

[airbubble]

Re: If only we were so lucky.

"A real grouse is that the RCD effectively prevents us from buying outside the EU, in particular second-hand yachts, and so is inflationary."

Sorry you've lost me there COMPLETELY.
Why can't you buy outside EU?
If boat is pre 1998, no worries at all
If boat is newer, and not compliant, you just have to hang onto it for five years before selling it. Again, 5 years after bringing it into EU you're free to sell a non-compliant boat. Nobody will sue you, (probably not even when you sell it privately within the 5yr limit.?)

I think the example on cars having had type approval is a very starightforward one, (i'll use that one more often if i may) .
Point taken on replacement windows and probably other items that have to comply, but-.
But remember all kind of electronic equipment and fuel system components have to comply with all kinds of ISO and electronic emission standards, so those new products were probably more expensive because of that and nobody complained. What about gas and Corgi, that doesn't disturb owners the way i see questions and problems made up about CE ?

 

[AndrewB]

Re: If only we were so lucky.

See Kingfisher's post "More info on CE marking" above. "Bringing it onto the market" means importing it, not trying to sell it.

What this effectively means is that since June 1998 no yacht built outside the EU can be imported into the EU without being CE-marked. This applies whatever the age of the yacht. Exemptions include temporarily imported yachts - i.e. those belonging to non-EU visitors; and yachts that were kept in the EU prior to June 1998. Some US built boats are now CE-marked. But effectively EU residents are barred from buying a yacht outside and bringing it into the EU, unless they are prepared to go to the (reputedly prohibitive) expense of having it CE-marked.

At the present time second-hand yachts are considerably cheaper outside the EU, particularly in the US and South Africa.

 

[Avocet]

Ah but remember the EURONCAP crash tests aren't a legal requirement or part of the type approval process - that's exactly my point - it's consumer pressure that makes the cars safer - not the bare minimum legal requirements!

 

[kingfisher]

Re: The eternal optimist!

A history lesson is needed here.

The New Approach started in the mid-eighties. Before that, technical requirements were included in the directives. For all extend and purposes they were set in stone.

At a certain point in time a new directive was being drafted on the technical aspects of headlights of cars. It took the twelve ministers of transport long meetings to discuss car headlight specs. A couple of weeks after all the ministers agreed, Audi came out with their xenon lamps. Back to scratch for the ministers.

Basicaly, the technology moves faster than the legislative process. So one of the key elements of the New Approach is that the general safety targets are in the directive, while the more technical details are in the standards. Standards, by their very nature are NOT obligatory, and can be easily changed to adapt to developments. So:
1) By their very nature, standards will change
2) you do not have to follow standards. Does that mean that you can produce according to your own whims ? No: you still have to prove that you meet the Essential requirements of the directive. Using standards is the easiest method for getting the assumption of comformity. If you do not use standards, it is up to you to prove conformity by tests, drawings, calcu:lations, GEP,.....

Please go through the basic guide on the New Approach, see my first post.

Group of people on the pontoon: skipper is the one with the toolbox.
http://sirocco31.tripod.com

 

[airbubble]

Re: If only we were so lucky.

without being CE-marked. This applies whatever the age of the yacht.
this is definitely NOT the case. Any hull in production or even just on stock as a bare hull on July 1st 1998 anywhere in the world was exempt from CE marking.

will look into :- Bringing it onto the market" means importing it, not trying to sell it,; -as i am almost sure that here on the continent (which is most of the EU, sorry) this is regarded upon as actively trying to sell it, not how you (or Kingfisher) interpret it. This is backed up by the question Who checks you when you bring over your newly aqcuired yacht from SA?
As long as you do not put it ON the market, nobody cares. But I'll check this when the relevant civil servants go back to work nxt week. Official interpretation in the UK should not be different from over here, youre part enough of the EU for that.

 

[Twister_Ken]

I don\'t get your portlight argument

If you compare boats with cars, which have (as said elsewhere) been type-approved for years, you do not find that there is a limited ISO-approved range of windscreens, so that if you need t replace a windscreen it has to be with a standard item. And yet if Andrew needs to replace a portlight he has to modify his boat to accept an 'approved' portlight. That doesn't seem consumer-centric to me.