Ridiculous legislation

[TheBoatman]

Re: I Did Try to Warn You...

<<<<<The RYA are trying to quash it.>>>>

Brendan, that's my point exactly they are TRYING but as yet have not succeeded so the law still remains in force.

I actually believe that the MCA are doing their best to keep their heads down on this one because they know they would be in-undated with VHF traffic reporting "incidents" and "accidents". It is my understanding (although I have no direct knowledge) that it came as much of a shock to the MCA as the RYA when the "extra" bits of legislation were added by some minion at the DTi, hence the lack of consultation claimed by the RYA. They (the RYA) probably had sight of the consultation doc and reasoned that it only affected vessels over 45 mtrs, so dismissed it. The SI was made on the 10th Aug 2004 and laid before parliament on the 16th Aug. BINGO we all get to be criminals in one swipe of a pen?

A couple of weeks ago I was driving a safety boat on an open dinghy event, the wind was blowing dogs off chains and we had numerous capsizes, groundings, broked gear and one injured crew. I was not responsible for the event so made no report but in my calculations we're down about 40 grand in fines should anyone in authority find out. Not bad for 1 afternoons dinghy racing.

Another thought?
Do you think that this is all part of a larger plan by G. Brown to get the sailing/boating community to fill the black hole in the pension funds?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ShipsWoofy]

would spilling coffee in the cockpit count, hot liquid, drips that could be slipped on etc.

Is there a time limit, so I can send my forms in 500 at a time rather than buy 500 odd stamps a weekend.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk>Woof</A>

 

[BrendanS]

Re: I Did Try to Warn You...

Yes, but your statement was <<neither the RYA or MCA are saying don't bother guys we'll sort it?>>

my point was is that they cannot say that - they have no legal position to do so, so to suggest they should or could be saying it is totally irrelevant. They'd be shot down in flames if they did.

<hr width=100% size=1>Me transmitte sursum, caledoni

 

[Sybarite]

Applies abroad as well...!!

(Extract

(5) When a United Kingdom ship is involved in -

(a) an accident;
(b) an incident; or
(c) a pollution event,

outside controlled waters, the master of that ship shall report without delay the particulars of the accident, incident or pollution event, as the case may be, to the fullest extent possible together with the information specified in paragraph (9) in accordance with paragraph (6).

(6) A report referred to in paragraph (5) -

(a) shall be sent,

(i) ........,

(ii) where the accident, incident or pollution event, as the case may be, is a threat to the coastline, or to a related interest, of another State, to the State in question; ..."


Under laws governing the use of the French language, an official report to the French authorities may only be made in French.......

If the original of the report is in English then the services of a sworn translator are required.

John.

PS. 1 If any one requires the services of a translator I shall be happy to help.... at a modest rate.

PS 2 Of course berthing incidents, sorry, accidents, never occur in France.

PS 3 I think I am off the hook. It refers to British citizens but not as far as I can see to British subjects - or is that too easy?




<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Sybarite]

No it's not. I mean ignorance of the law is no excuse. You mean to tell me that you haven't studied this law which has been in application since Sept 20 ?

What laxism..!!


John.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Steve Clayton]

Please update me when.....

I'm not in the UK and VHF from UK doesn't reach this far so:-

Who will volunteer to report an "incident" to CG over VHF giving them the line by line information as required in the directive. Then relay to the forum what the response from the CG is.

That must surely set a precedent?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ParaHandy]

Re: Please update me when.....

contrary to what jfm might think, there is no specific bar to reporting by VHF other than the impracticality of doing so.

the requirement is to do so using the standard report "as soon as possible". However, the standard report is a series of sentences beginning with an identifier eg an alphabetic character followed by the lat/lon then another character with say GWT of vessel etc etc.

transmitting this by vhf would clog the airways up for a good 30 minutes and in the hands of a particularly inarticulate person could be reasonably extended to 60 minutes with much "i say again" or "repeat" ... all for such a serious incident as any one of the many which have been mentioned before ...

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

Re: Please update me when.....

If peeing over the side is not notifiable as a pollution incident but peeing in a bucket and then chuckinhg it is. Then presumably every time a marine toilet is used then this must be notified otherwise there is a risk of 2 years imprisonment or a £5000 fine. It would be stupid to risk that sort of punishment for simply using the toilet. A bit like going to school but insted of "Please Miss can I go to the toilet?" it is "Sorry sir I've just flushed the loo in postion xxxx xxxx"


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[halcyon]

Re: Please update me when.....

Is not reporting in place, with the new generation of vhf, programme reporting site number, key in code and press send. It sends message with boat, incident, lat long etc for you.
Are we looking at this the from the wrong angle, what if this is part of a whole, add together all the recent regulations, you have the basis of boat regulation. We now have what is basically the road traffic act for boats, so issue a registration requirement for boats, needed to follow up on latest regs, and a test for driving the boat, to meet previous regs. Like playing chess, not until you have all your pieces in place do you make your move, by which time your opponent may not have spotted your plan.
Or in our case we spend all out time debating each move, and ignor those before and those that may follow, and were we may end up. This applies to boating or the Country, does/ has anyone a note from which port we left, what course corrections we have made, where we are aiming for when we set off, or were we are currently heading for. Would you sail your yacht this way ?????????????????

Brian

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ParaHandy]

Apposite ...

.. well .. very much pissing in the wind ... i do think a little more direct action rather than belly-aching here is what's required ....

Gwyneth Dunwoody (transport committee chair) got a letter from me because in her web-site she bemoans the appalling standard of parliamentary drafting whereas it is actually her and her colleagues job to ensure that the sort of crass error which boatman reports to have occurred (at least, i hope that is true) is rooted out before it becomes law ... all in my opinion, of course ...

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ParaHandy]

Thin edge of the wedge ...

you could well be right but what a clumsy way of going about it .......

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[PaulJ]

I totally agree that this is ridiculous legislation and should not apply to our activities. I am not for one moment trying to defend the legislation however I suspect that what has happened is that some bright spark in an office somewhere has noticed the systems that operate very successfully in the aviation industry and tried to develop a marine equivalent.

In the aviation world there is a system called "Mandatory Occurence Reporting" in which an enormous number of incidents is "reportable" and indeed a high proportion of what gets reported is trival dross. However amongst all that dross there is occasionally a gem that can be learned from and so future occurrences can be prevented.

There is also a system for confidential reporting of cock-ups in the hope of preventing someone else making the same mistake..... a bit like the Confessional at the back of YM but it is genuinely anonymous and confidential though the reports are circulated to all licence holders on a regular basis.

Both these systems have been in existence for many years (I've been out of it for a few years now but I assume they are still running) and have settled down into a useful contribution to air safety. Having said that, the legislation as it stands is clearly not workable for leisure boating and a major re-think is needed. However I am all for any system that will enable us to learn from others mistakes and help to prevent accidents in the future......

<hr width=100% size=1>I used to have an open mind but my brains kept falling out.....

 

[Beagle]

I feel a bit neglected, or even worse I think this is a bad case of discrimination. As an EU citizen, I'm deprifed from the right to report incidents and accident whenever I visit the beautiful Island since I have a non-UK boat (which by definition means a ship which is not a United Kingdom ship). Thus every time I pee (or any of the crew) in you waters or the fenders touch the neighbours boat (either being a uk or non-uk ship, see definition above), I (as captain) have no right to report this. A bloody shame!!

On the other hand, it is in my humble opinion the rules, laws or general regislation are efficient only once they are controlled (checked). This means that a 24 hours shif must be present at all harbours to check the ship on departure and arrival that indeed these boats (if no incidents are reported) do not have flat batteries, decks are clean and not slippery and all instruments are in perfect working order. Without these checks, this legislation is useless......

By the way, what is the objective of this legislation, is it to make boating safer, the waters cleaner, the people more aware of what they are doing, all of the above or non of the above????????

Once again proof your government is just as silly as the rest of the world.......

<hr width=100% size=1>Never attempt to teach a pig to sing.
It is a waste of time and it annoys the pig.

 

[KevB]

or a berthing manoeuvre involving two craft touching would all have to be reported or criminalisation risked.

No more rafting up then?


<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://static.photobox.co.uk/public/images/45/99/10714599.s.jpg?ch=97&rr=16:00:39>Nirvana</A>

 

[halcyon]

Re: Thin edge of the wedge ...

But what other way do you get back door legislation through??
I'm still wondering why we got all those yellow and blue MCA powerboats the other year.

Brian

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

There already is an equivalent marine anonymous reporting system, as advertised here on the forums. as I understand it is the same system used in aviation
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.ybw.com/cgi-bin/forums/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=fouled&Number=483454&page=0&view=expanded&sb=5&o=7&part=[here[/url>

Chirps website here</A>
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.ybw.com/pdf/CHIRP_report.pdf>report here</A>

<hr width=100% size=1>Me transmitte sursum, caledoni

 

[jfm]

Re: Please update me when.....

Yes you're right parahandy, it can be done by VHF, I got that worng. I just checked some more this morning.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Althorne]

Copied it and sent it to my MP. She's always bleating on about doing things lawfully and being transparent. Lets see what happens.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://colvicownersclub.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk>http://colvicownersclub.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk</A>

 

[Sybarite]

Re: Please update me when.....

(4) For the purposes of these Regulations, "polluting goods" means -

(a) any oil, oily mixture, oil fuel or crude oil, as defined in Annex I to the MARPOL Convention;

(b) any noxious liquid substance, as defined in Annex II to the MARPOL Convention; and

(c) any marine pollutant identified in the IMDG Code.

Simple isn't it?

John

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[TheBoatman]

Hold on GUYs, Lets be sensible

I know that it was I that first posted a thread on this new legislation and I believe I was right to do so as it does now affect all sea-going pleasure vessels but you must remember that legislation on incident/accident reporting has existed for commercial vessels (1995 Merchant Shipping Act) long before this came into being. I would be the first to admit that the new act is only a tidying exercise that has gone a bit wonky due to some over zealous civil servant.
Remember that large commercial vessels (45+ mtrs) suffering grounding, colliding, main engine or electrical failure, pollution spills would have most definitely been reportable to the MCA.

“I would suggest, therefore, that an element of common sense is applied to the matter and any incident or accident that would have normally required a communication with the CG (sinking, fire, requiring assistance, injury etc prior to the 20th September should still be communicated with them via normal VHF means and if you didn’t think it necessary before that date you shouldn’t think it necessary now”.

That’s my line and I intend to keep to it until told or instructed otherwise!!!!

BTW.
How many forumites out there with boats over 13.7 mtrs or 45’ know of the legal requirements of equipment that must be installed/carried on such vessels?
Peter.



<hr width=100% size=1>