RYA - lost the plot?

[Seajet]

Wow, did you ever come across a chap called Bill Bedford, a WWII Hurricane, Thunderbolt and Mustang pilot who sadly passed away in 1996? He used to teach my ex flying and if I recall correctly was an early Harrier test-pilot and talked about once smacking a prototype into overhead lines or pylon during a vertical takeoff, alongside a few other hair raising moments including an ejection! Lovely bloke and seemed like a really fun period back then.

Hi dom,

here's a taster; Bill was quite a forthright character !

On my boss's retirement Bill sent a signed photo of him doffing his top hat to a P1127, saying " Jim, you've been infuriating but I loved your work ! "

When I was a schoolboy and the P1127 was being developed, it was known to the Dunsfold workers as ' The VTO ' - vertical takeoff.

Later John Farley made the Harrier pretty much his aircraft, with stunning displays and his unique takeoff - squadron pilots were banned from trying to copy it after a few died trying - but John says when he first got in the prototype Bill Bedford had flown, he found even his ( No. 1 world class famous Test pilot ) skills working hard.

John Farley's book; ' A view From The Hover ' .

Bit of thread drift so I suggest any more be on the lounge or PM.

Andy


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjSifiQzLSw

 

[john_morris_uk]

Already got mine, but nice to confirm you are open minded.

Totally corrupt in every way. Everyone knows that....

 

[Seajet]

At last the effect works, Precious Vicar versus Viago - Fight !

Personally I think even Viago talks a lot more decent honest sense than organised child molesting religion, but I'm biased towards decent society, which is probably too much to ask.

 

[dom]

Hi dom

here's a taster; Bill was quite a forthright character !

On my boss's retirement Bill sent a signed photo of him doffing his top hat to a P1127, saying " Jim, you've been infuriating but I loved your work ! "

When I was a schoolboy and the P1127 was being developed, it was known to the Dunsfold workers as ' The VTO ' - vertical takeoff.

Later John Farley made the Harrier pretty much his aircraft, with stunning displays and his unique takeoff - squadron pilots were banned from trying to copy it after a few died trying - but John says when he first got in the prototype Bill Bedford had flown, he found even his ( No. 1 world class famous Test pilot ) skills working hard.

Bit of thread drift so I suggest any more be on the lounge or PM.

Andy


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjSifiQzLSw

OMG, I remember that silly impish grin, wonderful stuff and thank you so much for the link! Will send pm in morning.

Edit: re fred drift, nah, imagine one could bottle a bit of that spirit, that talent, I'd swap a teaspoon of it for any course !!

Tks again

 

[Tranona]

I design assessment for (part of) my living, and this sort of let's-try-to-get-a-desirable-outcome-in-an indirect-way nonsense is a prime example of Things Not To Do.

As did I - and it is notoriously difficult to asses "experience" or even practical assessment as in the final examination. Getting comparability and consistency for all is just about impossible. So it is not unreasonable on the one hand to set some basic criteria for what is acceptable for the experience bit, related to the aims and objective of the qualification. Judgement plays a big part in the final assessment because of the varying nature of conditions for example.

The "big" versus "small" is really a non issue. There may well be a lot of small boats around in certain parts of the world - but do their owners aspire to getting the offshore qualification? Can't accept you statement that a tiny number of people go offshore in big(ger) boats - thousands do, but maybe not in your part of the world. Recognise that the RYA qualifications are aimed at a far bigger market than small boat owners - and despite getting the Centaur LWL wrong, most boats of 25' and over do have a LWL over 7m. BTW, don't know where you get your 30' bit from.

This thread has ended up with the usual RYA bashing because some people disagree with the rules they set without any real evidence that it is seriously limiting opportunities. Unsurprising as the basic premise of many of the criticisms hark back to a time that is past, when sailing was all about derring do.

Perhaps it is a good thing that the RYA moves with the times and that their policies in relation to the qualifications reflect today's realities rather than some fuzzy remembrance of the past.

 

[oldbilbo]

Perhaps it is a good thing that the RYA....policies in relation to the qualifications reflect today's realities rather than some fuzzy remembrance of the past.

I'm persuaded that Tranona and I have differing perspectives on what is wanted - and by whom.

Firstly, loud and clear, IT is not a qualification. Even the exalted RYA do not pretend that.

The 'Yachtmaster' accolade is a 'certification' - and there's a huge difference. For that to be described and considered as a qualification, the process requires to be approved, in this country, by the QCA.

http://www.qca.org.uk/

Despite all the smoke, mirrors and obfuscations, the RYA remains a self-appointed commercial/business organisation which has NO statutory role whatsoever. It calls itself 'the regulating body for British yachting', with no formal mandate whatsoever - except that the powers that be quite enjoy the many freebie lunches in the Royal Thames YC, and are quite content to leave 'recreational yachting' and its management for another day.

Fine. OK. That's the English way.

But it is still not a 'Qualification'. It is only and merely a certificate, issued by a commercial outfit that scarcely gets an interview, these days, in most places where there is an indigenous structure.

Now, I'm not against the home-grown structure that is the RYA. It serves a purpose. But do please see it in its proper context.... just one of several sail-training organisations. Ask your US friends what certifications 'cut the mustard' in US-dominated island groups.....

And...

Lest it slip by unnoticed, and FWIW, I have unhesitating confidence in the integrity of those several RYA Instructor/Examiners with whom I have crossed tacks. I would unhesitatingly leave my wallet lying untended alongside any of them - and have done, on occasion, while stumbling my 'rat-assed' way to the bogs.

Perhaps a desirable outcome of this might be that the good and the great of the RYA pay some heed to the fact that 'reads' of this now number over 7000, and reply-posts over 160. I'm told the new Head Honcho of the RYA is now a marketing professional. That's good, for such a specialist would surely be closely focussed on the content of this thread. This quality and depth of 'user feedback' would cost £thousands to commission via a commercial sampling organisation.

Perhaps some of the comment might find its way into a future meeting of the 'Yachtmaster Qualifications Panel' - the august members of which prefer not to be named, lest they be challenged to justify their views.

 

[GrahamM376]

Despite all the smoke, mirrors and obfuscations, the RYA remains a self-appointed commercial/business organisation which has NO statutory role whatsoever. It calls itself 'the regulating body for British yachting', with no formal mandate whatsoever - except that the powers that be quite enjoy the many freebie lunches in the Royal Thames YC, and are quite content to leave 'recreational yachting' and its management for another day.

I suspect that if the RYA didn't exist and train hundreds of people every year, we would certainly face the regulation and interference found in many European countries, where formal training is mandatory.

I do think the RYA like most organisations has room for improvement but personally I received excellent instruction on the courses I did and and fair treatment by examiners. Although there are comments alleging tickets being issued without exams, no one seems bothered about the candidates (and I know two) whose logs detailing passages and experience are total fabrications. One passed his YM offshore, the other had to resit.

 

[JumbleDuck]

ASo it is not unreasonable on the one hand to set some basic criteria for what is acceptable for the experience bit, related to the aims and objective of the qualification.

Except they don't. You don't have to go offshore, you just have to sail a boat which is statistically more likely to go offshore. You don't have to manage a crew, you just have to sail a boat on which it would be easier to carry a larger crew.

The "big" versus "small" is really a non issue. There may well be a lot of small boats around in certain parts of the world - but do their owners aspire to getting the offshore qualification?

Should we be excluded from aspiring, save at enormous additional expense?

Can't accept you statement that a tiny number of people go offshore in big(ger) boats - thousands do, but maybe not in your part of the world.

Leisure sailing trips are overwhelmingly coastal.

Recognise that the RYA qualifications are aimed at a far bigger market than small boat owners

You are making the usual assumption there that big boat owners are a "far bigger market" than small boat owners. Do you have any actual figures to back that up?

Unsurprising as the basic premise of many of the criticisms hark back to a time that is past, when sailing was all about derring do.

Perhaps it is a good thing that the RYA moves with the times and that their policies in relation to the qualifications reflect today's realities rather than some fuzzy remembrance of the past.

You keep banging on about "today's realities". What are they, precisely?

 

[JumbleDuck]

The 'Yachtmaster' accolade is a 'certification' - and there's a huge difference. For that to be described and considered as a qualification, the process requires to be approved, in this country, by the QCA.

Are you sure about that? I haven;t befoe seen it claimed that the word !qualification" is restricted in the way that, say, "degree" or "university" are, but I may have missed something.

But it is still not a 'Qualification'. It is only and merely a certificate, issued by a commercial outfit that scarcely gets an interview, these days, in most places where there is an indigenous structure.

There would be nothing to stop them turning it into a proper vocational qualification (except they couldn't keep it exclusive to their franchisees then). They could certainly apply to have their courses validated for academic credit ... some years ago I did the validation for RAF flight training.

 

[Seajet]

The only person I ever heard of who had to - repeatedly ! - re-do their YM offshore exam and still fail was my ex-boss when I temped at a chandlery decades ago; he probably had the knowledge, may have had the skills, but his attitude was so rude, stroppy & s*****y 24/7 that anyone would have given him an instant fail; as for ' crew management ' he'd have been lucky to get a lifejacket when - not if - the crew tossed him overboard, let alone the decent boat Captain Bligh was supplied with, and history says Bligh was actually quite a decent bloke !

 

[Simondjuk]

If crew management is important, shouldn't single handed passages be excluded from qualifying miles? Does an exam taken in a modern lightweight AWB really demonstrate the competence needed to handle an 80 tonne commercial boat?

Which do you think requires more seamanship: a round-Britain voyage in a Corribee or a round-Britain voyage in a Bavaria 35?

Why?

Knowing how to handle a boat of 10 tons plus stands you in better stead for handling bigger boats than having ever only handled little boats that can be manhandled.

They require exactly the same degree of seamanship. It's the seamanship that results in differences in behaviour based on the size and type of boat, not the size and type of boat boat that defines the level of seamanship possessed or exhibited for any given passage.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Knowing how to handle a boat of 10 tons plus stands you in better stead for handling bigger boats than having ever only handled little boats that can be manhandled.

Isn't the exam there to find out if you can handle a boat?

They require exactly the same degree of seamanship.

Thanks. No need to exclude the experience gained in one, then.

As you might expect, I would argue that in some respects the smaller boat requires more seamanship; it's more sensitive to weather and tides and so planning in a Corribee (say) has to be considerably more careful.

 

[Simondjuk]

Isn't the exam there to find out if you can handle a boat?



Thanks. No need to exclude the experience gained in one, then.

As you might expect, I would argue that in some respects the smaller boat requires more seamanship; it's more sensitive to weather and tides and so planning in a Corribee (say) has to be considerably more careful.

You seem to be asking the same question in different words, so I can only respond in sympathy. You learn more about handling a 50 ton boat by handling a 10 ton boat than you do by handling a 2 ton boat. Close handling, line loads, winch use, etc. all become different animals on boats much over about 30 feet, so examining for those on a boat of the relevant size for the certification of up to 24m or 200gt makes perfect sense to me. Examining on a boat more akin to a large dinghy where the loads and boat itself can be manhandled would be largely irrelevant. Can't put it plainer than that.

I thank you for your thanks, but I'm afraid they are unwarranted because I've not helped you make the point that you think I have. Experience and seamanship are entirely different things, and the 7m requirement is to ensure a degree of experience in relevant vessels.

So, on seamanship now, I don't accord with your thinking. It applies as much in an Open 60 as in an Oppie, a 10 ton cruiser as her tender. The considerations may be different in each vessel, but to say that one demands a greater degree of seamanship than another is to miss the point. Recognising, understanding and allowing for the differences is seamanship - travelling fast can be as challenging as travelling slowly, being in a large vessel can present as many hurdles as being in a small one, having a deep draught can present as much danger as having all but no draught.
For these reasons, I don't instinctively up my seamanship game as soon as I step from a large fast boat onto a little, slow boat. Rather it remains a constant, an attitude, on and around which my decisions and actions are shaped to suit the task in hand.

I still don't know why you think single handed passages should be excluded from the qualifying mileage.

 

[capnsensible]

Morning Jumbleduck, here's a couple of links you may find interesting about the 'Certificates of Competence'.

http://www.rya.org.uk/coursestraining/exams/Pages/howtopassyourexam.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yachtmaster

Enjoy!

 

[Uricanejack]

I still don't know why you think single handed passages should be excluded from the qualifying mileage.[/QUOTE]

I am not sure of why Jumbleduck thinks what he thinks.

I agree they should be excluded if passage exceeds 16 hours. My opinion Single handed passages should not qualify for any certification.
Failure to keep a proper lookout and comply with collision regs.
Causes Fatigue
Piss poor seamanship.
Negligent.
Poor Crew management, plan a voyage where fatigue does not allow for proper watch keeping.
Poor Safety. No back up. Fundamentally unsafe.
Inconsiderate disregard for the safety of other mariners,
Inconsiderate disregard for the safety of emergency responders.

No 1 reason the RYA & MCA both officially says its wrong.

 

[Seajet]

You seem to be asking the same question in different words, so I can only respond in sympathy. You learn more about handling a 50 ton boat by handling a 10 ton boat than you do by handling a 2 ton boat. Close handling, line loads, winch use, etc. all become different animals on boats much over about 30 feet, so examining for those on a boat of the relevant size for the certification of up to 24m or 200gt makes perfect sense to me. Examining on a boat more akin to a large dinghy where the loads and boat itself can be manhandled would be largely irrelevant. Can't put it plainer than that.

I thank you for your thanks, but I'm afraid they are unwarranted because I've not helped you make the point that you think I have. Experience and seamanship are entirely different things, and the 7m requirement is to ensure a degree of experience in relevant vessels.

So, on seamanship now, I don't accord with your thinking. It applies as much in an Open 60 as in an Oppie, a 10 ton cruiser as her tender. The considerations may be different in each vessel, but to say that one demands a greater degree of seamanship than another is to miss the point. Recognising, understanding and allowing for the differences is seamanship - travelling fast can be as challenging as travelling slowly, being in a large vessel can present as many hurdles as being in a small one, having a deep draught can present as much danger as having all but no draught.
For these reasons, I don't instinctively up my seamanship game as soon as I step from a large fast boat onto a little, slow boat. Rather it remains a constant, an attitude, on and around which my decisions and actions are shaped to suit the task in hand.

I still don't know why you think single handed passages should be excluded from the qualifying mileage.

Amazing how I went from my 22 footer to handling a 38 metre 280 ton barge then; the principles are the same, all it takes is common sense, which one either has or hasn't got.

And yes sailing a Corribee around Britain does require more seamanship than in a much bigger boat; part of seamanship is judging one's capabilities and resources, including crew strength; given a big racing boat and a crew of gorillas one can do virtually anything, regardless of skills - as certain large ' corporate charter ' sailing schools prove - they may be a menace to everyone else but they rarely sink !

 

[capnsensible]

Where is that popcorn smiley when you need one?

 

[Seajet]

Where is that popcorn smiley when you need one?

I was expecting you to say ' but 38 metres, 280 tons isn't covered by YM offshore ' - to which the reply would be, well the skipper's only qualification was as a window cleaner !

 

[capnsensible]

I was expecting you to say ' but 38 metres, 280 tons isn't covered by YM offshore ' - to which the reply would be, well the skipper's only qualification was as a window cleaner !

Was thinking of Uricanejacks post. Beaten by the button!

 

[Deleted member 36384]

Was thinking of Uricanejacks post. Beaten by the button!

He is entitled to his opinion but it is clear that single handed sailors are both skilled and safe. In fact, I wonder if the single handed sailor is less likely to be involved in an incident than crewed boats.