RYA - lost the plot?

[shaunksb]

I think you should read your link again. 7m LWL is the smallest allowed for any of the quaulifying (sic) sea time

You're going to have to help me and be more specific. I can see the the note on qualifying sea time,

1 At least 50 per cent of qualifying mileage must be completed on this size of vessel (7-24m)

But I can't see where it says that's the minimum for qualifying sea time

??

_____________________

 

[capnsensible]

I have bought a submarine to the surface twice in emergency conditions. Once as a Panel Operator and once as Ship Control Officer Of The Watch. Didnt put any lights on. Blow and Go. (so to speak).

Just sayin.......

 

[JumbleDuck]

But half your quaulifying sea time can be done in a boat that size.

Interesting point, but I read the rules as saying that at least 50% on 7m - 24m and up to 50% in the two larger categories. There is no mention of sub 7m LWL. Anyone know for sure?

 

[JumbleDuck]

Aye, well you were incorrect about the original contention but I was trying to suggest you could apply it to the wider, frankly rum, idea; that it is just as tough to take the Yachtmeister test in the Med as it is in Northern Brittany.

A bit like driving tests. Where I live there are no traffic lights within 20 miles, except for a couple of pedestrian crossings, no dual carriageways and only one busying road, the A75, which is only busy four times a day when the Irish ferry traffic goes through.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Actually that would be a major problem for me: the vast majority of my 5000+ miles of sailing over the last nine years has been done in a boat with a LWL of 6.99m.

You're not a real sailor, then, because you should have moved with the times and realised that everybody sails bigger boats nowadays.

There used to be a saying in the gliding world that There Is No Substitute For Span (TINSFoS) which was countered by those of us who had fun in smaller, cheaper things under the banner SIFoW - Span Is For Wimps.

 

[awol]

You're going to have to help me and be more specific. I can see the the note on qualifying sea time,

1 At least 50 per cent of qualifying mileage must be completed on this size of vessel (7-24m)

But I can't see where it says that's the minimum for qualifying sea time

??

_____________________

I see what you mean now. I don't think it is what the RYA intended but as they don't seem able to maintain consistency of requirements over their various web pages, who knows what the criteria really are?

From the Exam Application Form notes

2. Boat to be used for the exam
The selection and provision of the boat for a practical exam is the responsibility of the candidate. She must be sound, adequately equipped for the
area in which the exam is to take place and sufficient crew must be provided by the candidate in order to man the boat efficiently. In general, for
Coastal Skipper and Yachtmaster exams, boats used for exams must be at least 24ft LOA. For Advanced Powerboat exams, the vessel must be
seaworthy for the area of the exam.

 

[Tranona]

Nope. LWL 6.48m



I suspect that you and perhaps I see what we expect to see. The whole world is not the swinging moorings on Bute and the whole world is not a yacht club in Poole.



And yet the RYA says that one of those doesn't coun.



Becaue it is quite reasonable to restrict a qualification for people to certain situations. Of course if boat validity came up for discussion, awkward questions might be asked about people driving sizeable commercial vessels on the basis of a qualification gained in a relatively small yacht ...



At the moment it's a regret rather than a beef. If qualification ever became compulsory then obviously it would be a serious problem.

I really don't understand the basis for your contention that only common forms of experience should count. Just because more people take Bavaria 33s from Poole to Cherbourg each year than participate in the Jester Challenge does not seem to me an adequate reason to dismiss the latter as unworthy.

Depends on where you get your data from. Sailboat data agrees with you, Yachtsnet gives it as 23'3" or 7.15m. Doubt the RYA would exclude experience on your boat.

No, I do not see what I want to see, but what is. Nothing to do with Poole - or Bute. Scotland represents less than 10% of the population of the UK and 1% of the population of the EU. Just get out and around europe and you will see that neither Poole, let alone Scotland is typical of the boating scene in respect to size and types of boat. The growth markets are NOT in small boats, and have not been for 30 years.

I am not referring to people who cross the Channel, although, those that do run into thousands, but also the thousands that cross the Atlantic each year, or take their boats round the Iberian peninsular and cruise the Med. Once again I have to say your horizons seem very limited! This is not to deny the the worthiness of people who undertake offshore passages in small boats, but that is a minority pastime, and doubt that many who do it would be concerned that their experience was not acceptable!
Why introduce the possibility of compulsory licencing?. If that comes about, the legislation will determine who needs to have a licence and what the requirements will be. if there is a requirement for an "offshore" licence for boats under 7m LWL then somebody will have to provide it.

 

[GrahamM376]

Spanner on a piece of string.

Yes, anything works. I just happen to have inherited a lead line with a boat and have used it for checking and setting up sounders. Don't have any tallow though

 

[JumbleDuck]

I am not referring to people who cross the Channel, although, those that do run into thousands, but also the thousands that cross the Atlantic each year, or take their boats round the Iberian peninsular and cruise the Med.

But you think these things are unworthy of recognition if done in a boat slightly smaller than yours. I think that's a shame. I'm not losing sleep over it, though.

 

[Tranona]

Aye, well you were incorrect about the original contention but I was trying to suggest you could apply it to the wider, frankly rum, idea; that it is just as tough to take the Yachtmeister test in the Med as it is in Northern Brittany.
The essence of the change is smoothing the path to getting rid of that distinction.

Firstly, as you have already been told, there has never been a distinction with Yachtmaster.

It is up to the examiner to ensure that the exam assess the objectives of the qualification. However, it is impossible to ensure equal conditions, so the details will be different depending on where the practical takes place. Just as different from the East Coast, to Brittany, to Western Isles to the Med.

This is no different from any other assessment of competence in a practical environment. Just about every professional qualification has a practical element - medical, legal accountancy, architecture etc, never mind a whole range of occupational qualifications such as NVQs.

Those of us who spent our working lives carrying out such assessments see little difficulty in the process. Unlike examinations of fact (which is also part of the RYA scheme) there are no single right answers. You are assessing the individual's competence to meet the outcomes required for the level of the qualification.

i expect John Morris, as he examines candidates in all areas would have something to say on the subject.

 

[Tranona]

But you think these things are unworthy of recognition if done in a boat slightly smaller than yours. I think that's a shame. I'm not losing sleep over it, though.

Never once have I have said that, or even suggested it. My 30 years wandering around the channel in a boat that also would not qualify leads me to appreciate what is involved in that type of sailing.

My only observation is that it is very much a minority and shrinking interest. It is the RYA that does not fully recognise such experience as qualifying for one of their levels. I can understand the logic of that, given that the qualification is aimed at the 7-24m size range.

 

[Tranona]

Taught ?

Well, it is very simple. No one is born knowing. Therefore knowledge is passed on. It is more effective to pass on knowledge in a properly structured fashion than leaving people to find out for themselves through trial and error or through having to filter information gleaned at the club bar.

The failing is not only that five days is not enough but also the subsequent steps are staggered, leaving gaps.

For Competent Crew, for example, 5 days are allowed, for example. Candidates are expected to memorise everything and acquire working knowledge within that very short time. For just the standing and running rigging and sails section it takes three days for everything to be explained and understood (and repeated subsequently by the student to show it is so) and all questions asked and answers given.

It may sound tedious to some, but it is necessary. This leaves just two days for the rest. Not enough time. Not good enough and worse as we go up the ladder, because what happens is that people walk away with the impression that if the have the cert they are what the cert says. Not so. Absolutely not.

I am afraid you are very out of touch (unsurprisingly) with what "learning" is all about.

Candidates for this qualification are invariably mature and experienced in learning and strategies whereby they are "taught" or "instructed" have proved to be ineffective.

Individuals are self motivated and independent - not dependent on somebody standing in front of them a drilling them. Undertaking an RYA qualification is voluntary, so one would expect candidates to be prepared to learn for themselves, not need to be instructed. Most are perfectly capable of learning what is necessary in a knowledge sense by themselves using the resources available to them. Learning goes in a cycle from acquiring a knowledge base, putting it to practical use through a real life experience, reflecting on what happened - then maybe acquiring more knowledge and trying it out again.

We expect Yachtmasters to be independent, motivated learners, not to just respond automatically to instructions or repeat verbatim what they have been told. Many are professional people in their working lives and are sailing for pleasure. So not unreasonable that they expect their learning experience to mirror the way they learn and develop professionally.

I can understand your attachment to the way you were taught - just not the way things are now. Easy to think that is the way I did , therefore it must be right, and others are lesser being for not having done the same. Many of my older colleagues at university were the same. However that is not how employers want their employees educated. Knowledge of facts has its place, but it is what people can do with them that is important in a practical activity such as skippering your own yacht. Most of the mechanics of operating a yacht are simple, and you certainly don't need to waste 3 days having somebody tell you how the rig works. Time with an instructor is limited, and that time must be spent on activities the learner cannot do by himself - it is not a place for the instructor to spend all his time showing how much more he knows than the student. he is there to help the student build on his knowledge base in a practical situation.

What I have described is the dominant approach to adult learning, simply because it reflects the way adults learn and demonstrably more effective than earlier instructional methods. Hard for people who have not experienced it to accept, and just as hard for people who have to accept going back to an instructor centred environment.

 

[doug748]

Firstly, as you have already been told, there has never been a distinction with Yachtmaster......

.....

I should know, you have repeatedly said it. As I have repeatedly said that I understand the RYA's reasons for their changes.

You have trumped any other views because in your universe they are only proof that other people are:

Out of touch
Sailing in quiet corner that can safely be disregarded
Not in the mainstream
Behind the times
Living in the past
An unusual and special case, unlike yourself
etc

This is ideal for a closed mind because whatever the case under discussion you can hoist out the same liturgical insults whatever the facts of the case.

The rest of your post seems to add up to the usual smoke an mirrors. If you really have been involved in Education at some level, then little more of the "I think" and a little less of the "I know" would give us all more confidence in the future of the service.

 

[Seajet]

I have bought a submarine to the surface twice in emergency conditions. Once as a Panel Operator and once as Ship Control Officer Of The Watch. Didnt put any lights on. Blow and Go. (so to speak).

Just sayin.......

You bought a submarine ?!

Hat off to you Sir, I only sometimes aspire towards a DB9 or on a wild day a 2 seat Spitfire with a competent bloke in the front !

 

[VO5]

I'm interested in clarification of a couple of things from VO5.

Where in IRPCS does it describe these 'lights shown by a submarine for emergency surfacing'?

I've been part of a world where learning IRPCS by meaning and by rote was expected. (Although it was not part of my job brief I have been known to take the written IRPCS exam set every month for bridge watchkeeping officers in the RN.) the expectation by the RYA is that yachts men and women at YM level will have a thorough working knowledge of IRPCS

Perhaps VO5 can also show where the actual learning of IRPCS is part of a theory course. (Most schools explain learning IRPCS is homework.) You can't learn the whole of IRPCS In two or three days therefore his criticism of RYA courses is a bit wide of the mark.

The IRPCS does not mention yellow flashing lights for submarines (we assume) carrying out emergency surfacing procedure.
These instructions are for submarine commanders to execute when surfacing at night when reaching periscope depth in the vicinity of other vessels. Certainly a yellow flashing light should be displayed, a quick flashing light of 120 flashes per minute to be exact. Then the convention is that mariners recognise this signal and have the duty to keep clear.

The yellow flashing light, again 120 flashes per minute for hovercraft is mentioned and reference can be found in Rule Number 23, and from memory clause (b) or (c).

The fact that IRPCS are not taught (meaning additionally fully explored and explained) by the RYA and instead presenting it as "homework" is another dire indictment of how standards have been allowed to slip over the years.

 

[VO5]

I should know, you have repeatedly said it. As I have repeatedly said that I understand the RYA's reasons for their changes.

You have trumped any other views because in your universe they are only proof that other people are:

Out of touch
Sailing in quiet corner that can safely be disregarded
Not in the mainstream
Behind the times
Living in the past
An unusual and special case, unlike yourself
etc

This is ideal for a closed mind because whatever the case under discussion you can hoist out the same liturgical insults whatever the facts of the case.

The rest of your post seems to add up to the usual smoke an mirrors. If you really have been involved in Education at some level, then little more of the "I think" and a little less of the "I know" would give us all more confidence in the future of the service.

Absolutely. I agree with you entirely. :encouragement:

 

[capnsensible]

The IRPCS does not mention yellow flashing lights for submarines (we assume) carrying out emergency surfacing procedure.
These instructions are for submarine commanders to execute when surfacing at night when reaching periscope depth in the vicinity of other vessels. Certainly a yellow flashing light should be displayed, a quick flashing light of 120 flashes per minute to be exact. Then the convention is that mariners recognise this signal and have the duty to keep clear.

The yellow flasher (often referred to as a Grimes Light) is rigged on a submarines fin when operating on the surface in a non tactical situation.

Nothing to do with emergency surfacing or periscope depth. It simply indicates an unusual vessel. :encouragement:

 

[VO5]

No it doesn't. It indicates periscope depth as I explain above and is standard procedure for the US Navy as well. That some submarine commanders choose to ignore it is not the point. :encouragement:

 

[VO5]

And the Australian Navy as well. So there ! :encouragement:

 

[Deleted member 36384]

Absolutely. I agree with you entirely. :encouragement:

Yet professional development, which is a key part of maintaining competence and relevance in industry, for example, is all about blended learning these days: self study (distance learning), maintaining an awareness of changes in the discipline (membership of professional bodies and reading journals), mentored guidance, application; attending courses is a minor part of this. I work for a multinational oil major and our training has changed significantly over the 25 years I have been employed. A significant part of my continuous development is now self study, with on line self examination, usually multiple choice. When I am ready I take the final on line exam (within a time frame stipulated by my employer) and then follow a mentored period before final sign off. This is no wishy way, the training I receive like this is to ensure that I protect my employer against all sorts of litigation at both local and international levels, so it is quite critical. If self study was considered poor model, then my employer would not use it. Think Macondo and BP and you will see why my employer is keen that I don't mess up.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.