RYA - lost the plot?

VO5 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sensible stuff
 
JumbleDuck said:
That is certainly one target market, but the commercial certification for considerably larger boats seems to be a major driver as well.
[...]
I think it's a shame that there is no practical qualification aimed at people with sub-30' boats, and I am a little puzzled to find that that mild regret arouses such passionate opposition.
Click to expand...

I think the passion was more in the criticism of the current scheme. I see an argument for the current structure but if it were different I wouldn't mind at all. There's an argument which says forget any experience dictates and just do the exam. If you pass, you pass. If someone later wants to hire you or cares about what type of boat your experience has been gained on, they look at your yachting CV and decide whether the experience is relevant.

For a separate small boat advanced qualification*....Obviously it would be a Good Thing given the current YM size restrictions. I suppose the question is whether there would be demand to justify developing and running it: another discussion point I think.

*and on the qualification thing...
oldbilbo said:
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/
Click to expand...
Really? I confess that I wasn't previously aware of that body. What's the legislation that says only they can authorise anyone to use the word "qualification"? And do you honestly put your faith in an organisation whose web site is so flagrantly violates web coding standards that the w3c validator chucks up 64 errors on their first page?? Some people judge other by their shoes, I do it by their web site correctness....

I still think the oldsaltyseadogness certificate could be the answer to many of the issues that are frequently raised here. We definitely wouldn't call it a qualification though.
 
Last edited:
dom said:
Sensible stuff
Click to expand...

Yes, and my criticism is minor, and very mild so far.....

I have not mentioned that the candidate is expected to know and understand the Rules and Regulations For The Prevention Of Collisions at Sea by the end of the five days, I ask you !

When I attended the School of Navigation in Tower Hill, London, everybody, Masters, Mates, Yachtmasters, Tugmasters, everybody was required and expected to learn all the rules by heart, by rote, like you would learn the lines in a play in which you were given an acting part.

This is the best way to learn the rules, but it cannot be mastered in two days. It takes several weeks of effort. But I assure you the effort is worthwhile.

As this rigorous policy is not pursued nowadays, one of the consequence (and there are others which are really grevious) is all the really silly arguments that arise on this site when the colregs come up yet again for discussion. It is not that posters are stupid, it is that they are ignorant, because they do not have, from the very beginning, the correct information deeply embedded in their brains.

We would be challenged one by one in the class to recite instantly any of the rules chosen at random by our tutor.

Then we would be subjected to detailed explanations as to what izz and what izzn't and why....

Then we would be shown colour slides of shapes showing different aspects which we were expected to identify immediately, without hesitation, and to explain what action we would take, or if any was needed..

And then the fun really started with the night shapes (lights)...

The tutors often inserted lights for us to identify which were purposely incorrect, to really test our knowledge.

Examples such as a ship underway and making way through the water having hove in the anchor but the anchor lights not yet put out or forgotten to be put out, or a submarine making way still exhibiting lights indicating emergency surfacing procedure...or...some of the antics of trawlers and fishing vessels....

This was really serious proper training, not like nowadays.
 
Last edited:
VO5 said:
Yes, and my criticism is minor, and very mild so far.

I have not mentioned that the candidate is expected to know and understand the Rules and Regulations For The Prevention Of Collisions at Sea by the end of the five days, I ask you !

When I attended the School of Navigation in Tower Hill, London, everybody, Masters, Mates, Yachtmasters, Tugmasters, everybody was required and expected to learn all the rules by heart, by rote, like you would learn the lines in a play in which you were given an acting part.

This is the best way to learn the rules, but it cannot be mastered in two days. It takes several weeks of effort. But I assure you the effort is worthwhile.

As this rigorous policy is not pursued nowadays, one of the consequence (and there are others which are really grevious) is all the really silly arguments that arise on this site when the colregs come up yet again for discussion. It is not that posters are stupid, it is that they are ignorant, because they do not have, from the very beginning, the correct information deeply embedded in their brains.

We would be challenged one by one in the class to recite instantly any of the rules chosen at random by our tutor.

Then we would be subjected to detailed explanations as to what izz and what izzn't.

Then we would be shown colour slides of shapes showing different aspects which we were expected to identify immediately, without hesitation, and to explain what action we would take, or if any was needed..

And then the fun really started with the night shapes (lights)...

The tutors often inserted lights for us to identify which were purposely incorrect, to really test our knowledge.

Examples such as a ship underway and making way through the water having hove in the anchor but the anchor lights not yet put out or forgotten to be put out, or a submarine making way still exhibiting lights indicating emergency surfacing procedure...or...some of the antics of trawlers and fishing vessels....

This was really serious proper training, not like nowadays.
Click to expand...

What do you propose? Are you suggesting that anyone who wants to go to sea gives up their career in order to study maritime sciences merely to take part in what is to them simply a hobby?
 
Last edited:
GrahamM376 said:
What do you use to set the depth sounder up to make sure it's accurate? I use a lead line.
Click to expand...

I use my lead line too.

But if you think I'm going to use it to take a series of running soundings in the dark you're one shackle short of a full set of spares.

______________________________
 
VO5 said:
And then the fun really started with the night shapes (lights)...

The tutors often inserted lights for us to identify which were purposely incorrect, to really test our knowledge.

Examples such as a ship underway and making way through the water having hove in the anchor but the anchor lights not yet put out or forgotten to be put out, or a submarine making way still exhibiting lights indicating emergency surfacing procedure...or...some of the antics of trawlers and fishing vessels....

This was really serious proper training, not like nowadays.
Click to expand...

Pah!

Our instructor used to make us identify day shapes in the dark.

And we had to learn the call signs of all the ships on the Lloyds Register of Shipping. To spice it up a bit the ships names had one letter removed to simulate a fender hung over the stern.

That took a while...

__________________________
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
john_morris_uk said:
Where in IRPCS does it describe these 'lights shown by a submarine for emergency surfacing'?
Click to expand...

I think that was the point: they were chucked into a test to confuse people. Sounds like a good thing: you *want* people to realise that sometimes the lights they're seeing *aren't* in the IRPCS and make a decision early rather than racking their brains trying to think what they're forgetting. Even if that isn't what VO5 meant, it still seems like a sound strategy :-)

john_morris_uk said:
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.
Click to expand...

The theory course does claim to "cover" the IRPCS but many people will already go into it knowing the basics (e.g. from dayskipper theory) and what VO5 is maybe missing is that you are generally further tested orally by your YM examiner in the practical (aside from demonstrating a practical understanding). I and I'm guessing most people, spent a lot of time between the theory and practical with flip cards and re-reading the rules. Never really understood the mentality of those fill-in-the-gaps-in-the-wording quizzes in the seaman's guide to the rules of the road. Besides, whenever I quote rule 5 I end up sounding like Malcolm X.
 
AFAIK the light on a sub ( or flying boat or hovercraft ) is a wholly inadequate orange flashing job; of course this could also mean ' pee'd up students who've just raided road works and probably wearing traffic cones on their heads '; either way the best bet seems to be to keep well clear.
 
Tranona said:
Your boat has an LWL over 7m, so everything you do counts.
Click to expand...

Nope. LWL 6.48m

The fact that you even had to ask the question demonstrates how out of touch you are. For the last 20 years or so European (including UK) builders have been producing 10000+ boats over 30' on average a year. Where do you think they are going, but to be used? You may see lots of small boats where you are in the tiny little corner of Europe, but the further you go south the larger the average boat.
Click to expand...

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.

I can tell you that handling a 33' with a bow thruster is just as challenging as a wayward 26' long keeler - but in a different way. I own one of each.
Click to expand...

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

You said earlier that the qualification is for people, not boats, so why are you now asking for a qualification for small boats?
Click to expand...

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 ...

Your main beef seems to be that the experience requirements excludes very small boats without providing any evidence that this really is a constraint.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
VO5 said:
This was really serious proper training, not like nowadays.
Click to expand...

Luxury. We used to have to get out of the lake at three o'clock in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of hot gravel, go to work at the mill every day for tuppence a month, come home, and Dad would beat us around the head and neck with a broken bottle, if we were LUCKY!
 
JumbleDuck said:
Oooh, you bitch. However, you'll see that I have already cheerfully conceded that I was quite wrong about that.
Click to expand...


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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top