RYA qualification

[DeeGee]

(Originally posted to 19yr-old thread...)

If you tried to develop a system of qualification, with clear delineation of theory and practice, I reckon you would be hard pressed to do better than the RYA system.
The staging of the qualification by certified sea-miles or ocean-miles, as the case may be, is arbitrary - you could pick different numbers - but it is difficult to see an alternative.

Since the RYA scheme is really directed at the amateur sailor, what you are grumping about is the fast-track to the RYA qual. for PROFESSIONAL reasons - in order to become a RYAI. Surely, the answer is to have two separate tracks, for amateur and pro? The pro can then be fast-tracked, and examined to a professional standard, instead of the rather-old-fashioned-driving-test-style-with-the-examiner-sitting-beside-you really designed for the ham? If you are expecting to earn money from the qualification, a bit extra to employ a decent qualification scheme is not too much to ask? And then, if you are already an old hand, with the amateur ym. and want to become a pro (ymi) then you pay up your dosh and take the exams, which should be relatively easy for an old hand? You would not be able to sell your services with the ham qual. (Presumably then, the only need for a ham qualification would be insurance and self-satisfaction?).

If there were a GENUINE pro qualification (rather than this dti rubber-stamp to raise a few bob), the standards applied could be commensurately higher, examined by a different, stricter, examining body.



<hr width=100% size=1>Black Sugar - the sweetest of all

 

[Mirelle]

As I was saying....

The other reason for the amateur YM is chartering...

The old DTI YM qualification, referred to by Steve, was occasionally taken by amateurs but was intended for professional yacht skippers of the old school - i.e. men who had grown up from boyhood as professional fishermen, under sail, but who needed to know how to navigate deep sea and what to do in a foreign port with regard to signing crew on and off, etc.

The Nottage Institute in Wivenhoe was founded for the very purpose of educating professional yachtsmen, all of whom were fishermen, so that they could become Yacht Masters.

For that reason, as can be seen if you dig out Frank Carr's textbook for that course, the course was very short on seamanship - everyone in professional yachting in those days would have been sculling a ship's boat around the harbour long before they were ten.

When the RYA took over, in the very early 70's, it was by no means clear that "professional" yachting would ever return - but it certainly has!

There is a lot to be said for separating the amateur YM from the professional's YMI.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[DeeGee]

Re: As I was saying....

In my scheme of things, skippered chartering would become a professional activity, and require the pro qualification. Skippered chartering implies you are putting ultimate responsibility for dealing with whatever comes up in the hands of the skipper. This is the fast-track-llightly-examined ym we really need to eliminate.

I think in terms of liability and negligence. An owner takes friends out, and friend drowns, a court would always take into account the standing of the skipper when deciding negligence. A paid skipper would be expected to have skill and ability beyond that of a pal taking friends out for a nice days sailing which turns sour.

<hr width=100% size=1>Black Sugar - the sweetest of all

 

[Gordonmc]

Re: As I was saying....

I fully agree with the sentiment, but I understood the Commercial Endorsement covered this distinction. I will bow to greater knowlege if this is not the case.

To open the debate, a tendency which has always been around is for qualification "bagging". Its not enough for some folk to enjoy their sailing. Improvement in proficiency by taking a course takes second place to getting the bit of paper. A bit sad really.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tome]

Re: As I was saying....

For the commercial endorsement all you need is a one day sea-survival course and a medical.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Cornishman]

>dti rubber stamp<
You seem to think that the instructor qualification is the same as a commercial endorsement to a YM Certificate of Competence, which it ain't.
Even the commercial endorsement requires extra qualifications, and a medical, but to become an RYA YM Instructor (I am assuming that is what you mean by ymi)you attend a course above and beyond the YM Certificate. It used to be that you could not do the course for 3 years after achieving the YM certificate, but I believe that has been done away with now.
It is a pretty stiff course because you have to show that you are of a higher standard than just YM, and can also instruct. There are failures.
Commercial endorsement is required if you are chartering a skippered yacht, and of course in this part of the world there are many angling and diving boats all of which are skippered by YMs with a CE. I know because I have examined many of them.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Cornishman]

Re: As I was saying....

You are not quite right about that.
I have been an 'expert witness' on two occasions when there was injury to a crew member of a yacht skippered by persons with no certificate of competence. Admiralty Court and all that, too.
On both occasions the court found in favour of the injured person because of the skipper's negligence, and it would not have mattered an iota if he had been a Master Mariner or, as in their cases, totally unqualified. The fact remained that the skipper was responsible.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[NigeCh]

Fit for skippering

IMO, there should be no difference between the qualifications of anyone who puts to sea and those who drive cars. It's time that all boaters were licenced so that equal culpabiltiy can be observed: ie the land laws should be translated to the sea laws.

Who here obeys everything necessary in SOLAS V (July 2002) or even takes any credence of IRPCS (Amd Nov 2002) ????

I agree with DeeGee that there is no current DOT/RYA qualification that is worth tuppance.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[DeeGee]

Cornishman.... No, I wasn't referring to YMI... it was the CE you refer to, which TOME has pointed out, does not amount to much insofar as experience is concerned. I worry about a YMI when he is skippering for pay and I expect him to be professionally qualified. If I go on a big steamship, I hope the master has his ticket. If I go on a small steamship, ditto, so why not expect it on any vessel for which I am paying a fee - whether a charter skipper or otherwise.

How do YOU check sea-miles? You can't. You have to rely on your observation of how this chap does on his examination. If things aren't very rough for the exam, your intuition would be the only thing to guide you, and it might be very difficult for you to fail someone without clear due cause, and due cause may not show if the weather is mild and unstressful. You may even get sued if you failed someone who has more or less competently gone through the exam and you just 'know' that you wouldn't like to trust him with your kids or grandkids.

And are all examiners as good as you?

There is one school which advertises 100% pass rate from their YM course. I know one of the examinees, and he was utterlly incompetent in just about all departments. He somehow is a YM.

I think the system is very good for amateurs, I stated that up front. It is the professional side I think is not properly done. It is like the difference between a car driver and a lorry or bus driver, they have to undergo more exhaustive training and examination. [As one not in the transport business, I would not enter an argument as to whether all is perfect in the professional driver business, I am quite ignorant of that].

On your liability point, I stand corrected. Negligence is negligence, however, the degree of damages would almost certainly be mitigated.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by DeeGee on 12/09/2003 17:55 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[Jools_of_Top_Cat]

Re: As I was saying....

On both occasions the court found in favour of the injured person because of the skipper's negligence, and it would not have mattered an iota if he had been a Master Mariner or, as in their cases, totally unqualified. The fact remained that the skipper was responsible. <<<

Cornishman, would you mind elaborating, you have a wealth of knowledge that we need to tap into. Why were they found negligent, what could they have done better etc. I realise you have comercial interests, but I would be interested in hearing about these cases if you can, and possibly your own uptake. This might fall into another thread but either way please share.


<hr width=100% size=1>Julian

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk/Honda_00.html>Honda Formula 4-Stroke racing</A>

 

[Birdseye]

Re: Fit for skippering

you show a touching faith in the effectiveness of driver training, given the mayhem seen on our roads!

"I agree with DeeGee that there is no current DOT/RYA qualification that is worth tuppance". So you are really saying that its not worth anyone bothering to go through the RYA courses and learn how to navigate, how to work out tides, the collision regs etc. Its better, perhaps, that they pick up odd bits of info as they sail along with someone else! Or that we have some government organised scheme that applies the minimalist standards seen in the driving test -and with an overwhelming emphasis on the collregs, as there is on the highway code.

Personally (and I am approaching my sixtieth) I would always prefer to sail with a young trained enthusiast, just as I would prefer a young fit pilot on my plane, and a doctor to whom med school wasnt a fading memory, and a young blond....

I often get this reaction to RYA training at my own club where I run the RYA courses, always from the older members who have no qualifications other than age, and are afraid of doing their YM exam and failing. Used to see the same resentment at work against graduates. Not suggesting that you aren't up to your eyes in qualifications, and that the RYA courses couldnt be improved. But it has to be good that youngsters take them, and the twopence comment is simply silly.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Sailfree]

Having taken the qualifications as far as I can with my present experience level I think the RYA scheme is pitched just right. Too hard and the pass rate would put off the less academic and to be honest the less able (not everyone is going to be fantastic or not suffer from exam nerves). I have been crew during an examination and although one of the three failed I believe it was the correct decision. When I took my YM the examiner was very thorough but I believe always tried to establish our limits in both theory and practice and left us with the feeling we had been thoroughly examined, were deemed to be safe but that this was a stage of our learning curve and we still would learn more as we got more experience. I agree with the thread though that professional skippers could be examined to a higher standard perhaps every 5 years and the standard expected should be comenserate with experience.
I think the article in YM ref the 19 year old is great as it stimulates discussion and people take on board the lessons learnt. I just wish I had been a fortunate as him and sailing when I was 19! In a perfect world no one makes errors of judgement but the reality IS different and I prefer to learn from others mistakes than learn the hard way through my own.
Thanks to the scuttlebutt post that mentioned the maib publications and digests. I have now printed off most of the ones regarding pleasure craft and highlighted the observations. I want to learn from others experience.
I am now more cautious in what forecasts I would set out in and while I have never needed a life jacket I now wear one far more often and encourage other to use them (apart from the times when I consider it compulsary - when reefed and overnight sailing).
Long may (hopefully always others) write about their experiences and errors of judgement.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Reap]

Well in general I guess I agree, however I have seen many a YM candidate who in my opinion should have been a definite failure, passing.
The main issue I have is the great influx of 'Pro' YM candidates taking the exam.
A familiar scenario is the deck hand who has tens of thousands of sea miles, but when you question them they have never skippered a yacht in their life, sometimes have never berthed one and have no navigational experience worth twopence.
When I explained that in that case they were not qualified to take the exam, they tell me they have to pass it because there job depends on it, and they werent ever going to skipper a yacht anyway, just crew, but they need to be YM.
Now this problem is usually on power YM.
So we continue with the prep course, the first evening out I have to step in to stop us running aground entering the Hamble.
They get lost going from Beulieu to Yarmouth at night and I have to stop the boat and brief them on basic night navigation before we even get a third of the way.
They dont have the basics of boat handling when berthing.
Now I can and did advise the candidate that they were not ready for the exam, but thats as far as I can go I can't stop them if they are determined.
Before the exam, (and I know that the instructor and examiner are not supposed to talk about the candidates) but in this instance we did.
On the first night out during the exam, the same candidate had to be stopped from running aground entering Hamble. And was weak throughout the exam.
And yet they passed!!!

Now my point here is that this is a common occurrence. Somebody who is doing this for their profession should be of a high standard, it doesn't matter if they will only ever be deck crew, the point is they are qualified to skipper a yacht.
And really this applies to amateurs also. So why should anybody who is very poor, pass the exam, even the 70 year old who only sails with their wife.
Why not give them coastal skipper..you can still charter with this nobody actually NEEDS to be a YM unless doing it professionally.
I don't think the exam needs to be harder, just the standards kept high.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.yacht-links.net>http://www.yacht-links.net</A>

 

[Cornishman]

I agree with most of what you say, but what I don't understand is that the candidate you describe was not qualified to take the exam if he could not show that he had done the 5 qualifying passages as required in G.18. You know the ones - each must have been a minimum of 60 miles rhumb line distance port to port, two of which he must have been skipper and two of which must have been overnight. Or did you do all five on your prep course? Page 45 of G.18/03, or its predecessors, should be completed before even making the exam application. If not you should not have entered him for the exam. This is a very serious situation and if you care to pm me with details of candidate, examiner and exam date I will take it up with the Training Manager at the RYA for you.

Another point which seems to have been missed here and on other threads on this subject is that the course syllabi and the details of how the exam should be conducted have always been the result of extensive negotiations between the RYA and variously the DTI, the DoT or the MCA depending on which department happens to be in power at the time. Hence the full title begins with "RYA/MCA Certificate..."at the moment. It is the MCA which decides what extra requirements there should be for commercial endorsements and if you have any qualms about them perhaps you should approach your MP?

Commercial endorsements are valid for 5 years and I refer you to page 5 of G.18/03 for details of how they may be renewed. It makes interesting reading and answers a few of the questions which have been asked elsewhere on the subject.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Reap]

Hi Cornishman
It is correct that the candidate was not qualified to take the exam, and I know of several instances of this. They must have lied on their exam application I guess.
As I stated, in the case I describe I did speak with the examiner and point this out.
The examiner concerned had a reputation amongst the instructors as being very soft, an easy touch even.
I am not currently instructing and this case was a while ago so I am not sure if there is anything to gain by giving you the examiners details, especially as I cannot remember the name of the candidate. Tho no doubt a little research could reveal this.

My real point is that this sort of thing happened on numerous occasions and most of the instructors I worked with were totally dissallusioned by this.

Even when the candidate claimed to have all the qualifying experience, it was often evident that they did not, or were completely incompetent.
Most 'Leisure Sailors' took my advice if I advised them they were not ready for the exam. They accepted that they needed a little more experience in a certain area, this was usually self evident during the 5 day prep course.

However the 'pro' especially from abroad had nothing to lose but to go for the exam. They had shelled out a lot of money in time and travel etc.
Many of them knew they were not ready for the exam, but thought they may as well take it anyway.
To then see them pass was dissapointing.

Now don't get me wrong I may make it sound that this was my attitude to all candidates. On the contrary, I used to work hard with them, sometimes getting them up to scratch on stuff they really should know inside out as a yachtmaster candidate and with an intense week they managed a pass. Nothing could be more pleasing.
But it was the increasing number of totally incompetent 'pro' deckhands that eventually dissollusioned me with the RYA training.

I think the RYA system would otherwise be okay.

It was this (and the money of course) that caused me to quit.


<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.yacht-links.net>http://www.yacht-links.net</A>