The end of owner maintenance ...

[capnsensible]

A general question.

Regarding MGN's over the past 30 years or more, (yes I know that they are for Commercial Vessels) does anyone have a link or anecdote or anything at all that shows an owner, skipper or managing agent has ever had an insurance claim turned down or a court case resulting from an incident that was subject to ignoring a guidance note?

Not r not an MSN, but a guidance note.

Thanks. :encouragement:

 

[Tomahawk]

My question is what are these proposals to achieve? How terrible are the accident figures these actions are expected to improve? It would appear to be a set of possible solutions looking for a set of problems!

I have looked through all 120 MAIB accident reports relat d to sailing boats and leisure motor boats.
I cannot find any reports that identify "owner maintainance" as the cause of an accident.

There is one report of a speedboat capsizing after the peopellor was changed...

But....

It was being tested by a "commercial" operator who decided to do an aggressively sharp turn at high power.

 

[capnsensible]

I have looked through all 120 MAIB accident reports relat d to sailing boats and leisure motor boats.
I cannot find any reports that identify "owner maintainance" as the cause of an accident.

.

:encouragement: Thanks for the time you put into that.

 

[mainsail1]

A Response from the MCA:

"Thanks for your email and for taking the time to provide feedback on the consultation MGNs.

Firstly I would like to stress that the MGN’s are non-mandatory guidance that the owner of a pleasure vessel does not need to follow and they do not prevent an owner from carrying out maintenance on their own vessel. We have agreed to make this statement clear in the summary box of each MGN.

The text is written with the wide number of pleasure vessel owners in mind who have a diverse range of experiences and competencies. We have not tried to differentiate between the two ends of this spectrum of knowledge but instead have given generic guidance – as an owner if you think this does not apply to you for a certain element of maintenance then you are able to apply your own safety standards. This applies across all of the proposed MGNs where the skills of pleasure vessel owner are widely varied.

These MGNs will not look to regulate any vessel as it is non-mandatory guidance.

The MCA through these MGNs, as do the MAIB, recognise that whilst there is a high level of knowledge within the maritime industry, it is not consistent throughout. Therefore these messages need to be provided to ensure that everyone has received the same information with regards to safety from the Government agency that is responsible for maritime safety.

The rationale behind the MGNs are in response to MAIB recommendations on the MCA which are the direct result of an accident(s). "

So, there you have it. Official advice that can be freely ignored.

 

[Graham376]

So, there you have it. Official advice that can be freely ignored.

That's good news regarding the legal situation, thanks for posting. Lets just hope insurance companies understand the rules and don't reject claims under the Due Diligence clause where DIY owners haven't followed the "recommended" guidance and are, in their opinion, not qualified.

 

[capnsensible]

A Response from the MCA:

"Thanks for your email and for taking the time to provide feedback on the consultation MGNs.

Firstly I would like to stress that the MGN’s are non-mandatory guidance that the owner of a pleasure vessel does not need to follow and they do not prevent an owner from carrying out maintenance on their own vessel. We have agreed to make this statement clear in the summary box of each MGN.

The text is written with the wide number of pleasure vessel owners in mind who have a diverse range of experiences and competencies. We have not tried to differentiate between the two ends of this spectrum of knowledge but instead have given generic guidance – as an owner if you think this does not apply to you for a certain element of maintenance then you are able to apply your own safety standards. This applies across all of the proposed MGNs where the skills of pleasure vessel owner are widely varied.

These MGNs will not look to regulate any vessel as it is non-mandatory guidance.

The MCA through these MGNs, as do the MAIB, recognise that whilst there is a high level of knowledge within the maritime industry, it is not consistent throughout. Therefore these messages need to be provided to ensure that everyone has received the same information with regards to safety from the Government agency that is responsible for maritime safety.

The rationale behind the MGNs are in response to MAIB recommendations on the MCA which are the direct result of an accident(s). "

So, there you have it. Official advice that can be freely ignored.

Blinder.

 

[fisherman]

In which case the only thing I would strongly advise is to keep a log, contemporaneous records count for a lot, and also help you keep tabs on maintenance.

 

[Daydream believer]

What would happen if the RYA & CA jointly wrote their own set of guidance notes specifically aimed at the leisure sailor.
Could one then say that one was adopting those guidance notes & thus be seen to be acting responsibly.

 

[mainsail1]

I for one do not want to be tied down by any guidance notes.
We have done just fine without them in sailing to date. Sailing is generally a safe sport occupied by mostly sensible people with no need for gratuitous advice from government or anyone else.

 

[PhillM]

I for one do not want to be tied down by any guidance notes.
We have done just fine without them in sailing to date. Sailing is generally a safe sport occupied by mostly sensible people with no need for gratuitous advice from government or anyone else.

Agreed. However, there is going to be no stopping it. We can however, try to modify it into something workable. My response to the MCA here: http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthrea...to-the-MCA-consultation&p=6843913#post6843913

 

[Bru]

A Response from the MCA:

"...

Firstly I would like to stress that the MGN’s are non-mandatory guidance that the owner of a pleasure vessel does not need to follow and they do not prevent an owner from carrying out maintenance on their own vessel. We have agreed to make this statement clear in the summary box of each MGN

.....

That is of itself probably sufficient and broadly satisfactory. It certainly makes the use of the guidance as an excuse not to pay out on an insurance claim or as a justification for legal action (civil or criminal) against a vessel owner much less likely (although not as unlikely as it would be if the guidance did not exist at all)

I shall still, before the deadline, be submitting a detailed response ripping some of the proposed guidance to shreds on the grounds that it is either badly written, nonsense or both!

I shall not, however, be pointing out the myriad of things that have been omitted that could, and on the dubious justification for issuing the guidance, should, have been included!

 

[NormanS]

So all this ballyhoo is because one carelessly maintained commercial yacht's keel fell off. Thank you professionals.

 

[mainsail1]

That is of itself probably sufficient and broadly satisfactory. It certainly makes the use of the guidance as an excuse not to pay out on an insurance claim or as a justification for legal action (civil or criminal) against a vessel owner much less likely (although not as unlikely as it would be if the guidance did not exist at all)

I shall still, before the deadline, be submitting a detailed response ripping some of the proposed guidance to shreds on the grounds that it is either badly written, nonsense or both!

I shall not, however, be pointing out the myriad of things that have been omitted that could, and on the dubious justification for issuing the guidance, should, have been included!

My words to the MCA included that the documents were "simplistic nonsense"

 

[PhillM]

My words to the MCA included that the documents were "simplistic nonsense"

That is fine and of itself true. However, we are going to get this guidance, so I think it is worth engaging with them and offering suggestions that they can incorporate,. In mine, I suggested that Danbouys and Life rings carry PLB / VHF MOB devices so that the crew can navigate back to a casualty who happens not to be wearing one.

 

[Kukri]

So all this ballyhoo is because one carelessly maintained commercial yacht's keel fell off. Thank you professionals.

You got it.

I suggest that the professionals keep out of this.

 

[mainsail1]

That is fine and of itself true. However, we are going to get this guidance, so I think it is worth engaging with them and offering suggestions that they can incorporate,. In mine, I suggested that Danbouys and Life rings carry PLB / VHF MOB devices so that the crew can navigate back to a casualty who happens not to be wearing one.

There you go....giving them expensive ideas. When did you last have someone fall overboard at sea? The Man Overboard mantra is seriously over played already.

 

[Bru]

That is fine and of itself true. However, we are going to get this guidance, so I think it is worth engaging with them and offering suggestions that they can incorporate,. In mine, I suggested that Danbouys and Life rings carry PLB / VHF MOB devices so that the crew can navigate back to a casualty who happens not to be wearing one.

Aaaaggghhhhh!

Don't go giving them ideas they haven't thought of!



(Not a bad idea at all actually but the gods forbid that the numpties who wrote the rubbish in these MGNs get hold of it. The more I digest the contents thereof, the less palatable they become)

 

[PhillM]

Aaaaggghhhhh!

Don't go giving them ideas they haven't thought of!



(Not a bad idea at all actually but the gods forbid that the numpties who wrote the rubbish in these MGNs get hold of it. The more I digest the contents thereof, the less palatable they become)

My full response is here: http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthrea...to-the-MCA-consultation&p=6843913#post6843913 I suggest that you give them a full and detailed response. I see no reason not to suggest alternative arrangements, while ther may be a little cost involved, at least we would be spending money on things we deem worthwhile. That may also help them to justify taking out carp that we really don’t want!

 

[Tomahawk]

One understands that public sector jobsworth are short of all the picture cards .... but did anyone actually look at what they are publishing?

2.4. it may be necessary to carry out maintenance whilst at sea. ......
2.5 Unless trained and/or qualified to do so, safety critical maintenance should not be carried out by the owner / managing agent or skipper.

The implication of this is for every pleasure boat to always have a "professional" engineer on board for any passage just in case it becomes necessary to carry out safety critical maintenance... like I had yesterday when the cooling water packed up. Traced it to a blockage in the syphon break on the exhaust. Should I have phoned up the coastguard and requested tow in or an engineer be flown out on a helo?

 

[Tomahawk]

Another thought..

IIRC, there was a series of threads a while back regarding a particular volume boat builder who's boats had a nasty habit of loosing their keels? For obvious reasons I am not going to try and guess which manufacturer it was...

Do peeps remember anything of this, or am I imagining things ?