The end of owner maintenance ...

Bigplumbs said:
Total Twoddle I am afraid you obviously don’t understand that the law in this regard in the Uk does not stipulate who must do work only what must be done and to what standard.
Click to expand...

Erm, I'm wondering if you read the paper? If somebody dies on your boat, you may well find yourself in court on a manslaughter charge, which would look at whether you acted negligently or not.

The law may well not set out who you can use, but it, and insurance companies, will look at what is reasonable in order to assess whether you've been negligent/reckless. This paper, in setting out best practice, defines what is and is not reasonable (best practice), so will become hugely important.
My example is extreme to illustrate the point, but I can't find anything in his post that I disagree with.
 
Polly's Kettle said:
Erm, I'm wondering if you read the paper? If somebody dies on your boat, you may well find yourself in court on a manslaughter charge, which would look at whether you acted negligently or not.

The law may well not set out who you can use, but it, and insurance companies, will look at what is reasonable in order to assess whether you've been negligent/reckless. This paper, in setting out best practice, defines what is and is not reasonable (best practice), so will become hugely important.
My example is extreme to illustrate the point, but I can't find anything in his post that I disagree with.
Click to expand...

You can spend your life worrying about that sort of What if scenario and sit in the corner doing nowt or get on with your life using common sense and other natural safeguards. all this paper nonsense and so called work by professionals will make little or no difference to safety

In construction we have the CDM regs total twoddle and just a money making excercise for paper pushers.
 
I read so much on these forums from theory mongers, paper pushers and people who most likely don’t own a hammer or any other tool. Quite frankly I have no interest in their advice.

People who rely on paper trails are sad individuals who can be easily duped.

How will a paper trail help you when you are broken down at sea with no tools or the ability to attempt a fix. I surpose you could use it to wipe your rear end
 
Last edited:
Bigplumbs said:
I read so much on these forums from theory mongers, paper pushers and people who most likely don’t own a hammer or any other tool. Quite frankly I have no interest in their advice.

People who rely on paper trails are sad individuals who can be easily duped.

How will a paper trail help you when you are broken down at sea with no tools or the ability to attempt a fix. I surpose you could use it to wipe your rear end
Click to expand...

The point people are making is that the paper trail won’t help in that situation. Obviously.

BUT in the case of an accident, or an insurance claim, the court (etc) will look at whether the boat was maintained or adapted in line with best practice. If best practice is defined by these documents, then we will all have to follow them to avoid incurring the risk of being regarded as negligent.
 
Chris - I think he's just a troll trying to get a rise. I fell for it. For someone who has no interest in people's thoughts, he sure has replied to a lot of them...
 
Re: MCA consultation - in the wake of Cheeki Rafiki

Sheesh you people are being asked your views to help frame the fek in rules!!

YES YOU

And still posters whine and grizzle. For goodness sake get a grip. :confused:

This consultation seeks your views on 6 draft marine guidance notes (MGNs). The main reason for the intervention is to reinforce to owners, managing agents and skippers what is good practice in terms of safety when going out to sea. This is to reduce the risk of any accidents occurring as a result of not following the most acceptable standards of safety required. Another reason for the intervention is to ensure that guidance on safety is applied equally to those who fall within a regulatory framework and to those that fall outside it. This will ensure that as many stakeholders as possible are aware of what practices they need to put in place to meet the acceptable level of safety. The guidance contained within this collection of MGNs is not looking to amend or change the text of the applicable regulations, but rather provide further detail on the intent of the regulation.

This consultation runs from 20th June 2019 to 18th July 2019.

Your views are sought in the following areas:

Whether the draft notes contain guidance that is realistic to carry out in practice
If there is the right level of content in each MGN
Please complete the list of consultation questions contained in section 5 of this consultation and return to the email address below.
The following draft documents are included for your reference.

Draft MGN - Yacht and powerboat safety at sea - preparedness for non-coastal passages - good practice
Draft MGN - Yacht and powerboat safety at sea - maintenance, modifications, damage and repairs - good practice
Draft MGN - Yacht and powerboat safety at sea - rigs and rigging - good practice for inspection
Draft MGN - Yacht and powerboat safety at sea - grounding of fixed fin keel GRP yachts - good practice
Draft MGN - Yacht and powerboat safety at sea - emergency procedures, equipment and actions - good practice
Draft MGN - Yacht and powerboat safety at sea - stowage of life-saving appliances - good practice
 
Re: MCA consultation - in the wake of Cheeki Rafiki

rotrax said:
If a Government Agency starts going down the road of trying to wreck the marine leisure boat industry there will be an outcry.
Click to expand...

Really?

Yacht owners are very much a minority, and not one that tends to attract much sympathy from the population at large.

Pete
 
Re: MCA consultation - in the wake of Cheeki Rafiki

There are always a tidal wave of bitchin and complaining on here when something goes wrong now here is YOUR chance to do something about it. For once.
 
Re: MCA consultation - in the wake of Cheeki Rafiki

capnsensible said:
Yeah, all the instant experts on here now gotta front up or stop grizzlin! ;)
Click to expand...
If we all said to the MCA "keep your nose out of Pleasure sailing" I don't believe they would take that onboard. They have their agenda.....Then again I guess you think they should be involved.
 
A local fishing vessel was towed in by the RNLI, next day while the engineer was starting the repair, it was a gearbox/drive train failure, the MCA man stood over him probing for an excuse to blame the skipper for lack of maintenance, until the engineer told him to eff off, the boat was well maintained and it was an unforeseen incident. Since the engineer assessment was all he could hope to rely on off he effed.
 
Re: MCA consultation - in the wake of Cheeki Rafiki

mainsail1 said:
If we all said to the MCA "keep your nose out of Pleasure sailing" I don't believe they would take that onboard. They have their agenda.....Then again I guess you think they should be involved.
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no idea what you have just said.
 
I've emailed my comments to the MCA.

Perhaps other forum members could do the same. Posting your thoughts here on what you think of them isn't going to make one jot of difference to the outcome.

Sending in reasoned arguments as to why it's a load of twaddle will!
 
Polly's Kettle said:
I have several parts that give me the willies, but I will reference just this one:
"Any damage to a vessel, regardless of the scale or location of that damage, should be fixed promptly, ideally before the next passage"
Read this in the context that each word included in a document is included for a reason and carries equal weight."

"…regardless of scale or location..."


This leaves no room - if you do not fix all damage, regardless of scale or location, then you are not complying with the guidelines. So that's any damage, anywhere, however small.

Now you can say "don't be silly, they don't mean that". But I can't see any other reason why you would so explicitly go to the trouble of including those words "regardless of scale or location" unless you intended them to be there, and that is certainly how a court or insurer would be entitled to read this document.


So to answer your question, there is one example amongst several of what I believe is wrong with this proposal. I'd add to that that I am have never commercially worked on engines, or gone on a diesel course. I read this document to mean that I should no longer service my engine. It makes no distinction on its guidelines between personal boats, and chartered boats with paying passengers.


Me no likey.
Click to expand...


Be fun to see them apply that to the aviation industry - nothing would ever fly.

Given that these are consultation documents though it would be nice to see some sensible arguments as to why they are unreasonable. In the case of the above you could easily point that technically you could be fined for setting sail with a stained scatter cushion (although in fairness anyone who sets sail with scatter cushions should be fined regardless of whether it's stained).

Also they need to be a lot clearer about what "qualified" means and what critical safety systems means. And it would be nice if they where clearer about exactly what there concerns are about "pleasure craft". It seems to me the majority of cases are commercial (e.g. Cheeky Rafiki, Clipper).

Has anyone seen an RYA response?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top