The end of owner maintenance ...

Its very simple

MONEY

Think about it, what is a marine professional? if someone came and did your engines and was a qualified engine man it doesn't mean anything because the same engine could be a marine, industrial or automotive engine based around the same base engine and the same engine man can work on them all, albeit with some slight differences which he would know, or know how to access the correct information on these differences.

You have plumbing so you need a plumber, you have mains electricity so you need an electrician, and you have all the other trades.

Despite already being qualified they have to register again as marine professionals and this always costs and these costs always go up,

Now our next problem, would a marine professional who is a qualified diesel engineer be able to wire a boat up or unblock his heads and claim "I am a qualified marine professional" and get away with it, and what about all the other jobs done around a boat, they will register and be charged for doing this with the proviso that registration lasts for 10 years and the accountants will see a way of making more money from this and push for it to be reduced to 7 years, then 5 years, then 3 years, and then every year.
 
chriss999 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then as many of as that can should indeed send in our comments to the consultation

Hopefully my comments raised a little more awareness and more will reply
 
Re: MCA consultation - in the wake of Cheeki Rafiki

Thanks Ed. I'll get reading over the weekend. I'm thinking that we should perhaps do a bit of social meeja in the various clubs?
 
Daydream believer said:
Do you think that was a good or a bad thing?
personally, (having been brought up in the building trade and worked on site from the age of 12 years)i have seen some pretty bad accidents -- so i think is a bad thing- looking back i sometimes think that those supposed to do the "training" ie the craftsmen around the apprentices, were as dangerous, in many cases, as the youngsters they were supposed to be looking after.
Click to expand...

With hindsight, a bad thing. For instance, I don't know how many thousands of brake drums blown out with an airline, asbestos dust everywhere.

Building trade expertise, that was funny. My first experience was a self build house but I employed 2 + 1 gang and plasterers, did the rest myself. Brickies did it overhand off wooden frames braced with slate lats. I was working alone one day, carrying trusses up pole ladder when a guy turned up on site announcing he was from the Master Builders Federation, asking if I wanted to become a member. I pointed out that I was learning on the job and he said that was OK, it looked fine. When I replied that if his membership was as (in)competent as me then their association was worthless, he got a bit peeved. So much for inferred professional qualifications.
 
Last edited:
Re: MCA consultation - in the wake of Cheeki Rafiki

It doesn’t matter what the MCA instigates the yachting fraternity will moan but do as they are told.
Follow the money as this I bet will bring a lot more tax revenue at the yotties expense.
 
Re: MCA consultation - in the wake of Cheeki Rafiki

I have contacted 3 of the major Clyde Clubs who have had no notification of this may be worth checking others
 
I haven't read all the replies to the original comment, but I have skimmed through the consultation documents - my take on them is that they are guidelines on good practice, not proposed new regulation, and most responsible owners/skippers probably fall in with the relevant points already.
The preamble specifically states "The guidance contained within this suite 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.".
 
Alanij said:
I haven't read all the replies to the original comment, but I have skimmed through the consultation documents ......
The preamble specifically states "The guidance contained within this suite 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.".
Click to expand...

I think skimming, and looking at the preamble may be why our views differ.

The pre-amble does indeed say that, but if you read the maintenance one (for example) in detail, it is a very clear and extensive change to best practice, and therefore obligation. The pre-amble is completely inconsistent with the actual document.

I suspect the pre-amble is what they Intended, and they then followed it up with a very poorly thought through and drafted document.
 
I did read that one in full before I posted, and I didn't see anything which would prevent an owner carrying out their own routine maintenance, e.g. on engines - I'll agree that it's a bit more restrictive on safety critical equipment (sec 2.5), and yes, the document could be better written.
 
So you don’t consider an engine to be an item of safety? Personally I do, but you don’t have to agree.

Well – – – you might be right. But then, you might not! And there’s the rub ... this document is so poorly drafted that neither of us can tell. I read it one way, you another.
 
https://assets.publishing.service.g...ment_data/file/810290/MGN_XXX__M_M_D___R_.pdf

It is poorly worded isn’t it.

I flew for 20 years. The regulating as to what as a pilot you can do to your aircraft are 100% clear

This waffles on “for example “ which is not good enough as rather like health and safety or data protection or becomes a catch all.

I can see the merit in requiring for example gas systems to be worked on by a qualified person. Possibly also petrol fuel systems.
It says any modification - so adding a chain counter must be revered to the manufacturer - who I suspect in 50percent of cases no longer exists or will simply say we made that 15 years ago - no idea.

The boat safety scheme ( which is have never been through ) seems relatively logical to check safety critical items but as written this is either a. Pointless as it is simply patronising be nice to your boat advise or b.very dangerous as it is so widely worded changing the light bulbs to led would fall foul of the regs
 
Illegal To Maintain Your Own Boat :( The MCA Are Coming

Yes, maintaining and renewing your own boat DIY will become illegal.

Take a look here: http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?522903-The-end-of-owner-maintenance

And here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...-safety-at-sea

Shameless cross-post. I'm surprised that it hasn't made it to the YBW forum as this sort of thing would wreck the readership in one fell swoop.

Please read, then read the MCA proposals and object straight to the MCA using their email address before mid-July. Our sport depends upon your doing this.
 
It seems that anyone can work on a motor vehicle and do any job they want. But when it comes to boats they seem to want to regulate.
Far more accidents involving cars than boats I would suggest. Not all due to equipment failure I know but why are they not regulating car repairs.
Going back and reading the original documents, they appear to be guidance notes, not a change in legislation or am I reading the wrong thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top