Kukri
Well-Known Member
Since when have the Government been paying for the RNLI?
The end of owner maintenance ...
- Thread starter rszemeti
- Start date
Since when have the Government been paying for the RNLI?
rszemeti
Well-Known Member
I would point out that neither Mountain Rescue nor the RNLI are funded funded from the public purse.
Your assertion that rescuing people in the Highlands does not put rescue teams in danger could not be further from the truth, especially so now that the search and rescue helicopters will no longer lift mountain rescue teams off the hill after a rescue, nor will they assist in removing bodies, which now have to be carried down treacherous terrain.
In days gone by, the helicopters would assist in clearing the hill after the rescue was complete and teams that were too remote to reasonably make it to a roadhead would be lifted. That is no longer the case. Bodies of fallen climbers would also be recovered by helicopter on terrain where a manual extraction would place the teams at significant risk, that again is no longer the case.
These changes are as a direct result of the MCA taking over responsibility for the search and rescue helicopters ...
Last edited:
GHA
Well-Known Member
What about SOLAS V? Boats everywhere getting visits from men in suits with clipboards to check there were printouts of lifesaving signals and demanding passage plans for a trip across that bay.
Oh hang on, that didn't happen........
AntarcticPilot
Well-Known Member
There is a corollorary to all of this. What if you ARE a trained professional in a safety critical area? I am a trained professional in cartography and survey, with over 30 years experience. I maintained the standard topographic database of Antarctica for nearly 20 years (www.add.scar.org). I have made marine charts, and been consulted by the UKHO on their products in my geographic area. I have made or managed the production of charts for aerial navigation. I have even participated in the erection of standards for digital mapping, and I can go on like this!
What if I, a trained professional in a relevant area, decided to produce my own charts? Of course, I lack access to all the data that the UKHO have, so my charts might lack information such as buoyage, accurate depth information etc. BUT my charts would have been produced by a trained professional.
Of course, being not only trained but also understanding my field, I wouldn't attempt to do that without access to relevant data sources. But I could, and no-one could argue that I wasn't using charts produced by a trained professional! And there isn't much equipment aboard a yacht that is more safety critical than charts...
The point is that being a "trained professional" means nothing if that "trained professional" is operating outside his or her professional environment. When doing all of the things I mentioned above, I was part of a team in a large organization with appropriate facilities and manpower to handle the many aspects of making maps and charts.
Translating this to our situation, a rigger isn't going to produce work any better than we can manage if he or she hasn't got access to (for example) swaging tools - which might be the case if a yacht requires repairs but isn't located anywhere near a rigger's workshop. They'd have to use components that are designed for installation with hand tools (e.g. StaLock terminals) - which are intended for use by non-professionals. Diesel mechanics are a bit more "standalone", in that they can carry most of their tools, but then again, with (say) the RYA Diesel Maintenance course under our belt, most of us can undertake routine tasks just as competently as they can, only calling on them when something unusual happens. And anything seriously wrong with injectors or injector pumps is a matter for specialist beyond the capability of most professional diesel mechanics!
"Trained professional" is a meaningless phrase unless it mentions relevant qualifications and working environments.
Just to cap it all, I was (and still could be) a Senior Member of the IEEE. That qualifies me as an electrical and electronic engineer, with Profesional Engineer status in the USA. I know less than many others on this forum about electrical and electronc matters! I happens that the IEEE has wideranging interests, some of which do involve my areas of interest - so I have a professional qualification that is meaningless in terms of my ability to do the things it purports to qualify me to do!
What if I, a trained professional in a relevant area, decided to produce my own charts? Of course, I lack access to all the data that the UKHO have, so my charts might lack information such as buoyage, accurate depth information etc. BUT my charts would have been produced by a trained professional.
Of course, being not only trained but also understanding my field, I wouldn't attempt to do that without access to relevant data sources. But I could, and no-one could argue that I wasn't using charts produced by a trained professional! And there isn't much equipment aboard a yacht that is more safety critical than charts...
The point is that being a "trained professional" means nothing if that "trained professional" is operating outside his or her professional environment. When doing all of the things I mentioned above, I was part of a team in a large organization with appropriate facilities and manpower to handle the many aspects of making maps and charts.
Translating this to our situation, a rigger isn't going to produce work any better than we can manage if he or she hasn't got access to (for example) swaging tools - which might be the case if a yacht requires repairs but isn't located anywhere near a rigger's workshop. They'd have to use components that are designed for installation with hand tools (e.g. StaLock terminals) - which are intended for use by non-professionals. Diesel mechanics are a bit more "standalone", in that they can carry most of their tools, but then again, with (say) the RYA Diesel Maintenance course under our belt, most of us can undertake routine tasks just as competently as they can, only calling on them when something unusual happens. And anything seriously wrong with injectors or injector pumps is a matter for specialist beyond the capability of most professional diesel mechanics!
"Trained professional" is a meaningless phrase unless it mentions relevant qualifications and working environments.
Just to cap it all, I was (and still could be) a Senior Member of the IEEE. That qualifies me as an electrical and electronic engineer, with Profesional Engineer status in the USA. I know less than many others on this forum about electrical and electronc matters! I happens that the IEEE has wideranging interests, some of which do involve my areas of interest - so I have a professional qualification that is meaningless in terms of my ability to do the things it purports to qualify me to do!
TwoHooter
Well-Known Member
Well I am very happy to have been proved wrong about that
I received a reply from the Codes Team at the MCA this morning. It wasn't a brush-off, and it wasn't boilerplate, it was a sensible reply to the points I had made.
I have written back to say "thank you", but also to point out that there is a dichotomy between the wording of the draft guidance and what they have said in their reply. I have asked if they are willing to have a discussion about how the wording of the draft guidance might be altered to better reflect what they have said in their reply to me.
I will of course keep the forum informed.
NOHOH
Well-Known Member
I hope ,for your sake as well as mine, I don`t look like your wife
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
What about SOLAS V? Boats everywhere getting visits from men in suits with clipboards to check there were printouts of lifesaving signals and demanding passage plans for a trip across that bay.
Oh hang on, that didn't happen........
Not being paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you......
Anyway:
There are three different types of Marine Shipping Notice;
Merchant Shipping Notice (MSN),
Marine Guidance Notice (MGN) and
Marine Information Notice (MIN).
These Notices publicise to the shipping and fishing industries important safety, pollution prevention and other relevant information.
Merchant Shipping Notices are used to convey mandatory information that must be complied with under UK legislation. These MSNs relate to Statutory Instruments and contain the technical detail of such regulations.
Marine Guidance Notices give significant advice and guidance relating to the improvement of the safety of shipping and of life at sea, and to prevent or minimise pollution from shipping.
Marine Information Notices are intended for a more limited audience e.g. training establishments or equipment manufacturers, or contain information which will only be of use for a short period of time, such as timetables for MCA examinations. MINs are numbered in sequence and have a cancellation date (which will typically be no more than twelve months after publication).
No doubt there are those who wish to mis interpret this too. Fill yer boots.
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
Well I am very happy to have been proved wrong about that
I received a reply from the Codes Team at the MCA this morning. It wasn't a brush-off, and it wasn't boilerplate, it was a sensible reply to the points I had made.
I have written back to say "thank you", but also to point out that there is a dichotomy between the wording of the draft guidance and what they have said in their reply. I have asked if they are willing to have a discussion about how the wording of the draft guidance might be altered to better reflect what they have said in their reply to me.
I will of course keep the forum informed.
It would be advantageous to explain the term 'boilerplate' .....in the interests of clarity, of course.
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
They aren't regulations. Keep calm and carry on sailing. :encouragement:
TwoHooter
Well-Known Member
I've only just read this. Brilliant. I hope you receive the same sort of constructive response from MCA as I did.
TwoHooter
Well-Known Member
I have had further correspondence with the MCA. They have given permission for the following to be posted here subject to the qualification that they can't guarantee what the final text will look like.
Thanks for your email.
We have also amended the opening sentence to 2.5 (Maintenance MGN) to read, " Unless specifically trained, experienced and/or qualified to do so…”, which again will soften the intention whilst maintaining the overall recommendation.
We would be happy to consider any other points use wish to make.
Regards,
The Codes Team
The word 'experienced' is new. I personally think this amendment goes a long way towards removing the fears of some of us that we were heading towards a future where recreational boat owners couldn't do safety critical maintenance.
Now that this dialogue is open and the MCA has shown itself to be genuinely listening to consultees may I suggest that everyone who is interested in this does take the time to read the draft guidance and consider what other changes we would like to see.
We could collate our views here in this forum if that would be helpful, or individuals can write to the MCA direct.
Thanks for your email.
We have also amended the opening sentence to 2.5 (Maintenance MGN) to read, " Unless specifically trained, experienced and/or qualified to do so…”, which again will soften the intention whilst maintaining the overall recommendation.
We would be happy to consider any other points use wish to make.
Regards,
The Codes Team
The word 'experienced' is new. I personally think this amendment goes a long way towards removing the fears of some of us that we were heading towards a future where recreational boat owners couldn't do safety critical maintenance.
Now that this dialogue is open and the MCA has shown itself to be genuinely listening to consultees may I suggest that everyone who is interested in this does take the time to read the draft guidance and consider what other changes we would like to see.
We could collate our views here in this forum if that would be helpful, or individuals can write to the MCA direct.
Wansworth
Well-Known Member
Experience is very subjective,an afternoon,a life time who is going to judge whether I am suitably experienced?But good that they are open to dialogue,as they say
penberth3
Well-Known Member
I do remember and you're right, the candle fell over because the boat fell over when the tide went out. This was some time after they had been towed into Hayle by St Ives RNLI, who returned with Cornwall FRS to deal with the fire.
The nine rescues were all between Scotland and Cornwall, not a great start to their trans-atlantic mission. And because it was a private venture, no legal means to stop them.
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
RobF
Well-Known Member
I did get a very constructive response from the MCA. The response came quickly and specifically answered both the questions I had raised, concerning the intent of the MGNs and the scope of the guidance . I was expecting a generic / bland response and was genuinely impressed that I had received a considered response. For those who are interested, the contents of the MCA's reply was as follows:
Fortunately, this returns me to my previously held opinion that the MGNs are not the end of owner maintenance. However, I now have some supporting evidence for this opinion.
oldharry
Well-Known Member
I would be interested to know how newcomers are supposed to gain sufficient experience to be regarded as capable of undertaking maintenance under the MGNs.
As far as being the end of owner maintenance, I think it will be. The MGNs themselves may allow some scope, but Insurers faced with a big claim will want evidence that the boat is/was maintained to MGN standards, so what's the difference? Owners would have to justify and prove their skills at any DIY work done, and how easy is it for the Insurers to decide the work was not up to standard, therefore no claim.
Lose lose in my opinion. I shall write and say so.
Fr J Hackett
Well-Known Member
One of my concerns would be how the insurance companies react in the event of a claim where an owner has maintained his boat perhaps engine and it is deemed to be responsible for the claim.
NormanS
Well-Known Member
I suggest that you look at "Antares Charts". You will find that the maker and supplier of these charts does his own surveys, and they carry a disclaimer to the effect that "These charts are produced by enthusiastic amateurs". For the areas that they cover, they are excellent.
halcyon
Well-Known Member
They have acted, removed cover for safety critical items on my product liability and public liability cover, I have been designing marine charging systems and switch panels, about 10,000 units, over the last 40 years, so I think I tick MCA boxes.
Brian
RobF
Well-Known Member
A number of people have noted the potential impact on insurance cover, and reasonably so. By way of a response.
a) the insurance market as we know it is heavily influenced by the foundations of insurance in the UK, which was instigated by owners of sea-going vessels to have some recompense in the event that their vessels came to an abrupt end. The insurance market also drove a number of improvements as it was not uncommon for non-seaworthy vessels to be given a lick of paint and then sent off to sail the seven seas. Most of us are aware of the the story of Edward Lloyd's coffee house, so I won't repeat it here. I make this point to emphasise that taking due care of sea vessels is one of the foundational principles of the global insurance system.
b) the insurance market is heavily regulated and biased in favour of the consumer. Examples include the unfair contract terms and the ongoing onslaught on PPI (yup, a form of insurance), which has shown that insurance which was mis-sold or unreasonable is frequently weighted in favour of the applicant.
c) An insurance company cannot enforce anything that is not in its Terms and Conditions.
d) The insurance industry is competitive in its nature. Therefore, if one insurer insists that all maintenance be done by fully qualified engineers we can switch to another insurer. Personally, I think that the addition of this term would be unlikely - their policy holders would leave in droves. The motor and home insurance industries are also competitive and neither of these enforce work is done by fully qualified engineers. I think the worst that could happen is that the insurance companies would charge an additional premium of owner maintained vessels (to cover the risk) and may specify terms and conditions on specific safety related items (such as 5 year gas check by certified marine gas installer)
e) The very term' qualified engineer' is challenging in all aspects of marine, motor and household work. Clearly, there are some trades which require a certification (e.g. GasSafe & NICIEC). However, most other trades (plumbing, tyre fitting and yacht rigging) do not have this category. It would therefore be challenging for an insurer to insert a clause requiring all work to always be done by a 'qualified engineer' into their Terms and Conditions.
f) An insurer can use negligence as a refusal to compensate in the event of an accident. If you change the brake pads on your car, and install unsuitable replacements, an insurer can reasonably refuse to pay out if this causes an accident. However, negligence would have to be proven. An Insurance Company won't say 'you installed that yourself, therefore you're not insured' unless they can prove that:
- the item was fitted unreasonably
- the item was designed for installation by by someone with specialist training / certification AND the installer did not have that training / certification
- their Terms and Conditions specifically prohibited such an installation
g) In the UK, we are fortunate to have a number of options to pursue if we believe an Insurance Company is unreasonably refusing to reimburse in the event of a claim. We have the FCA, PRA, FOS, OFT and local courts. However, this refusal is (in my opinion) exceptionally unlikely. An Insurance Company will abide by its own Terms and Conditions. It is naturally prescient on the Insured to have a reasonable understanding of the Terms and Conditions as well. Afterall, a contract is made by two parties who have 'capacity' to contract.
a) the insurance market as we know it is heavily influenced by the foundations of insurance in the UK, which was instigated by owners of sea-going vessels to have some recompense in the event that their vessels came to an abrupt end. The insurance market also drove a number of improvements as it was not uncommon for non-seaworthy vessels to be given a lick of paint and then sent off to sail the seven seas. Most of us are aware of the the story of Edward Lloyd's coffee house, so I won't repeat it here. I make this point to emphasise that taking due care of sea vessels is one of the foundational principles of the global insurance system.
b) the insurance market is heavily regulated and biased in favour of the consumer. Examples include the unfair contract terms and the ongoing onslaught on PPI (yup, a form of insurance), which has shown that insurance which was mis-sold or unreasonable is frequently weighted in favour of the applicant.
c) An insurance company cannot enforce anything that is not in its Terms and Conditions.
d) The insurance industry is competitive in its nature. Therefore, if one insurer insists that all maintenance be done by fully qualified engineers we can switch to another insurer. Personally, I think that the addition of this term would be unlikely - their policy holders would leave in droves. The motor and home insurance industries are also competitive and neither of these enforce work is done by fully qualified engineers. I think the worst that could happen is that the insurance companies would charge an additional premium of owner maintained vessels (to cover the risk) and may specify terms and conditions on specific safety related items (such as 5 year gas check by certified marine gas installer)
e) The very term' qualified engineer' is challenging in all aspects of marine, motor and household work. Clearly, there are some trades which require a certification (e.g. GasSafe & NICIEC). However, most other trades (plumbing, tyre fitting and yacht rigging) do not have this category. It would therefore be challenging for an insurer to insert a clause requiring all work to always be done by a 'qualified engineer' into their Terms and Conditions.
f) An insurer can use negligence as a refusal to compensate in the event of an accident. If you change the brake pads on your car, and install unsuitable replacements, an insurer can reasonably refuse to pay out if this causes an accident. However, negligence would have to be proven. An Insurance Company won't say 'you installed that yourself, therefore you're not insured' unless they can prove that:
- the item was fitted unreasonably
- the item was designed for installation by by someone with specialist training / certification AND the installer did not have that training / certification
- their Terms and Conditions specifically prohibited such an installation
g) In the UK, we are fortunate to have a number of options to pursue if we believe an Insurance Company is unreasonably refusing to reimburse in the event of a claim. We have the FCA, PRA, FOS, OFT and local courts. However, this refusal is (in my opinion) exceptionally unlikely. An Insurance Company will abide by its own Terms and Conditions. It is naturally prescient on the Insured to have a reasonable understanding of the Terms and Conditions as well. Afterall, a contract is made by two parties who have 'capacity' to contract.