The end of owner maintenance ...

[Seajet]

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genuinely listening to consultees may I suggest that everyone who is interested in this does take the time to read the draft guidance and consider what other changes we would like to see.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.

Two Hooter,

thanks for taking the trouble, that makes it a bit clearer so I'm still on Yellow Alert but not Red at the moment.

Ta !

 

[Tomahawk]

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

What is the actual risk of accidents occuring as a result of not following the most acceptable standards of safety?

When I watch programs about the RNLI and the rescues they perform, very few accidents seem to happen on account of not following most acceptable standards of safety.

 

[Tomahawk]

will it benan end to initiatives like the Graig City Academy sailing for inner city school children?

We purchase boats requiring a little love and attention and renovate them in school. This has the benefit of making the whole scheme affordable and providing the opportunity for our students to learn valuable craft and maintenance skills.

Researching RoSPA stats ...
Last year there were 263 water associated fatalities across the whole UK
11 were associated with the subject of this consultation, comprising of sailing(3) motorboats(7) and jet skis (1).
By comparison there were 94 deaths associated with running (into water?) and 34 associated with swimming.

This is a huge effort to address a non problem.

 

[Tomahawk]

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 most basic safety related maintenance on an engine is to inspect the fan belts driving the cooling water pump and replace/adjust when necessary.

The notion that only a "qualified service engineer" can do this creates an accident waiting to happen. A cost conscious owner may be tempted to leave inspecting the fan belts until the next scheduled annual service... A slipping water pump belt results in a cooling water failure and engine failure leading to a Mayday.

 

[Appledore]

No one in their right mind is going to carry out work or maintenance on their boat that is likely to cause damage or a safety issue. What's more, if this sort of legislation was to become 'law', then where are all the so-called engineers and fitters to carry out the work that us boat owners would not be allowed to do? It's a bit like the proposals to stop amateurs from applying antifouling paint to their boats. Again, there aren't the dedicated yards available to carry out this work for thousands of private vessels.

As for 'qualified engineers' or whatever, I originally had a Petter engine in my small boat and it would not charge the battery (only one at that time, and situated in a cockpit locker right next to the gas cylinder!"!!). I paid a so-called marine electrical engineer to find the fault and fix it. Typical case of backwards and forwards to the boat when he had the time, but the job was not done. The day before lift-in I went down expecting everything to be done, only to find the alternator and other wiring on the cabin floor!. A few days later, following the Petter wiring diagram I had the alternator working myself and the battery charging! I still had to pay this guy for his time, even though he didn't do the work.

Some years later I had to have the engine replaced, and this was done, again, by a so-called marine engineer (in Salcombe). When I went to collect the boat for the journey to Plymouth, the engineer showed me what he had done, etc, and then left. My son and I then prepared to leave the mooring, and I put the engine into forward gear, with lots of revs only to find that we were going backwards! I knew straight away what the problem was, and was able to get the engineer back (Sunday morning, not really at work etc). He just said that he could fix it in about 20 minutes, by reversing the cable control!! I knew that the replacement engine ran in the opposite direction to the Petter, and changing the cable would make no difference. I needed a replacement prop! We motored back to Plymouth in reverse gear to go forwards, and due to the gear reduction, at a much slower speed. A few days later I found that the alternator was not charging the batteries (2 now). Same engineer came down and spent 2 hours checking the wiring, and found a faulty wire. That cost me a lot of money for the engine replacement. The guy could not have even taken the boat off the mooring or he would have known about the wrong prop.

A 'Professional' is merely someone who is paid to carry out work. It does not mean us 'amateurs' are not proficient , and actually we want to look after our pride and joy, not sink it. Why would I pay someone to replace a sea-cock when I know I can do it just as well myself? It's just like replacing a light bulb at home. Most of us wouldn't think twice about it, but some people would pay an electrician to do it - as they have to do in Australia, LOL!

Next thing will be compulsory training for boat owners before you are allowed on the water!

 

[Kukri]

Exactly.

Let us all remember that the people who are in the “training business” , which actually includes the RYA, are not on our side here. They want to see compulsory training and certification.

That is why the professional yachtspeople on this forum are not objecting to this move by the MCA. They are already regulated - and rightly so - and they see no reason for others not to be regulated too, particularly when the glittering prize of compulsory training and certification is now within their grasp.

Sorry, professionals, but you are NOT our friends, here. You may contribute to this forum, drink in the same club bars and use similar boats but you are on the other side, and have chosen to forget why the RYA training schemes were set up in the first place... to keep the Government out!

 

[TwoHooter]

I'm reading every post and I understand all the points of view that are being expressed.

This is old ground for me because in one of my businesses I lived through a storm of legislation starting with the COSHH regulations in 1988 and petering out with The Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulatons 2013. In those 25 years we suffered 50 new pieces of legislation plus a plethora of new ACOPS and Guidance as different government departments, Quangos, and trade associations stuck their oar in. It was a horrible experience keeping up with it all, reading screeds of guff, and having to re-write our Rule Book and Method Statements again and again, plus invent a completely new set of documents called a Safety Management System.

From this experience I learned two things the hard way. First, when a government department gets it into its head to introduce something you can't stop it. On one occasion there were some pretty weighty individuals and organisations trying to steer government away from a particular course of action but they failed. The second thing I learned is that if the sponsoring department is willing to listen you must take the time to read the documentation and make sensible proposals to AMEND it. It's no good asking for the proposals to be binned. That never happens. Sometimes even amendment is impossible. On this occasion amendment definitely is possible and based on my experience that is the course of action I recommend.

The consultation ends on 18 July - just over 2 weeks away. So please, don't use that small amount of time to advance arguments for binning the MCA's proposals, because that is not going to happen. Concentrate instead on suggesting ways we might improve them for everyone's advantage. Should we for example be asking the MCA to give us their statistics for accidents resulting from equipment failure on pleasure boats and seeing whether we ourselves can suggest ways in which safety might be improved? Collectively we know more about maintenance of small boats than the MCA will ever know. Can we use that knowledge to improve the MCA's proposals?

 

[capnsensible]

Exactly.

Let us all remember that the people who are in the “training business” , which actually includes the RYA, are not on our side here. They want to see compulsory training and certification.

That is why the professional yachtspeople on this forum are not objecting to this move by the MCA. They are already regulated - and rightly so - and they see no reason for others not to be regulated too, particularly when the glittering prize of compulsory training and certification is now within their grasp.

Sorry, professionals, but you are NOT our friends, here. You may contribute to this forum, drink in the same club bars and use similar boats but you are on the other side, and have chosen to forget why the RYA training schemes were set up in the first place... to keep the Government out!

Minn that is absolutely wrong, just paranoia! The reason that there are so many successful RYA registered training centres is because, for leisure sailors, it's a voluntary scheme! The RYA publish annual figures, there's a large number of people who want that ' advice and guidance' the scheme brings.

These are motivated and interested people who are prepared to spend money learning new skills. Not a bunch of old blowhards that will make any training for a compulsory certificate a nightmare. It's not going to happen. I would refuse to teach anyone that came with that kind of attitude.

For the record, I joined the RYA in 1971 .....I was young......when it was headquarter in Woking. We have all seen lifestyle changes over that time and compulsory training is still back in the box it deserves to be in. So please don't get swept up in this imaginary big brother thing, it causes anxiety for no reason.

 

[scrambledegg]

I've just read the recommendations contained in the MAIB Report (no 08/2015) of the Cheeki Raffiki investigation (easily findable online)
The Report specifically demarcates between SCV (small commercial vessels) and pleasure yachts. The MCA is tasked to update guidance to SCVs and the RYA is tasked to update guidance to pleasure craft.
The scope of this guidance is the action to take in the case of a grounding and inspections of structure and use of life-saving equipment such as lifejackets and PLBs.
So what business does the MCA have expanding its remit into pleasure vessels and all other matters loosely related to safe operation????

 

[Fr J Hackett]

One thing that people are assuming is that you will not be allowed to carry out maintenance work, I don't believe that is the case except where:

Marinas prohibit certain works, in favour of their other paying clientele, the professionals.

There are insurance stipulations and small print which for many will only become apparent after the event and a claim is lodged.

Clearly engine maintenance can fall into this category but I am reminded of two things concerning rigging that I tackled that would certainly get an insurance company thinking and would both have probably been stopped by a marina. The first was I installed a furled roller reefing system on my old Vancouver 27 which involved me climbing the mast when the boat was on the hard. The second was replacing a forestay which was damaged as the result of a sail wrap. Again I climbed the mast but this time the boat was in a berth in Ponta Delgarda.

And don't forget that legislation is already affecting the ability to antifoul in some marinas and yards.

 

[halcyon]

I've just read the recommendations contained in the MAIB Report (no 08/2015) of the Cheeki Raffiki investigation (easily findable online)
The Report specifically demarcates between SCV (small commercial vessels) and pleasure yachts. The MCA is tasked to update guidance to SCVs and the RYA is tasked to update guidance to pleasure craft.
The scope of this guidance is the action to take in the case of a grounding and inspections of structure and use of life-saving equipment such as lifejackets and PLBs.
So what business does the MCA have expanding its remit into pleasure vessels and all other matters loosely related to safe operation????

Cover your backside, they cannot be accused of not reacting when the next Court case comes up.

Brian

 

[AntarcticPilot]

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.

Thank you, I know about Antares Charts! And of course they provide an excellent resource. But they use techniques and resources in an entirely professional manner, in areas where buoyage, port restrictions, navigation lanes etc. are not a factor. I have the knowledge and (I hope) the skill to do the same. But if I tried to do it in an area like (for example) the river Orwell, I might not have access to essential data. Tiller pilot of these fora provides excellent and useful chartlets of various features of interest to yachts on the east coast. But none of these replace wider area coverage, and it would be foolish to attempt to do so.

My point wasn't about charts anyway, it was that being a qualified professional doesn't guarantee a good product if said professional is acting without an appropriate working environment. I used charting because of my personal professional status, not to decry the excellent work of people like Antares.

 

[Kukri]

I've just read the recommendations contained in the MAIB Report (no 08/2015) of the Cheeki Raffiki investigation (easily findable online)
The Report specifically demarcates between SCV (small commercial vessels) and pleasure yachts. The MCA is tasked to update guidance to SCVs and the RYA is tasked to update guidance to pleasure craft.
The scope of this guidance is the action to take in the case of a grounding and inspections of structure and use of life-saving equipment such as lifejackets and PLBs.
So what business does the MCA have expanding its remit into pleasure vessels and all other matters loosely related to safe operation????

Exactly. Thank you.

 

[Kukri]

Minn that is absolutely wrong, just paranoia! The reason that there are so many successful RYA registered training centres is because, for leisure sailors, it's a voluntary scheme! The RYA publish annual figures, there's a large number of people who want that ' advice and guidance' the scheme brings.

These are motivated and interested people who are prepared to spend money learning new skills. Not a bunch of old blowhards that will make any training for a compulsory certificate a nightmare. It's not going to happen. I would refuse to teach anyone that came with that kind of attitude.

For the record, I joined the RYA in 1971 .....I was young......when it was headquarter in Woking. We have all seen lifestyle changes over that time and compulsory training is still back in the box it deserves to be in. So please don't get swept up in this imaginary big brother thing, it causes anxiety for no reason.

I am not so sanguine. You are, I take it, on the other side of this question because you are a professional

How many driving instructors find themselves dealing with awkward “blowhards”? None. If you want to drive you take the test and pay attention to your instructor. You would not have any awkward customers, just more customers who would be less likely to voice their own opinions.

 

[capnsensible]

Driving is a false analogy. It is an established condition. Not an imaginary proposal.

Although I expect at its introduction, the driving test had the same howling......

Still, as compulsory licensing is never gonna happen, it's of no concern.

 

[Kukri]

Driving is a false analogy. It is an established condition. Not an imaginary proposal.

Although I expect at its introduction, the driving test had the same howling......

Still, as compulsory licensing is never gonna happen, it's of no concern.

 

[capnsensible]

Are you mis understanding? I've been in the sail training biz for over twenty years and I don't want to see cumpulsory licensing. Apologies if that sticks a spoke in the wheel.......

Or a wedge in the boilerplate.

 

[Kukri]

So why are you supporting this initiative by the MCA which brings in regulation of amateurs messing about in boats? The step from regulation of maintenance and overhaul to regulation of competence is a very small one.

 

[fisherman]

I had a 'discussion' with an MCA inspector, he insisted a 15ft boat had to have a watertight bulkhead 600mm above moulded depth (where the garboard seam would be if wood). I pointed out that the fisherman would be unable to drag his bin full of nets back midships for stability, and if she took a dollop the water would stay for'd as well. The safest place for water on board is spread out below deck amongst the frames, and where the pump inlet is. He said " well fit a watertight deck with buoyancy under it"
"Have you heard of free surface water?" was my reply.
He then lamely said "well if you can get a professional opinion to say I'm wrong I'll go with it, I'm only going from paperwork from 1983".
I said " he can't afford another pro opinion, yours has already cost £700. And what about the boat I built myself to full Seafish specs in 1983, none of this came up". Mumble came the reply.
Last year I rang to ask about the statutary ISO 9650 liferaft for over 7m boats. Look at the website MSN. It says 'liferaft'. Oh dear, he said, we're as much in the dark as you, I'll ring you back. Later: If I bought the L/R before oct 2017 it's OK til oct 2022, after that it must be ISO 9650. So even if you try to comply with the regs as set out you fail, and as I say above, my boat failed with one surveyor when it had just passed with another.

I think you need to form an association to pull together, this is coming in some form, you must make sure it's viable.

 

[capnsensible]

So why are you supporting this initiative by the MCA which brings in regulation of amateurs messing about in boats? The step from regulation of maintenance and overhaul to regulation of competence is a very small one.

Because, as I keep saying, it doesn't. It is not r not gonna regulate anything.