TwoHooter
Well-Known Member
MCA are dealing with responses positively at the moment so I suggest we send in our responses to them and save anything else for when we see the result of the consultation.
The end of owner maintenance ...
- Thread starter rszemeti
- Start date
MCA are dealing with responses positively at the moment so I suggest we send in our responses to them and save anything else for when we see the result of the consultation.
Kukri
Well-Known Member
Robert Wilson
Well-Known Member
My response is in the envelope and will be posted first class tomorrow.
I am horrified at the shortness of the consultation period for what looks to be a sneaky action aimed at intransigent control of our hitherto freedom.
I am horrified at the shortness of the consultation period for what looks to be a sneaky action aimed at intransigent control of our hitherto freedom.
Daydream believer
Well-Known Member
I was not aware that I was "complaining".
I thought that I was making a suggestion, based on an observation of some people's involvement in sailing
Kukri
Well-Known Member
Good for you! As an example of the shortness of the consultation period, the MCA (rightly, I think) cite the Cruising Association as one of the sources of knowledge in sailing. The Cruising Association Regulatory Advisory and Technical Services Committee, better known as RATS, meets on the third Thursday of each month. That means that it met on the day the Consultantation was published and will next meet the day before it closes. So one of the most expert groups of amateur yachtspeople in the country will have had almost no chance to consider it.
Robert Wilson
Well-Known Member
I ought to have added here that notwithstanding the shortness of the consultation period, the subsequent rapid implementation date is ridiculous .
WHY THE RUSH, MCA?
What's wrong with giving us a long lead in to get our affairs sorted (IF it would be possible, which it isn't).
I might as well sink the old girl at the end of this season.
WHY THE RUSH, MCA?
What's wrong with giving us a long lead in to get our affairs sorted (IF it would be possible, which it isn't).
I might as well sink the old girl at the end of this season.
Bigplumbs
Well-Known Member
I am afraid I am correct.... You believe what you want
anoccasionalyachtsman
Well-Known Member
I've got a club thinking about a response too.
I suppose that it's not down at our pay grade, but I'm perplexed by the fact that the MCA are said to have come up with this plan in conjunction with the RYA, and yet we now have the RYA making noises as if they oppose it.
I suppose that it's not down at our pay grade, but I'm perplexed by the fact that the MCA are said to have come up with this plan in conjunction with the RYA, and yet we now have the RYA making noises as if they oppose it.
longjohnsilver
Well-Known Member
This is the reply I received today.
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.
The specific text of carrying out maintenance and using a marine professional 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.
In addition to this, to address previous comments we have received, we are looking to tone down section 2.5 to be re-phrased to, "Unless specifically trained, experienced and/or qualified to do so...".
I hope this address your concerns.
Regards,
The Codes Team
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.
The specific text of carrying out maintenance and using a marine professional 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.
In addition to this, to address previous comments we have received, we are looking to tone down section 2.5 to be re-phrased to, "Unless specifically trained, experienced and/or qualified to do so...".
I hope this address your concerns.
Regards,
The Codes Team
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
mainsail1
Well-Known Member
The whole MCA exercise is not required as their advice is already out there in other forms. In fact I would say their advice confuses rather than clarifies.
It is just wasting many hours of time on the part of the sailing public and the RYA in having to respond........or are they trying to get a foot in the door to make work for idle hands?
It is just wasting many hours of time on the part of the sailing public and the RYA in having to respond........or are they trying to get a foot in the door to make work for idle hands?
GHA
Well-Known Member
Im not gonna say I told you so........Ooops.
Must be a lot of boats called Don Quixote out there
TwoHooter
Well-Known Member
Im not gonna say I told you so........
Capnsensible - you are deliberately ignoring the fact that as a result of the responses to the consultation the MCA have inserted the valuable word 'experienced' into para 2.5 of the first guidance document. Without that word the document would have been official guidance that owners who are not trained or qualified should not do safety critical maintenance work on their own boats. The MCA have also gone on record to emphasise that the guidance is limited to that role - you might recall that at an early stage there were concerns that because the documentation will be published as an official Notice from the MCA it might be interpreted as having a more mandatory character.
I normally follow the motorboat forum and only came here because the title of this thread caught my attention. I am struck by the unhelpful, condescending, supercilious and at times arrogant tone of your posts. You have accused your fellow boaters of "flapping", blowing up a "storm in a teacup", and so on, and now you have stooped so low as to post a self-laudatory "told you so" which would be more appropriate in a playground full of ten year olds than an adult forum like this.
We don't get this sort of thing on the motorboat forum so reading your posts has been an unpleasant experience for me.
Michael
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
Im not ignoring anything my old Hooter. Since the threads were merged, Ive been advocating, strongly, that people contact the MCA AS ASKED to change the wording. Some of you actually did that and hey presto! Its done. And still you moan.....
There was never a mandatory intention.... I pointed that out ad naseum. And took the flak. Well guess what I got broad shoulders. If you and others hadnt been so quick to jump to incorrect conspiracy conclusions, then people like me wouldnt need to explain how it really is.
Anyway, do keep calm and carry on motoring, safe in the knowledge that the MCA invited responses, understood what was being said, acted on it and most of all proved they got the edge in the 'Im more adult than you ' competition.
In previous years when i was a Motor Cruising Instructor, I remarkably found that most motor boat folk also had humour. Perhaps its changed.......
There was never a mandatory intention.... I pointed that out ad naseum. And took the flak. Well guess what I got broad shoulders. If you and others hadnt been so quick to jump to incorrect conspiracy conclusions, then people like me wouldnt need to explain how it really is.
Anyway, do keep calm and carry on motoring, safe in the knowledge that the MCA invited responses, understood what was being said, acted on it and most of all proved they got the edge in the 'Im more adult than you ' competition.
In previous years when i was a Motor Cruising Instructor, I remarkably found that most motor boat folk also had humour. Perhaps its changed.......
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
Graham376
Well-Known Member
It's quite a while since I had to read legal documents but the proposed wording could be interpreted as - one has to be specifically trained plus either experienced or qualified. If there was an "or" after trained, it would alter the meaning for the better.
david_bagshaw
Well-Known Member
Had the same response to my submission today
rszemeti
Well-Known Member
As pretty much everyone has said, the problem is not the direct application of the guidance notes themselves, as they are not legally binding, but the indirect application, through marinas, insurance etc.
rszemeti
Well-Known Member
That is what they responded to me too, the question I have to ask, is: If this is the official position, why not state it in the guidance notes, rather than the contrary adivce expressed there?
Tomahawk
Well-Known Member
Just looked on the site and this is what it presently says
I see no mention of experience in the text.. As written it is clear the pen pushers are expecting people to have some bit of paper in order to check even rudimentary items like fan belts, oil and water.
I see no mention of experience in the text.. As written it is clear the pen pushers are expecting people to have some bit of paper in order to check even rudimentary items like fan belts, oil and water.