The SRC course

[timbartlett]

Why not have a two tiered system with a basic and and advanced course?...Making the course more expensive makes it harder for you to be safe when you're on a budget.

There are a whole range of radio operators certificates around, but the SRC is the quickest, cheapest, and simplest way of acquiring an Authority to Operate a VHF radio on a UK recreational boat.

It's an official (i.e. government) document, for which the training syllabus is set by an international body (CEPT). The RYA issue certificates on behalf of the MCA, but ultimately have no control over what is in the syllabus. Unfortunately, some countries (notably Germany, but I believe Ireland has had a hand in it, too) have concerns that the UK course is "too short" and our exam "too easy" -- in spite of the fact that some others countries (eg the USA) hand out licences to anyone who can write their own name.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

So if the RYA have had to change the course because some EU countries no longer 'recognize' it, does everyone have to get another VHF license?

I'd like to read about all this myself, can someone point me at some info on the reasons for this change?

bump #2

I can't really see any point in this debate without seeing the reason for this change. Tim???

 

[BrianH]

There are a whole range of radio operators certificates around, but the SRC is the quickest, cheapest, and simplest way of acquiring an Authority to Operate a VHF radio on a UK recreational boat.

It's an official (i.e. government) document, for which the training syllabus is set by an international body (CEPT). The RYA issue certificates on behalf of the MCA, but ultimately have no control over what is in the syllabus. Unfortunately, some countries (notably Germany, but I believe Ireland has had a hand in it, too) have concerns that the UK course is "too short" and our exam "too easy" -- in spite of the fact that some others countries (eg the USA) hand out licences to anyone who can write their own name.

Because the CEPT SRC syllabus is recommended for all ECC countries and residents of those that conform with their certification, should, theoretically, have their certificates recognised whenever they use the freedom of movement afforded by the EU. Consequently, a certificate awarded in the UK should be valid in Germany for the skipper of a German-registered boat and it would appear that a growing number of German nationals with adequate English were travelling to take the certificate in the UK, where it was cheaper (even with travel and accommodation) and easier to obtain than in their home country.

The German leisure boating situation - as well as those in Austria and Switzerland - is very different to the UK, where someone can just buy a boat and put to sea with it unencumbered by bureaucracy. It is very different in the German-speaking countries with a culture of formal accreditation and a very limited coastline; by the time someone has the chance to put to sea as a recognised master of his nationally-registered ship he will have jumped through many hoops to achieve all the necessary pieces of paper to do so - which will have included a significant number of practical sea-miles under a registered skipper before even taking his/her Segelschein.

It is understandable that the UK was being seen as a bit of a short cut for one of those mandatory pieces of paper and thereby a threat to the German sail-training business. That surely is one reason why the relevant ministry has introduced the non-recognition of the UK SRC for German nationals who wish to qualify to skipper a German-registered yacht.

Perhaps the MCA/RYA are under pressure to tighten up some aspects of the training procedure to better conform to the international standard.

 

[Little Rascal]

...It is understandable that the UK was being seen as a bit of a short cut for one of those mandatory pieces of paper and thereby a threat to the German sail-training business. ...

Quite understandable. But the effect of making the license unnaccessible to small boat owners in our waters should be weighed carefully.

Why not have a basic national certificate that lets you operate safely and legally in UK waters and a more advanced/rigorous internationally recognised certificate? It works for pilots with a PPL and a NPL (national pilots license).

A basic course would make small/cheap boat ownership safer, reduce the illegal use of VHF and at the same time qualifications would more accurately reflect the people's skills: they wouldn't be able to 'slip through the net' and be overqualified/underskilled.

 

[timbartlett]

I can't really see any point in this debate without seeing the reason for this change. Tim???

My understanding -- and I have not been privy to all the discussions that have led up to this -- is that the Germans and Irish have been unhappy about the UK offering SRC courses that are so much shorter and cheaper than theirs. They have been rumbling about this for years: now, it seems, the intensity of the rumbling has stepped up, and they have threatened not to recognise the UK SRC as being adequate coverage of the CEPT syllabus. But the UK is under a treaty obligation to conform to the CEPT syllabus... so it could get very messy.

The "pragmatic" solution is to revert to the way things were in "the good old days" when an instructor taught they course, and an examiner popped in for the last hour or so to carry out an independent assessment. If it keeps everyone else happy, at minimal extra cost, it's probably as good as we will get.

Quite understandable. But the effect of making the license unnaccessible to small boat owners in our waters should be weighed carefully.

Why not have a basic national certificate that lets you operate safely and legally in UK waters and a more advanced/rigorous internationally recognised certificate? It works for pilots with a PPL and a NPL (national pilots license)....

It also works in the USA.
And PERSONALLY I think it would be better if we did not try to force everyone into attending a course (which most don't) but did have a simple test -- maybe 20 questions -- that could be completed on-line for a minimal fee, with the emphasis on knowing how not to cause nuisance to other users. How you study for it should be (IMHO) up to you -- but it should be more strictly enforced.

But that would be even further from meeting our international treaty obligations, so -- let's be realistic -- my opinion and your sare neither here nor there: it ain't gonna happen.

So the best the RYA and individual Instructor/Assessors can hope to achieve is delivery of the best value they can, subject to the demands of the syllabus.

PS It has always struck me as daft that we have to spend half a day ofthe course talking about things like EPIRBs, SARTs and Navtex when most of our students will never use any of those things, and have no interest in knowing about them -- and when you can buy and use a Navtex without any kind of licence at all!

 

[goboatingnow]

Tim, in relation to Ireland. The officials in Ireland at the time actually contributed to the GMDSS standards and the subsequent CEPT training scheme and one department official, now since retired was very critical of the fast track RyA system. This led the Irish authorities to refuse to accept RYA Certs for applications for ships radio licenses. It of course continues to recognise such certs as an authority to operate. This ban is in place since 1995

One of the reasons Ireland complained to CEPT ( and it was several years ago not recently) was that the schools here were complaining that many punters were taking the RYA classes ( many sea schools are dual registered) and that those schools that had invested in the full setup were being disadvantaged by the quick one day course. This prompted the complaint.

However in te last few years, the sylabus was " restructured" to allow it to be delivered in one day and the examiners were privatised so in fact a CEPT one day course in Ireland with a third party examiner doesn't cost much more then an RYA one. As a result the popularity of the RYA SRC cert in Ireland declined.

I beleive te current RYA modifications were prompted by German complaints. The RYA has been under significant pressure to fall into line regarding course content and particularly external examiners. We're all Europeans it seems!!

by the way your issues regarding Epirbs etc are not really valid, the purpose of the SRC is to train the user in the GMDSS. It's not a VHF cert. (ie like the old radiotelephone cert) in fact VHF accounts for about half the syllabus. The user needs to cover other equipment because (a) many users do have EPIRBs, navtex is part of GMDSS etc.

 

[prv]

PS It has always struck me as daft that we have to spend half a day ofthe course talking about things like EPIRBs, SARTs and Navtex when most of our students will never use any of those things, and have no interest in knowing about them -- and when you can buy and use a Navtex without any kind of licence at all!

Agree - on my course we spent very little time indeed on how to actually use a radio. Despite each having a training radio in front of us all day, I only got to pick up the mic and practice making a call on it once. The instructor said "yep, pretty good, talk a bit slower next time" and that was that. The vast majority of the day was spent covering distress messages (somewhat important) and EPIRBs, SARTs, etc (not at all important to anybody in the room).

Seemed like a wasted investment for the training centre to have bought all those modified radios.

Pete

 

[prv]

by the way your issues regarding Epirbs etc are not really valid, the purpose of the SRC is to train the user in the GMDSS. It's not a VHF cert. (ie like the old radiotelephone cert) in fact VHF accounts for about half the syllabus.

It's the wrong course for most people then. Nobody on mine had an EPIRB, SART or Navtex and it's unlikely that any would fit them. Most of the others had small day motorboats used around the Solent, I have a small sailing yacht used mostly, if I'm honest, around the Solent as well (though I do go further afield).

Pete

 

[goboatingnow]

There's same validity in what you say. In my view CEPT should have designated the SRC as a solely leisure license with appropriate syllabus and examination criteria. The ROC ( which is current SRC plus use of a few ITU books) could then have been designated the mainstream VHF cert.

Mind you I found the GMDSS stuff and SARTS etc all interesting and simple. Should every course just be minutely relevant. Was your schooling so ???. I doubt it.

 

[prv]

Should every course just be minutely relevant.

Probably yes, if it's legally required and not something that someone has signed up for by choice because they're interested in the subject.

Although my objection to the time spent on EPIRBs etc isn't that I don't want to hear about those, but that it takes time away from teaching people how to use a VHF for day-to-day purposes. Using a VHF for day-to-day purposes is probably what they went on the course to learn, and certainly the thing they will use most often, but it is given third place behind things they will probably never use. In the case of distress/urgency/etc calls I think that priority is reasonable, in the case of non-VHF equipment on what is effectively a VHF course, I certainly do not.

Pete

 

[timbartlett]

Tim, in relation to Ireland. The officials in Ireland at the time actually contributed to the GMDSS standards and the subsequent CEPT training scheme and one department official, now since retired was very critical of the fast track RyA system. ...I beleive te current RYA modifications were prompted by German complaints. The RYA has been under significant pressure to fall into line regarding course content and particularly external examiners. We're all Europeans it seems!!

Agree with all of that. I had not meant to imply that the Irish had stepped up their objections -- merely that they had been one of the main objectors in the past. (Although I still don't see why there is any connection between their Authority to Operate and their Ship Radio Licencing!)

by the way your issues regarding Epirbs etc are not really valid, the purpose of the SRC is to train the user in the GMDSS. It's not a VHF cert. (ie like the old radiotelephone cert) in fact VHF accounts for about half the syllabus. The user needs to cover other equipment because (a) many users do have EPIRBs, navtex is part of GMDSS etc.

I understand the arguments in favour of including epirbs etc., (and have no choice but to accept them): I just don't agree with them.

(1) When I was teaching at a fairly busy local authority centre on the south coast, a lot of my students were sea anglers who wanted to use a hand-held or cheapo fixed radio on a trailable angling boat. Most of their boats were little more than outboard-powered dinghies. They had no interest or expectation of ever touching an epirb, sart, or navtex, no need to know about Areas 2, 3, or 4 or any of that stuff. We were just going through the motions because it was in the syllabus, rather than because they needed to know. It was frustrating for me as an instructor, because it was wasteful, confusing, and counter-productive for so many of them.

(2) If I choose to install a Navtex, without a vhf radio, I am free to do so without any kind of licence. If I want to add a PLB and a SART, I need a Ship Radio Licence, but no Authority to Operate. So why is it that if I want to use a VHF radio, I am required to have a licence that covers all these other bits of equipment that do not require a licence themselves? It's like saying you cannot have a car driving licence unless you have taken a course that covers how to ride a bicycle and a horse and how to operate a lawnmower!

 

[Little Rascal]

Should every course just be minutely relevant. Was your schooling so ???. I doubt it.

It should be if you are paying £130 a day for it. It's cheaper than that at Eton

.....a lot of my students were sea anglers who wanted to use a hand-held or cheapo fixed radio on a trailable angling boat. Most of their boats were little more than outboard-powered dinghies. They had no interest or expectation of ever touching an epirb, sart, or navtex, no need to know about Areas 2, 3, or 4 or any of that stuff. We were just going through the motions because it was in the syllabus, rather than because they needed to know. It was frustrating for me as an instructor, because it was wasteful, confusing, and counter-productive for so many of them.....

Yes wasteful and frustrating.

I'd be happy to learn about Navtex, EPIRB etc, but if only half the day is spent discussing what I NEED to hear about then why not make the course half a day and make it £70 cheaper? I know it sounds tight but to a small boater that is the price of a GPS or better foulies or an anchor etc etc...

A basic qualification would bring in all (well some) of the illegal users and make it more accessible - ergo safer - for small boaters. Then the RYA could beef up the full SRC course to bring it into line with the rest of Europe.

 

[timbartlett]

...A basic qualification would bring in all (well some) of the illegal users and make it more accessible - ergo safer - for small boaters. Then the RYA could beef up the full SRC course to bring it into line with the rest of Europe.

Whilst I think we fundamentally agree with each other, I'm afraid you are missing several key points:
- The SRC is already the most basic qualification. The current problem arises because it is already seen as too basic by some of our neighbours. Introducing a new lower level would pi55 them off even more!
- The requirement for radio operator licensing is international, and bound by international treaties, so the UK cannot simply say "this is what we are going to do and beggar what anyone else thinks"
- It's not up to the RYA. The RYA administer the courses, appoint instructor/assessors, and issue certificates, but they do so simply as a contractor to the UK government (just as they used to be the contractor that issued the Small Ships Register) The syllabus is set by an intergovernmental outfit called CEPT (European Conference of
Postal and Telecommunications Administrations) and requirements such as minimum time to be spent on operator training are set by individual governments.

There's a shed-load of political background to this, which means that although some of it makes good sense, we are saddled with a lot of krapp that stems mainly from empire building by individual civil servants (on both sides of the North Sea)

 

[Little Rascal]

Tim, I do understand these points - I was just thinking out loud. The practicalities are what they are, and being beurocratic/political things ain't gonna change much.

- The SRC is already the most basic qualification. The current problem arises because it is already seen as too basic by some of our neighbours. Introducing a new lower level would pi55 them off even more!

My thought was that we need a more basic national qualification and a two tiered system. But as you say there are political obstacles to this.

I do think the safety of small boat users has a bearing on the issue. Especially in the light of our current freedom to navigate without licencing, qualifications et al. On the face of it I am faced with the choice between going to sea without VHF or without something else considered to be essential. When it's actually safer to break the law (re VHF) something has gone askew somewhere... (yes I know this is a simplistic view It would be safer to stay at home and read books)

 

[wadget]

Tim, I do understand these points - I was just thinking out loud. The practicalities are what they are, and being beurocratic/political things ain't gonna change much.



My thought was that we need a more basic national qualification and a two tiered system. But as you say there are political obstacles to this.

I do think the safety of small boat users has a bearing on the issue. Especially in the light of our current freedom to navigate without licencing, qualifications et al. On the face of it I am faced with the choice between going to sea without VHF or without something else considered to be essential. When it's actually safer to break the law (re VHF) something has gone askew somewhere... (yes I know this is a simplistic view It would be safer to stay at home and read books)

But we already have a 4 tier system it just happens that the lowest one is the SRC not sure we could have any more courses.

 

[Solitaire]

I do think the safety of small boat users has a bearing on the issue. Especially in the light of our current freedom to navigate without licencing, qualifications et al. On the face of it I am faced with the choice between going to sea without VHF or without something else considered to be essential. When it's actually safer to break the law (re VHF) something has gone askew somewhere... (yes I know this is a simplistic view It would be safer to stay at home and read books)

Why don't you find a local yacht club and ask them if they run the course? I run courses for clubs at a lower price per head as long as they book a minimum number. In my case 6. But on the other hand I won't take more than that simply because I want to give the maximum amount of time on the practical use of the radio in the time given. I could run with 12, because I have the requisite number of radios to do that, but I wont!

There is a £30 fee payable to the RYA for the issue of the certificate which is outside of my control. I'll be open and say that I charge £50/head with a minimum of 6 to run a bespoke course on the date they want. I have just booked a dive club for such a course and on date they want.

I don't believe that the current course could be anything less than it is - or should be! They are a few points that I have an issue with, but in the main as long as the assessor keeps up to speed with the changes then the course works well.

I will be at the conference in April so it will be interesting to see what is going to be said.

Why should the course be any cheaper? Centres have rent and all the other costs associated with running a business. Each radio costs the same as one bought for a boat and on top of that Ofcom charge an annual licence fee for being a "shore based station"

Oh and if you want to get the correct procedure for the revised Mayday (distress) call then yoiu can download it from - Mayday Procedure card

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

My understanding -- and I have not been privy to all the discussions that have led up to this -- is that the Germans and Irish have been unhappy about the UK offering SRC courses that are so much shorter and cheaper than theirs. They have been rumbling about this for years: now, it seems, the intensity of the rumbling has stepped up, and they have threatened not to recognise the UK SRC as being adequate coverage of the CEPT syllabus. But the UK is under a treaty obligation to conform to the CEPT syllabus... so it could get very messy.

The "pragmatic" solution is to revert to the way things were in "the good old days" when an instructor taught they course, and an examiner popped in for the last hour or so to carry out an independent assessment. If it keeps everyone else happy, at minimal extra cost, it's probably as good as we will get.

I guess the RYA haven't said anythng public about their reasons but that seems a reasonable hypothesis.

Seems a fairly reasonable solution to me on all counts.

 

[Little Rascal]

Why should the course be any cheaper? Centres have rent and all the other costs associated with running a business. Each radio costs the same as one bought for a boat and on top of that Ofcom charge an annual licence fee for being a "shore based station"

I don't have a problem with the cost or the centres making a profit from training. I just think it could be more efficient if there was something tailored to the more casual user. But I can see why the course is what it is. And I'll be doing it anyway....

 

[Bosun Higgs]

I was also informed that Germany was about to no longer recognise the UK certificate on the grounds that the one day combined course and exam could in no way cover the syllabus adequately. .

I really would love to know what the Germans find to do that takes 3 days of teaching and testing? A VHF is no more complicated than a mobile phone or a VCR if that - and I reckon I could teach my wife to use the VCR in less than a day. Maybe.

Seriously, does anyone know what they spend the time teaching their student? I struggle to get a British SRC course to last even 6 hours plus test. That greatly exceeds most students boredom threshold anyway.

So are the Germans teaching basic electronics to their students? Or is this a classic German technical strategy to prevent foreign competition? I have plenty of experience of them doing that from a previous life.

 

[prv]

I really would love to know what the Germans find to do that takes 3 days of teaching and testing?

Their process for learning to drive includes a full classroom syllabus before you go near a car. A pub we used to go to in Walsrode was near the local driving school, with the classroom right in the shopfront. Full of potential new drivers sitting at desks being taught from a whiteboard most evenings we walked past.

Pete