Unfair

R

RydalWater

Member
Joined
12 Jun 2010
Messages
27
Location
Ashfield Nott's
Visit site
"Rydal Water" has just passed her BSS and is now about to be launched at last so I should be feeling very happy indeed.

However since "Rydal" is a Sunspot 15 sailing cruiser, has no electrics and no gas either I am a bit peeved to have had to pay the same price as the owner of a gin palace when the only items covered by the check were the security of the engine, fuel tank and carriage of an appropriate fire extinguisher.

The physical work involved took all of three minutes and the paperwork another ten at most.

Total cost £135!

Thankfully until someone changes the rule that's it for another four years.:mad:
 
unfair

Hi,
As your craft is a sailing boat and has no gas or electric, are you actually required to have the Bss?.
 
Celica said:
Why?? The Bss states that not all vessels need to have a Bss if they are open and have no gas or electric and only propelled by an out board.
Click to expand...

There you have it -

open boat = no BSC
Cuddy cabin = BSC required

It does seem faintly ridiculous to try and fit a "one size fits all" policy to a 14' dejon (or RydalWater's Sunspot, OR my 17' cabin dory!!!) and some of the apartment blocks that you see cruising up and down or a 70' liveaboard barge.

We need something though, how can the need for safety and monitoring be married to common sense?
 
On the Thames the EA says the below:

A BSS Certificate is not required for any privately-owned, open vessel (i.e. a vessel in which all the
accommodation is completely open to the elements) if it has no domestic cooking, heating,
refrigerating or lighting appliances installed and it is propelled solely by an outboard engine without a fixed fuel system. This type of vessel must still comply with the relevant BSS standards.

I guess if that applies (don't know the type of boat) then he didn't need one. It is pretty restrictive however and I gather it is applied quite aggressively.
 
boatone said:
And that would appear to be the case.

As to the 'Unfair' comments - life IS unfair, always has been and always will be.
Click to expand...

Don't know who advised you, but I would have left the hatches off and claimed it was an open boat, plenty of open boats with large forward shelters:) I know my examiner wouldn't have taken your money.
 
rr_123 said:
We need something though, how can the need for safety and monitoring be married to common sense?
Click to expand...

If there was common sense there would be less need for safety and monitoriing. I put it to the assembly that if there were less safety and monitoring then common sense would re-establish itself, possibly by natural selection:-)

So, in the case of the accommodation issue, presumably a boom tent and Primus would exempt you from the BS (S)?
:-)
 
Unfortunately not Andrew, Boatone is totally correct. The only way I could escape the necessity under current regulations would be to hack away the cabin bulkhead which would be just a bit extreme.

My point here is that boats in a similar category to "Rydal Water", and there are an awful lot of them, should be able to go through a quick cut price BSS as there is almost nothing to check.

A quick glance from an authorised person at any marina or lock should be enough to sign her off, there is really no practical benefit to anyone, other than the surveyor himself of course, in going any further than that.
 
problem with exceptions is then you have to define them (in detail, to stop people using loopholes), regulate them, police them, train and educate the examiners, publicise the exceptions, all of which costs money, and drives the price up for everyone.
 
With all respect not so sir.

The existing check list includes Electrical Installations, Battery Safety and the safety of any Gas Equipment all of which require and justify a full check.

In the case of a boat such as "Rydal Water" where only the existence of a cabin bulkhead renders her liable to examination there would seem little reason in your stand.

It hardly requires a university degree to glance at a boat and see that there is no equipment on board that requires checking other than an outboard in plain view and a fire extinguisher in a bracket on the cabin bulkhead, again in plain view of which the safety or otherwise requires nothing more than common sense.
 
there would be then hundreds of people who have boats, who would try to shoehorn their boats into that category, so more than cursory examination would be required. Yours may well fall into that category very easily, but what about more borderline cases, where some electrical equipment has been installed - who defines if a boat with just a single battery with a single light is also exempt, if there is not even a bulkhead? People would claim that is also silly, etc, etc. There would have to be a list of what is exempt and what isn't.

I'm playing devils advocate by the way. The whole thing was a huge reason for me leaving the Thames
 
Last edited:
There are no borderline cases, the possession of a battery with any kind of wired circuit of itself constitutes an electrical installation worthy of a check in that the condition and safety of any circuit can in the last analysis only be checked by someone with some degree of specialist knowledge.

Ditto a gas installation since any container or pipe containing gas is prone to leakage.

These are by the way precisely the reasons I don't carry any such equipment having survived two gas fires aboard in years gone by and being well aware that water and electricity make bad companions.
 
someone with a gas canister on board, who 'normally doesn't carry one' - the sort that isn't fitted, like a camping stove. A battery not permanently onboard, just put on this morning, as we are camping tonight, and I'll be taking it off tomorrow

??
 
Brendan, while yours is a valid point to a degree I cannot but think you are scraping the barrel to find a reasonable objection.

I would counter by enquiring from you what in your opinion is going on now in boats which by not being fitted with a cabin bulkhead presently escape the BSS?
 
I wasn't even thinking hard, the people who want to look for loopholes would do so much better, and effectively.

Not entirely sure what your question is. If they are outside the current limits, then fine, if they are inside them, fine. If you want the definition of what does and doesn't fit inside the current limits, a bulkhead would seem to be one definition - you want that definition moved? How would you define the new limits? If you have a good definition, send it to the enforcers and ask them to change it, and give good reasons, and good definitions of the new limits to make it easy for them to make the change??
 
I think all you needed to do is ring round the surveyors and neigotiate a price, there is no set price except £25 i believe that the surveyor pays for a blank certificate. If you have been charged £135 for 2 hours work you should have got it, if it only took 10mins then the surveyor is taking money under false pretences, ok I accept he has to make something traveling time etc.. but most surveyors seem to do it as a second income type job so should be flexible. I don't think the BSS is to blame really, like H&S etc... its peoples interpretation of rules that is the problem.
 
The original BSS was clearly not written by a boatowner given some of the impractical nonsense it contained. The net effect was to bring the concept into disrepute. Linked to perceived variations in standards and some pretty petty interpretations whether it remains fit for purpose is still questionable. Having said that, I do believe some form of gas safety check should be required for boats with fixed gas systems or with more than a portable stove and the attached cartridge on board. I've always been less scared by electrics than gas, but I'm probably a better gas fitter than sparky!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top