aod
New member
I have read the below posts about the YM qualification and felt that I had to express my point of view about it being too easy.
I had skippered yachts over 60K miles including two around Britain and Ireland races, 6 Fastnets, the AZAB race, a two handed race to Iceland a couple of races to Spain and more cross chanel races than I can remember before I did the YM practical.
Personaly I found it really useful and learn't bucket loads of new stuff. I also found the exam really testing and on the whole best described as a very beneficial unpleasant experience.
Since then I did the cruising certificate practical with an instructor who I knew had considerably less experience than myself. I again learned bucket loads of stuff and felt a real and tangible benefit from the course.
My motive was two fold: Firstly I am convinced that rightly or wrongly proof of basic competence will be a future legislative requirement much like the driving licence.
Secondly, sometimes unforseeable tragic events simply happen, and as the skipper of the boat it's my job to try and minimise that risk. If something happens it's also my job to do the right thing whatever that be to minimise harm. Courts do not really concern me but my concience does, and I wouldn't want to live the rest of my life knowing that I didn't do something properly and thus someone was seriously injured or indeed died as a result of my lack of knowledge. Did the YM provide me with this 'new knowledge', the answer is probably not. But it did confirm that my approach and actions were the correct ones and it certainly didn't de-skill these areas.
If there's a course available stick me on it because I know I am going to learn something useful from someone and that might even be a comp crew who happens to be on the same course.
I do not present the YM as a panacea of all learning but I do present it as an opportunity to learn and consolidate, and the certificate itself merely suggests that you have a proven basic ability which, combined with experience offers a best case scenerio.
Plus, how can you ever know that you really are competent as oppose to plain lucky, without putting yourself at test with an independent evaluator?
You may well say that there simply isn't any substitute for experience, but I know some of the BT crews who have sailed 27000 miles and yet they are not competent to safely take a yacht from Portsmouth to Cowes.
Experience must by definition be relative to circumstances. If you have driven a car around Mull for 20 years the local population may consider you an experienced driver. Put that same driver in the center of London during rush hour and they would be considered less experienced (in those circumstances) than a local lad who passed his test a year ago.
You can bang your drums all you like about the freedom of the sea and how the YM doesn't mean anything at all but in this age of accountability you might find that you have to prove that from the witness box, as well as explain to relatives that you really do know what you are doing, and little Johns demise was purely an act of god and nothing to do with the fact that a barrister has just questioned your claimed proof of competence. Not forgetting the press of course who would have an absolute field day with any tragedy involving an unqualified skipper irrespective of whether they did everything correctly.
For my money I would favour compulsory qualifications because experience is as I have said relative to circumstance and largely un-measurable, but a YM if nothing else, is a bench mark which indicates a level of responsibility in the skipper. With responsibility comes a duty of care and when it comes down to my son or daughter sailing with a skipper who has shown themselves to be responsible by undertaking training and evaluation they will always gain my vote over 'claimed experience'.
I had skippered yachts over 60K miles including two around Britain and Ireland races, 6 Fastnets, the AZAB race, a two handed race to Iceland a couple of races to Spain and more cross chanel races than I can remember before I did the YM practical.
Personaly I found it really useful and learn't bucket loads of new stuff. I also found the exam really testing and on the whole best described as a very beneficial unpleasant experience.
Since then I did the cruising certificate practical with an instructor who I knew had considerably less experience than myself. I again learned bucket loads of stuff and felt a real and tangible benefit from the course.
My motive was two fold: Firstly I am convinced that rightly or wrongly proof of basic competence will be a future legislative requirement much like the driving licence.
Secondly, sometimes unforseeable tragic events simply happen, and as the skipper of the boat it's my job to try and minimise that risk. If something happens it's also my job to do the right thing whatever that be to minimise harm. Courts do not really concern me but my concience does, and I wouldn't want to live the rest of my life knowing that I didn't do something properly and thus someone was seriously injured or indeed died as a result of my lack of knowledge. Did the YM provide me with this 'new knowledge', the answer is probably not. But it did confirm that my approach and actions were the correct ones and it certainly didn't de-skill these areas.
If there's a course available stick me on it because I know I am going to learn something useful from someone and that might even be a comp crew who happens to be on the same course.
I do not present the YM as a panacea of all learning but I do present it as an opportunity to learn and consolidate, and the certificate itself merely suggests that you have a proven basic ability which, combined with experience offers a best case scenerio.
Plus, how can you ever know that you really are competent as oppose to plain lucky, without putting yourself at test with an independent evaluator?
You may well say that there simply isn't any substitute for experience, but I know some of the BT crews who have sailed 27000 miles and yet they are not competent to safely take a yacht from Portsmouth to Cowes.
Experience must by definition be relative to circumstances. If you have driven a car around Mull for 20 years the local population may consider you an experienced driver. Put that same driver in the center of London during rush hour and they would be considered less experienced (in those circumstances) than a local lad who passed his test a year ago.
You can bang your drums all you like about the freedom of the sea and how the YM doesn't mean anything at all but in this age of accountability you might find that you have to prove that from the witness box, as well as explain to relatives that you really do know what you are doing, and little Johns demise was purely an act of god and nothing to do with the fact that a barrister has just questioned your claimed proof of competence. Not forgetting the press of course who would have an absolute field day with any tragedy involving an unqualified skipper irrespective of whether they did everything correctly.
For my money I would favour compulsory qualifications because experience is as I have said relative to circumstance and largely un-measurable, but a YM if nothing else, is a bench mark which indicates a level of responsibility in the skipper. With responsibility comes a duty of care and when it comes down to my son or daughter sailing with a skipper who has shown themselves to be responsible by undertaking training and evaluation they will always gain my vote over 'claimed experience'.
