Jump to content

Running Engines Shock Warning Following Tragedy.


Boaters

Recommended Posts

To quote MM,

I have done my own risk assessment and concluded that there is no risk unless I do something stupid."

Unfortunately I disagree with that comment, the whole issue is about third party risk, not self risk or self harm.

You are not responsible for other Carbon monoxide that forms around your boat, made by other parties, that may have also done a similar risk assessment, and realised there is no risk or minimal risk to them.

Compare this to say... driving a car.

ABS allows you to stop quicker and in a straight line and help you avoid a serious accident, you have seat belts that restrain you in a crash, and air bags that deploy in an accident that cushion you from most low speed, yes low speed accidents, 30-40 mph 

That morning, you get in the car, kick the tyres, check the fuel, do a quick risk assessment for the journey, no snow, no ice, some wet patches on the road, risk of skidding on corners, so use this information to slow down at risky points. So risk is extremely low.

So you are halfway through your journey, the traffic stops, may be conjestion, maybe an accident, but something unexpected, so around the corner you see stationary traffic, luckily you are alert, not messing with your phone so you brake hard, due to the wet road the ABS kicks in for just a second, and you stop a good car length from the car in front. No risk, all under control.

However, following you was an HGV 38 tonne, he has been driving for a few hours, had no incidents so far, so risk is low, why should he think there is a problem, never had a problem before, been travelling on this road daily, never anything around " that corner" 

Screech smoke crash, it runs into your car at 40 mph, pushes your car into several others, you were probably the first to die, but at least it wasn't your fault.

The death was caused by a third party, who you had no control over, but you had ticked all the boxes, only one box left, the one they bury you in.

So no I do not believe you can do a full risk assessment unless you consider ALL the risks.

This is what this topic is about, death by third party people, many of course don't know the risk they are putting others under.

Richard

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

Of the millions of visitors to the Broads over many years only two (and one dog) have died from CO poisoning where as yet it seems it has not be their own fault.

MM, I can see where you are coming from, but these people are not the first. If you don't mind I will quote myself, from a paper I wrote for Carol Gingell a few years ago and which is posted on "Broadland Memories" :

I greatly regret that something else we knew nothing about was carbon monoxide. If a fridge chimney was not flued out over the side of the boat (which they weren’t) and the flame was burning with a white tip (because the jet needed changing) and the boat did not have enough fixed ventilation (which they didn’t) then customers, in all innocence and happiness, would go to sleep in their holiday boat cabin, but would never wake up the next morning. I don’t know how many times it happened, but I remember one or two myself and each one was one too many. In fairness to us, we didn’t really know any better at the time. It is true of all safety standards and regulations, in any industry, that they came about as a result of experience gained after accidents. But that doesn’t make the accidents any less tragic

Since those days (the 60s) we have had to have regulation in the industry and in all humility, I was involved in writing a lot of it myself. We have now reached a point where Broads cruisers are pretty much as safe as we know to make them - both private and hire - but regulation must be constantly updated so that users of holiday boats can be protected from putting themselves in harm's way, simply because they know no better.

We are now in a new situation, where the electric needs of modern boats are causing engines to be run in what I consider abnormal circumstances and conditions, and so we must look into this, and take steps to prevent and PREDICT any extra risk that might be lurking there.

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe, just maybe, if we were to perhaps supply all hire boats with a games compendium, a crib board and a rowing dinghy as standard and remove half the electrical kit currently on board we would not be running engines quite so much?

Yes I am quite sure I am very out of touch with the requirements of a modern family but have we gone to far when half the equipment on a boat just dies without the engine running constantly!

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't even switch on the tv when on a hire boat, we get such a buzz from being in the great outdoors and try and keep boating as simple and basic as possible, I think (just my opinion) that people want a home from home, years ago a boat was just the opposite, just a proper boat and boating holiday, now we have mircrowaves, whirlpool baths and heated towel rails for goodness sake . The cruising hours we put in a for a day is enough for showers and making tea and coffee, if not open the wine and wash in the sink (or open the wine anyway :naughty:)

I m not knocking anyone for preferring a posh boat with all the mod cons, for me it would take away the experience of being on the Broads

Sorry for the slight topic drift :facepalm:

Grace

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vaughan, the evidence from your quote indicates that something was done that should not have been done. Your quote says

" but I remember one or two myself and each one was one too many. In fairness to us, we didn’t really know any better at the time "

So why hadn't the previous occupants suffered an identical fate? or the following ones? Perhaps the victims had done a "draught proofing" excersise? it certainly sounds like it.

However, It would ber inappropriate to speculate on such matters  but I stand by my argument that the danger is being massively over stated and that to legeslate on this would be nanny state at it's finest.

5 hours ago, Viking23 said:

Unfortunately I disagree with that comment, the whole issue is about third party risk, not self risk or self harm.

It has been said that there is no evidence of any danger from third party activities. I agree with that statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How people choose to travel from A to B has largely to be their choice, irrespective of what others of us may think. However, when in close proximity to other boats, as in a mooring for example, there surely has to be some form of shared responsibility. Perhaps and possibly not a third party risk but surely it is about third party discomfort and annoyance.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Viking23 said:

This is what this topic is about, death by third party people, many of course don't know the risk they are putting others under.

Richard

Richard 240V shore connections can kill 3rd parties, but are not part of the BSS / BSC again silent, tasteless,invisible but can kill a third party 

Charlie

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

...It has been said that there is no evidence of any danger from third party activities. I agree with that statement.

I totally agree with that comment, there is no evidence "yet", the Broads Authority and the Boat Safety Scheme people have no evidence either, however reading their posts, they are willing to listen to any evidence presented to them, without waiting for any deaths, heaven forbid.

Hence the next best thing is evidence from third parties when Carbon Monoxide detectors go off, from fumes outside their control.

This is what the discussion is about.

I do not doubt that the sales and installation of Carbon Monoxide detectors has increased, or people will be considering them more. With that in mind, there will be a greater chance of catching some stray CO. Just as long as we log them and report them.

What an ideal subject for "Myth-busters" to get hold of, eg, the myth is... can fumes from another boat, either engine fumes or gas fridge or central heating exhaust etc generate enough volumes of CO that could be enough to kill someone?

Proven, inconclusive or Busted  ?

Now that would be an interesting programme.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bound2Please said:

Richard 240V shore connections can kill 3rd parties, but are not part of the BSS / BSC again silent, tasteless,invisible but can kill a third party 

Charlie

Slightly off topic, and could be a "new post" lol all on it's own. It might be believed that the earth leakage trip on the post would be enough to trip, to help prevent electrocution, this may well not be the case unless some of the electricity can pass to earth, thus causing an imbalance, causing the rcd to trip.  Circumstances could easily occur if the earth is lost to the boat, maybe through incorrect or faulty galvanic isolation, or a damaged cable. We have one of those plugs with three lamps, that shows the correct connection of the supply. 

An even bigger risk regarding electricity on boats are inverters or portable generators, often these do not have earth leakage devices, and how many know, that to be safe, a portable generator must be earthed, and usually consists of a huge copper plated rod that is hammered into the ground to help provide this protection. 

There are many American websites that go into detail about electrocution on and around boats, and consider this, their supply is only 110 volts.

So far, the BSS are only interested in how plugs and sockets are wired, ie no live pins, they cannot test the rcd's as they are not trained, and do not have the equipment to see how fast they trip, and at what current. They know this is an issue, and again they probably adopt a "wait and see"  attitude, not satisfactory at all.

 

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13 Aug 2016 at 6:40 PM, MauriceMynah said:

Sorry but no! we should wait for not one but a number of deaths before handing the whole shooting match over to the nanny state to regulate the hides off us.

Well MM, I have given reasoned responses to two of your posts, but I have obviously been unable to convince you.

I didn't want to mention, when talking of the 60s, that when I said "I remember one or two myself" that was because, on two occasions, I was the one sent out to find a boat that hadn't come home on Saturday morning and so I was the one who found the bodies.

I will say no more for tonight as frankly, I do not trust myself to reply further.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Viking23 said:

Slightly off topic, and could be a "new post" lol all on it's own. It might be believed that the earth leakage trip on the post would be enough to trip, to help prevent electrocution, this may well not be the case unless some of the electricity can pass to earth, thus causing an imbalance, causing the rcd to trip.  Circumstances could easily occur if the earth is lost to the boat, maybe through incorrect or faulty galvanic isolation, or a damaged cable. We have one of those plugs with three lamps, that shows the correct connection of the supply. 

 

 

Richard

Earth leakage detectors and rcb are two totally different anilmals.

Charlie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Well MM, I have given reasoned responses to two of your posts, but I have obviously been unable to convince you.

I didn't want to mention, when talking of the 60s, that when I said "I remember one or two myself" that was because, on two occasions, I was the one sent out to find a boat that hadn't come home on Saturday morning and so I was the one who found the bodies.

I will say no more for tonight as frankly, I do not trust myself to reply further.

Both Vaughan & myself have related to such tragedies before on this forum. In my case when I went into the cabin one of the casualties still had playing cards in his hand. Fair to say that this was also in the 1960's so I doubt that the BA has any record of those events. The boat that I boarded had had all the intentional and unintentional ventilation blocked with screwed up news paper & toilet paper. There was no third party involvement. Seemingly absolute ignorance of the risks involved by the casualties.

I think it quite likely that with the increased practice of running engines at moorings there will eventually be another tragedy. Why wait for it to happen as surely it will if reasonable precautions are not put in place. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Bound2Please said:

Earth leakage detectors and rcb are two totally different anilmals.

Charlie

Could you please advise what the difference is please, as I thought they worked on the same principle, ie if a small current flows to earth either will trip, cutting the supply reducing the risk of electrical shock. 

Richard.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how about this for third party risk?

fact, last night moored at h woods woke up 2 am smell of burnt lpg,only thing working was the gas fridge,quick look with torch boat next to me has horizontal fenders, one of these was blocking my fridge vent so off goes the fridge.had we not done so we might now be wielding a coal shovel in t'other place (no halos here)
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When our eberspacher heating system was installed, the vent to the outside was sited behind one of our fenders. We were unaware of this until there was a nasty burning smell the first time we ran the heating! Just shows how easy it is to get caught out, as chameleon has just experienced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, I am well aware that the viewpoint I've been putting forward has been ... shall we say... Contentious,  Please humour me for just one more post on this matter, perhaps allowing me to explain my fundemental standpoint.

Over the last few decades there has been a shift within society. The case used to be that something was only legislated against if it was proven (or that there was overwhelming evidence) that it was harmful. The shift is that now things are legislated against unless it can be proven to be safe.

Take "Vaping" as an example. It's yet to be proven as safe so it carries the same stigma as smoking, and trust me, it will, in the not too distant future, carry the same legislation.

The second shift is that of "perceived risk", or "That looks dangerous, it shouldn't be allowed."

How many of us remember the "Conker fiasco" where schools were said to be banning the game or only allowing it if eye protection was worn. So many of us screamed "Kids have been doing that for years, why stop them now?"

I do not like these shifts, they remove some of our basic freedoms, often without provable gain.

Not to fight or at least fiercely contest any ruling that comes in will inevitably lead us nearer and nearer state control. That's not a world I look forwards to living in. I'm with William Wallace here (or at least dear old Mel), I value freedom.

So where does that lead me? It takes me to a Utopian land where the only people who understand the problems fully are put in a position to advise a democraticlly elected govening body.

Where safety is involved I tend to favour Insurance companies as the experts, as they are the ones who have to cough up when things go tits up. In my opinion, the boat safety scheme (safety aspects) should have been written by the insurance companies with their risk assessors being the leading lights. The other parts of the scheme (conservation) to be written up by experts in that field. Where there is conflict between the two, human life to take priority.

Before I'm ordered to equip my boat with CO alarms I want proof  that they do not go off unless I'm actually in danger and that would mean PROVING that 3rd party CO IS a danger. It would also mean proving that the alarm doesn't have a hair trigger.

Finally, If running engines on moored boats was an offence outside the hours of 09:00 to 18:00 that would acheive a better result than compulsory CO alarms, but would I vote for that? NO! sorry!!!!!

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maurice,

The World Health Organisation give the following maximum levels against time exposure, a body hopefully we can trust?

The following guideline values (ppm values rounded) and periods of time-weighted average exposures have been determined in such a way that the carboxyhaemoglobin (COHb) level of 2.5% is not exceeded, even when a normal subject engages in light or moderate exercise:

  • 100 mg/m3 (87 ppm) for 15 min
  • 60 mg/m3 (52 ppm) for 30 min
  • 30 mg/m3 (26 ppm) for 1 h
  • 10 mg/m3 (9 ppm) for 8 h

For indoor air quality 7 mg/m3 (6 ppm) for 24 h (so as not to exceed 2% COHb for chronic exposure)

When my detector went crazy in the incident I described at the start of this thread it was reading 425ppm. Without my detector and if we had been in the saloon near where the detector is sited I wouldn't have known that we would have been well in excess of the recommended guidelines. This despite the boat being some 100 feet away from mine.

I think I'll be keeping my detector and would recommend anyone to buy and fit one, in addition I'm all for not running engines at moorings apart from arriving and departing.

Week before last I spent five days out on my boat. Managed an engine run time of just 9 hrs over the whole five days. Never plugged into the electric, never ran the engine apart from when under way, never had a flat battery and had hot water virtually all the time. Showers were planned around when hot water was available, rather than first thing in the morning. Then again I have a well planned battery and electrical setup with twin alternators, which is also well maintained. I have 12V and 24V setup with invertors available on both systems and can even suffer the failure of an alternator for a few days without any major inconvenience. Hot water can be heated by engine, electric immersion element, or a combination of both. The last method gives me a full tank of hot water in around 30 mins of cruising.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Keith, I still fail to make myself clear.

It is not whether or not a person thinks it a good idea to have a monitor, it is whether or not it is made compulsory (part of the BSS) You have made your choice and you are happy about it. Great!

My choice may well be to get one if time proves it (to me) necessary. If there is a significant number of deaths, and mine is not one of them, I shall reappraise the situation, but until that time the choice for my boat should be mine.

There are many aspects of your post I fully agree with though the World Health Organisation figures mean little to me without knowing the effects of exceeding those figures. Is not the World Health Organisation one of those bodies that are releasing figures which should be taken as "acheivable targets"? I honestly do not know. What would be the effect if those figures proved to be incorrect? Would the W.H.O. be in any way accountable? Again, I don't know.  Do I trust the W.H.O. Well yet again, not knowing who they are, what their brief is  and who calls their shots, I can make no judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maurice, I do understand the point you are making and in reply to that what I was saying is that I could well have been exposed for a prolonged period to levels of carbon monoxide that exceed the levels prescribed as maximums by the W.H.O if it were not for having a carbon monoxide detector. Carbon monoxide can kill we know that, but there are varying levels of poisoning the worst resulting in death, but none of them are good for you. The incident I described more than likely wouldn't have resulted in death, but still way exceeded the guidelines of people who know a lot more about the subject than me, I'm not medically trained.

If such a situation is possible, so easily without me knowing, if I didn't have a detector, then surely it could be happening to anyone, and indeed, maybe a lot more often than we know. Therefore either banning the running of engines at moorings, or making detectors part of the BSS, or ideally both is preferable.

Carbon monoxide poisoning and its effects are NOT unknowns. There is no perceived risk with carbon monoxide poisoning. It can and does kill as well as have nasty side effects at lower levels. Much research has now been done by many experts. The unknown and the very real risk is the levels you are exposed to if you don't have a detector.

I also fully support Vaughan's view that the issue could well be getting worse due to the amount of gadgets and more demands placed upon boat systems. I'm sure we are all well aware that the issue and annoyance caused by running engines at moorings has got worse in the last decade. I'm not sure I prescribe to the school of thought of electric posts all along every mooring, but would more prefer better engineered and maintained boats and better education of hirers backed up by byelaws banning the running of engines at moorings in all but an emergency. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Viking23 said:

Could you please advise what the difference is please, as I thought they worked on the same principle, ie if a small current flows to earth either will trip, cutting the supply reducing the risk of electrical shock. 

Richard.

 

Basically an earth leakage detector has a red and green light, green on no earth leaks red an earth leak is present. Nothing cut off. RCB works on balanced ans even is ok but a slight change in that will result in the circuit tripping out.

Trust me i have spent more hours than i care to remember chasing earth leaks, as they can give you a wrong side failure... IE power a circuit up that shouldnt be powered

Charlie

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Bound2Please said:

Richard 240V shore connections can kill 3rd parties, but are not part of the BSS / BSC again silent, tasteless,invisible but can kill a third party 

Charlie

And they damned well should be!   I thought that the whole point of the BSS was to ensure that we were safe- not from our own boat, but from the failings of others.

Do I detect resistance from the 'powers that be' over this, due to the possible costs for examiners to qualify, and the sums that would have to be passed on in  the cost of an inspection ?  :mad::mad:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general I am pleased we have the BSS, when we first bought our Viking 23' a single 75Ah battery was loose in a locker, on top of the bare terminals was a thin sheet of damp ply covered in black mildew. on top of that sat the 13 litre steel petrol container, I kid you not.

Oh the boat hadn't exploded before, so the previous owner probably thought there was little risk...

This was before the regs had even been thought about.

The BSS were soon to be in draft form, much earlier on the canals than the Broads, by several years. I knew I had to do something about the battery and petrol set up, so I read the regs, interpreted them as best as I could, and set about glassing a floor and bulkhead into a locker on the other side of the boat. This was for the petrol, then I set about what was required for the battery. When it was time for our first ever BSS, a scary time lol, it passed first time. Through the changes over the years, it has passed those too, a recent improvement was doubling the battery capacity, but as our cabling was only 16 mm2 I thought it better to increase it to 25mm2, as per the requirements, a grey area, as we have an electric outboard with original loom, but there were other devices, eg 800w inverter, so it was on the edge, so as I was cutting and removing 16mm2 cable, just as easy to make up 25 mm2 at little extra cost.

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.