A Test Of The BSS Test

[Meantime]

I thought I would start a separate thread so as not to hijack Robin's thread.

As the title suggests, this could be a good test of the BSS test.

A boat has been built to a safe standard, and spent a few years on the coast and been maintained by its previous and current owners. The same boat has been subject to a weekends meticulous scrutiny by the crew who's very lives would depend upon her. She has now completed an exhausting journey from Plymouth to The Broads where she will now require a BSS!! If ever there was a test of how safe a boat is, then I would have thought the journey just completed would be it.

Compared to how the boat is likely to spend the next few years the journey just completed was a real test. I wonder what the test of the BSS test is going to fare

To my mind Independence has already passed her test, but I'm sure the various nuances of the BSS test are going to find some areas that need modifying for her "safety"

[Hockham Admiral]

At least she's all electric!   

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

I thought I would start a separate thread so as not to hijack Robin's thread.

As the title suggests, this could be a good test of the BSS test.

A boat has been built to a safe standard, and spent a few years on the coast and been maintained by its previous and current owners. The same boat has been subject to a weekends meticulous scrutiny by the crew who's very lives would depend upon her. She has now completed an exhausting journey from Plymouth to The Broads where she will now require a BSS!! If ever there was a test of how safe a boat is, then I would have thought the journey just completed would be it.

, Compared to how the boat is likely to spend the next few years the journey just completed was a real test. I wonder what the test of the BSS test is going to fare

To my mind Independence has already passed her test, but I'm sure the various nuances of the BSS test are going to find some areas that need modifying for her "safety"

Er those are the rules for everyone , I expect it will pass with flying colours , BSS is there for a reason and as good as the crew are they are not BSS examiner's , on top of that its a toll requirement .

[Meantime]

1 minute ago, Ricardo said:

Er those are the rules for everyone , I expect it will pass with flying colours , BSS is there for a reason and as good as the crew are they are not BSS examiner's , on top of that its a toll requirement .

Those are the rules for everyone within an area that the BSS applies, which I accept now covers Independence since she is now in a BSS area, however it has managed a good few years without one, and managed a thoroughly testing sea journey, hence my opinion, and it is just my opinion, that this will be a good test of the BSS test.

I'm not going to start talking technical semantics here, or get drawn into a long winded discussion as the thread was more started as a light hearted mischievous dig at the BSS, and yes I do accept it has its merits, but I'm equally convinced it has it's shortcomings.

I don't think Robin is expecting the boat to pass without some modification, yet the geography hasn't made the boat any less safe.

[LondonRascal]

Well I am going to say nothing until I have had a visit and see what is what, needs doing and only then can I know what will be required. I will share that on the Forum I am just hoping there is not going to be too many items to attend to.

 

[Smoggy]

I don't recall the bss caring about how well a boat fares at sea in fact there are a few allowances for sea going boats regarding fixed ventilation, that sea trip may have shook a few things loose or left a fuel pipe fretting against something (I doubt it has but it might).

[Chelsea14Ian]

Most of the areas BSS cover are regarding for example fire regs gas and not re sea fairing as Smoggy as said.

[ranworthbreeze]

The BSS does cover items such as hoses where the British Standard mark is not marked on them; in some instances these have to be replaced with hoses that are not even up to the same specification. 

Most if not all the inspectors I have used on Ranworth Breeze have been fair minded and have been open with their recommendations for improvement if needed.

Regards

Alan

[ChrisB]

It is a pity that they could not come up with another name. It is so easy to confuse Boat Safety with Sea Worthiness. When actually the boat that has been certified could be a deathtrap once passed the mole.

The test is there really to eliminate fire and explosion and to ensure combustion onboard is safe so as not to put crew and other vessels at risk.

[ChrisB]

What I can not get my head round is this :-

You own a 20ft cruiser say like the one I have just sold. It has hot water, oven, grill and hob all fired by propane and two 14 litre petrol tanks. It has two 120 amp hr batteries powering a fridge, lights and instruments.

You can load it onto it's trailer and bounce it from Aberdeen to Sutton Staithe slipway buy a 28 day toll and use it without a BSS cert. For a month.

Who in god's name signed off the risk assessment on that? In those 520 miles it will have had more wear and tear than ten years sitting in a Broads marina.

[Vaughan]

9 minutes ago, ChrisB said:

It is a pity that they could not come up with another name. It is so easy to confuse Boat Safety with Sea Worthiness. When actually the boat that has been certified could be a deathtrap once passed the mole.

It is significant that we are the only country in Europe that has specific inland waterways regulations. All other countries adopt the ERCD regs, category D, since there is nothing else. All modern boats built on the Broads will be built to Cat D orC, so that they can be sold as offshore boats if required.

Independence would be built to Cat B, or maybe A, but does that mean she will pass the BSS? We shall see!

 

[Meantime]

3 minutes ago, ChrisB said:

The test is there really to eliminate fire and explosion and to ensure combustion onboard is safe so as not to put crew and other vessels at risk.

Which if anything is even more important when at sea! but as Alan has touched upon in his first paragraph, meeting the BSS standard, could, mean a downgrade in safety to meet the BSS standard?

I take on board the comments about sea worthiness, and the BSS doesn't assess whether a boat should, or is capable of going to sea and I accept that. But, all the rest of the "safety items that the BSS does cover, are equally, if not more important when further away from land. I think that Independence has proven to be a safe AND seaworthy vessel, hopefully the BSS thinks so as well. As I say a test of the BSS test.

[rightsaidfred]

15 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

Which if anything is even more important when at sea! but as Alan has touched upon in his first paragraph, meeting the BSS standard, could, mean a downgrade in safety to meet the BSS standard?

I take on board the comments about sea worthiness, and the BSS doesn't assess whether a boat should, or is capable of going to sea and I accept that. But, all the rest of the "safety items that the BSS does cover, are equally, if not more important when further away from land. I think that Independence has proven to be a safe AND seaworthy vessel, hopefully the BSS thinks so as well. As I say a test of the BSS test.

Maybe then it should be the other way round and all sea based boats should meet the BSS safety requirements.

Fred

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

Which if anything is even more important when at sea! but as Alan has touched upon in his first paragraph, meeting the BSS standard, could, mean a downgrade in safety to meet the BSS standard?

I take on board the comments about sea worthiness, and the BSS doesn't assess whether a boat should, or is capable of going to sea and I accept that. But, all the rest of the "safety items that the BSS does cover, are equally, if not more important when further away from land. I think that Independence has proven to be a safe AND seaworthy vessel, hopefully the BSS thinks so as well. As I say a test of the BSS test.

No choice in the matter of a test or not its mandatory , I can't believe for a minute that a BSS examiner would fail a boat that had superior hoses to say the mandatory  ISO 7840 hose all the ones iv ever met and there have been a few  believe me have used common sense as it like saying because a vessel needs 3 fire extinguisher's and it got 4 then it fails cos its got a superior level of protection , BSS is 99% common sense anyway n I really can't believe anyone would want to be on a boat that doesn't meet safety regs , the only problem I see in BSS is the fact some of it can and has been interpreted differently by different people and iv seen both a guy from corgi , a gas fitter and a BSS examiner all argue about an installation right I front of me , incidentally the BSS guy one after all he's signing the certificate not only that he IMHO was totally right .

Thinking about it does anyone know what the BA safety test comprises of ? I do n its not a lot .

[Islander]

Don't worry Robin, Indy will only fail on stupid little things if any at all. I'm sure you've been through the manual. You can have as many fire extinguishers as you like as long as you meet the mini quantity and combined rating. Had one boat ( not mine) fail with the wrong BS rated fire blanket. Fuel sight gauges may need some protection or modification. 

Colin

[FairTmiddlin]

On 07/02/2018 at 21:45, ChrisB said:

 to ensure combustion onboard is safe so as not to put crew and other vessels at risk.

Well the only place that Combustion talkes place on board is in four places (It used to be three) New one is the diesel heater. Number two is, a 50 hp Kubota engine bigger than most broads cruisers use, to which I could see no sign of the exhaust whatsoever. Numbers Three and Four,, are two humungous great  Gnashing and Snarling Lumps of 500hp metal which the exhausts culminate in two of the largest turbo's I've seen in a long time (Proudly bearing the legend Made in Uddersfield) the pipes to which are so well sealed nothing could escape. Basically its got more lagging in that engine room than a long row of council house lofts.

[teadaemon]

On 07/02/2018 at 22:01, EastCoastIPA said:

Which if anything is even more important when at sea! but as Alan has touched upon in his first paragraph, meeting the BSS standard, could, mean a downgrade in safety to meet the BSS standard?

I take on board the comments about sea worthiness, and the BSS doesn't assess whether a boat should, or is capable of going to sea and I accept that. But, all the rest of the "safety items that the BSS does cover, are equally, if not more important when further away from land. I think that Independence has proven to be a safe AND seaworthy vessel, hopefully the BSS thinks so as well. As I say a test of the BSS test.

Well I'm not planning to be a BSS examiner for much longer (I'm not renewing my registration at the end of March).

I know of no situation in which the BSS would require a downgrade in safety in order to pass. Where there is a requirement to meet a certain standard, then in general the checks are written in such a way that there is a minimum specification that must be met (and must be verifiable), and any solution that meets or exceeds that specification is acceptable.

[quo vadis]

1 hour ago, teadaemon said:

Well I'm not planning to be a BSS examiner for much longer (I'm not renewing my registration at the end of March).

I know of no situation in which the BSS would require a downgrade in safety in order to pass. Where there is a requirement to meet a certain standard, then in general the checks are written in such a way that there is a minimum specification that must be met (and must be verifiable), and any solution that meets or exceeds that specification is acceptable.

Teadaemon you have actually said nothing ever thought about being an MP

[teadaemon]

10 hours ago, quo vadis said:

Teadaemon you have actually said nothing ever thought about being an MP

My explanation is general, because that's how the BSS checks are written. They don't prescribe a specific way of achieving compliance (although certain things may be specifically prohibited), they state what standard needs to be achieved, then leave it up to the boat owner (or the designer/builder) to work out how they want to do that.

No, I don't fancy being an MP, local politics is much more rewarding (I'm a town councillor). :)

[Smoggy]

The early bss was a lot more picky than what we have now, it seems to have settled down to a much more common sense approach which is unusual in this day and age, most things just get more regs added and tighter regs as they go on.

[BrundallNavy]

Nipper had her BSS today done by Alan May, she passed with flying colours and I can throughly recommend Alan knows his stuff and looks at things from a very practical point of view.

[JohnK]

Nipper had her BSS today done by Alan May, she passed with flying colours and I can throughly recommend Alan knows his stuff and looks at things from a very practical point of view.

Did Alan come to you or did you take Nipper to Maycraft?

[BrundallNavy]

Alan came to me.

[CambridgeCabby]

1 hour ago, brundallNavy said:

Nipper had her BSS today done by Alan May, she passed with flying colours and I can throughly recommend Alan knows his stuff and looks at things from a very practical point of view.

Could you pm me his contact details please ?

[TheQ]

I'm sorry Ricardo but a lot of boats were failed for having Hoses better than the standard, because they didn't have the relevant BS number on them, Including mine. Many boats had been fitted with flexible metal lifetime pipes to cookers and fridges and these had to be replaced with BS rubber hoses that need replacing every few years...

I also had to replace the air inlet pipe to the tank because it was to small, never mind with only a 1.5 engine and having been afloat for over thirty years it had been quite sufficient.

I also had to replace the fuel filter because it had a glass Bowl bottom.