Navigation Committee 1th Jan 2024

[Bytheriver]

I hope you have all seen the papers for Thursdays Nav Comm - ( ! hour probably needed) Some interesting topics)

https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/about-us/committees/navigation-committee/navigation-committee-11-january-2024

( Dont shoot the messenger)

[grendel]

I would have thought that to be complete the survey by the rangers should have included private boaters.

[dom]

I notice they're raising an issue with the 10% of experienced hirers not getting a trial run. Seems they're going to force yards to send someone out on a trial with hirers who've been boating for years - even those more experienced than the staff member doing the trial run. And they wonder why hire fleet operators don't like them

Quote

three locations on the Broads where “Bridge Pilotage” is provided to leisure vessels (hire craft).

I'm probably being really stupid, but where's location 3? Wroxham, PH, ?

[Tempest]

Every time I read the minutes it just comes across as another dictatorship with a single narrative (their own!)and not a balanced, open, honest, self examining and accountable organisation.

They really do need to take off the blinkers and engage better with the boating community and operators.

Reminds me of another organisation!

[Vaughan]

Very interesting letter from the BHBF.

In the c.e.o's report it says that members wanted to retain the extra seasonal rangers in the interest of public safety particularly in light of :

1/. The tragic accident in GYYS in 2020.

2/. The increase in paddle boarding.

3/. The increased risk of climate change.

I shall ignore 3 as this is now the blanket excuse for making any changes or spending any money.  What precisely can seasonal rangers do about the "risk" of climate change??

So we now need more rangers paid by boat river tolls to look after paddlers and canoes, many of whom pay no toll whatever except to their own associations.

And what difference would the presence of an extra ranger have made, to the accident in 2020?  Reading further into the report at 4:1, it seems they are being used to go around doing a survey to ask hirers whether they have had a trial run or not. 

It fact it turns out that 10% of hirers said they had not had a run - although they certainly would have had one if they had asked.  Considering that a decent boatyard, even these days, can look at around 30% repeat custom from loyal hirers, I would think 10% is perfectly normal.

By the way, it seems 59% of hirers had some sort of run and 10% didn't.  So what happened to the other 31%?  Are they saying they "don't know" whether they had a run or not?

Or is that how the BA do their figures?

[Mouldy]

53 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Very interesting letter from the BHBF.

In the c.e.o's report it says that members wanted to retain the extra seasonal rangers in the interest of public safety particularly in light of :

1/. The tragic accident in GYYS in 2020.

2/. The increase in paddle boarding.

3/. The increased risk of climate change.

I shall ignore 3 as this is now the blanket excuse for making any changes or spending any money.  What precisely can seasonal rangers do about the "risk" of climate change??

So we now need more rangers paid by boat river tolls to look after paddlers and canoes, many of whom pay no toll whatever except to their own associations.

And what difference would the presence of an extra ranger have made, to the accident in 2020?  Reading further into the report at 4:1, it seems they are being used to go around doing a survey to ask hirers whether they have had a trial run or not. 

It fact it turns out that 10% of hirers said they had not had a run - although they certainly would have had one if they had asked.  Considering that a decent boatyard, even these days, can look at around 30% repeat custom from loyal hirers, I would think 10% is perfectly normal.

By the way, it seems 59% of hirers had some sort of run and 10% didn't.  So what happened to the other 31%?  Are they saying they "don't know" whether they had a run or not?

Or is that how the BA do their figures?

Clearly following the lead of politicians - baffle the electorate with statistics and other bovine excrement in the hope that the majority don’t delve into the figures to research the truth.

[Vaughan]

2 hours ago, Vaughan said:

It fact it turns out that 10% of hirers said they had not had a run - although they certainly would have had one if they had asked.

Let's be quite clear about this :

Opting out of having a trial run is a positive and conscious refusal on the part of the customer.  It does not mean that the boatyard has not bothered with them or has not cared whether they can drive the boat.

We do not let a quarter of a million Pound's worth of boat go out on hire without a proper instruction unless we know the customer and we are sure of their experience.

Contrary to popular belief, we did not come down with the last shower of rain.

[dom]

2 hours ago, Vaughan said:

By the way, it seems 59% of hirers had some sort of run and 10% didn't.  So what happened to the other 31%? 

I'm assuming that the majority of the 31% probably had a handover trial run of less than 20 minutes - but there seems to be a major omission from either the questions or the BA presentation of the results. It could be that some had 45+ minutes?

The interpretation of the results also seems completely fatuous. If anything, I'd ignore the 10% obviously experienced hirers not getting a trial, and focus more on why there are 28% new hirers, but only 16% of trials taking 30+ minutes. It's stupid trying to teach the experienced to suck eggs, but new hirers are obviously going to be the highest risk group.

Do all hirers now get a handover sheet with a start/end time for the handover, or are all these figures based on hirer estimates? I'd expect new hirers to underestimate the length of the handover if it's based on recollection.

As a marketer, I find the 28% first time hirer figure disconcerting. Given that a substantial percentage of customers won't be retained, I'd have expected that figure to be a lot higher. Suggests to me that maybe yards need to be doing more to reach new target markets - which probably means decent investment in digital marketing these days.

 

 

 

[Vaughan]

34 minutes ago, dom said:

As a marketer, I find the 28% first time hirer figure disconcerting. Given that a substantial percentage of customers won't be retained, I'd have expected that figure to be a lot higher. Suggests to me that maybe yards need to be doing more to reach new target markets - which probably means decent investment in digital marketing these days.

I quite agree with you, but perhaps this is a different subject, in that we are talking about the BA's perception that they need more rangers, to make sure that hirers have had a proper introduction to what has always been, an adventure and activity holiday.  Half the fun of hiring a Broads cruiser, is learning how to drive it!  Please don't let us forget that.

It is a bit like "letting the fledglings fly the nest".

[Mouldy]

49 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

I quite agree with you, but perhaps this is a different subject, in that we are talking about the BA's perception that they need more rangers, to make sure that hirers have had a proper introduction to what has always been, an adventure and activity holiday.  Half the fun of hiring a Broads cruiser, is learning how to drive it!  Please don't let us forget that.

It is a bit like "letting the fledglings fly the nest".

Is that not similar to learning to drive after you’ve passed your test?  What you are taught can never prepare you for every eventuality.  The process of properly learning actually starts when there is no one beside you to tell you what to do.

[Bytheriver]

BA and all of those mentioned in the MIAB Report, whatever its shortcomings, are aware it is a document agreed by all party's before publication  so have to be minded of the consequences should there be a similar incident in the future  Authority Members have to consider this when voting as they are ultimately responsible in law so would have to consider line by line what they are prepared to agree to especially if going against officer recommendations

[CeePee1952]

As a regular hirer with HW, we no longer have a trial run, whether it be on a 35' or 44' boat (which are the two sizes we hire depending whether we are on our own or with friends or family). We know most of the guys who are involved with the instruction side of the handover and they know I have enough experience in handling their craft . When approached by a ranger to do their survey, I always reply to the question regarding handover/trial run with a positive yes - HW have every faith in me helming one of their boats so I won't give the BA/ rangers any reason to judge them! Totally agree with first time or infrequent hirers having a trial run (we had ours with HW the first and second time we hired with them).

Chris

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, Bytheriver said:

BA and all of those mentioned in the MIAB Report, whatever its shortcomings, are aware it is a document agreed by all party's before publication  so have to be minded of the consequences should there be a similar incident in the future 

Except that the BA decided for themselves to increase the number of rangers long before the report was published. The report itself didn't actually tell them to do anything.

I repeat what I have said in other threads : 

Since 2020 there has not been a "similar incident in future" and I don't know of anything beforehand either.  It was a one-off accident and I cannot see, in my job experience, how an increase in rangers patrolling would have prevented it - or would have any effect whatever in preventing a hypothetical repitition.

 

[dom]

41 minutes ago, CeePee1952 said:

When approached by a ranger to do their survey, I always reply to the question regarding handover/trial run with a positive yes - HW have every faith in me helming one of their boats so I won't give the BA/ rangers any reason to judge them!

The trouble is, they seem to be stating that the trial run should be mandatory, which really leaves the yard vulnerable if they choose to let you go on your way without one.

I think someone ought to be challenging why the BA are using tollpayer funded resources to carry out these surveys, taking rangers away from other duties (ironically, including looking out for safety hazards or risk to life).

Every principal hirer will have an email address these days. It's trivial to set up a web survey form. Even with branding, and hosting on a subdomain off BA's site, it'd be less than a day's work for a developer to set up, so probably less than £1k or so cost. A form could be set up once and principal hirers could be emailed a few days or weeks after taking a boat out. Rather than surveying a few random hirers who the rangers happen to collar, you'd be requesting feedback from 100% of hirers. Done properly, it's a set up and forget system and would remove all burden from the rangers. This could increase ranger time spent working productively, and possibly even allow for a reduction in ranger numbers. It also means hirers could respond in their free time at home, rather than disturbing them when they're on holiday.

 

[grendel]

of course it is quite possible that the person that was asked did not get a trial run, most yards now will just take the skipper of the boat out on the trial run while the rest of the crew remain ashore (probably they will quote covid regulations as a reason for this) so if the crew member questioned is not the skipper they may well say they didnt get a trial run, most yards are insisting on the trial run, no opt out, Barnes certainly did last october, despite many of the skippers and crew having way more experience than those showing them how to do it (we had 3 fully experienced skippers just aboard Broad Ambition)

[grendel]

31 minutes ago, dom said:

Every principal hirer will have an email address these days

ah, but unless there is a breach of the bylaws hire yards should not be giving out hirers contact details as that would be a breach of GDPR. unless the broads authority made the hire companies responsible for issuing the surveys.

[floydraser]

29 minutes ago, dom said:

The trouble is, they seem to be stating that the trial run should be mandatory, which really leaves the yard vulnerable if they choose to let you go on your way without one.

I think someone ought to be challenging why the BA are using tollpayer funded resources to carry out these surveys, taking rangers away from other duties (ironically, including looking out for safety hazards or risk to life).

Every principal hirer will have an email address these days. It's trivial to set up a web survey form. Even with branding, and hosting on a subdomain off BA's site, it'd be less than a day's work for a developer to set up, so probably less than £1k or so cost. A form could be set up once and principal hirers could be emailed a few days or weeks after taking a boat out. Rather than surveying a few random hirers who the rangers happen to collar, you'd be requesting feedback from 100% of hirers. Done properly, it's a set up and forget system and would remove all burden from the rangers. This could increase ranger time spent working productively, and possibly even allow for a reduction in ranger numbers. It also means hirers could respond in their free time at home, rather than disturbing them when they're on holiday.

 

All correct but if they did that the results would be so accurate that there would be little scope to be creative with the interpretation. The way the BA operate has been challenged; is there any sign of a reply to that letter yet?

[grendel]

I still remember my first trial run at Marthams (a good few years back) I was asked had I hired a boat before (yes once) and did I have any experience- well I had helmed Broad Ambition once too, at which point they showed me how to start the engine, stepped off and pushed me off the quay heading and said- we will meet you at the bridge- so you could say the trial run was them watching from the bridge while you came downriver, and how you handled the mooring while they came aboard.

[dom]

1 hour ago, grendel said:

unless the broads authority made the hire companies responsible for issuing the surveys.

That was really what I was thinking. Most yards probably have a modern email marketing platform of some description anyway. Most of these can be set to send an email automatically a certain amount of time after a particular date or event - so the yard would just need to create a rule to send an email invite to complete the survey a week after hire date or similar.

[Broads01]

Both Barnes and Richardsons insisted I had a trial run in 2023, where previously they hadn't done so. I can only assume this was due to a directive following the 2020 tragedy. Interestingly Bridgecraft didn't insist on it but this may have been to my previous experience hiring from them recently. I have no problem with the trial run being requested because there's no reason why a hire operator should take a hirer's claims of prior experience at face value.

[Wussername]

The Ranger (BA), the Trial Run Instructor (Boat Yard). 

Some walk the walk. Some talk the talk.

Very few do both. Who is qualified to have the accreditation of delivering the necessary , and may I add a consistent, defined, constructive, recognised and disciplined induction to the so called Trial Run.    

 

[dom]

8 minutes ago, Broads01 said:

I have no problem with the trial run being requested because there's no reason why a hire operator should take a hirer's claims of prior experience at face value.

Fair comment, but if you hired from the same yard year in, year out, should they still have to insist on a trial run every time? Even when they know and recognise you and recall how often you've hired? BA's own survey results show that 72% of hirers are returning for the second or more time, so this will be a fairly common scenario.

[Wussername]

2 minutes ago, dom said:

  

Fair comment, but if you hired from the same yard year in, year out, should they still have to insist on a trial run every time? Even when they know and recognise you and recall how often you've hired?

Why not?

It is the trial run driver's responsibility to make that decision. I have. On very rare occasions, I have refused to sign off a trial run. 

I do not wish to go into any detail and neither will I. 

However, suffice to say  that I have had to make a decision in certain instances. The last holiday on the Broads in particular.

The last holiday. 

[YnysMon]

On page 9 of the Navigation Committee papers (the last of the documents listed), it says they are planning to dredge a ‘nominal channel’ across  Bargate Broad and dredge the dykes leading to it, installing a series of buoys to mark the channel.

Does that mean that Bargate will effectively turn into a Rockland Broad over time so that mudweighting is no longer possible? 

[ExSurveyor]

If that is the case then not only are we losing fixed 24 hour moorings on the Southern side but also a very popular area for mud weighting.