The dreaded BSS

[Palmtree]

It looks like the standard ISO 7840 for fuel hoses is under review at the moment, so let's hope the hoses we fit now will still be ok for the next BSS.

http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catal ... mber=59437

Strowager - not only twin stainless clips fitted, but Kitemarked to BS5315:1991 as well......

Ian

[teadaemon]

I agree, Volvo Penta original parts probably do comply with the relevant standards, however unless they have the appropriate information written on them, or I see something in writing from Volvo Penta telling me that they definitely comply, I'm not allowed by the BSS to assume that they do. After all, I can't really take one engine manufacturer on trust and not trust another, even if the other is some fly by night outfit from China that I've never heard of before.

[Guest]

I agree, Volvo Penta original parts probably do comply with the relevant standards, however unless they have the appropriate information written on them, or I see something in writing from Volvo Penta telling me that they definitely comply, I'm not allowed by the BSS to assume that they do. After all, I can't really take one engine manufacturer on trust and not trust another, even if the other is some fly by night outfit from China that I've never heard of before.

I'm not disagreeing with that constraint on testers TD, just saying that it's yet another clear example where some of the BSS stipulations are clearly wrong.

[teadaemon]

I'm not disagreeing with that constraint on testers TD, just saying that it's yet another clear example where some of the BSS stipulations are clearly wrong.

Why are they wrong?

[Guest]

Why are they wrong?

In this instance, by not conceding that one of the World's foremost marine engine manufacturer's build materials could be satisfactory, even though they may sometimes pre-date ISO and BS marking.

As people have already remarked on this thread, they have been compelled to replace apparently superior OEM parts with lesser "marked" aftermarket replacements.

There could easily have been a caveat in the BSS rules, to avoid some owners having to sometimes downgrade their equipment to obtain the latest approval markings for parts that predate those tests but were of high enough quality to pass.

[mbird]

I agree in principle, but if the OEM parts are unmarked, how is the BSS tester supposed to be able to prove that the parts are indeed OEM and that some daft owner hasn't simply replaced their fuel pipes with a bit of rubber tubing from the market? I can't see how the BSS can be at fault for needing proof that the materials used are up to spec given the amount of bodge quality DIY that exists on boats.

[Guest]

I agree in principle, but if the OEM parts are unmarked, how is the BSS tester supposed to be able to prove that the parts are indeed OEM and that some daft owner hasn't simply replaced their fuel pipes with a bit of rubber tubing from the market? I can't see how the BSS can be at fault for needing proof that the materials used are up to spec given the amount of bodge quality DIY that exists on boats.

Yes, agreed, but in many cases the high quality of the OEM is quite apparent, like armouring.

[Hockham Admiral]

We had a brand new Antares 760 a few years ago and it also failed its BSS because as well as the fuel tubing the flexible gas tubing also wasn't marked....

Surely common sense should prevail?

[mbird]

Yes, agreed, but in many cases the high quality of the OEM is quite apparent, like armouring.

I can't say I've ever seen armoured fuel lines on boats, certainly not on the three I've owned. It would make life a lot easier if boat manufacturers were to consider things like the BSS at the build stage though! It seems crazy to me that a brand new sea-going boat costing hundreds of thousands of pounds can fail a simple safety check like the BSS.

[MBA Marine]

I can't say I've ever seen armoured fuel lines on boats, certainly not on the three I've owned. It would make life a lot easier if boat manufacturers were to consider things like the BSS at the build stage though! It seems crazy to me that a brand new sea-going boat costing hundreds of thousands of pounds can fail a simple safety check like the BSS.

New Uk built boats almost always have the right hoses, usual failings for new uk boats will be when people want to use a boat on inland waterway that was built for sea going, then issues with plastic drains and glass/plastic bowls on the fuel filters often occur, ocean going boaters like to be able to see if there is water building up in the filter bowl. boats that people bring over from overseas, now they have tend to have a lot of issues gas storage/drains, test points. Fuel hoses, taps, and filters.

[Guest]

Yes, that was another BSS stipulation that seemed a retrograde step.

One of my past boats had a CAV Marine primary diesel filter/water separator, and I had two interchangeable bowls for it, ally and glass.

To comply with inland BSS rules I always had to put the ally one on, so couldn't then see water build up.

The glass one was over a quarter of an inch thick, and made from a sort of pyrex, so very sturdy and fire resistant.

I would have that that in the event of an engine room fire the thin ally one would melt long before the glass one failed....

[seaboater]

Well there we go with inconsistency then. Mine passed with two glass bowl filters.

I found the whole thing absolutely maddening at the time as it cost me a lot of money having new (inferior) fuel lines, hatches cut in the sides so the breather pipe could be inspected, modifications to the gas system and so on, and so on. None of these deemed necessary by one of the foremost quality boatbuilders in the uk.

I have no problem with there being a BSS, I'd just like it to be both sensible and consistent.

[ZimbiIV]

Well, I have booked a member to do the BSS in May, as nothing has changed ( unless by the previous owner ) hopefully, everything crossed, a pass. The new regs do worry thou'. MOT's do seem to be better regulated.

paul

[MBA Marine]

Well there we go with inconsistency then. Mine passed with two glass bowl filters.

I found the whole thing absolutely maddening at the time as it cost me a lot of money having new (inferior) fuel lines, hatches cut in the sides so the breather pipe could be inspected, modifications to the gas system and so on, and so on. None of these deemed necessary by one of the foremost quality boatbuilders in the uk.

I have no problem with there being a BSS, I'd just like it to be both sensible and consistent.

The BSS is pretty straight forward I cant say I deal with many examiners so cannot comment to much with inconsistency between them. re the glass bowls it is my understanding that they are ok if they are not within the engine space, but that is from memory i have not just looked it up.

I will take a pic and post over the weekend to show you all, but today I removed (at great discomfort and pain) a fuel filler pipe on a petrol boat built in the USA in the late 80's the hose was not ISO7840 and the rubber was crisp, cracked and falling apart. a firm grasp and twist to try and remove it from the spigot and the pipe was in in two! this pipe is black with a red stripe and at a glance looked correct, but well done Tim Waters for looking closely enough to see the condition and that it was a substandard grade.

There is very little with the BSS that I disagree with (the glass bowl business is one that I do) most makes sense and if it wasnt for the fact that it would be too difficult for examiners to examine it should be a lot tougher with checks to wires, fusing/breaker ratings. fighting against the BSS is pointless its here and for a good reason.

[seaboater]

MBA Marine - I didn't say I was fighting against it, I merely ask for it to be constituted with common sense and consistency.

[Jim]

From my BSS status report following our recent inspection:- 

 

"2.3.5  The vent pipe needs to be changed to ISO 7840 or equivalent" 

 

I went over to our boat yesterday, removed the access covers which allow inspection of said hose, and guess what? .  The vent pipe is clearly marked ISO 7840 

[teadaemon]

Jim, were you present for the BSS examination?

 

You obviously knew about the cover allowing inspection of the vent pipe, did the examiner?

 

I'll admit that on at least one occasion, I've marked a pipe down as non-compliant because I couldn't see any markings on it when they were required (I checked along the whole length, and even used a mirror to try to see the back where I couldn't fit my head). In the end, the markings were found, but only after freeing one end of the pipe, allowing it to be twisted around.

 

If an examiner can't see the markings on a pipe, then they can't just guess or assume that it's compliant.

[Jim]

With the benefit of hindsight, I should have been there but I expected our Marinas own examiner to do the test (they don't have one any more).  To be honest, it is quite obvious to identify why the inspection hatches are where they are and also what they would allow an inspector to see. They are pretty standard items on boats and the insert is easily unscrewed to allow access.  

 

I removed all the inspection hatch covers yesterday prior to the retest which should help.  Like many other owners, I feel a bit aggrieved that having passed the BSS in 2005, the next examiner failed her in 2009 and even after alterations, we have just failed again.  In our case, it wasn't possible to retain the original examiner due to retirements etc and as many have said here, it is down to interpretation of the regs. 

 

 

I know you inspectors can't be expected to pull owners boats to pieces to check the relevant items but as a responsible owner, I would be quite happy to know that the inspection was thorough and all was safe. 

[Oddfellow]

I agree. It's pretty vital that you're present for BSS tests to deal with situations like this as the whole fail as a precaution because the examiner can't see something is a waste of everyone's time and will be frustrating for all as well. Might be costly too as there may be a re-exam charge.

[teadaemon]

Possibly the worst question I ever get asked as an examiner is 'it passed four years ago, why has it failed this time?' Especially when I know that it isn't because the checks have changed (as they did at the beginning of this year for private boats), or because something has deteriorated over time. Realistically, as examiners are human, they're not going to get everything right 100% of the time, though that is the standard we should be aiming for. I know from talking to other examiners that they're been in the situation of re-examining the same boat four years later, and spotted things that they missed on the first examination.

 

I know some examiners have prepared information for owners on what needs to be seen during an examination, when I get the chance I'm planning to write something like that myself, and would be happy to copy it to this forum. Basically it's the boat owner's responsibility to prepare the boat for examination, as it's the boat owner who's most likely to know where all the access panels, etc are. If I'm doing an examination without the owner present (or if the owner doesn't know their boat very well, which might be the case if they've only just bought it), then I can spend ages looking for inspection panels, emptying lockers to look for cable or pipe runs, taking up deck boards to check for bilge pumps and wiring in the bilges, etc.

[Oddfellow]

Armoured hoses are quite normal, except today they are commonly sheived in yellow plastic and appropraitely marked.

 

Many BSS points are utterly ridiculous.

 

The inspection of 240v systems is laughable as is the gas. 

[Mowjo]

While on the subject of shorepower,  I was checking mine out this weekend because I was thinking of adding an extra socket, but whilst in the fusebox I notice that I have a 40amp and a 32amp MCB fitted, I'm no expert but these seem wrong to me and I think it should have two 16amp ones, as I thought the shorepower supply is usualy 16 and 32amp, anyone got any info on what MCB's should be fitted please,,, 

 

Frank,,,,

[Oddfellow]

It's unusual for shorepower to be 32amp. 16amp is the norm - indeed 32amp plugs and sockets are a different size to 16amp/ Therefore, there's no point in having any breakers over 16amp as they won't protect the wiring in the case of an overload.

[MBA Marine]

While on the subject of shorepower,  I was checking mine out this weekend because I was thinking of adding an extra socket, but whilst in the fusebox I notice that I have a 40amp and a 32amp MCB fitted, I'm no expert but these seem wrong to me and I think it should have two 16amp ones, as I thought the shorepower supply is usualy 16 and 32amp, anyone got any info on what MCB's should be fitted please,,, 

 

Frank,,,,

either fitted by someone who knows a bit but not enough(these people are always a problem) a or a unit that was removed from someones  shed/garage maybe both. is the wiring domestic flat twin and earth? this is usually the best way to spot a DIY job.

[Guest]

either fitted by someone who knows a bit but not enough(these people are always a problem) a or a unit that was removed from someones  shed/garage maybe both. is the wiring domestic flat twin and earth? this is usually the best way to spot a DIY job.

 

Yes, not likely to be a professional fit, though most DIY'ers are aware of the regs and would fit the correct rating MCBs and stranded 3 core flex cable.

 

It does sound like a re-use of a consumer unit originally destined for a garage or shed, the 32 amp being for a ring main, and God knows what the 40 amp was intended for, not many cookers in garages !!