BSS

[Poppy]

I wonder why it is so necessary to move the goalposts annually with this scheme?  

 

http://www.boatsafetyscheme.org/media/195630/summary%20of%20key%20ecp%20changes%20jan%202013%20final%201.0.pdf?

 

What really staggers me is that  checks on AC (mains) installations are only advisory, and not mandatory. If there is anything with a greater risk of death than the possible mix of 240 volts and water I'm not sure what it is! 

Poorly installed 12 v systems do carry a potential for fire, but mains have a far higher risk - the findings where inadequacies are identified should be MANDATORY!

[JawsOrca]

Graham this is 2013?..  I just had my exam and found it surprising that ventilation was advisory.. thankfully for us though as we didnt meet it although the examiner agreed we will just open the door when using the cooker!

 

CO detectors again should be mandatory really IMHO.

 

[BroadScot]

CO Detects were tried in the late 70's on some hire boats Alan.  They were though very tempremental as the alarm went off far too often for no apparent reason. I switched it off! My mum's Corgi was not a happy chappy at all with the racket!

 

 

Iain.

[JawsOrca]

Oh really Iain? We got a advisory on the BSC to fit a CO and smoke alarm the same on the insurance survey to? Both surveyors also voiced a strong recommendation. To be honest though a CO alarm has already saved our lives once so I will fit one.  I guess the news ones are a bit better

[ZimbiIV]

CO alarms should be a must if you have gas on board.

Smoke alarms also.

If a CO alarm sounds, wave it in the fresh air, if back in the cabin it sounds again get the H?LL out of it.

You can not smell smoke when asleep so alarm!

Co alarms should also be sealed so you cannot take the battery out.

Safety should not be a cost cutting exercise.

If your child/grandchild dies because you saved £1 is it worth it??????????????

Sorry to rant but I lost a good friend through him taking the battery out of his smoke alarm for disturbing his sleep.

PLEASE you spend thousands on your hobby but how much do you spend on your safety.

paul

[BroadScot]

The ones fitted in 1978 were installed when techo items like that were in their infancy. They basically did not work! I am all for safety equipement like that, I was was just passing comment, its not a new thing, just upgraded these days, to work now!

It was fitted on my hireboat Streamway from Richos.

 

 

Iain.

[Oddfellow]

There are plenty of problems with the BSS. Gas Safe tests and BSS Gas tests have different test times for starters (which makes a mockery of the procedure). Ventilation was originally 100% required and was subsequently downgraded to advisory after thousands of people cut holes in boats the first time round. 

 

240V mains advisories are a joke, as has been said. 

 

The BSS has always been a poorly executed test originally conceived by suits and practised by practical people who could see the problems at the sharp end. It's such a monster now that change is challenging (but at least it is consulted), but change is slow and cumbersome.

 

Given that shorepower and inverters were in existence at the outset of the BSS, it is surprising that it wasn't included in the test at the outset in 1997. OK, back then these things weren't common back then, but not being common shouldn't have prevented safety checks. 

 

I have a great deal of disrespect the the BSS. I applaud its concept but hate its execution from the outset as you could pilot a Barnes Prelude through some of the holes in it (no matter what the state of the tide was). 

[Guest]

I remember reading some where on a Broads forum that someone upgraded their CO alarm to one of the newer digital readout alarms and was shocked at the readings.

 

They'd always considered their boat had adequate ventilation and they were quite safety conscious about such things.

 

Yet after they'd fitted this new alarm, they were shocked to see how close the actual CO level was to being dangerous when they used their cooker.

 

After that, they always opened a window slightly as well when cooking.

 

I believe the boat had passed all the necessary BSS test requirements regarding ventilation too.

 

It just goes to show, even with a simple CO alarm, it can be getting quite close.....

[MauriceMynah]

Andy, I couldn't agree with you more!

I have said all along that the boat safety scheme should have been controlled by the insurance industry rather than the bunch of illiterate children that seem to have been given the task.

 

"One new mandatory check has been introduced concerning portable fuel tanks in inboard engine spaces"

 

If it had caused problems why hadn't such an obvious point been included in the first place?

If it had not caused problems then why include it now?

 

"Some editorial clarifications have been introduced"

 

Or "We found a less illiterate kid to replace one of the earlier ones"

 

 

;

[Paladin]

Andy, I couldn't agree with you more!

I have said all along that the boat safety scheme should have been controlled by the insurance industry rather than the bunch of illiterate children that seem to have been given the task.

 

"One new mandatory check has been introduced concerning portable fuel tanks in inboard engine spaces"

 

If it had caused problems why hadn't such an obvious point been included in the first place?

If it had not caused problems then why include it now?

 

"Some editorial clarifications have been introduced"

 

Or "We found a less illiterate kid to replace one of the earlier ones"

 

 

;

Why not simply email the BSS office and ask why the rule re portable fuel tanks has been changed bss.enquiries@boatsafetyscheme.org instead of making uncalled-for derogatory remarks. Then we could all learn something.

 

Elsewhere, I have found their communications manager, Rob@BSSOffice, very helpful with queries. I don't think he is a member of this forum, though. Hardly surprising.

[JennyMorgan]

I too have found 'Rob' to be very helpful. However, I do talk to boatyard owners, and a BSS inspector, and am aware of the lack of respect that the scheme has accrued over the years. Basically it started off on the wrong foot and has yet to get in step with the Broads. That it does not include the general hull condition of a boat never fails to amaze me either! Okay to sink & drown, just mustn't blow up and boil! Initially it was a hurried, ill thought out cut & paste job from the canals, hardly a good start.

 

Re the portable fuel tanks, a local supplier was telling me how to circumnavigate the rules, seems things might subsequently have been tightened up.

[MauriceMynah]

Derogatory? Yes. Uncalled for? Certainly not. Such comments should have been listened to at the outset. Listened to and acted upon. Either those who should have been making such comments at the time were silent, or they were not listened to. Either way, a failure in my book.

 

I don't ask the guy who runs the Circus if it's cruel to treat elephants in that way, so I'll not be asking the guy who runs the BSS if it was the right way to go about it.

 

I posed two questions regarding the new (note, 'new' not 'changed') rule about portable fuel tanks. Those questions still stand.

 

"I don't think he is a member of this forum, though. Hardly surprising."

 

I don't see this forum being any more confrontational than any of the others regarding the BSS, do you? Perhaps you might care to enlighten me.

[Guest]

....... That it does not include the general hull condition of a boat never fails to amaze me either! Okay to sink & drown, just mustn't blow up and boil!.........

My God Peter, be careful what you wish for !

 

The BSS is primarily focussed on fire, explosion and suffocation, faults that pose a serious immediate threat to the lives of the crew and other neighbouring craft and their crews.

 

If hull condition came into it as well, it would become even more arbitrary as to whether a boat should pass or not, and the then essential 4 yearly out of the water survey would be a considerable additional expense.

[Paladin]

I too have found 'Rob' to be very helpful. However, I do talk to boatyard owners, and a BSS inspector, and am aware of the lack of respect that the scheme has accrued over the years.

 

Derogatory? Yes. Uncalled for? Certainly not. Such comments should have been listened to at the outset. Listened to and acted upon. Either those who should have been making such comments at the time were silent, or they were not listened to. Either way, a failure in my book.

 

I don't ask the guy who runs the Circus if it's cruel to treat elephants in that way, so I'll not be asking the guy who runs the BSS if it was the right way to go about it.

 

I posed two questions regarding the new (note, 'new' not 'changed') rule about portable fuel tanks. Those questions still stand.

 

"I don't think he is a member of this forum, though. Hardly surprising."

 

I don't see this forum being any more confrontational than any of the others regarding the BSS, do you? Perhaps you might care to enlighten me.

 

I have no problem with the scheme being disrespected. As with the MoT test for road vehicles, the BSS certificate only indicates the condition of certain aspects of the boat at the time of the inspection. However, I draw the line at those trying to administer the scheme being gratutiously insulted and being called illiterate children. It costs nothing to be respectful and creates a better atmosphere for those reading the posts.

 

There may well be failings in the BSS system and it is right to highlight them. But the original questions were:

 

"If it had caused problems why hadn't such an obvious point been included in the first place?

If it had not caused problems then why include it now?"

 

Not "..if it was the right way to go about it".

 

Without knowing the reason(s) behind the change, it is not possible to judge whether the change was warranted. It may be that problems have arisen due to portable fuel tanks being used in the engine compartment, about which we know nothing. Boaters on other waterways might have been using this system, resulting in fires, injury, even death. We just don't know, so I don't see any problem with asking the BSS office what the answer is.

 

Enlighten you? Certainly. Go and do a search for Rob@BSSOffice. You'll find his posts helpful. You'll even learn the names of some of the "illiterate children", of whom you have such a low opinion. While the BSS might not get any more respect elsewhere than it does on here, I haven't found any posts about the BSS office staff quite as malignant. If you really cannot see how offensive your remarks are, I doubt I can enlighten you any further.

[Poppy]

Getting back to my original point - that it's a nonsense that A/C installations are only covered as 'advisories' it has been suggested that the Examiners would be unable to act in a stronger fashion unless they had an appropriate electrician's qualification.

 

Surely a way around that would be for owners of all craft so equipped to be required to produce a certificate of electrical safety for the boat, current at the time of inspection?

[ranworthbreeze]

Hello Poppy,

 

Be careful what you wish for and do not give them any idea's, the cost of BSS would pale into insignificance compared to an electrical safety inspection.

 

On Ranworth Breeze we conduct PAT testing on all of our appliances for the safety of all of my fellow owners.

 

Regards

Alan

[Poppy]

Wouldn't affect me - except for the confidence of knowing that the boat I'm moored next to is 'safe'. I thought that was the whole purpose of the scheme...

[Viking23]

When I spoke to the BSS regarding the RCDs if fitted in a boat, it would require that the examiner would require some expensive test equipment to measure the time and currents to test the trips.

Some thing that would make the test more complex, and require further training and cost.

Instead they opt for a visual inspection, to make sure that any exposed pins can never be live, and there is no way that the output of an inverter can be switched into an already live circuit, and vice versa.

I personally believe that fuel powered generators provide the bigest risk, as how many people will install a bank side earth, which could be a length of copper plated earth rod hammered into the ground.

Then there are issues with storage of fuel, ie petrol etc

[ExSurveyor]

I have the dreaded BSS at the end of the month. Changed extinguishers and gone to 2kg,

New digital carbon monoxide detector,

New smoke alarms,

240v checked and upgraded.

Checked all vents and gas locker drains,

As it is a previous hire boat and had an exam 4 years ago, I am hoping for a straight forward day.

What had changed in 4 years that might catch me out ?

[MBA Marine]

I have the dreaded BSS at the end of the month. Changed extinguishers and gone to 2kg,

New digital carbon monoxide detector,

New smoke alarms,

240v checked and upgraded.

Checked all vents and gas locker drains,

As it is a previous hire boat and had an exam 4 years ago, I am hoping for a straight forward day.

What had changed in 4 years that might catch me out ?

Not much has changed, if your gas system is still tight, burner flames good and it wasn't inspected by some examiner that didn't give a whatsit 4 years ago then you should be fine.

[Oddfellow]

Typical unexpected fail points are hoses.

 

All fuel hose must be ISO 7840 rated and short runs may not carry the appropraite printing and may prompt a failure.

Gas locker drain hoses must also be so rated and this is a not-uncommon failure. Corroding swaging of gas hoses to fittings will also prompt failure as well as any faded BSS labelling.

[Guest]

T....All fuel hose must be ISO 7840 rated and short runs may not carry the appropraite printing and may prompt a failure.......

 

Yes, I was caught out on that a few years ago.

 

I had to buy a metre of 50mm fuel hose to get the BS marking in the 150mm long piece needed !

 

A BSS examiner has since told me that a headed receipt from the supplier would have sufficed instead.

[Oddfellow]

Indeed, Strow. They should also accept your word that it's ISO rated unless there is clear evidence that it isn't.

[Poppy]

My boat failed on its first BSS inspection. Why? Because fuel hoses, although clearly marked 'Volvo Penta', whilst perfectly serviceable were not marked ISO 7840! 

 

Obviously the BSS mob know something that a multi national engine manufacturer doesn't!

[Oddfellow]

This may depend on when the engine was manufactured and some examiners will use intelligent discretion. 

 

Do you know for sure if a Volvo Penta hose of a given vintage is compliant? 

 

This is but one of the problems for the BSS.