Lake District National Park declined to adopt Boat Safety Scheme

[Poppy]

http://www.ybw.com/news-from-yachting-boating-world/lake-district-boat-safety-scheme-not-comprehensive-17485

"Mark Eccles, Head of Park Management for the Lake District, said the authority believed education was the best means of ensuring boater safety."

 

Oh for such an enlightened view from our (NOT A ) National park Authority !
 

 

[ranworthbreeze]

Ensuring boat safety in the Lake district is a very easy task, all boats have to be craned in or the smaller boats can use a slipway (these are few and far between) if a BSS is not in force then they could be refused entry onto the lakes.

This should be adopted IMHO two deaths a few years ago surely justify the adoption.

Regards

Alan

[JawsOrca]

I'm not sure I agree that's a wise choice. Although the BSC at times is downright stupid (as admitted by our marine surveyor) I'm sure it save's lives which has to be a good thing. Although yes I believe the BSC wouldn't have saved the lives from this incident (as the genset was in the engine room, CO alarms and ventilation are both recommendations), it may still have made the owners think and started a discussion which indirectly may have saved lives. 

 

[Poppy]

Never can and never will be able to deal with stupidity !  

" Eteson, according to the court’s ruling, was a registered and experienced Gas Safe installer. He fabricated an exhaust system for the generator and used the generator to power a fan heater in the passenger quarters while he, Webster and her daughter slept. The generator was not secured or anchored to the floor and joints in the exhaust pipework were poorly fabricated. The temperatures generated caused the pipework to fail as soft soldered joints melted,"

I've no doubt there are craft on the Broads with a valid BSS ticket which since it was issued, have been 'modified'
 

[Poppy]

12 minutes ago, ranworthbreeze said:

Ensuring boat safety in the Lake district is a very easy task, all boats have to be craned in or the smaller boats can use a slipway (these are few and far between) if a BSS is not in force then they could be refused entry onto the lakes.

This should be adopted IMHO two deaths a few years ago surely justify the adoption.

Regards

Alan

And the '28 day' rule?  I doubt you could ever get rid of that!

[Guest]

I agree that the Lake District's choice to not enforce the BSS is not a sensible one for the boat owners up there.

As well as protecting people from their own dangerous gas, fuel, and electric "installations", the BSS protects well maintained neighboring boats too, like yours and mine.

It's quite reassuring here that any boats moored in close proximity are less likely to explode or burst into flames.

The BSS, although ambiguous on certain points, is now largely common sense safety, and the four-yearly renewal period is less onerous for updates than car's annual MOT's.

The tragic fatal incident that Poppy has related shows just how stupid even qualified professionals can be.

[ExUserGone]

I'm never up for more and more regulations but this is probably a dumb move on their part, the best education comes from a bss examiner pointing out issues, it's not that big an expense when boating is concerned.

[JennyMorgan]

The obvious question should have been asked before inflicting the BSS on the Broads, is it suitable for the Broads and Broads boats? As the answer would probably have been 'no' then the industry could have come together and got things right, right from the start. Including hull & skin fitting integrity, in my opinion, would have been a wise move, might have helped reduce the number of sinkings.

[ChrisB]

The problem with the scheme is it is like an MOT, condition at a moment in time.

We must have all seen the pre-inspection preparation, I certainly have. Tailgate open seats down to accommodate the second outboard tank, the spare gas bottle that does not fit in the locker, the portable gas heater, the generator with its built in petrol tank and the tender's outboard stowed under the cockpit sole with it's tank not forgetting the gas bbq.

And yes why is a boat safe for it's first 28 days on the water? Don't get that one especially if it has been bounced about on a trailer for a couple of hundred miles.

I am not saying it is a bad thing but it needs renaming along the lines of mechanical, gas and electrical install test. Otherwise it indicates a boat is safe and seaworthy which is just not the case.

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

The obvious question should have been asked before inflicting the BSS on the Broads, is it suitable for the Broads and Broads boats? As the answer would probably have been 'no' then the industry could have come together and got things right, right from the start. Including hull & skin fitting integrity, in my opinion, would have been a wise move, might have helped reduce the number of sinkings.

"Broads & Broads Boats" Peter ? How do they have different suitability ?

Even the relatively few traditional wood construction Broads craft now contain Gas, Fuel, and Electrical systems that are just as hazardous if wrongly installed as in any other type of boat anywhere else in the UK.

Added to that, the bulk of Broads craft are now of modern GRP construction, no different from boats on the Thames, the Fens and elsewhere in UK inland waters..

The BSS has a similar function as car MOTs, that is to say, not initial construction, but to ensure safe standards during their life, and prevent alterations or deteriorations that may make them unsafe.

Lastly, skin fittings and hull integrity play no part in the BSS, nor hull condition.

The BSS has always focused on direct personal safety, eg fire, electrocution, suffocation, etc..  

If people want to know if a boat is structurally safe, then they need a full survey instead. 

We should be thankful that structural safety is not enforced in the BSS to an pre-ordained  specific standard, that would drive most woodies off the river, I fear.

[JennyMorgan]

Yes, Strow, Broads & Broads boats, made of wood or GRP, not canal boats made of box section iron or steel. As has been wisely suggested, in my opinion, the BSS 'needs renaming along the lines of mechanical, gas and electrical install test. Otherwise it indicates a boat is safe and seaworthy which is just not the case.'

As for hulls and skin fittings, don't you think that a boat that floats rather than sinks is safer?

Please don't think that I'm criticising the principle of maintaining boat standards, I'm not, but it was rushed legislation. At the time of its introduction I was involved with the industry so was well aware of what various yards thought of the BSS.

 

[BroadScot]

4 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

At the time of its introduction I was involved with the industry so was well aware of what various yards thought of the BSS.

Aye JM, and know doubt unprintable on here!

Iain

[Guest]

Now that there are over ten times as many private craft as hire craft,(even though some are "ex-hire"), the type of craft used on the Broads, Fens, and Thames are now identical, with the same engines, electrical, and gas equipment.

The Broads delayed adoption of the BSS for many years after it was introduced elsewhere in the UK.

In fact it wasn't until the second, extensively moderated BSS UK test standards that the BA introduced it here.

As for the hire yards now, I would guess that they would deplore the BSS being extended into hull integrity tests.

They undoubtedly can maintain their hire craft in a structurally "seaworthy" state without being forced to pay for a regular hull survey for a piece of paper.

[JennyMorgan]

The yards obviously can, but following the recent sinking at Norwich Yacht Station it does suggest that some private owners can't. As for those bits of paper, the hire yards have to have them for engines and installations, which they can maintain perfectly adequately, so why not hulls? Okay, exclude hire craft, but every year there are reports of private boats sinking, thankfully whilst no one has been asleep on-board.

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Okay, exclude hire craft, but every year there are reports of private boats sinking, thankfully whilst no one has been asleep on-board.

Surprisingly few on the Broads though Peter.

Maybe because most  private boats should have insurance now, in accordance with their owner's declaration when applying for a toll, which then frequently requires proof of  a hull survey every five years.

 

[JennyMorgan]

Just curious, Strow, but the BA only require 3rd party insurance, does that require a hull survey? I'm fully insured so do have to provide a survey on a timber boat but none has been demanded for a grp one. The guy who does our BSS has more than once expressed his opinion that hull integrity should be included.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Just curious, Strow, but the BA only require 3rd party insurance, does that require a hull survey? I'm fully insured so do have to provide a survey on a timber boat but none has been demanded for a grp one. The guy who does our BSS has more than once expressed his opinion that hull integrity should be included.

You have a point Peter, I doubt if third party insurance does require a hull survey, since it only pays out for damage to other craft.

Again though, I bet with the high cost of most cabin craft on the Broads, that the owners do have comprehensive insurance, I know I always have, (even before the toll required it).

Yes, I should imagine that most BSS examiners would feel that an out of the water hull integrity check  should be included, because the test fee and their profit would rise exponentially !!

[JennyMorgan]

Just now, Strowager said:

You have a point Peter, I doubt if third party insurance does require a hull survey, since it only pays out for damage to other craft.

Again though, I bet with the high cost of most cabin craft on the Broads, that the owners do have comprehensive insurance, I know I always have, (even before the toll required it).

Yes, I should imagine that most BSS examiners would feel that an out of the water hull integrity check  should be included, because the test fee and their profit would rise exponentially !!

Those sunken wrecks that we do see around the Broads probably, if they are actually insured, have the cheapest available policies.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Those sunken wrecks that we do see around the Broads probably, if they are actually insured, have the cheapest available policies.

An unfortunate consequence of some boat owners with no sense of their responsibility to anyone else Peter.

Abandoning a dilapidated craft when they no longer maintain it or want it, leaving the other toll payers to foot the bill to raise and dispose of the wreck.

A much more culpable cause of sinking than hull surveys being absent from the BSS test.......

[Poppy]

9 hours ago, Strowager said:

You have a point Peter, I doubt if third party insurance does require a hull survey, since it only pays out for damage to other craft.

Again though, I bet with the high cost of most cabin craft on the Broads, that the owners do have comprehensive insurance, I know I always have, (even before the toll required it).

Yes, I should imagine that most BSS examiners would feel that an out of the water hull integrity check  should be included, because the test fee and their profit would rise exponentially !!

The toll payer has only to have third party insurance - and even then is only required to sign a declaration that " there is in force a policy of insurance" etc

More to be found on your toll demand.

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Poppy said:

The toll payer has only to have third party insurance - and even then is only required to sign a declaration that " there is in force a policy of insurance" etc

More to be found on your toll demand.

Yes Poppy my mistake, as Peter quite rightly pointed out a few posts back.

As I replied there though, I would bet that most cabin craft on the Broads have comprehensive insurance anyway, because of the relatively high value for most people, and the threat of theft or break ins.

I know I've always had comprehensive on all of my moored craft, I can't take the risk of losing so much money (to me).

[ExUserGone]

How many have actually died on a sinking boat on uk inland waters? The bss was never about sunken wrecks but keeping people alive, many were killed or injured on burning and exploding boats and from CO poisioning before the bss came in so I think it's about right these days, a lot of the advisory items point out the shortcomings to private owners so still has the desired effect.

Most boats sink when left alone an uninhabited.

[Springsong]

The thing I don't understand about the BSS is the fact that it totally ignores 240v installation. There is absolutely no legislation for it at all.

[Poppy]

4 minutes ago, springsong said:

The thing I don't understand about the BSS is the fact that it totally ignores 240v installation. There is absolutely no legislation for it at all.

Absolutely!!

However it would appear  that to include 'mains' in the inspection would require examiners to be qualified at the very least  to C&G 'Inspection and Testing' level.

"City & Guilds 2392 Course Content:

This 2392 course covers both practical hands on skills as well as theory teaching. It is taught in a dual purpose classroom which allows you to put in to practice the the skills as and when you learn them. The course covers:

Preparation for initial inspection and testing

Electrical Inspection  & Testing

Training in the use of multi function testing meters

Safe isolation procedures and equipment

Inspection & testing documentation

Continuity of Protective Conductors

Continuity of Ring final circuit conductors

Insulation Resistance

Protection by SELV

Polarity

Earth Electrode resistance

Earth fault loop impedance

RCD testing

Prospective fault current

Verification of volt drop

The above consist of both practical workshop and theoretical classroom electrical training."

Periodic refreshers will be required........ Seemed it wasn't a popular idea.....

[BroadScot]

8 minutes ago, Poppy said:

Absolutely!!

However it would appear  that to include 'mains' in the inspection would require examiners to be qualified at the very least  to C&G 'Inspection and Testing' level.

"City & Guilds 2392 Course Content:

This 2392 course covers both practical hands on skills as well as theory teaching. It is taught in a dual purpose classroom which allows you to put in to practice the the skills as and when you learn them. The course covers:

Preparation for initial inspection and testing

Electrical Inspection  & Testing

Training in the use of multi function testing meters

Safe isolation procedures and equipment

Inspection & testing documentation

Continuity of Protective Conductors

Continuity of Ring final circuit conductors

Insulation Resistance

Protection by SELV

Polarity

Earth Electrode resistance

Earth fault loop impedance

RCD testing

Prospective fault current

Verification of volt drop

The above consist of both practical workshop and theoretical classroom electrical training."

Periodic refreshers will be required........ Seemed it wasn't a popular idea.....

Sorry Poppy i"ve retired, but I am sure Alan, Ranworth B would gladly help 

Iain