MCA consultation document

[smallribber]

If you do you own maintenance and don’t want the cost of boating to rocket even more than it is already

Respond to the consultation document seeking to snarl us all up in paperwork and cost in the name of Health and Safety

[boristhebold]

it would help if you stated which consultation document you are referring to, do you have a link ?

[boristhebold]

it it this one ?
https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...-safety-at-sea

[Ferryman]

Most of that is fairly reasonable but I’m not sure about the emergency steering. If I have to carry a tiller for my 200 Verado there may be some weird redesign needed.
I do think that some regulation is needed in this country though - there are way too many clueless people on the water. Maybe at least an icc.

[boristhebold]

I cant see anything as mandatory for leisure boaters so it should not make any difference. They are all guidance docs or am I wrong.

Reading through them all they are all a tad pointless in my opinion as only briefly mention various subjects, they could be far longer and in more detail so I don't know why they just remain almost like a quick snapshot.

Some of the guidance will just confuse and some does not make sense at all, requirement to carry maintanance and service manuals onboard for example, first point is that would be rather alot of paperwork, which will get wet and ruined. Another one about modifications to your boat and complying with certification etc etc, they dont state what sort of modification, would changing a nav light position or type be a modification for example.


I don't know why they have bothered at all to be honust as far better and more comprehensive guidance can be found in RYA and other publications and books and within training courses.

It kind of feels like something some young employees of the MCA have produced just to do something.

If the idea is to save lives and prevent accidents they would be better with publishing advice about training and courses, or making wearing a kill cord mandatory or wearing a life jacket.

So in summary cant see these as adding much to the leisure boaters world, there are better guidance materials out there and you cant beat training and experience.Plus these may confuse people.

[willk]

Originally Posted by boristhebold

it would help if you stated which consultation document you are referring to, do you have a link ?

He's pished again - dear oh dear!

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by willk

He's pished again - dear oh dear!

Or trolling. I thought he’d had his legs slapped for that already[emoji848]

Forward looking sonar
http://www.rib.net/forum/showthread.php?p=797828

Originally Posted by Bigplumbs

Your little RC clic are very easy to catch with very simple bait

[Bern Hanreck]

Please could you pair keep " on topic " ? TIA Bern

[Poly]

Originally Posted by boristhebold

I cant see anything as mandatory for leisure boaters so it should not make any difference. They are all guidance docs or am I wrong.

Reading through them all they are all a tad pointless in my opinion as only briefly mention various subjects, they could be far longer and in more detail so I don't know why they just remain almost like a quick snapshot.
.

The covering page says, “The guidance contained within this collection of MGNs is not looking to amend or change the text of the applicable regulations, but rather provide further detail on the intent of the regulation.” So I don’t believe they are applicable directly to leisure use. However, given that there have been fatalities on commercial vessels where there have been repairs or modifications I can see why they feel it’s necessary to clarify some points. Especially as they haven’t managed to successfully prosecute everyone they perhaps felt has been at fault, because “best practice” is subjective.

[smallribber]

If you delve a little deeper you will see that this contains greater threats than at first you might think

There is a large thread over on YBW forum with more detail from those that seem to have delved deeper and have spotted the threats re doing your own maintenance and the added costs that would flow

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Bigplumbs

If you delve a little deeper you will see that this contains greater threats than at first you might think

There is a large thread over on YBW forum with more detail from those that seem to have delved deeper and have spotted the threats re doing your own maintenance and the added costs that would flow

YBW is not really a bastion of internet fact and rational thought though.

[Last Tango]

It seems to start from the premise that every boat is built to some certificated standard to which it has to remain conformant.
Maybe they need to take a walk round a harbour some time, sample a dose of reality.

[smallribber]

Originally Posted by Poly

YBW is not really a bastion of internet fact and rational thought though.

And Ribnet is ?

[jambo]

Originally Posted by Last Tango

It seems to start from the premise that every boat is built to some certificated standard to which it has to remain conformant.
Maybe they need to take a walk round a harbour some time, sample a dose of reality.

A rib forum.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Bigplumbs

And Ribnet is ?

See when you say they’ve delved deeper did you assume because they were getting in a flap about it that they were better informed? It’s equally possible that they are over reacting to what is largely writing down common sense. What maintenance do you think unqualified, inexperienced or incompetent people should be encouraged to do themselves?

The covering information is clear this is not a change to legislation it is guidance on good practice. That might cause commercial operators some serious headaches but generally pleasure boats are outside of the scope (but it’s probably still good practice not to do things that go outside the design scope, or risk the safety of your vessel and crew). The changes to RCD do potentially apply to major modifications - but not routine maintenance; but is it better to be clear on what “best practice is” or standing in court on a manslaughter charge saying you believed what you did was good enough?

If the RYA legal department put out an official statement saying pleasure boaters should be alarmed then I’ll be more concerned than if a bunch of yachties are debating if they need to get their standing rigging inspected because it’s lasted just fine for 30 years ;-)

[Pikey Dave]

I’ve had a quick scan through it & TBH can’t find anything to get excited about. I haven’t read it all, but what I have seen is nothing over & above what a normal (I use the term loosely [emoji6]) owner/skipper would do anyway. As said above, had there been anything controversial, the RYA would be all over it. There hasn’t been anything of note mentioned in the RYA magazine by either the editorial staff or readers.
At the end of the day, it’s only guidance. The HSE issue guidance notes all the time on a plethora of subjects & they often come in handy. I refer to them frequently when undertaking task within my industry that I may not have done before or be a tad rusty on. They aren’t designed to trip you up, they are generally helpful & act as a useful aide memoir.

[willk]

Originally Posted by Poly

I’ll be more concerned than if a bunch of yachties are debating if they need to get their standing rigging inspected because it’s lasted just fine for 30 years ;-)

To reproduce the effect, affect a slight "W" speech impediment and shake your head from side to side, allowing yer jowls to flap a bit and say:

"Itsh awbsolwootley weprewhensible!!"

[GuyC]

As others have said, it is primarily common sense guidance.

There are a number of key hazards that RIB drivers have to contend with - fire, flood, loss of manoeuvring, loss of propulsion, loss of a person over the side etc etc. The guidance highlights those hazards and makes suggestions on how to mitigate them.

I guess the RYA will review them and if appropriate will modify the syllabus of their training courses to incorporate the guidance.