Arthur Marshall

Indeed. I fitted closable vents for that reason, the boat being almost uninhabitable in winter. They were ruled illegal so I just adjusted the legal ones so a blocking piece could be slotted in. I understand that now the amount if ventilation is an advisory rather than a fail, so yet another case where we damaged boats for no sensible reason. The daft original gas fridge exhaust business was another one.

Aint that the truth!

In that case, the BSS should include a hull survey, as if it was a bit thin someone else's boat might hit yours and sink it. The stated point of the survey is that those outside boat A are protected from dangers emanating from it, not that the inhabitants of said boat are protected from dangers outside.

The BSS support committees are, of course, people who benefit by getting employment in fitting extra stuff in boats, or by being able to charge more and more for the test as they get more complex.

My view entirely. Except that I think it's turned into a scam perpetuated by the engineers/gasmen/electricians who invent new paragraphs designed to keep them in work.

Well, yes, but seeing as how it's not been dangerous for the last fifty years of its existence, I'm not sure it's likely to explode tomorrow. I suppose it is logical that it gets looked at, though!

I'd not considered him because you said he might be too far away. But that's a great reccemendation (which I never can spell). That's two who I've been told are pretty good. If he's just an hour away, he might wander a long. I'm obviously happy to pay travel costs. I'll give him a ring on Monday. I do appreciate everyone's input, it's reassuring. I believe not. you can't just keep swapping examiners till you find one that'll pass it, that would be silly.

Apparently the 15 million quid lottery grant for the work is no longer enough (not a surprise, really, as it was allocated three years ago and there's been a bit of inflation since then) so it's not closing this autumn after all. There is, apparently, enough money in the kitty to keep it running for the next couple of years while CRT try to persuade the lottery bods to up the ante.

One of the problems is that there's no trustpilot type feedback on examiners. I have no objection to one who fails a boat for not meeting the standards, but twice at least I've been forced into making changes (one extremely expensive) which were not legitimate, and once almost certainly conned into buying overpriced kit from the examiner to get a pass. Which, considering the thing only happens every four years, is pretty dire. That's almost a fifty percent rip off rate. Those three examiners have all retired, so you're safe... I now have a choice of two, neither of whom I know, both having been used by members of this forum but understandably people don't want to make a public comment apart from the fact they've used them.

He's one I've contacted, but he's not replied yet. As you say, it's a bit far for him.

Who did you use on the Macc?

Certainly not, though I mostly play euphonium now, and I don't think that's one either, though you're never entirely sure. Mind you, as it's St Pat's on Monday, I'm going to have a bit of a squeeze and some serious fiddle over the weekend...

Ta. It's what it is. Probably my last one, anyway.

That's my view. About the only thing that needs looking at on my old tub is a gas test. There just isn't anything else, and nothing else has changed. It's a farce.

Still trying to sort this out.. anyone had one recently and can give me a guide as to what to expect as the cost?