Radiomariner

The items you mention are relatively expensive and in most cases the BSS does not insist upon.(I think your "line" has been drawn.) On the ventilation issue, unless there is no ventilation whatever (high or low) the BSS is advisory only. If the ventilation is insufficient the owner as solely responsible for the safety of his boat and persons on board has been advised and may choose to ignore the BSS advice. Similarly if he decides to block off ventilators it is entirely up him. He can decide to allow ventilation to suit his circumstances as he wishes, but if he gets it wrong, then he is solely to responsible for any mishap.

Reliable stats do not exist. On inland waterways, dangerous occurrences, near misses, minor injuries are rarely reported. Deaths and serious injuries usually do get reported, but to a variety of authorities that did not always communicate with each other. The various authorities are now starting to get together on this issue I am pleased to say. But statistics on near-misses and dangerous occurrences are unlikely to be gathered with any degree of liability due to the leisure nature of of the waterways. These are just as important to safety assessments as the number of deaths caused by..... Option 1 must always be taken in cases where there has been loss of life or serious injury, and I think always is. Option 2 should also be taken, but I agree, can sometimes be over zealous. I don't think that the two cases in discussion, (Batteries and LPG bottles) fit into the over-zealous category as they cost very little to comply to

. No, No. a BSS man will simply turn up and repaint your boat in it's original colours!

OK. I used to claim that when the boat reaches an angle of 45 degrees, I have a lot more to worry about than the batteries or gas bottles. Then someone pointed out "Yes, but at least if they are secure, you don't have to worry about them also"!. Try this scenario, it seems to happen a few times every year. Norrow boat going down a lock catches the skeg on the cill. The bow goes down the stern stays up. Depending on the lock depth and the boat length this is often a very steep angle and causes down-flooding over the bow, causing the bow to sink to the bottom, now the boat is balancing on the pointed bow and the skeg and keels over. Yes, you have lots of worries and one of them should be about your gas bottles and batteries not being secured and posing further, possibly much greater danger even after you and your crew are safe. Someone has to go down there where toppled over gas bottles may have ruptured their hoses and broken battery terminals may be sparking amidst fuel lines or hoses that the failling batteries fell on! Another boat I have seen almost on it's side was a Springer with a V shaped hull caught in an empty pound. I am also aware of a case where a boat being craned fell bow first when one of the strops failed, but that is a different story. I sympathise with you. Although I mentioned earlier that I do not charge for a second visit for boats within a certain distance from my home, I do charge them for third visit and more. (Yes there has been a boat I have had to visit four times!) Also, if there is any distance involved I apply a small charge of £20 or for mileage whichever is greater. I think your examiner was a bit naughty charging the full fee a second time around. Firstly, if he is doing a re-examination within three months of failing the boat, he only has to inspect the failed items. (an exception might be where a gas line has to be opened up for some reason, like fitting a conduit where it went through an electrical enclosure, the gas tightness test would have to be carried out again. The second point is that the BSS only take their cut when a boat passes. When I fail a boat I generally ask for only the examination fee by deducting the BSS cut, which then gets paid when I pass the boat. However examiners are free to charge as they wish but they should make clear their conditions and charges beforehand. Get another examiner. Edited to add: - PS Spilt battery acid can cause serious damage usually a while after an incident, particularly to electric wiring and fuel hoses.

Many may think that as your say £100 is a lot of money for so little work, I agree. I have heard that argument often. Examiners also have costs. Premiums for PL and PI insurance (Each for £5Million) have not only to be paid annually but continue to be payable for five years after the examiner has ceased to carry out examinations. Another annual payment is a registration fee. Hidden expenses include refresher training courses involving accommodation expenses as well as travelling. £36 for every certificate issued has to be paid to the BSS office towards their running costs. Unlike the MOT the examiner has to travel to every job. My average return per boat is, after above deductions, about £33 upon which I have to pay 20% income tax. This is not much considering that the average examination takes 3.5 hours. and approximately 30 mins desk work. (I do admit some of lengthy time for my examination is not just my desire for thoroughness, but also because I often hang around to advise the owner of a failed boat on putting things right to avoid a re-visit, This year I have had two boats that took over 5 hours, one of which involved a revisit anyway. My cost because I do not charge for a single re-visit in my local area) I also give discounts for easy to examine boats. Admittedly I do not need much in the way of equipment. The total outlay to take on examinations, excluding laptop is about £350 most of which only gets used occasionally. However a broken laptop and the need to have a printer that printed copy with ink that would not run when wetted by rain, and and not cost an arm and leg for ink supplies, has reduced this years profit (since April to a mere £230) from which as I said income tax has to be deducted, The BSS is far from a money making scheme, Very few examiners make a living from BSS alone. Why do I do it? I am retired, interested in boats and boaters. My pension keeps me, the BSS examinations pay for a few beers now and then. Finally, I am offended by your comparison to a Double Glazing salesman. I am not trying to sell anything, My point was to highlight the fact that many would consider pleasure to be of greater value than safety. Your comment in itself was "cheap" Could not verify the percentages but in my opinion roughly correct That 2% could they not be arrogantly ignorant!

I was aware that the BSS developed from the old C of C. My boat is ex-hire and came to me with a valid C of C, Didn't know about Derbyshire CC. Surely it was more than that! I am sure all at BSS are aware of the pollution risk of a sinking boat. Risks have to be assessed. The pollution risk has lower priority than safety, and costs also have to be accounted for in the equation. There is such a thing as "acceptable risk" Would you otherwise be willing to have pay for your boat to be lifted out of the water or dry docked for a BSS inspection every four years The examination would cost lots more also,

Rob at BSS would probably be able to provide statistics but I believe it was brought about the disproportionate number of boat fires and explosions at that time. I think his statistics would also show that these incidents have been greatly reduced since the introduction of the BSS. With regard to your last comment, I concur with you, hire boats like hotels need an annual gas safety check. The BSS Examination for hire boats is more stringent. The hirers are a third party. I would like to add that quite a lot of boat owners do not give a fig about safety. They openly ask me to do an examination fully expecting to fail so they can put right only sufficient defects to get to get a certificate to renew their licence. Were it not compulsory most of such boat owners would not bother at all with safety. A standard has to be set. The BSS is a minimum one. Also with regard to safety to others (third parties) A fire or explosion can be an extreme danger to other boats in todays many crowded marina's. It is not very nice either for the firefighters who have to extinguish such fires. Edited to add: - The annual cost of a BSS is less than the price of a couple of pints with a cheap meal for two. Imagine how much your insurance premium would increase if the scheme was not in place! (Personally I believe that if the BS Scheme was to be stopped it would only be to introduce a more authoritarian scheme.)

Fuel leaks and to a lesser extent Gas leaks in my experience, seem to frequently appear between examinations. Often the owner remembers that he has done some engine maintenance that involved disconnecting fuel lines, or has re-positioned an appliance. Other such situations I put down to vibration or the vessel flexing,

Sorry. If I found a failing on something I'd incorrectly passed on a previous examination, I would still fail it, admit to my error and face any consequences. I am not infallible. The priority is to achieve and maintain the (minimum) standard as required by BSS

I use one frequently for BSS inspections. Biggest downfall is camera orientation, The picture can be upside down, or sideways in fact anyway which way. It is not always easy to move it the correct direction to find exactly the right spot you are looking for, More expensive models have the ability to rotate the screen to a position so that when you move the camera to the left picture on the screen goes to the left etc. Were I to get another one I would willingly pay more for that option. Also, I recommend getting one with the smallest camera head possible. My one is 10mm diameter, I could do with it to be a bit smaller. (But, then were I to have one of 6mm I am certain that I would in a short space of time find a need for it to go into a 5mm gap!!! For my needs, the type that attaches to a laptop, is not convenient enough. With regard to the original post. Mine seems to work OK underwater, but I am not sure I would like to put it into a diesel fuel tank and I would most definitely be wary of putting it into a petrol tank. Watertight perhaps, but intrinsically safe definitely not.

Looks to me as if there is a hell of a lot of water inside that boat. But wait, where is the water tank, skin tank, and holding tank?

I'd like to add that the BSS also states the minimum A and B ratings for individual fire extinguishers. Any extra extinguishers above the minimum whether meeting the requirements or not is up to the owner. Please ensure however that their use is fully understood. Dry powder extinguishers have their disadvantages but they are pretty good as "general purpose" and are quite affordable.

Yes but the boat owner does not sign the BSS Certificate/Report to signify he understands that requirement

No down points for the Liste I do not need to know what that red faced angler is actually saying, it is something like "OK don't worry about my fishing tackle, its not expensive" and I smile happily back and try not to show that I am sorry that his arthritis is so bad he can not open his fingers when he waves! Yes, the main down point is the noise, and the exhaust is not as clean as a modern engine. I am amazed at the number of people that tell me it makes a lovely noise.! An extremely robust engine. They were common for decades in merchant ships lifeboats where they were hardly used. When the ships were sent to scrap, the lifeboat engines would often have had less than 200 hours running. With lifeboats then being mainly open to elements they would look a lot worse for their wear but were in fact quite sound.

You have misunderstood what I said. All examiners are trained to a standard. Some examiners are also qualified gas fitters, others qualified electricians, others are motor car mechanics. I used to be in the Merchant Navy as an Electronics Officer, and as an Engineering officer. If you were around in 2005 you must have noticed that for private boats a lot of checks that were on the 2002 check procedure were removed or simplified. I have forgotten the official line of reasoning here but mainly I think to do with the cost and convenience to the boat owner could be. disproportionate to the risk being assessed.Remember, the BSS is about third parties, at the same time the 2002 checking procedures were retained for hire and certain other craft, and the "advisory" checks became mandatory, hierer being a third party. This year a few new checks were brought in. For instance the requirement for a consumer unit, which is at present an advisory check,for instance it may in the future become mandatory. Yes, that is a point that bothers me, That's a point I tried to make way back in this thread Thanks Rob for confirming what I have been trying to get through for ages. I wish I had never mentioned the subject! I think Rob at BSS explained it quite simply. I have not got a copy of the BSS Examination Record or it's accompanied statement to hand, but I believe it says something like that. However, a signed document from the owner showing that he understands will over-ride any loophole crafty lawyers can dream up..

Some BSS examiners are very well qualified, others may not be so. The point is however the BSS examiner is not inspecting that the "standard" has been adhered to but is a box ticking exercise to ensure that the boat is safe to third parties. For example, Standards dictate the size of cables to be used taking into account voltage drop and resulting efficiency. The BSS only ensures that the breakers will trip before the (possibly undersized) cable will become overheated and cause fire Also, BSS examiners are limited by what they can see without pulling the boat apart. Incidentally a recent change in the private boat checking procedures eased off on checking cable sizes,because with modern cables having higher specifications it is too difficult for examiners to determine just by visual examination. There have been more electrical checks added to the procedures this year and it is envisaged that there will be more.

I looked into it a long time ago (about 20 years) then they were too expensive. Later 16 or seventeen years ago when feeling a little flush (pardon the pun) I looked again and found they were too big. The one we almost bought would have been a very tight fit, but we still considered it until when enquiring how it can be brought through the narrow door and re-assembled, (which it could) e we discovered that it had a griddle handle which had to be shaken at intervals, and which also pulled out to empty the damned thing. Exasperation, to room to pull the handle out!!! We instead fitted a vacuum/Pump out. My advice for that is that because you pay for pump out, you do not pay for the quantity pumped, get as big a holding tank as possible. I wish I had gone at least twice the size of the one I have now

No offence taken. I just wish I had not brought the subject of the Declaration up, as it is only marginal to the subject of the OP. I had case recently where a boat constructed in 2001 with an annex iii, had been taken by road and kept out of the water in a shed or barn until this year. The new owner needed a licence to fit it out while in the water. It turned out the new owner was the son of the original buyer and no sale had taken place, so that was OK. However he told me his intention was to fit it out and sell as soon as possible as a New Boat. I honestly wish he had not told me that, A lot of research ensued, we had it all agreed on he was going to sign the declaration but when I turned up for the examination, (a 60 mile round trip) the boat was gone. I found out that another examiner had examined it on the previous day and that the boat had acquired a full RCD number dated 2001 which is odd, because the boat was never fully fitted out. Anyway, I don't think he will be able to sell it as new without an explanation for the 2001 CE Markings. By the way, I seem to have obliterated your "unquation" from my last post, running my part as though it looked as it came from you. I have forgotten how to replace it. I know square brackets slash marks and the word unquote are involved but I can't seem to get it right. can somebody reading this thread help me!

Here is the details of the declaration as promised. I had to convert it from a PDF file so the logo is missing, and line spacing slightly differs; Dear Customer, I am required under BSS procedures to obtain a declaration from you as the private owner of a “selfbuild“ (or “sailaway“) vessel that may become subject to the Recreational Craft Regulations (RCRs). Your boat will become subject to the RCRs if you sell it within the first five years of first use. If you build for your own use and don’t put your boat on the market within five years, it’s excluded from the scope of the RCRs. An information sheet containing further advice and information on self-build boat projects and CE marking is available from the BSS Office. I would appreciate your help by completing the vessel details box & declaration which I will hold in my personal files. The declaration will be kept confidential, however will be shared with Trading Standards officers in the event of any enquiry. Examiner name: ………………………………………………… BSS PIN: ……………………………… Address: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………. Phone number: …………………….… Please complete the vessel details and owner declaration below and return the form to me. Vessel Details Name of Vessel: Date First Used (i.e. the date the hull was first floated): Name of Hull Manufacturer: Navigation Authority Index/Registration No. (if allocated): Owner Declaration I confirm that the following statements are true: 1. I require a BSS Certificate in support of an application to permit navigation for the above named vessel. 2. **The boat is not complete albeit that at least one system (i.e. gas or fuel or electrical) is complete. OR **The boat is complete in all respects. (** Delete as appropriate). 3. I have no intention to place the above named vessel on the market within five years of the date first used. Name of Owner: …..……………………………………………………………………………(Please print) Signed: …….………………………………………………… Date: …………………………………… Ah, There you are then. The RCD did not come into existence until 1996 and was not fully implemented until quite a few years later………………