Boatgypsy

And then stared at them, hard, in a slightly maniacal way. It's funny, a guy I know who is as nice as pie, but is rather large with a shaved head and a mohican pigtail and a spidersweb tattoo on his face - never has any trouble with BW staff when he has overstayed.

Get a big one - with big speakers - and turn it up LOUD

That's true, but then so do the mooring wardens when they ask you to move on.

So, I was just trying to find my lost windlass then, that's right, this really rusty one - I dropped it a couple of years ago.

Best not go there, the dog gets easily offended.

Ah, but maybe the overstayers aren't willing to put the matter to the test, in case it sets a precedent!

So, if the wife or dog falls in the canal, I have to leave them there?

It does make you think though Dave, if BW aren't prepared to go to Court to assert their legal right, maybe that right isn't as right as it might be expected to be.

They're probably empty because no one will pay what BW think they are worth!

And I came over here hoping for a nice gentle chewing of the cud...

I'm sure your last point is true, but where do you get the argument that only people doing routine tasks should be protected. What about people who are not familiar with boats? What about the person who falls down the engine hole by accident and grabs the unprotected silencer? What about the first time boater who has just bought your boat from you and doesn't expect that particular piece of metal to be hot? I don't believe that I have presented the requirements as being absolutes - there are parts which are written so that they have to be interpreted precisely and other parts that are open to wide interpretation. If the intention of this particular requirement was intended to allow people to do what they want, it would say something like "if in the opinion of the examiner the exhaust is adequately protected", but it doesn't. It repeatedly uses the word "must". Oh, and whilst I'm happy to engage in vigourous debate I draw the line at having to put up with personal insults, so until Carl learns to play nice, I won't be responding further to him.

You see my point? If I was doing what the likes of Carl would have me do, I would be directly ignoring what I have just been trained to do. There will always be grey areas in doing examinations and next time another examiner might fail your exhaust. It would then be up to you to appeal the decision to get a definitive answer from the BSS technical guy. That could go either way and it may be that a whole series of appeals would lead to a change in the wording of the requirements. But we have to work with the requirements as they are. It's very well for Carl to say that common sense should prevail, but his common sense isn't necessarily someone elses, and if it directly conflicts with the requirements, our job is to fail it on that point so that the conflict can be scrutinised.

So, we finally have it - basically it's all about you not liking the fact that you have to abide by some safety regulations that you don't agree with. You only like boat examiners who agree with you and turn a blind eye to things. You deal out personal insults to those who take their responsibility seriously. I've not claimed the BSS is perfect, in fact there's lots in it that I would like to see re-written, however, I've decided to take on a necessary job and do it to the best of my ability, working with a flawed system because there's no such thing as a perfect one. If doing my best to help make sure people don't get injured or die whilst enjoying their boats makes me a shiny capped jobsworth then I'm happy to accept that.

Thanks for that Richard, I now have a good idea of what you have. Do you think it would be fair to say of the "inaccessible part" that it could not be touched without removing some other part, or would it be possible, for instance if you got down in the engine hole to reach under the counter that you could touch it? I ask because we were specifically told that any part of an exhaust system that could be reached, even though it might not be 'easily' accessible, would need to be lagged or shielded. More specifically on my final assessment I was examining a boat where the easily reached part of the exhaust was lagged - between the engine and where the exhaust went under the counter - but the silencer and it's connection to the hull, which could be reached if I got right down with my head and shoulders under the counter was not lagged. The senior and experienced examiner who was assessing me confirmed that this would fail. As I've previously said the BSS office have expressed concern that some examiners are passing insufficiently lagged or shielded exhausts, an issue which they are trying to address. I'm not in any way passing comment on what is right or wrong about the requirements, but I am clear about the way in which I have been told to interpret the BSS requirement on this.

Well as I'm obviously intellectually challenged, perhaps you can enlighten me as to the true meaning of the word shielded, because, sad idiot that I am I always thought it meant, as I have already stated, a protective barrier - something placed around or in front of the thing to be protected - shield, from scyld- an Anglo Saxon word for a piece of armour held in front the body to deflect blows. I'm starting to get the impression that you like to argue for the sake of it, rather than to get to a better understanding of something. On here that might be acceptable, but if I had been engaged to inspect your boat and you had been so belligerant, I would have declined the pleasure and walked away. Yes! Possibly! Are you prepared to say clearly that your exhaust is not effectively lagged or shielded, but you still got a certificate? I'm just interested.

No, I would say that the word effectively means that whatever arrangement you have, must have the same effect as if it were lagged or shielded. An example might be boxing around the exhaust which prevents it being accessed - which is, in effect, shielding. What would not be acceptable is an exhaust that has no protection other than a reliance on someone not wanting to touch it or having arms a bit too short, or someone with a lack of spinal flexibility so they can't bend down far enough. Strangely I think we may be coming to an understanding here, but , correct me if I'm wrong Carl, you seem to be using this word 'inaccessible' instead of the more obvious word 'shielded'. 'Inaccessible' would mean the same as 'shielding' if you intend it to mean - cannot be accessed without removing some part or structure. But if it just means - looks like it might be out of reach - then it doesn't. If you think the two words mean the same thing, why not just stick to the wording under discussion, ie, that in the BSS requirement. Don't you just love pedantry and semantics! No, I haven't! Never even suggested it!

I don't expect to be able to convince you Carl. I suspect you are someone who holds very strong points of view and doesn't change them unless forced by circumstances. Maybe you won't be convinced until there's an incident or accident on your boat. Maybe there never will be and your views will remain entrenched. However, you may well find that if and when you have a BSS inspection, your boat will fail because because the exhaust isn't satisfactorily lagged or shielded - as well, perhaps as a non standard fuel system. There will be many applications where engines exhausts are not lagged - but then the BSS does not apply to them. I'm afraid, like it or not there is a BSS, it is mandatory and you will have to comply with it if your boat is on waters covered by BSS. If you disagree with me, or any other examiner on a fail item, you have the right to appeal it, but it is unlikely that an appeal would be upheld when the wording of the requirement is very clear. Just for the sake of clarity, here it is again: "2.15.2 Are exhaust system components effectively cooled, lagged or shielded? 'Dry' exhaust systems, or those parts of 'wet' exhaust systems between the manifold and the water injection elbow, must be effectively lagged or shielded. Lagging must be free of signs of damage or deterioration, and must not be loosely fitted. Lagging or shielding must provide complete coverage. Applicability - all parts of 'dry' exhaust systems must be lagged or shielded including silencers, silencer ends and system joints/connections, except for manifolds and flexible exhaust pipe sections, which do not." I've highlighted the significant word in case you missed it. Interestingly, insurance companies are now using non-compliance as a way to wriggle out of claims, but hey - it's all about personal responsibility

So your view is that an examiner who sticks to the regulations is a "jobsworth" but an experienced and trustworthy examiner is one who will let you get away with whatever you ask him to ignore, as long as he gives you your certificate without question. I'm sure this is a widely held view. I'm not sure where this idea that I am young has come from - I presume it's my good looks in my profile pic, but I'm certainly looking at the wrong side of fifty. And yes I have just passed the boat safety examiners training course, but that is following on from many years of experience of using and working on boats both in terms of repairs, maintenance and fitting out. My knowledge of the BSS hasn't just come about in the last two weeks, I've been working with it as a marine engineer since it came into being. But given that I now have a formal qualification in the subject I do feel able to speak with some authority, wheras before I might have left it to others. There is a frustration in the BSS that some examiners are not applying the criteria as strictly as they should and we all know of cases where that is true. There are some instances of examiners who get caught turning a blind eye and those examiners do get removed from the scheme. I think it worth remembering that if an examiner passes something when it should not have passed and an accident later results, it will be the examiner who is held to account, not the stupid boater who burnt himself to death. Examiners remain accountable for seven years after the date of the examination - even if they have left the scheme. We have to carry very heavy insurance to cover any possible claim against us. I personally know of an examiner who is currently being investigated by the Police after a boat death - the records of his examination will be gone through with a fine toothcomb to make sure that he stuck to the letter of the regulations. Would any of you want to be held to have been criminally negligent for giving a boat a certificate when it shouldn't have had one? I should add that I have no reason to think that this examiner was anything other than professional. Personally, I would rather have my boat examined by someone who doesn't allow me to get away with doing something risky or stupid, even if it does mean I have to spend a bit of money putting something right. I can assure you that I will not be relaxing my standards at any point in my career.

Hmmm. I wonder if that boat has come up on Apollo Duck! As for the BSS, I presume that the existing rules about ventilating any hydrogen to prevent a build-up would apply

Oh I don't know, I thought I might use the electricity it produced to electrolyse canal water to make hydrogen!!! I think it would have to be installed in a special heatproof vacuum lined container so you couldn't burn your finger on it. Really, I'm amazed that these things have even got as far as production given the cost to buy, the likely cost of maintenance, the cost of buying fuel - even if you could find a supplier, and the fact that they are amazingly inefficient.

Has anyone any plans to fit something like this on a boat yet? I thought a snip at the price. Clicky

It's very nice at my age to be considered young, and I will either learn or hurt my head banging it on walls

Dave, perhaps you have not followed the thread from the start. I was responding to this post. I was suggesting that the examiner who passed his installation had misinterpreted the requirements. A statement I would stand by.

Ah right, so in your case we are talking about some part of the exhaust system that is placed where it is shielded by "some other part". This part completely prevents someone from physically touching the exhaust without, as you say, removing it with tools. Surely we are in agreement that your exhaust is shielded. But in your first post you suggested that the exhaust was shielded merely because it was hard to reach. In reality many boat owners feel that they don't need to shield or lag their exhausts, simply because they would have to get down the engine hole and reach around the engine to touch them.

Absolutely, if it can be physically reached it needs to be protected so that it can't burn. Yes there is an inconsistency about flexible pipes, but surely common sense tells you that if you lag the rest of the system you find some way to lag or otherwise shield that flexible section too.