Jump to content

Boat Safety and s.8


NigelMoore

Featured Posts

15 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

https://nbtalondon.wordpress.com/2019/04/07/boat-dweller-threaten-with-eviction-urgent-help-needed/

Looks like a couple of containers nailed onto something or other. Can't see any means of propulsion, which doesn't mean there isn't any, and it does look like there's a tiller, so there must be something. There's a genny, so petrol storage may be a factor?

It look like he's cannibalised two static caravans to make one superstructure. Once you remove the inner frame that static caravan is built on the the outside aluminium walls/skin is not particularly stable and very thin. 

 

The N.Boat.Twirlers.A are a little prone to a song and a dance and to playing to a crowd, we actually have no idea why CRT are revoking this boats licence, but by suggesting that CRT are revoking the licence for safety reasons when the boat owner/builder is a registered gas engineer allows they to make a huge deal out of how this must be something terribly Machiavellian on the part of CRT. If that boat went up in flames (for what ever reason) then the means of escape don't look very well though out. 

 

All I'm saying is that for anybody reading who is new to the ways of the boat twirlers this is very unlikely to be the whole story. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Perfectly explained. 

 

Joe Public just demands that things are 'safe'. By which he means 100% safe, guaranteed. When pressed he doesn't even want a small degree of risk. All danger must be eliminated.

 

So the crack in the fire cement in the flue which I used as an example cannot be guaranteed 100% safe so therefore the boat must be dangerous, and CRT could if they so chose, use this as a reason to remove a troublesome boat from the waterways.

 

Thin end of a very big wedge.

This is fundamentally my job, I spend a great deal of my day dealing with what ifs and trying to reassure Joe public, as an example

The tree attracts insects, some of those insects are bees and wasps.

I have children

What if one of those bees/wasps stings one of my children.

What if the sting causes an anaphylactic reaction.

I want the tree removed.

 

All of this was discussed whilst stood next to the customers car, in which they were more likely to have an actual accident in their day to day life. 

 

Most people are unable to truly balance risks/hazards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

This is fundamentally my job, I spend a great deal of my day dealing with what ifs and trying to reassure Joe public, as an example

The tree attracts insects, some of those insects are bees and wasps.

I have children

What if one of those bees/wasps stings one of my children.

What if the sting causes an anaphylactic reaction.

I want the tree removed.

 

All of this was discussed whilst stood next to the customers car, in which they were more likely to have an actual accident in their day to day life. 

 

Most people are unable to truly balance risks/hazards

 

Very true, I worked with electrical installations from 24 volt batteries right up to 33kV, yet the most dangerous work related thing I ever did was driving to and from work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is rarely used by CRT, but I am led to believe it doesn't routinely/even need to go to Magistrates Court. If they issue a notice, then fixing it (if needed) then a certificate off a BSS Examiner clears the notice, I believe? Can anyone confirm?

 

And while many people as illustrated above have difficulty with assessing risks etc, a BSS examiner has no trouble doing it within their daily job. Rightly or wrongly....is another debate for a different day though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Paul C said:

I know this is rarely used by CRT, but I am led to believe it doesn't routinely/even need to go to Magistrates Court. If they issue a notice, then fixing it (if needed) then a certificate off a BSS Examiner clears the notice, I believe? Can anyone confirm?

 

And while many people as illustrated above have difficulty with assessing risks etc, a BSS examiner has no trouble doing it within their daily job. Rightly or wrongly....is another debate for a different day though.

But can a boat be deemed "safe" by complying with the requirements of the BSS but still be considered dangerous in the eyes of the navigation authority, there are many things the BSS doesn't check that could still make a vessel dangerous 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

But can a boat be deemed "safe" by complying with the requirements of the BSS but still be considered dangerous in the eyes of the navigation authority, there are many things the BSS doesn't check that could still make a vessel dangerous 

You misunderstand. In this scenario you'd not engage the BSS Examiner to re-do a BSS exam; you'd specifically get him to address the issue(s) raised by CRT, which need to be put to the boater in writing, in a specific form.

 

A good analogy might be the VDRS for cars: https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/legal/vehicle-defect-rectification

Edited by Paul C
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Paul C said:

You misunderstand. In this scenario you'd not engage the BSS Examiner to re-do a BSS exam; you'd specifically get him to address the issue(s) raised by CRT, which need to be put to the boater in writing, in a specific form.

 

A good analogy might be the VDRS for cars: https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/legal/vehicle-defect-rectification

I think you have misunderstood.

The failure highlighted by C&RT may be nothing to do with a BSS checked item, there fore getting a BSS examiner to re-check would result in the same result, a BSS 'pass' and a C&RT 'fail'.

 

How would a BSS examiner 'address' the issue ?

As far as I am aware the BSS examiner is just that - he is not a 'fixer' making things comply.

Surely you would need a person competent to resolve whatever the issue is - it may involve welding for example - that would not / could not be resolved by a BSS examiner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I can't see it being a standard mobile home - they tend to have more windows.  Looks more like a container, or possible two joined together - there seems to be a colour change halfway down.

Whilst I agree that it lacks the usual numbers of windows in a typical holiday mobile home, it is very clearly of the same lightweight corrogated aluminium construction so typical of these.  You can more or less open them with a tn opener, and I'm sure that's what we are looking at here.

 

Shipping containers are a much heavier construction in steel.  Tis is ot based on a standard shipping container.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I think you have misunderstood.

The failure highlighted by C&RT may be nothing to do with a BSS checked item, there fore getting a BSS examiner to re-check would result in the same result, a BSS 'pass' and a C&RT 'fail'.

 

How would a BSS examiner 'address' the issue ?

As far as I am aware the BSS examiner is just that - he is not a 'fixer' making things comply.

Surely you would need a person competent to resolve whatever the issue is - it may involve welding for example - that would not / could not be resolved by a BSS examiner.

I suspect that the point is that even if the safety issue isn't a BSS checklist item, it will be within the scope of a BSS examiner's competence to inspect it and confirm that the issue has gone away.

 

If it is not, then I would expect that CRT would offer to inspect the work once done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I think you have misunderstood.

The failure highlighted by C&RT may be nothing to do with a BSS checked item, there fore getting a BSS examiner to re-check would result in the same result, a BSS 'pass' and a C&RT 'fail'.

 

How would a BSS examiner 'address' the issue ?

As far as I am aware the BSS examiner is just that - he is not a 'fixer' making things comply.

Surely you would need a person competent to resolve whatever the issue is - it may involve welding for example - that would not / could not be resolved by a BSS examiner.

It seems you're even more muddled than ditchcrawler!

 

I am not suggesting the BSS examiner physically does the work to fix the item of concern - that might be done by someone else, or yourself (or even actually by the BSS examiner, if they do that kind of thing too). I am saying that they would check it and issue something written to that effect, which would satisfy CRT and then they would remove their notice. The item of concern might be something which is also on the BSS, or it might not be - just as (in the example provided) the VDRS uses MoT testers to "certify" vehicle defects are fixed, even though they are not doing a full MoT and the item might/might not be part of the MoT test.

 

Edited by Paul C
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mayalld said:

I suspect that the point is that even if the safety issue isn't a BSS checklist item, it will be within the scope of a BSS examiner's competence to inspect it and confirm that the issue has gone away.

 

If it is not, then I would expect that CRT would offer to inspect the work once done.

 

I would be amazed if BSS examiners are trained to to rule on anything other than matters within the scope of the BSS inspection.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Paul C said:

If not BSS Examiners, who IS the right person then? Because there's no official trade body for boat surveyors......and MCA don't care about inland waterways stuff.....

 

I would say the same person that CRT use to identify the supposed safety risk in the first place. Membership of the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology would be suitable qualification, perhaps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I would say the same person that CRT use to identify the supposed safety risk in the first place. Membership of the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology would be suitable qualification, perhaps.

https://www.iims.org.uk/boat-owner-info/what-is-a-marine-surveyor/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I would be amazed if BSS examiners are trained to to rule on anything other than matters within the scope of the BSS inspection.

 

 

 

Agree one hundred percent but I'm just muddled thanks. OK the boat has now passed a BSS but it could still be a risk of causing damage to other boats or the infrastructure. But again we only know what the press report, if you can call it that says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is or was a converted shipping container in a flat (cargo carrier type) near Milton Keynes last year. It looked slightly odd but it floated it had tiller and I suspect was towed every two weeks a mile or so along the canal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BMS Narrowboat Surveys Explained

There is no single independent governing or regulatory body covering marine surveyors. In effect this means that literally any old body can set themselves up as a specialist and start dishing out advice.
There are however professional bodies that do voluntarily regulated their members through examinations, codes of practise and regular inspections. Here in the UK there are two main organisations whom the majority of surveyors are members of one, the other or both.

These are the International Institute of Marine Surveyors and the Yacht Designers and Surveyors Association. Members are normally qualified and hold Professional Indemnity insurance and are subject to CPD training.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

If not BSS Examiners, who IS the right person then? Because there's no official trade body for boat surveyors......and MCA don't care about inland waterways stuff.....

It's an interesting question.

 

I know several former BSS inspectors who are also qualified marine surveyors who stopped doing BSS certificates when the BSS started charging more. 

 

They still do Lloyds approved marine surveys, including prepurchase inspections on boats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Detling said:

There is or was a converted shipping container in a flat (cargo carrier type) near Milton Keynes last year. It looked slightly odd but it floated it had tiller and I suspect was towed every two weeks a mile or so along the canal.

If its the one I saw it had a big outboard on the blunt end ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Detling said:

There is or was a converted shipping container in a flat (cargo carrier type) near Milton Keynes last year. It looked slightly odd but it floated it had tiller and I suspect was towed every two weeks a mile or so along the canal.

No, it moves under its own steam quite regularly, having a large outboard fitted.  I actually think it does rather better on the continuous cruiser guidelines than many other wide beams in the same area.

(Personally I think it's best if it doesn't move though! ?)

IMG_0419.JPG

 

IMG_0418.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.