Boat Safety and s.8

[MtB]

1 hour ago, alan_fincher said:

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! ?)
 

 

Alan, that is clearly not the same boat. 

 

This is the one CRT are taking action against

 

[matty40s]

7 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Alan, that is clearly not the same boat. 

 

This is the one CRT are taking action against

 

 

Alan knows that, the thread has moved on to include this other stunning vessel too now.....

[alan_fincher]

7 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Alan, that is clearly not the same boat. 

 

This is the one CRT are taking action against

 

Yes, I know.  I was demonstrating that the one being refereed to as needing towing about is actually powered.

But it does lso emphasise how different heavy shipping container construction is from something built in the lightweight materials of a mobile holiday home.

[Chewbacka]

The BSS is good for ensuring ongoing safety stds are complied with for a boat that is structurally rcd compliant.  With a home built vessel it would be reasonably possible to take a narrow lightweight hull and stick a wider, high slab sided box on top and pass the BSS, but in anything more than a moderate breeze it would be at risk of rolling over.  Not saying that is the case here, but having a BSS cert for a self build boat (and I am not talking about self fit out of a sailaway) is anything but an assurance of stability etc.

[MtB]

1 hour ago, alan_fincher said:

Yes, I know.  I was demonstrating that the one being refereed to as needing towing about is actually powered.

But it does lso emphasise how different heavy shipping container construction is from something built in the lightweight materials of a mobile holiday home.

 

 

I DO so wish people would read the whole thread before commenting....

 

?

[WotEver]

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

I DO so wish people would read the whole thread before commenting....

 

?

Is this a new rule?

[MtB]

5 minutes ago, WotEver said:

Is this a new rule?

 

No, I've always had it...

 

[WotEver]

Just now, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

No, I've always had it...

 

Mines 12” but I don’t use it as a rule...

 

the old old ones are the best

[MtB]

Just now, WotEver said:

Mines 12” but I don’t use it as a rule...

 

the old old ones are the best

 

Do you keep it in the yard?

 

 

[WotEver]

Just now, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Do you keep it in the yard?

No, but it’s metred. 

[ditchcrawler]

2 hours ago, Chewbacka said:

The BSS is good for ensuring ongoing safety stds are complied with for a boat that is structurally rcd compliant.  With a home built vessel it would be reasonably possible to take a narrow lightweight hull and stick a wider, high slab sided box on top and pass the BSS, but in anything more than a moderate breeze it would be at risk of rolling over.  Not saying that is the case here, but having a BSS cert for a self build boat (and I am not talking about self fit out of a sailaway) is anything but an assurance of stability etc.

Thank You. My point exactly and would a BSS inspector who did and passed a BSS be qualified to make comment on a boats construction and stability. It is of course possible that the BSS inspector who did the inspection then passed his concerns on what he saw on to CRT.

[Paul C]

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

Thank You. My point exactly and would a BSS inspector who did and passed a BSS be qualified to make comment on a boats construction and stability. It is of course possible that the BSS inspector who did the inspection then passed his concerns on what he saw on to CRT.

Do you know something the rest of us don't? Was the safety issue cited by CRT  it's stability?

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Do you know something the rest of us don't? Was the safety issue cited by CRT  it's stability?

It was simply an example by Chewbacka (in post #79)  and a follow on post by Ditchcrawler (post #86) of an issue where a boat could be claimed to be unsafe, and a BSS examiner would be unlikely to have the experience to certify it 'safe'.

Edited April 9, 2019 by Alan de Enfield

[Paul C]

Fair enough. I guess there's a number of things which could be said to be unsafe which aren't covered by the BSS.

 

I guess the issue of qualification is relative. A CRT enforcement officer is probably not qualified in marine engineering but has the authority to issue the notice by virtue of being a representative of CRT. So it's likely a BSS examiner, even on advising on non-BSS items, IS better qualified. They might choose to cover their arse and not get involved though.  

 

It could be an interesting issue, as mooted in this case, if the owner is in fact (more) qualified than the enforcement officer. I don't know what CRTs procedure or threshold for being satisfied enough to annul the original unsafe condition would be though. Pragmatically it's probably BSS examiner or the court route. 

Edited April 9, 2019 by Paul C

[ditchcrawler]

45 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Do you know something the rest of us don't? Was the safety issue cited by CRT  it's stability?

I have no idea, but I am just arguing the point that because a boat has a BSS certificate it must be safe which I dont agree.

[Alan de Enfield]

32 minutes ago, Paul C said:

if the owner is in fact (more) qualified than the enforcement officer. I don't know what CRTs procedure or threshold for being satisfied enough to annul the original unsafe condition would be though.

The owner is a qualified gas-fitter - we do not know on what grounds the action is being taken, or, who (with what qualifications) decide the boat was 'unsafe'.

 

All we currently know is that in 2017 the owner was ordered by a court to remove his boat, we do not know if in the meantime he has corrected the 'problem', or, if he had corrected the problem but has allowed it to re-appear.

 

It is all supposition until both sides of the story (and some facts) emerge.

 

From Nigel Moore : “Specifically, what's happening here is that C&RT are resurrecting a 2017 Court Order for the boat to be removed from all C&RT controlled waters"

[Paul C]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The owner is a qualified gas-fitter - we do not know on what grounds the action is being taken, or, who (with what qualifications) decide the boat was 'unsafe'.

Does he have boat and LPG tags too? Hmmmm.......

 

 

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

From Nigel Moore : “Specifically, what's happening here is that C&RT are resurrecting a 2017 Court Order for the boat to be removed from all C&RT controlled waters"

Yeah but via Tony Dunkley, via NBTA.........

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

Does he have boat and LPG tags too? Hmmmm.......

The guy who 'killed his family' (on a Boat on Windermere) by CO poisoning was a qualified Gas-Fitter.

[Paul C]

Here's an "out here" suggestion: The reason CRT haven't released details is because they never do, because they're constrained by law from doing so (sorry all you conspiracy theorists). The reason NBTA or the owner etc haven't released details is because it would reveal he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

The reason NBTA or the owner etc haven't released details is because it would reveal he doesn't have a leg to stand on

On that we CAN agree.

[Mike Todd]

5 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

It was simply an example by Chewbacka (in post #79)  and a follow on post by Ditchcrawler (post #86) of an issue where a boat could be claimed to be unsafe, and a BSS examiner would be unlikely to have the experience to certify it 'safe'.

I suspect the situation is asymmetric: for CaRT to declare a boat unsafe simply requires an official do so state on behalf of the Trust - always being sure that they act reasonably, No particular qualification would be required since it is stopping someone from doing something. On the other hand, to assert that something is safe would require relevant qualification (certificate, experience of whatever) because the outcome is to permit something which might otherwise be unsafe.

 

It is one of the unintended consequences of the H&S and Risk Assessment culture that decisions are not holistic. The oldest example I can recall is from the 1970's when I was member of the local Social Services Committee (as it was then known). New standards were brought in regarding care homes and a number of those owned by that authority failed to meet those standards and in some cases it was deemed impracticable to bring them up to standard so they were closed and not replaced. The result was that fewer people were in safer circumstances but an increased number were less safe (as they remained in the community and not in care) However, they latter were not considered in the equation, only those directly under the care of the authority.

[Paul C]

7 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I suspect the situation is asymmetric: for CaRT to declare a boat unsafe simply requires an official do so state on behalf of the Trust - always being sure that they act reasonably, No particular qualification would be required since it is stopping someone from doing something. On the other hand, to assert that something is safe would require relevant qualification (certificate, experience of whatever) because the outcome is to permit something which might otherwise be unsafe.

 

See post #59, the same situation occurs with cars in the VDRS - a police officer can decide a car is unsafe, then an MoT tester is required to declare it safe. However it isn't really asymmetric, since police officers are trained appropriately. Also, this is a little used area of legislation by CRT - we simply don't know what internal checks, if any, they have before declaring a boat "unsafe" under the legislation, or the requirement (other than the mentioned court able to overturn it) to subsequently declare it safe again. I suggested, out of lack of other suitable people, that a BSS Examiner's declaration might be the requirement, simply as a best guess though. Certainly there would be a massive loophole if the boat owner themselves could simply declare it safe so it needs to be someone else.....should it be just anyone else? What would be the "symmmetric" person equivalent to a CRT Enforcement Officer in this instance?

 

 

[WotEver]

2 hours ago, Paul C said:

What would be the "symmmetric" person equivalent to a CRT Enforcement Officer in this instance?

I believe that this was the point that Mike was making.

 

CRT say (for instance) “This boat is dangerously unstable”. How do you now prove that it isn’t?

[Alan de Enfield]

26 minutes ago, WotEver said:

I believe that this was the point that Mike was making.

 

CRT say (for instance) “This boat is dangerously unstable”. How do you now prove that it isn’t?

Part extract of RCD Stability Requirements :

 

The assessment requirements for each option are detailed in BS EN ISO 12217-2 and depending on the type of
craft the assessment looks at different criteria. The main criteria, which can be used for assessment for any
design categories, is the AVS (Angle of Vanishing Stability) related to it’s mass and STIX (Stability Index – see
next page) calculation which requires a righting lever curve.
A righting lever curve is generated by plotting a stationary (static) boat’s righting lever against its angle of heel.
The lever is the horizontal distance between the boat’s centre of gravity (CG) and a vertical line through its
centre of buoyancy (CB). This lever is known as GZ and that’s why the stability curve is often called a GZ curve.
When upright, the CG will be in the same vertical line as the CB (usually the centreline) and so there is no
righting lever i.e. GZ=Zero. But, when a boat heels (through the action of wind or waves), whereas the CG will
remain in the same place (assuming no bilge water), the CB will move to one side and a righting lever is
generated. As the boat continues to heel the lever will increase to a maximum and then start diminishing until
the CB is once again on the same vertical line as the CG. At this point the righting lever is again zero but unlike
when upright, the boat will tend to invert if its heel angle continues to increase.
This point is called the Angle of Vanishing Stability (AVS). Once heeled past its AVS the GZ will become
negative and an inverting lever rather than righting lever. Unless affected by some outside force, the boat will
continue to 180 degrees of heel until the CG and CB are once again on the same vertical line and the boat is
stable although now upside down. The diagram above shows a GZ curve for a typical monohull ballasted
sailing yacht.

[Paul C]

We're going round in circles - there are no details of "what happens next...." in the legislation, except to somewhat broadly say, the owner is required to remedy the defect(s), notify the board in writing, upon which CRT issue a certificate saying its no longer unsafe. If there is any dispute at all in this process, the appeal is via magistrates court. There is a 3 month window for this; then CRT can decide to deal with (remove) the boat via Section 8 procedure (it doesn't need to be unlicensed....so all this "cancelled the licence" stuff is bollocks....), whereupon they give a further 21 days notice then the Section 8 process starts on the (probably licensed) boat.

 

Nigel pointed all this out in post #7.........and we have heard nothing from the owner or NBTA whether the above was followed properly.

 

Licence, BSS, being a CCer, possibly not moving after taking a winter mooring, not fitting under bridges, being fugly, the boat/owner having 'previous' under a 2017 court order, reregistering the boat with a brand new index number and owner, etc etc are all irrelevant. The original boat would be removed, reregistering wouldn't annul the action underway etc.

 

 

Edited April 9, 2019 by Paul C