Jump to content

Draft and depth of Counter


Gregarious

Featured Posts

56 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

It must be massively over weight. How much weight have you put in as personal possessions?  Grand pianos, safes, libraries, AGA?

 

Is it a large cast iron old engine or a modern buzzer?

 

There is something seriously amiss, too bad to ignore, you need to get it sorted.

It's a modern Buzzer, and we've got nothing particularly heavy, not even a couple of  tons of gold !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Gregarious said:

It's a modern Buzzer, and we've got nothing particularly heavy, not even a couple of  tons of gold !

There is little problem ballasting a 60 ft hull, its short boats that are difficult.  Can you get under the floor anywhere to see how much ballast is in there?

How long have you had possession of the boat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Did you have a (your) surveyor monitoring and signing off each stage of the build ?


Well we certainly didn’t. You have to have some faith in your builder, otherwise you chose the wrong builder. Although of course having a surveyor involved at every step is sound in theory, in practice it is very costly and says to the builder in no uncertain terms “I don’t trust your competence”. Which is not good for relations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think as more and more new-boat buyers come onto the forum we see what appalling products they are being supplied with, and yes, in some cases when 'buying to a budget' you WILL be dealing with incompetent boat builders, in the cottage industry that is canal boat building many of these will be skip-fabricators who it seems know nothing about boat design and construction and even less about the RCR requirements.

 

It seems now to be a weekly event that some aspect of a boat that is signed off as being RCR compliant isn't - last week it was fuel-tank inspection hatches, this week, flooding heights, what will it be next week.

 

Do these Phoenix boat building companies even read the requirements ?

 

 

A member on this forum has been involved in several court cases against builders and non-compliant boats :

 

 

Screenshot (486).png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I think as more and more new-boat buyers come onto the forum we see what appalling products they are being supplied with, and yes, in some cases when 'buying to a budget' you WILL be dealing with incompetent boat builders, in the cottage industry that is canal boat building many of these will be skip-fabricators who it seems know nothing about boat design and construction and even less about the RCR requirements.

 

It seems now to be a weekly event that some aspect of a boat that is signed off as being RCR compliant isn't - last week it was fuel-tank inspection hatches, this week, flooding heights, what will it be next week.

 

Do these Phoenix boat building companies even read the requirements ?

 

 

A member on this forum has been involved in several court cases against builders and non-compliant boats :

 

 

Screenshot (486).png

Yes, but surely the better idea is to do ones due diligence BEFORE selecting a boat builder, rather than trying to get an incompetent one to comply with the regs after they’ve started building it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, nicknorman said:

Yes, but surely the better idea is to do ones due diligence BEFORE selecting a boat builder, rather than trying to get an incompetent one to comply with the regs after they’ve started building it?

 

Easy to say, but given that there's no trusted "boatbuilder quality accreditation" scheme, how do you suggest doing this?

 

All boatbuilders will tell you how skilled and careful they are and what a good job they'll do, the difficulty is working out which are telling the truth and which aren't...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Easy to say, but given that there's no trusted "boatbuilder quality accreditation" scheme, how do you suggest doing this?

 

All boatbuilders will tell you how skilled and careful they are and what a good job they'll do, the difficulty is working out which are telling the truth and which aren't...

Agreed to a point, eg when we first started looking for a builder we were entranced by sparkly things in a certain low-end manufacturer, and nearly went with them (seen at Crick) but when we visited their boatyard it was clear that the quality of welding and fitout “beneath the veneer” was extremely poor. We went with a builder who had a much better reputation and was, surprisingly, not that much more expensive. That was our bestest ever decision!

 

Perhaps this is the time to consult a surveyor - ask a surveyor to come along to a boatyard visit and advise on the quality of the goings-on, plus they will have an idea of reputation.

Edited by nicknorman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Agreed to a point, eg when we first started looking for a builder we were entranced by sparkly things in a certain low-end manufacturer, and nearly went with them (seen at Crick) but when we visited their boatyard it was clear that the quality of welding and fitout “beneath the veneer” was extremely poor. We went with a builder who had a much better reputation and was, surprisingly, not that much more expensive. That was our bestest ever decision!

 

Perhaps this is the time to consult a surveyor - ask a surveyor to come along to a boatyard visit and advise on the quality of the goings-on, plus they will have an idea of reputation.

 

It was clear to you, as somebody who knows a lot about boats. It would not be clear to a novice boater who knows little or nothing about boat construction and welding, or what to look out for, or indeed that such problems exist, and falls for the sparkly things.

 

Isn't suggesting to such people that "you should do due diligence" basically saying -- unhelpfully -- "you should know as much as I do"? And if they don't, how are they supposed to know what a surveyor can/should do to fend off problems (or that they should employ one at considerable expense), when nobody tells them?

 

The problem is that the boatbuilding/fitting industry is pretty much a craftsman-run free-for-all which relies on builders doing the right thing, and if they're cowboys who don't and cut corners to save money there's nothing much to stop them.

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Yes, but surely the better idea is to do ones due diligence BEFORE selecting a boat builder, rather than trying to get an incompetent one to comply with the regs after they’ve started building it?

 

Ideally, but the competent boat builder you selected can soon start to cut corners when not under surveilance.

 

When you build a new house you choose the best builder you can find, BUT the council still send out their surveyor at each stage of build (foundations / floor / first floor / roof joists / plumbing / windows comply with the drawings etc etc) as they believe that even the best builder needs 'keeping an eye on'. Are you suggesting that these 'fred in a shed' welders can be trusted implicitly ?

 

Far better to pay a suitable surveyor (there are lists available of warranted RCR surveyors whose job this is and know the RCR inside out) 'a couple of thousand' to make (say) 4 or 5 visits during the build.

 

£2000 out of a £100,000 or £250,000 build is a small fraction to invest as peace of mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Ideally, but the competent boat builder you selected can soon start to cut corners when not under surveilance.

 

When you build a new house you choose the best builder you can find, BUT the council still send out their surveyor at each stage of build (foundations / floor / first floor / roof joists / plumbing / windows comply with the drawings etc etc) as they believe that even the best builder needs 'keeping an eye on'. Are you suggesting that these 'fred in a shed' welders can be trusted implicitly ?

 

Far better to pay a suitable surveyor (there are lists available of warranted RCR surveyors whose job this is and know the RCR inside out) 'a couple of thousand' to make (say) 4 or 5 visits during the build.

 

£2000 out of a £100,000 or £250,000 build is a small fraction to invest as peace of mind.

 

Indeed, and you and Nick (and I) know this -- but the vast majority of novice boatbuyers don't, because -- as you point out -- unlike houses there is pretty much no ongoing regulation or advice or checking during a build and fitout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Easy to say, but given that there's no trusted "boatbuilder quality accreditation" scheme, how do you suggest doing this?

 

All boatbuilders will tell you how skilled and careful they are and what a good job they'll do, the difficulty is working out which are telling the truth and which aren't...

And 95% of boaters will tell you how great their builders were

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

It was clear to you, as somebody who knows a lot about boats. It would not be clear to a novice boater who knows little or nothing about boat construction and welding, or what to look out for, or indeed that such problems exist, and falls for the sparkly things.

 


Well no, that was the point, 12 years ago I didn’t know much about boat construction. Boating before that had been on my mate’s narrowboat, the construction of which I didn’t pay much attention to, we just used it! Hence me nearly being seduced by the sparkly bits!

 

I still know very little about welding but when I saw that the 2 bits of bow plating didn’t evenly meet at the middle bit, it was pretty obvious. Ditto when I could see daylight through some other welding! Yes it was that bad!

 

Anyway, none of this is much help to the OP, I am reminded of the Harry Enfield sketch where he repeatedly said “Oooh, no, you should have done it like this…”.
 

At least he was funny!

Edited by nicknorman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, nicknorman said:


Well no, that was the point, 12 years ago I didn’t know much about boat construction. Boating before that had been on my mate’s narrowboat, the construction of which I didn’t pay much attention to, we just used it! Hence me nearly being seduced by the sparkly bits!

 

I still know very little about welding but when I saw that the 2 bits of bow plating didn’t evenly meet at the middle bit, it was pretty obvious. Ditto when I could see daylight through some other welding! Yes it was that bad!

 

It all depends what you're interested in. I'm an engineer and I've spend many hours discussing the technical aspects of the construction of the boat I'm having built for me, a lot of time working out how to fit everything in and where to put it to make everything usable, and zero time (so far) on exactly what it's going to look like inside, fittings and fixtures, wood finishes, gadgets, colour schemes, lights and so on -- because that all comes later.

 

But many people have pretty much zero knowledge about (or interest in) the grubby technical bits, all they care about is what it looks like and "ooh, that's clever" features in the fitout, and are swayed by reading reviews (which often also concentrate on the "sparkly bits", like the Good Pub Guide used to spend more time describing carpets and furniture than the quality of the beer) -- and from what I can gather this is also how a lot of the builders at Crick present themselves.

 

And it's not surprising if many builders do this, because sparkly sells more boats than grubby engineering...

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IanD said:

 

Easy to say, but given that there's no trusted "boatbuilder quality accreditation" scheme, how do you suggest doing this?

 

All boatbuilders will tell you how skilled and careful they are and what a good job they'll do, the difficulty is working out which are telling the truth and which aren't...

 

Is this problem is not why the EU made our guvvermint introduce the RCD, latterly the RCR?

 

Dear OP, does your boat comply with the RCR and have all the right paperwork and builder declarations? Somehow I suspect not, and if not, this is the route to use to go after the builder. (The "builder" in the legal sense, in the light of your recent post explaining how the boat got built.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, MtB said:

Is this problem is not why the EU made our guvvermint introduce the RCD, latterly the RCR?

 

Not really - the RCR is simply the specification(s) to which a recreational boat must be built.

What is not done, is the enforcement of building to the specification - it is very much taken on trust, certainly for canal boats.

 

As opposed to 'skip-fabricators' "Boat builders" normally have a 'notified body' who 'sign off' the boat(s).

 

It is interesting that the RYA have decided to no longer operate as a 'notified body'

 

Press Release :

 

First introduced in
1998 the RCD was brought in as a trade directive to ensure that all
boats built and imported into the European Union were built and sold
above a minimum set of standards. Once implemented, the
RYA’s involvement as a Notified Body looked to provide manufacturers
with a less daunting option than a Classification Society and at a more
reasonable cost, as well as allowing the RYA hands on experience with
the standards prescribed within the RCD and
the ability to assess and influence those standards.

 

The RYA said it has completed a wide range of
assessments working with some major British manufacturers
in getting their models assessed and onto the water, as well as with individuals looking to import boats from
outside of the EU, home build boats and component parts such as steering
wheels.

 

Bas went on to explain: ‘By withdrawing from the RCD it does mean that the range of services
offered by the RYA Technical Department will be slightly different and
we are looking at a number of options and services
we can offer in its place that will appeal to a wider range of the
membership. However we will continue to offer services such as the issue
of Craft Identification Numbers and the RCD Web subscription website.

 

 

‘The RYA will continue
to keep a close eye on both the practical day to day processes involved
in the RCD as well as influencing both the ISO Standards and the EU
Directive at the highest levels to ensure that the
end result is a safe, sensible boat for the end user.’

 

 

 

 

EC Certificates are issued, where required by the Directive, by a Notified Body who is responsible for the validity and contents of the certificates.

 

The following statement is given in preamble (31) to Directive 2013/53/EU: "In order to ensure compliance with the essential requirements, it is necessary to lay down appropriate conformity assessment procedures to be followed by the manufacturer. Those procedures should be set in reference to conformity assessment modules laid down in Decision No 768/2008/EC. Those procedures should be devised in the light of the level of the risk which may be inherent in the watercraft, engines and components. Therefore each category of conformity should be supplemented by an appropriate procedure or a choice between several equivalent procedures."

 

A Notified Body has the necessary technical competence for the conformity assessment. The lack of harmonised standards does not exclude important essential requirements for assessment.

 

Then follows 283 pages of Assesment procedures, guidelines and supplementary document links.

 

 

Screenshot (683).png

 

 

 

Article 30 Requirements relating to notified bodies

1. For the purposes of notification under this Directive, a conformity assessment body shall meet the requirements laid down in paragraphs 2 to 11.

 

2. A conformity assessment body shall be established under national law and shall have legal personality.

 

3. A conformity assessment body shall be a third-party body independent of the organisation or the product it assesses. A body belonging to a business association or professional federation representing undertakings involved in the design, manufacturing, provision, assembly, use or maintenance of products which it assesses, may, on condition that its independence and the absence of any conflict of interest are demonstrated, be considered such a body. 

 

4. A conformity assessment body, its top level management and the personnel responsible for carrying out the conformity assessment tasks shall not be the designer, manufacturer, supplier, installer, purchaser, owner, user or maintainer of the products which they assess, nor the representative of any of those parties. This shall not preclude the use of assessed products that are necessary for the operations of the conformity assessment body or the use of such products for personal purposes.

A conformity assessment body, its top level management and the personnel responsible for carrying out the conformity assessment tasks shall not be directly involved in the design or manufacture, the marketing, installation, use or maintenance of those products, or represent the parties engaged in those activities. They shall not engage in any activity that may conflict with their independence of judgement or integrity in relation to conformity assessment activities for which they are notified. This shall in particular apply to consultancy services. Conformity assessment bodies shall ensure that the activities of their subsidiaries or subcontractors do not affect the confidentiality, objectivity or impartiality of their conformity assessment activities.

 

5. Conformity assessment bodies and their personnel shall carry out the conformity assessment activities with the highest degree of professional integrity and the requisite technical competence in the specific field and shall be free from all pressures and inducements, particularly financial, which might influence their judgement or the results of their conformity assessment activities, especially as regards persons or groups of persons with an interest in the results of those activities.

 

6. A conformity assessment body shall be capable of carrying out the conformity assessment tasks assigned to it by the provisions of Articles 19 to 24 and in relation to which it has have been notified, whether those tasks are carried out by the conformity assessment body itself or on its behalf and under its responsibility. At all times and for each conformity assessment procedure and each kind or category of products in relation to which it has been notified, a conformity assessment body shall have at its disposal the necessary

(a) personnel with technical knowledge and sufficient and appropriate experience to perform the conformity assessment tasks;

(b) descriptions of procedures in accordance with which conformity assessment is carried out ensuring the transparency and ability of reproduction of those procedures. It shall have appropriate policies and procedures in place that distinguish between tasks it carries out as a notified body and other activities;

(c) procedures for the performance of activities which take due account of the size of an undertaking, the sector in which it operates, its structure, the degree of complexity of the technology of the product in question and the mass or serial nature of the production process.  It shall have the means necessary to perform the technical and administrative tasks connected with the conformity assessment activities in an appropriate manner and shall have access to all necessary equipment or facilities.

 

7. The personnel responsible for carrying out the conformity assessment activities shall have the following

(a) sound technical and vocational training covering all the conformity assessment activities in relation to which the conformity assessment body has been notified;

(b) satisfactory knowledge of the requirements of the assessments they carry out and adequate authority to carry out those assessments;

(c) appropriate knowledge and understanding of the essential requirements, the applicable harmonised standards, the relevant Union harmonisation legislation and the relevant national legislation;

(d) the ability to draw up certificates, records and reports demonstrating that assessments have been carried out.

 

8. The impartiality of the conformity assessment bodies, their top level management and of the assessment personnel shall be guaranteed. The remuneration of the top level management and assessment personnel of a conformity assessment body shall not depend on the number of assessments carried out or on the results of those assessments.

 

9. Conformity assessment bodies shall take out liability insurance unless liability is assumed by the Member State in accordance with its national law, or the Member State itself is directly responsible for the conformity assessment.

 

10. The personnel of a conformity assessment body shall observe professional secrecy with regard to all information obtained in carrying out their tasks under Articles 19 to 24 or any provision of national law giving effect to it, except in relation to the competent authorities of the Member State in which its activities are carried out. Proprietary rights shall be protected.

 

11. Conformity assessment bodies shall participate in, or ensure that their assessment personnel are informed of, the relevant standardisation activities and the activities of the notified body coordination group established under Article 42, and shall apply as general guidance the administrative decisions and documents produced as a result of the work of that group

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Ideally, but the competent boat builder you selected can soon start to cut corners when not under surveilance.

 

When you build a new house you choose the best builder you can find, BUT the council still send out their surveyor at each stage of build (foundations / floor / first floor / roof joists / plumbing / windows comply with the drawings etc etc) as they believe that even the best builder needs 'keeping an eye on'. Are you suggesting that these 'fred in a shed' welders can be trusted implicitly ?

 

Far better to pay a suitable surveyor (there are lists available of warranted RCR surveyors whose job this is and know the RCR inside out) 'a couple of thousand' to make (say) 4 or 5 visits during the build.

 

£2000 out of a £100,000 or £250,000 build is a small fraction to invest as peace of mind.

 

Not any more they don't, the builder can choose whether to use a Council Surveyor, or engage a private Surveyor from an approved company.

 

 

Edited by David Schweizer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

 

Not any more they don't, the builder can choose whether to use a Council Surveyor, or engage a private Surveyor from an approved company.

 

 

 

Fair enoufgh there has been a change since we 'built', but, the system remains the same, each stage has to be assessed and approved by a surveyor before the next stage can commence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Fair enoufgh there has been a change since we 'built', but, the system remains the same, each stage has to be assessed and approved by a surveyor before the next stage can commence.

 

The system may have remained the same, but the outcome may not be the same, because the historic independance of the Local Authority surveyor can now be compromised. I know of one recent build where the builder chose a surveyor who was a mate, and a lot of irregularities were subsequently overlooked by the surveyor, resulting in blocked drains and a leaking water supply. It eventually took the threat of legal action from the Water Authority to have the poor construction  corrected.

 

 

Edited by David Schweizer
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

(snip)

It seems now to be a weekly event that some aspect of a boat that is signed off as being RCR compliant isn't - last week it was fuel-tank inspection hatches, this week, flooding heights, what will it be next week.

(snip)

The problem with self assessment for the RCD on Cat D (RCD, not MCA, definition) boats! 🤨

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

The problem with self assessment for the RCD on Cat D (RCD, not MCA, definition) boats! 🤨

 

100% in agreement. To much autonomy left with the builder to the detriment of the buyer.

 

(2 weeks ago it was 'dyslexic builders' who couldn't format their CIN / HIN / WIN in accordance with the requirements)

 

 

 

Edited by Alan de Enfield
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.