Jump to content

BSS Review


Featured Posts

9 hours ago, Slow and Steady said:

Really? My inspector warned in advance that this should be accessible for inspection asking if I could make it so to save him messing about with any cooker fixings.

How did he assess condition of rubber inside the armour, did the manufacturer recommend this install? 

Was it Armoured hose? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, zenataomm said:

I normally agree with most of what you have to say, but not this time.

You don't choose one MOT inspector over another one because his skill set suits one aspect of your car better than different cars or other inspectors.

I needed work done on the gas, this was agreed when I booked the examiner. I specifically did not want a bubble tester. And more importantly I did not want someone not Gas Safe to work on my gas fittings. 

I would only use a Gas Safe Examiner, boat+lpg in future as he can test for leaks. I think I explained several times before, the BSC is of limited, I might say dubious value. Before buying a boat I had assumed that  Certificates would be issued only after obvious fails were remedied. I was wrong. 

I am paying for the examiner to check the boat, I need a Certificate for the boat, because it is required by CRT

I need my boat to be safe for me, so I choose the right man for the job. 

 

All MOT stations should be working to one standard, its not a matter of interpretation, a tail light either works or it does not, boat electrics on the other hand....... BSC scheme...... 

Edited by LadyG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, LadyG said:

The reason could be that different examiners have different skills. 

I got a GasSafe (Boat and lpg) examiner to do my BSC, I had found someone who would carry out certain work on the boat, all safety related. He was familiar with gas installations and found a fail which none of the others were aware of, for the simple reason that particular fail was not covered in their training. For those of you who have a gas cooker like mine, it should not be attached with an armoured hose, check the manufacturers installation guide. The hose could be in poor condition, no one can inspect it. 

 

 

 

The BSS does seem to allow (what you are calling ) armoured hoses

 

7.9.1 Are all low pressure LPG hoses accessible for inspection, of the correct material and in good condition "R"

 

All LPG hoses on the low pressure side:

 must be accessible for inspection along their entire length.

 must be marked to BS EN 16436 Class 2; BS EN 16436 Class 3; BS 3212 type 2; or equivalent.

 must be free of leaks, flaws, brittleness, cracking, abrasion, kinking, ‘soft’ spots or joins.

On hoses covered with metal braiding the braiding must be free of signs of damage or deterioration including corrosion and kinking

 

NOTE – pre‐made hose assemblies conforming to BS 669 may be used to connect cookers to LPG supply pipework. Such hoses usually have a red stripe running along the length of the hose but may not be marked with BS 669. The connections on such hoses must terminate with self‐sealing bayonet connections at the connection points to the LPG supply pipework. The portable appliance connection checks at 7.10 also apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the BSC scheme should follow manufacturer, as did my GsSafe examiner.

He signed off the boat only after removing the Armoured hose. 

 

I think the BSC scheme should follow manufacturer recommendation, as did my GsSafe examiner. Its certainly standard practice in industry. 

He signed off the boat only after removing the Armoured hose. 

I am not against a safety certification scheme, but as I have stated previously, it should be made clear that it is limited.

There is probably no particular reason for four yearly testing, possibly it was decided upon to ensure all boats got their certificates when the scheme was first set up. It seems a reasonable timescale. 

The CRT and insurance companies require boats to be kept in a safe condition, the owner is the responsible person. 

 

 

I think the BSC scheme should follow manufacturer recommendation, as did my GsSafe examiner. Its certainly standard practice in industry. 

He signed off the boat only after removing the Armoured hose. It was replaced with a coil of gas piping, certainly seemed a bit strange to me, but he is the one on site, with the qualifications and experience. 

 

 

 

Edited by LadyG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, LadyG said:

Ie signed off the boat only after removing the Armoured hose. It was replaced with a coil of gas piping, certainly seemed a bit strange to me, but he is the one on site, with the qualifications and experience. 

 

 

 

That seems a bit strange to me too! The hose behind a cooker which connects the cooker to the gas supply to my mind needs to be flexible to allow for the cooker to be moved for cleaning etc.  I know  the gas cookers at home and on both boats have flexible hose .

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cheshire~rose said:

 

If non AWCC members request an available mooring at an AWCC club then there would usually be a fee to pay. It is usually quite a small fee but will vary from one club to another. If you were to request a visitor mooring in a marina would you expect that to be free? AWCC clubs are run as a business and they have overheads to cover the same as any other waterways business. 

 

There are three AWCC affiliated boat clubs on The Chesterfield Canal. You suggest that one of them was in some way not obliging and suggest that was because they expected a fee for use of their facilities?

 

A temporary visitor mooring on a beautiful stretch of canal  that is patrolled twice a day, with an electric hook up if required and access to water no more than a hose-pipe length a way at a fiver a night seems pretty fair to me, and if that money helps them to subsidise other facilities - such as a drop of decent real ale from the bar at just £2.40 a pint for those that choose to visit 

 

I am sorry you did not feel welcomed at whichever club it was you visited. 

 

I did not say I did not feel welcome, I said I was charged. That is despite being a member of two AWCC clubs. This was by the club steward so a not so well informed member can not be blamed. No help in pointing me to a vacant mooring, no electricity and no close by water point and no patrol that I saw any sign of. Also several hundred yards walk down the canal bank to the get to the road and their bar.

 

You will also note that I said that always voluntarily paid a suitable amount when mooring at an AWCC affiliated club. That amount was usually comparable to a marina fee. In fact they got a bit less than I would normally pay.

 

I think the AWCC reciprocal mooring thing is very over rated. In another case I found it impossible to contact another club from the details in the AWCC hand book to see if I could arrange a mooring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

I did not say I did not feel welcome, I said I was charged. That is despite being a member of two AWCC clubs. This was by the club steward so a not so well informed member can not be blamed. No help in pointing me to a vacant mooring, no electricity and no close by water point and no patrol that I saw any sign of. Also several hundred yards walk down the canal bank to the get to the road and their bar.

 

You will also note that I said that always voluntarily paid a suitable amount when mooring at an AWCC affiliated club. That amount was usually comparable to a marina fee. In fact they got a bit less than I would normally pay.

 

I think the AWCC reciprocal mooring thing is very over rated. In another case I found it impossible to contact another club from the details in the AWCC hand book to see if I could arrange a mooring.

 

I apologise, taking the post I quoted alone it was not obvious to me that you were charged and yet you were a member. I can't speak for the other clubs on The Chesterfield but if there were no electricity or water nearby then it would not be the club where I moor and yet you by stating you had a problem with the Chesterfield AWCC club you have painted all three of the clubs on that canal with the same brush. Why mention any place at all if you are not prepared to say which club it was you had a problem with? 

 

I know the AWCC handbook is often very out of date and many clubs tend to be run by their membership, often a committee of well meaning folks of advancing years as befits the profile of so many boaters. They can often be slow to embrace technology and this fangled internet thing is scary and above their pay scale. We have not used the reciprocal mooring arrangement very often but it has been a Godsend to us on more than one occasion. We are only members of the AWCC because we benefit from a great value mooring at a lively club and so a reciprocal mooring, if it can be arranged, is just the cherry on the top of a very nice cake for us, not something that we rely on. We would be far more likely to be looking for a website or Facebook page for a club to get an up to date contact rather than rely on a handbook with a publication date that might be months after an appeal for updated information had been sent out to the clubs via an email address that is rarely monitored. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, LadyG said:

It was replaced with a coil of gas piping, certainly seemed a bit strange to me, but he is the one on site, with the qualifications and experience. 

A coil of solid pipe or flexible? Either way it sounds like a bodge by someone who did not have a proper connecting pipe to hand, qualified or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, cheshire~rose said:

Why mention any place at all if you are not prepared to say which club it was you had a problem with? 

 

Because I can't remember what club it was but I know exactly where it is located. Anyway my  experience may have not been typical. I was illustrating that the reciprocal mooring may not be all it is cracked up to be. In fact I think it is true to say since that experience I always used marinas who seem to be easy to contact, helpful and business like. There was more related to not being told where it was acceptable to moor, like being told in no uncertain terms to move the boat because I was in another boater's mooring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

Because I can't remember what club it was but I know exactly where it is located. Anyway my  experience may have not been typical. I was illustrating that the reciprocal mooring may not be all it is cracked up to be. In fact I think it is true to say since that experience I always used marinas who seem to be easy to contact, helpful and business like. There was more related to not being told where it was acceptable to moor, like being told in no uncertain terms to move the boat because I was in another boater's mooring.

 

Yes, you know exactly where it was, and from your description so do I now. 

 

My point is that anybody else reading your post does not know exactly where it is and so by mentioning it was on The Chesterfield Canal you have, in effect, suggested that any one of three of the AWCC clubs are places to be avoided. 

If you were not prepared or not able to state which AWCC club it was you received less than good service from then you should not have mentioned the location either. 

 

AWCC clubs are businesses and can be as badly affected by adverse publicity on social media as any other waterways business, whether a marina, a chandlery or a canal side pub. All businesses are struggling at present and so why would you write something that could cause harm to a well run and well organised club and then seek to defend your actions is a mystery to me 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Really? This is news to me! 

 

Welcome back Arthur, by the way. I bet it feels like you never left!! :hug:

 

 

Maybe the nonGasSafe blokes equipment isn't so accurate, and there's an error factor allowed. Either way, apparently the pressure doesn't have to be shown to be completely stable to pass BSS. The GasSafe man will pass the system under BSS but can't sign off his own work until the leak is confirmed and sorted. That's what he said, anyway.

Personally, as the only bit of the BSS that concerns me, on a basic old tub like mine, is gas leaks, I'm quite happy about that.

Thanks for the welcome back. You're right...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/03/2022 at 10:28, ditchcrawler said:

I have just read on the AWCC site that they are now formally looking into reducing the time between inspections to 2 or 3 years and also when a boat is sold. Also only allowing the same examiner to do two examinations 

 

Seems strange to reduce the time of inspections from 4 years when coding on small seaworthy vessels (fishing boats etc) is still done every 5 years.

 

Not only will C&RT find this a useful way to increase income, it will probably lead to many liveaboards having to give up thier homes due to the extra cost. Maybe that's part of the real agenda here? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LadyG said:

He signed off the boat only after removing the Armoured hose. It was replaced with a coil of gas piping, certainly seemed a bit strange to me, but he is the one on site, with the qualifications and experience. 

 

And this whole episode illustrates what is so wrong with the BSS scheme. Here we have a BSS bod applying his own personal opinion to ambiguous and contradictory rule 7..9.1 , helpfully quoted by Alan upthread.

 

Under the first part of the rule your BSS bod is right, with an armoured hose he cannot satisfy himself the hose is "free of leaks, flaws, brittleness, cracking" beneath the armouring as demanded in the checklist in the rule.

 

But then the rule goes on to say this:

 

"On hoses covered with metal braiding the braiding must be free of signs of damage or deterioration including corrosion and kinking" 

 

Which contradicts the above and demonstrates armoured hose must be acceptable, or why state it?

 

There are other examples of such ambiguity in the drafting of the BSS checks required which result in different inspectors having different opinions about whether a given boat is compliant, or not. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Maybe the nonGasSafe blokes equipment isn't so accurate, and there's an error factor allowed. Either way, apparently the pressure doesn't have to be shown to be completely stable to pass BSS. The GasSafe man will pass the system under BSS but can't sign off his own work until the leak is confirmed and sorted. That's what he said, anyway.

 

 

 

Frankly I think this is tosh, unless the rules have been completely re-written since my own GSR registration for "LPG Boats" expired a handful of years ago. 

 

There is NO 'allowance' or error factor under the BS 5482-3 (now superseded) allowed depending on who is doing the measuring. The gas that might be leaking out certainly doesn't care.

 

I've never actually noticed a procedure defined in the BSS for soundness testing when there is no bubble tester, but I can't imagine it will (or can be) any slacker than that required by BS 5482-3. I'm off to have a trawl though now though!

 

 

Edit to add:

I've had a scan through the BSS to see what it defines as the tightness testing procedure, and basically, it doesn't. All it says is:

"All LPG systems must be free of leaks when tested in accordance with the appropriate tightness test procedure", and thus we are looped back to the procedure defined in BS5482-3.

 

(Or rather, BS PD 54823:2016 'Guidance for the design, commissioning and maintenance of LPG systems in small craft", as it is now.)

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by MtB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

 

Not only will C&RT find this a useful way to increase income, it will probably lead to many liveaboards having to give up thier homes due to the extra cost. Maybe that's part of the real agenda here? 

 

 

You're kidding, right? 

 

You think an extra £80 a year will force many liveaboards to give up their homes, when the expenses of living on a boat run to £thousands a year already?

 

I thin k it is more likely the most hard-up boaters will simply dig in deeper into 'stealth' mode, and not get a BSS or buy a license at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, cheshire~rose said:

 

Yes, you know exactly where it was, and from your description so do I now. 

 

My point is that anybody else reading your post does not know exactly where it is and so by mentioning it was on The Chesterfield Canal you have, in effect, suggested that any one of three of the AWCC clubs are places to be avoided. 

If you were not prepared or not able to state which AWCC club it was you received less than good service from then you should not have mentioned the location either. 

 

AWCC clubs are businesses and can be as badly affected by adverse publicity on social media as any other waterways business, whether a marina, a chandlery or a canal side pub. All businesses are struggling at present and so why would you write something that could cause harm to a well run and well organised club and then seek to defend your actions is a mystery to me 

 

Where did  I say that any clubs are best avoided. I just said that I was charged to moor there. That is true so you seem to want to suppress the truth.

 

As for knowing exactly where it was, that again is your own interpretation based on nothing I posted. I do now know it was the Retford Boat Club, simply because I have just had a look on google maps. I knew the topography but not the location. In fact I have just forgotten the name of the village close by, despite just having looked it up. To me it is of no consequence, it is you who are making much of it.

 

again it is you alleging it is  a well run and well organized club, the impression it gave me was very different. Now I can see that you would rather like to suppress what you call bad publicity but if you don't want bad publicity then make sure you do nothing to deserve it. Poor service needs to  attract bad publicity but note that I deliberately did not name or identify the specific location.  I gave an example of where the topic under discussion (AWCC reciprocal mooring) did not hold up to scrutiny. You the seemed to want further details. Well done, any bad publicity about that club is down to you, not me.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

found the leak, which was, not surprisingly at all, caused by one of the things that the BSS insisted I have.

 

What was that thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

Where did  I say that any clubs are best avoided. I just said that I was charged to moor there. That is true so you seem to want to suppress the truth.

 

As for knowing exactly where it was, that again is your own interpretation based on nothing I posted. I do now know it was the Retford Boat Club, simply because I have just had a look on google maps. I knew the topography but not the location. In fact I have just forgotten the name of the village close by, despite just having looked it up. To me it is of no consequence, it is you who are making much of it.

 

again it is you alleging it is  a well run and well organized club, the impression it gave me was very different. Now I can see that you would rather like to suppress what you call bad publicity but if you don't want bad publicity then make sure you do nothing to deserve it. Poor service needs to  attract bad publicity but note that I deliberately did not name or identify the specific location.  I gave an example of where the topic under discussion (AWCC reciprocal mooring) did not hold up to scrutiny. You the seemed to want further details. Well done, any bad publicity about that club is down to you, not me.

 

I had not suggested you said clubs should be avoided, the experience you relayed suggested that for you.

 

I have no desire to suppress the truth but Your memory serves you very poorly 

 

There are electric points run the entire length of the moorings at R&WBC and yet you say none was available. There are water points at regular intervals along the entire length of the moorings and yet you do not recall those either. 

 

These are not new additions at the club, they have been in place for many years. We have been at the club for 9 years and during that time there have been 3 different caretakers. While a new caretaker may have been inexperienced for a short period during one of those years the club I am part of is indeed a well run and well managed club. As you have obviously chosen to forget the electric hook-up and water availability it does suggest that your account of a poorly run and managed club may not be wholly reliable. 

 

I am sure there are plenty of people who have visited and enjoyed their stay. If you were incorrectly charged at the time did you raise a query? Ask for your query to be escalated to a committee member? If you did and were fobbed off then yes, that was badly handled, if you chose to say nothing about the mistake and yet still hold a grudge about it without having given the club an opportunity to put things right at the time then that is your choice and it is unhelpful to share that on a platform such as this. 

The bad publicity is something you have created, it was there before I intervened, the only difference was it tarred all three clubs with the same brush wish was unfair. 

I hope visiting boaters will be prepared to stop by and make up their own mind about how well run and managed the club is. The telephone number is easily accessible and visiting boaters are welcomed, whether they are AWCC members or not. Chargeable electricity and water is available along the entire moorings and a well priced and well stocked bar awaits. 

If visiting in the near future an apology for the lack of carpet in the bar area should be extended. They are recovering from a flood but the carpet should be going down any day soon. The welcome will be a warm one, their new air source heat pump heating system is doing a great job! 

 

They are also in the process of setting up video conference facilities in their function room which will be made available to canal societies and charities at favourable rates. Thankfully it is a club with a good number of younger people with a great rage of technical skills on the committee who are driving things forward for the benefit of the boating community. 

 

With that I will leave it there. Your very real memory of being wrongly charged at a boat club with no electricity and no water points that was badly managed and run in a place you can't recall the name of other than it being on The Chesterfield Canal may feature large in your memory 

The reality of the situation is that your memory bears little resemblance to what the club actually offers it's visitors. Perhaps you will come back one day and give the club an opportunity to create a different experience for you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

 

 

You think an extra £80 a year will force many liveaboards to give up their homes, when the expenses of living on a boat run to £thousands a year already?

 

 

Exactly, it's not easy to find an extra £80 per year when many liveaboards are already struggling in hard times. It's not just the cost of more BSC examinations, it's also the additional cost of meeting the ever changing requirements which seem to be interpreted differently depending on the examiner concerned.

 

On that subject, it's much quicker for the same examiner to do repeat examinations on the same boat as they will be more familiar with that boat. There are no rules to say you must change your car MOT inspection facilty every second visit. Anyway, what message is this sending, that BSC examiners can't be trusted? 

 

And why reduce the interval from 4 years when small sea vessels are inspected every 5 years?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MtB said:

I've had a scan through the BSS to see what it defines as the tightness testing procedure, and basically, it doesn't. All it says is:

"All LPG systems must be free of leaks when tested in accordance with the appropriate tightness test procedure", and thus we are looped back to the procedure defined in BS5482-3.

 

There is a lot more detail in the new (still officially draft) ECP document on the BSS website - Appendix C, too long to post here, but the basic requirement for a BSS pass is “no discernible movement” on a fluid manometer, defined as not more than 0.25 mbar in 2 minutes. There’s detail on the bubble tester procedures as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AndrewIC said:

There is a lot more detail in the new (still officially draft) ECP document on the BSS website - Appendix C, too long to post here, but the basic requirement for a BSS pass is “no discernible movement” on a fluid manometer, defined as not more than 0.25 mbar in 2 minutes. There’s detail on the bubble tester procedures as well.

 

Hmmm interesting. That appears to be a less strict requirement than specified in BS 5482-3:2005, which (IIRC) defines a let-by test and a stabilisation period of five minutes, followed by no discernible movement for five minutes. 

 

I dunno what BS PD 54823:2016 says.

 

Mind you, in practice if there is no discernible movement in two minutes, there won't be in five minutes either. If there is a leak, even a microscopic one, it usually shows up on the gauge in seconds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Hmmm interesting. That appears to be a less strict requirement than specified in BS 5482-3:2005, which (IIRC) defines a let-by test and a stabilisation period of five minutes, followed by no discernible movement for five minutes. 

 

I dunno what BS PD 54823:2016 says.

 As far as I recall there was a recent-ish change to standardise the BSS procedure across manometers and bubble testers, and the manometer test used to include two periods of five minutes. I’m sure someone who knows will be along shortly to clarify what changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, MartynG said:

What was that thing?

Isolator valve by the cooker. Apparently if they are never used something or other inside dries out and they can leak. I have no idea if this is true or not, or whether the gas bloke who fitted the new cooker bust it. MtB probably knows if this is just another myth.

Quite glad he found it though. A gas leak, though tiny,  right by the cooker doesn't strike me as particularly healthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reciprocal mooring arrangements can obviously vary from Club to Club. Some clubs have caretakers or permanent residents which makes it easy for visitors to arrive and get the guidance required. Likewise, upon returning to collect their  boat, there is no real time constraint. Other clubs may not have permanent presence on site and can therefore appear unco-operative to visitors. 

Visitors should also be aware that if they have have booked for a specific period, then they have a responsibility to adhere to that arrangement. Visitor moorings at clubs are not infinite, and where you are now may be promised to another, so an 'unexpected circumstance' that delays your collection by a 'day or two' is not really fair. Likewise, a late arrival coupled with a correspondingly late departure may not be able to be catered for.  How is a host club expected to handle such a situation without causing upset?

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.