BSS Review

[cuthound]

20 hours ago, George and Dragon said:

Not unless someone has poured petrol in with your diesel. 

I did a fire safety course 30+ years ago and the instructors (firefighters from North Yorkshire Fire Service as it was then) had us all try to light a tray of diesel. Couldn't be done without the petrol on top.

 

Even the Fire Services can't agree on the flamibility of diesel.

 

I used to project manage the installation of standby generators for a living 

 

Some fire services (and local authority fire officers) used to insist that the day tanks automatically drain down into the bulk tanks (in a separate room) in the event of a fire, whereas others saw an empty day tank as more of a fire risk because it now contained fumes.

[ditchcrawler]

48 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Even the Fire Services can't agree on the flamibility of diesel.

 

I used to project manage the installation of standby generators for a living 

 

Some fire services (and local authority fire officers) used to insist that the day tanks automatically drain down into the bulk tanks (in a separate room) in the event of a fire, whereas others saw an empty day tank as more of a fire risk because it now contained fumes.

I suppose that depends on hot the tank left full of diesel is likely to get in the case of a fife in the generator room

[zenataomm]

On 10/03/2022 at 12:30, Nightwatch said:

 

 

Theidea that a different BSS examiner has to be used after two periods is nonsense. The examiner gets to know the vessel and knows it’s weak spots and foibles. Sound like a money making scheme to me. But for whom? Just saying like.

More importantly I think it's an uncalled for and unproven accusation against all Safety Inspectors.

It borders on being libellous to the profession in general.

[zenataomm]

On 09/03/2022 at 22:10, Arthur Marshall said:

There's no evidence that half the BSS requirements are needed. Which is why a stack of the original ones got scrapped. It's just bureaucracy in action. Evidence is not required, just useless UK management wonks, he spelt carefully.

Quite so.

Therefore you agree that good practice dictates evidence is required in order to make a change.  Otherwise it's change for the sake of it.

There is no evidence that supports the needs to increase the frequency of safety tests nor is there evidence that the testers are fraudulent.

[LadyG]

12 hours ago, zenataomm said:

Quite so.

Therefore you agree that good practice dictates evidence is required in order to make a change.  Otherwise it's change for the sake of it.

There is no evidence that supports the needs to increase the frequency of safety tests nor is there evidence that the testers are fraudulent.

Did someone suggest fraudulent, I suppose that would require testing in court, it's never going to come to that. 

I don't think that asking for different examiners is libellous, I think that requires one person v another. For example, the Met was found, by evidence, to be institutionally racist, but no one officer was identified. Im not familiar with the exact law, but that sort of accusation is too general in my opinion. I believe fraud is a criminal offence, I may be wrong, but it is a serious allegation. 

Edited March 12, 2022 by LadyG

[MtB]

14 hours ago, zenataomm said:

Therefore you agree that good practice dictates evidence is required in order to make a change. 

 

And by extension, it must also be good practice for there to be evidence of the safety risk associated with each item placed on the BSS inspection list in the first place, otherwise it is just a list of stuff made up in a meeting of the bureaucrats.

 

Is there such evidence available for the public to inspect? Or did Team BSS just make up a list of things they liked the idea of making boaters comply with?

 

 

[Tony Brooks]

37 minutes ago, MtB said:

Or did Team BSS just make up a list of things they liked the idea of making boaters comply with?

 

Initially, no they did not.  They too the long established Thames Conservancy Launch Regulations that were based on best prcatice, and boy, weren't there some real horrors on other waterways. I base that on getting ex Broads boats to pass the TC launch regs. However I get the feeling that later revisions were not based on such good evidence.

 

I think the proposal that the boaters can not use the same examiner is a tacit admission or negligence by the scheme managers. It does not apply to the MOT so why the BSS unless it is an admission of lack of quality control and testing. This tends to be confirmed by the way the office deals with unfair fail complaints (or not).

[blackrose]

On 09/03/2022 at 10:57, ditchcrawler said:

But very little of what the BSS covers deteriorates with time, battery cables don't get thinner, fuel fillers don't get smaller. People can change things at any point.

 

Exactly. Whether the examination is every 4 years or 3 years isn't going to change the fact that many/most non-compliant changes between inspections are intentionally carried out as soon as the examiner leaves.

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

Initially, no they did not.  They too the long established Thames Conservancy Launch Regulations that were based on best prcatice, and boy, weren't there some real horrors on other waterways. I base that on getting ex Broads boats to pass the TC launch regs. However I get the feeling that later revisions were not based on such good evidence.

 

I think the proposal that the boaters can not use the same examiner is a tacit admission or negligence by the scheme managers. It does not apply to the MOT so why the BSS unless it is an admission of lack of quality control and testing. This tends to be confirmed by the way the office deals with unfair fail complaints (or not).

 

 

I'm still not sure if this is an actual suggestion by the BSS themselves, or, a suggestion put to the BSS by the AWCC.

 

It was reported in the minutes of an AWCC meeting with the BSS but, do we know the facts behind it ?

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, blackrose said:

 

Exactly. Whether the examination is every 4 years or 3 years isn't going to change the fact that many/most non-compliant changes between inspections are intentionally carried out as soon as the examiner leaves.

 

 

You mean like, giving your neighbour his fire extinguishers back, putting the anchor back into the gas locker, putting the generator and petrol can back under the bed ........................

Edited March 12, 2022 by Alan de Enfield

[Tony Brooks]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

I'm still not sure if this is an actual suggestion by the BSS themselves, or, a suggestion put to the BSS by the AWCC.

 

It was reported in the minutes of an AWCC meeting with the BSS but, do we know the facts behind it ?

 

If that suggestion came from the AWCC the the various boat clubs should look to their members and resign from the AWCC immediately. It sounds far to much like how the IWA got into bed with CaRT.

[ditchcrawler]

I have been poking around a bit more and came across this Examiner Newsletters | Boat Safety Scheme | Go Boating - Stay Safe

[ditchcrawler]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

I'm still not sure if this is an actual suggestion by the BSS themselves, or, a suggestion put to the BSS by the AWCC.

 

The AWCC were officially told by the BSS it was not a suggestion. Other than what the BSS tell organisations at meetings its very hard to find information in the public domain. Like the annual report of incidents, I have read this on the AWCC site but can't find it anywhere else

[Tony Brooks]

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

I have been poking around a bit more and came across this Examiner Newsletters | Boat Safety Scheme | Go Boating - Stay Safe

 

I had a quick scan and noticed the bit about plastic fuel tanks for diesel heaters. Talk about shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. I raised the plastic fuel tanks containing ethanol used for fuel cells being marketed at boaters in 2008 and as far as I know they did nothing. Now, 14 years later they are worrying about diesel that is not very volatile at normal temperatures while seemingly ignoring ethanol that is about as volatile as petrol.

[zenataomm]

7 hours ago, LadyG said:

Did someone suggest fraudulent, I suppose that would require testing in court, it's never going to come to that. 

I don't think that asking for different examiners is libellous, I think that requires one person v another. For example, the Met was found, by evidence, to be institutionally racist, but no one officer was identified. Im not familiar with the exact law, but that sort of accusation is too general in my opinion. I believe fraud is a criminal offence, I may be wrong, but it is a serious allegation. 

It's certainly insinuated.

Whatever other reason could there be for not allowing the same inspector to repeatedly test the same boats?

[LadyG]

6 hours ago, zenataomm said:

It's certainly insinuated.

Whatever other reason could there be for not allowing the same inspector to repeatedly test the same boats?

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. 

 

Edited March 12, 2022 by LadyG

[Slow and Steady]

7 hours ago, zenataomm said:

It's certainly insinuated.

Whatever other reason could there be for not allowing the same inspector to repeatedly test the same boats?

They would like any new inspectors they take on to think they have more chance of getting some work?

[ditchcrawler]

49 minutes ago, LadyG said:

 The hose could be in poor condition, no one can inspect it. 

 

If no one can inspect it how did he find it.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, LadyG said:

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.

 

If it was not covered in an examiners training then it should not be included in the BSS examination. Or, to put it another way examiners should be trained on all of the aspects required by the BSS.

 

That the examiners are not properly trained is known by the many who actually have a BSS test, and, take the trouble to read the examination rules and guidelines themselves.

[Slow and Steady]

1 hour ago, LadyG said:

The hose could be in poor condition, no one can inspect it. 

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.

[MtB]

It's interesting that getting BSS trained takes longer and costs more than it took me get GSR, yet the earning potential is so much lower.

 

With GSR we have to re-sit our exams every five years though. With BSS I suspect once you have it, it's a lifetime qualification. CBA to read up and check though! 

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

If it was not covered in an examiners training then it should not be included in the BSS examination. Or, to put it another way examiners should be trained on all of the aspects required by the BSS.

 

That the examiners are not properly trained is known by the many who actually have a BSS test, and, take the trouble to read the examination rules and guidelines themselves.

If it's a GasSafe engineer, it makes no difference whether it's part of the BSS or not, if he finds evidence of ANY leak at all, he can't walk away until he's sorted it. A non GasSafe bod has a working alllowance to allow for their lack of expertise. 

I'm a bit surprised you don't know that, but then you usually just look for an excuse to take a pop at the person you replied to. Nice to know not much has changed in my absence from the forum.

My boat didn't fail the BSS, but he refused to leave till he'd found the leak, which was, not surprisingly at all, caused by one of the things that the BSS insisted I have.

 

[zenataomm]

3 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. 

 

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.

[MtB]

11 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

If it's a GasSafe engineer, it makes no difference whether it's part of the BSS or not, if he finds evidence of ANY leak at all, he can't walk away until he's sorted it. A non GasSafe bod has a working alllowance to allow for their lack of expertise. 

 

Really? This is news to me! 

 

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

 

 

[LadyG]

9 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

If no one can inspect it how did he find it.

 

He looked at the installation. He did this by sliding the cooker off the wall. 

Armoured hose should not be used. 

It is not the recommended install. 

Four examiners previously either had not looked or did not read manuf recommendations. 

1 minute ago, LadyG said:

He looked at the installation. 

Armoured hose should not be used. The hose cannot be inspected because it is covered with armouring. 

It is not the recommended install. 

Four examiners previously either had not looked or did not read manuf recommendations. 

 

Edited March 13, 2022 by LadyG

[cheshire~rose]

On 10/03/2022 at 11:16, Tony Brooks said:

I always volunteered a suitable fee when I used a AWCC club temporary mooring  except on the Chesterfield where they wanted a fee so I think it depends upon the club. Stafford Boat Club seemed very obliging. The Chesterfield club less so.

 

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.