BSS Review

[Alan de Enfield]

6 hours ago, Rambling Boater said:

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

 

I'd like to point out that it is only COMMERCIAL vessels that are tested, the 300,000+ coastal leisure vessels require no testing at all.

[Rambling Boater]

6 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I'd like to point out that it is only COMMERCIAL vessels that are tested, the 300,000+ coastal leisure vessels require no testing at all.

Yes commercial, like fishing vessels (as per my first post).

 

It's a good job C&RT haven't persuaded our government to let them take control of coastal vessels too? 😉

 

Edited March 13, 2022 by Rambling Boater

[MtB]

7 hours ago, Rambling Boater said:

Yes commercial, like fishing vessels (as per my first post).

 

It's a good job C&RT haven't persuaded our government to let them take control of coastal vessels too? 😉

 

 

Commercial vessels are a very different kettle of fish though, don't you think? In use daily and carrying employees who have little choice in whether to work on the (dangerous, or safe) boat. Its perfectly justifiable that commercial vessels should be inspected to a higher standard than leisure boats that spend 99% of their time bobbing about unused in a marina.

[Rambling Boater]

33 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Commercial vessels are a very different kettle of fish though, don't you think? In use daily and carrying employees who have little choice in whether to work on the (dangerous, or safe) boat. Its perfectly justifiable that commercial vessels should be inspected to a higher standard than leisure boats that spend 99% of their time bobbing about unused in a marina.

 

Yes, very different, yet even so, the small coastal commercial vessels only have to undergo inspections every 5 years, not every 4 years like 99% of the inland Waterways  boats bobbing about unused in inland Marinas.

 

As Alan said, non-commercial (leisure) coastal vessels don't require any examination.

 

So in my opinion, to increase the frequency of the BSC examination to 3 or 2 years seems even more unjustified.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

27 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

Yes, very different, yet even so, the small coastal commercial vessels only have to undergo inspections every 5 years, not every 4 years like 99% of the inland Waterways  boats bobbing about unused in inland Marinas.

 

The MCA licencing and coding survey are a VERY different kettle of fish to the BSS. 

It is not just a 'once every 5 years' examination

 

A coding certificate is valid for up to 5 years from the date of issue.

• Any date sensitive equipment is required to be in date at all times.
• The vessel and all its equipment must be appropriately maintained and in good working order.
• At the end of the 1st, 2nd & 4th year of operation you will be required to certify that the vessel still complies with the MCA code. Depending on the code** this could be a ‘self-certification’ or carried out by a registered coding surveyor.
• At the end of the 3rd year you will be required to have an in-water inspection carried out by a registered coding surveyor.
• At the end of the 5th year a full out of water inspection is required in order to recode your vessel for a further 5 years.

 

** The code requirements are divided into six main categories depending on the type and use of your vessel.

• Cat 0: Unrestricted service.
• Cat 1: Up to 150 miles from a safe haven.
• Cat 2: Up to 60 miles from a safe haven.
• Cat 3: Up to 20 miles from a safe haven.
• Cat 4: Up to 20 miles from a safe haven, in favourable weather & daylight.
• Cat 5: Up to 20 miles from a nominated departure point, in favourable weather & daylight.
• Cat 6: To sea within 3 miles from a nominated departure point(s) named in the certificate and never more than 3 miles from land in favourable weather and daylight.

[Rambling Boater]

27 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The MCA licencing and coding survey are a VERY different kettle of fish to the BSS. 

It is not just a 'once every 5 years' examination

 

A coding certificate is valid for up to 5 years from the date of issue.

• Any date sensitive equipment is required to be in date at all times.
• The vessel and all its equipment must be appropriately maintained and in good working order.
• At the end of the 1st, 2nd & 4th year of operation you will be required to certify that the vessel still complies with the MCA code. Depending on the code** this could be a ‘self-certification’ or carried out by a registered coding surveyor.
• At the end of the 3rd year you will be required to have an in-water inspection carried out by a registered coding surveyor.
• At the end of the 5th year a full out of water inspection is required in order to recode your vessel for a further 5 years.

 

** The code requirements are divided into six main categories depending on the type and use of your vessel.

• Cat 0: Unrestricted service.
• Cat 1: Up to 150 miles from a safe haven.
• Cat 2: Up to 60 miles from a safe haven.
• Cat 3: Up to 20 miles from a safe haven.
• Cat 4: Up to 20 miles from a safe haven, in favourable weather & daylight.
• Cat 5: Up to 20 miles from a nominated departure point, in favourable weather & daylight.
• Cat 6: To sea within 3 miles from a nominated departure point(s) named in the certificate and never more than 3 miles from land in favourable weather and daylight.

 

So for commercial coastal vessels much of the responsibility is in the owners hands, plus one in water and  one out of water inspection carried out by a qualified surveyor every 5 years.

 

The BSC is not interested in out of water inspections. The hull could be just about to breach but it would still pass. 
 

So can anyone here come up with any justification for increasing the BSC examination intervals from 4 years to 3 or 2 years?

 

Can anyone justify why we have them at all seeing as leisure vessels in coastal marinas don't need one? I suppose there is more risk to public third parties along a tow path than in a private coastal marinas, not sure about harbours though.

 

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

Can anyone justify why we have them at all seeing as leisure vessels in coastal marinas don't need one?

 

 

You have a bee in your bonnet about why someone is 'getting something' that you are not.

 

The reason that the BSS exists is because the 1995 Waterways Act of Parliament says it must.

That 'standard' is the BSS

 

(3)Notwithstanding anything in any enactment but subject to subsection (7) below, the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless—

(a)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to that vessel;

 

 

As you will be aware from a number of my posts on the subject, I completely agree with you about the total farce that the BSS has become, it is not a consistently applied standard and is simply a 'job for the boys'.

 

 

Edited March 14, 2022 by Alan de Enfield

[Arthur Marshall]

1 minute ago, Rambling Boater said:

 

So for commercial coastal vessels much of the responsibility is in the owners hands, plus one in water and  one out of water inspection carried out by a qualified surveyor every 5 years.

 

The BSC is not interested in out of water inspections. The hull could be just about to breach but it would still pass. 
 

So can anyone here come up with any justification for increasing the BSC examination intervals from 4 years to 3 or 2 years?

 

Can anyone justify why we have them at all seeing as leisure vessels in coastal marinas don't need one? I suppose there is more risk to public third parties along a tow path than in a private coastal marinas, not sure about harbours though.

 

 

 

 

The justification is simply that a bureaucracy has to keep adding bits to itself in order to justify its existence. It has nothing to do with safety, the canal system, or any of its customer's needs. It just needs more things it can count, and more people in its employment. That's what, after a while, it's for. It's one of Parkinson's laws. There must always be growth.

After a while it becomes so inefficient in its primary purpose that it fails completely and is replaced by a smaller organisation which then goes through the same process.

[MtB]

12 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

As you will be aware from a number of my posts on the subject, I completely agree with you about the total farce that the BSS has become, it is not a consistently applied standard and is simply a 'job for the boys'.

 

 

I agree with you up to the last bit. Yes it is a total farce but a flawed and farcical scheme riddled with weaknesses is still better than no scheme at all. 

 

At least it ensures some of the worst and most obvious risks get spotted and dealt with once every four years instead of never. I also suspect many BSS inspectors have little respect for all the trivia they are supposed to check for and are more skilled than you realise in 'taking a view', i.e. assessing both the boat and the boater for overall safety. Rather this than checking line-by-line every single one of the minutiae in the regs whih would take all day, as they do actually need to balance this with making a living.  

[Alan de Enfield]

37 minutes ago, MtB said:

At least it ensures some of the worst and most obvious risks get spotted and dealt with once every four years instead of never.

 

Agreed

 

37 minutes ago, MtB said:

I also suspect many BSS inspectors have little respect for all the trivia they are supposed to check for and are more skilled than you realise in 'taking a view'

 

Agreed. The 'problem' comes when there is a safety issue and the Examiner has 'taken a view' that it should be compliant because it was last time, he has signed to say that the boat is fully compliant and I very much doubt that his professional insurance would cover him for signing for something he had not actually checked.

 

37 minutes ago, MtB said:

Rather this than checking line-by-line every single one of the minutiae in the regs whih would take all day, as they do actually need to balance this with making a living.  

 

The alternative being that the cost of the BSS examination actually represents the time taken to do the job properly.

Maybe £200 (or even £250) + BSS registration fee (£50) is not unreasonable and the examiner can do (say) 1 per day.

 

At £250 it works out at 17p per day, at £300 it is 20p per day It is not a lot in the greater scheme of boating costs.

Edited March 14, 2022 by Alan de Enfield

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, Rambling Boater said:

 

So can anyone here come up with any justification for increasing the BSC examination intervals from 4 years to 3 or 2 years?

 

 

I have read more than one person who is in favour of this as they feel it improves the boat safety. Lots of people hold that piece of paper with great reverence. 

[MtB]

22 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The alternative being that the cost of the BSS examination actually represents the time taken to do the job properly.

Maybe £200 (or even £250) + BSS registration fee (£50) is not unreasonable and the examiner can do (say) 1 per day.

 

 

That is totally untenable as a business proposition. Three weeks time spent training involving three different sites widely spread over the uk, plus £5k in fees to shell out in order to earn half what a plumber or electrician typically makes. You have a fine sense of humour!

[Rambling Boater]

20 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

At £250 it works out at 17p per day, at £300 it is 20p per day It is not a lot in the greater scheme of boating costs.

 

Regarding your quote  "--  the total farce that the BSS has become, it is not a consistently applied standard and is simply a 'job for the boys'"

 

As I said earlier, some liveaboard boaters are already struggling just with the 'greater scheme of boating costs'. 

[George and Dragon]

2 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

some liveaboard boaters are already struggling just with the 'greater scheme of boating costs'. 

Perhaps they should think about their priorities and give up the avocado toast (where's that tongue in cheek emoji?)

[Rambling Boater]

2 minutes ago, George and Dragon said:

Perhaps they should think about their priorities and give up the avocado toast (where's that tongue in cheek emoji?)

 

Maybe the other 'they' shouldn't be pushing for 2 or 3 year examinations in the first place, or pushing boaters into changing thier examiner after every 2 examinations, or maybe they should remove them altogether. 

 

BTW, I prefer Marmite toast.

[MtB]

12 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

 

As I said earlier, some liveaboard boaters are already struggling just with the 'greater scheme of boating costs'. 

 

I'm sure most posters here would agree that boaters "already struggling" should therefore be excused having a BSS inspection, especially now Alan has helpfully informed us it is a "jobs for the boys" sheme. Only those who can comfortably afford it should be subject to any safety inspection regime. Yes?

[ditchcrawler]

1 minute ago, Rambling Boater said:

 

Maybe the other 'they' shouldn't be pushing for 2 or 3 year examinations in the first place, or pushing boaters into changing thier examiner after every 2 examinations, or maybe they should remove them altogether. 

 

BTW, I prefer Marmite toast.

Well looking at the state of the struggling boaters boat on the TV last week I wouldn't want to be moored next to him, maybe his boat had a BSS 4 years ago before it sank and he got hold of it. I feel sorry for the lad as it seems what he has is better than living in a doorway 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

18 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

 

Maybe the other 'they' shouldn't be pushing for 2 or 3 year examinations in the first place, or pushing boaters into changing thier examiner after every 2 examinations, or maybe they should remove them altogether. 

 

BTW, I prefer Marmite toast.

 

But you suggest that the MCA (Coastal) scheme is far more reasonable with a 5 year 'out of water' examination and an 'in-water' examination half way thru the life of the 'full examination'

 

That would seem to be quite close to the BSS proposed 2 year exmination (but with the BSS being far less demanding)

[Rambling Boater]

14 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I'm sure most posters here would agree that boaters "already struggling" should therefore be excused having a BSS inspection, especially now Alan has helpfully informed us it is a "jobs for the boys" sheme. Only those who can comfortably afford it should be subject to any safety inspection regime. Yes?

 

I'm sure many boaters who have plenty of money disagree with the new proposals, but they don't seem to be here.

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

 

I'm sure many boaters who have plenty of money disagree with the new proposals, but they don't seem to be here.

 

 

The new proposals you are arguing against only exist as a phantasy in the corporate mind of the AWCC, so can be safely discounted. 

[ditchcrawler]

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

The new proposals you are arguing against only exist as a phantasy in the corporate mind of the AWCC, so can be safely discounted. 

No in the minds of the BSS

[MtB]

1 minute ago, ditchcrawler said:

No in the minds of the BSS

 

Really? 

 

In that case I oppose them!!

[Rambling Boater]

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

The new proposals you are arguing against only exist as a phantasy in the corporate mind of the AWCC, so can be safely discounted. 

 

Great news, I'll be able to buy another jar of marmite to celebrate then. 🙂

[Hudds Lad]

4 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

 

Great news, I'll be able to buy another jar of marmite to celebrate then. 🙂

You may well think that, but due to the ongoing conflict twixt Russia and Ukraine there is a shortage of the Umami needed to create Marmite (60% of the world's Umami is mined in the Ukraine) and cost per jar may well triple.

[ditchcrawler]

17 minutes ago, Hudds Lad said:

You may well think that, but due to the ongoing conflict twixt Russia and Ukraine there is a shortage of the Umami needed to create Marmite (60% of the world's Umami is mined in the Ukraine) and cost per jar may well triple.

Bollicks, its a by product of Caister treacle mines