Boat Safety Scheme Certificate BSSC/BSC requirements changes

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, GUMPY said:

 

You remember the C of C which became the BSS that encompassed everything, then the BSS was watered down from that.

 

Is your heating electric?

I expect even your " perfumed candles" are led 🫣

No, and I don't have any... 😉 

[Momac]

30 minutes ago, IanD said:

How about if you don't have any fuel burning appliances? 😉 

 

I did wonder what the justification for fitting a CO alarm was in such a case, which is why it's sitting in a drawer next to the smoke alarm...

You need a CO alarm in case CO enters your boat . 

As an example a person  moored nearby could be  running a petrol generator and the exhaust fumes could be blown into your boat. 

[Stroudwater1]

8 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

That's the point. It's just needless complexity for the sake of it, largely because the people in charge have to keep expanding it in order to keep their jobs. And it lets them charge the examiners more, of course.

Plus for them to charge the examiners more too. It’s topics like this when we miss MtB (apart from Alan of course) 

 

[GUMPY]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

No, and I don't have any... 😉 

Unless you have invented something really clever I presume  you have a fuel burning appliance  Webasto, Eberspacher ,Hurricane or similar all of which under fault conditions can dump CO into the enclosed space.

Still it's your life.

 

Yes, I have been saved by a CO alarm going off and waking me otherwise I wouldn't be here now.

[IanD]

11 minutes ago, GUMPY said:

Unless you have invented something really clever I presume  you have a fuel burning appliance  Webasto, Eberspacher ,Hurricane or similar all of which under fault conditions can dump CO into the enclosed space.

Still it's your life.

 

Yes, I have been saved by a CO alarm going off and waking me otherwise I wouldn't be here now.

There's a diesel boiler in the engine space which is sealed off from the living space, with the exhaust at the stern next to where another boat might well be. The odds of this emitting CO at all are small, the odds of this getting into the boat are negligible -- especially since the bedroom is fifty feet away at the other end of the boat.

 

So yes it's my life, and I'm not the slightest bit worried about this. OTOH if (like you?) I had a solid-fuel stove or other burny things inside the boat, then of course I'd have a CO alarm, because it would make sense.

 

One-size-fits-all doesn't fit all... 😉 

[ditchcrawler]

43 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

That's the point. It's just needless complexity for the sake of it, largely because the people in charge have to keep expanding it in order to keep their jobs. And it lets them charge the examiners more, of course.

How about breathalyser before you can start the engine like some coach drivers have 

36 minutes ago, Momac said:

You need a CO alarm in case CO enters your boat . 

As an example a person  moored nearby could be  running a petrol generator and the exhaust fumes could be blown into your boat. 

But that is not your alarm protecting a third party its protecting you

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

How about breathalyser before you can start the engine like some coach drivers have 

But that is not your alarm protecting a third party its protecting you

Any of the original justifications for the BSC have long gone out of the window. It's now just annother business opportunity for the examiners and those running it. Whether it benefits boaters is no longer relevant.

[Momac]

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

 

But that is not your alarm protecting a third party its protecting you

If the CO enters your  boat from a source not belonging to you then you are the third party to the incident.

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

35 minutes ago, Momac said:

If the CO enters your  boat from a source not belonging to you then you are the third party to the incident.

 

 

Has such a thing ever been known to happen to a dangerous level?

[LadyG]

On 02/10/2024 at 18:06, matty40s said:

Smoke alarms are becoming part of the regulations soon, but not as yet.

If you liveboard you should have a bubble tester fitted, or use a gas safe BSS examiner(who IS allowed to test using the test point).

Make sure any flexible hoses, both fuel and gas are fully visible at their joins/ends.

I think my test point is at the end of the line, past the cooker and has a label. I was not happy about the armoured hose on the cooker (23y.o.) this was replaced by my Examiner with a coil of copper pipe. The cooker is fixed ie not freestanding.

Edited March 3 by LadyG

[Stroudwater1]

45 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Has such a thing ever been known to happen to a dangerous level?

I think when I asked someone knew someone that it may possibly have happened to? Agree it’s extremely unlikely but fear of an invisible danger pervades. It is very dangerous if not treated with care in your own boat but I suspect you are more at danger objecting to a neighbours smelly or noisy generator than CO. (From their fists or poison tongue) 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Momac said:

If the CO enters your  boat from a source not belonging to you then you are the third party to the incident.

 

 

 

So the 'other' boat owner should be paying to have your CO alarm fitted - ie - protecting the 3rd party from his emissions.

[agg221]

I hope everyone has got their Geiger counters fitted in case the boat moored next to you happens to be highly radioactive.

 

Alec

[Mike Todd]

3 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Any of the original justifications for the BSC have long gone out of the window. It's now just annother business opportunity for the examiners and those running it. Whether it benefits boaters is no longer relevant.

If the scheme was intended as a lucrative scheme for examiners, it seems by all reports to be a miserable failure. 

[Stroudwater1]

9 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

If the scheme was intended as a lucrative scheme for examiners, it seems by all reports to be a miserable failure. 

It’s not easy money and there’s responsibility attached but isn’t it possible to do 3 per day. If so that’s a decent earner and not a miserable failure. Even two a day is still not bad money. 
 

At 7,500 boats needing a BSS annually and assuming £230 as the cost per boat that’s £1.75 million per year coming out of boaters pockets. Whoever is getting that money probably doesn’t count that as a failure. 

[Arthur Marshall]

9 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

If the scheme was intended as a lucrative scheme for examiners, it seems by all reports to be a miserable failure. 

Seems to keep enough in business, quite a few long after the normal retirement age. Perhaps that's what it's for - either a  secondary income for incompetent engineers or a pension scheme for old boatmen!

[Mike Todd]

28 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

It’s not easy money and there’s responsibility attached but isn’t it possible to do 3 per day. If so that’s a decent earner and not a miserable failure. Even two a day is still not bad money. 
 

At 7,500 boats needing a BSS annually and assuming £230 as the cost per boat that’s £1.75 million per year coming out of boaters pockets. Whoever is getting that money probably doesn’t count that as a failure. 

Do not forget that around half (I believe) of what you pay the examiner goes straight to the BSS for registration. There are plenty of other overheads, such as regular updating training, holiday/sickness to cover if self employed, travel to each boat etc etc etc. I've struggled to see how, doing it full time, would get one much above minimum wage on an annualised basis. Remember that the simplest of trades is generally these days charged out at £35 - £50 an hour - parameds (eg physio, foot care, dental hygienists) let alone car servicing) - oops I did not mean to imply that those examples are 'simple' - just meant that they do not always have expensive capital assets, but do usually have to pay for premises.

Edited March 4 by Mike Todd

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

Do not forget that around half (I believe) of what you pay the examiner goes straight to the BSS for registration. There are plenty of other overheads, such as regular updating training, holiday/sickness to cover if self employed, travel to each boat etc etc etc. I've struggled to see how, doing it full time, would get one much above minimum wage on an annualised basis. Remember that the simplest of trades is generally these days charged out at £35 - £50 an hour - parameds (eg physio, foot care, dental hygienists) let alone car servicing) - oops I did not mean to imply that those examples are 'simple' - just meant that they do not always have expensive capital assets, but do usually have to pay for premises.

I wonder what realistic alternative to BSS inspections the naysayers can come up with?

 

Maybe self-certification? Because that worked so well for the water industry... 😞 

 

Given the likely net income to the examiner after costs, I don't see why would any experienced/competent engineer would do this for a living when there are many other jobs which would pay them far better, Arthur pointed out what might happen when you pay peanuts... 😉 

 

So to those who say that the BSS inspectors are incompetent or badly trained/certified-- be careful what you wish for, because if they were all competent and properly trained/certified (and paid the going rate for such engineers) and did the inspections thoroughly my guess is that the cost would be a lot higher than today. Think plumber/electrician hourly rates (for at least two hours?) plus travel time plus training costs plus cut to BSS, I'd be amazed if it came in under £500.

[Arthur Marshall]

38 minutes ago, IanD said:

I wonder what realistic alternative to BSS inspections the naysayers can come up with?

 

Maybe self-certification? Because that worked so well for the water industry... 😞 

 

Given the likely net income to the examiner after costs, I don't see why would any experienced/competent engineer would do this for a living when there are many other jobs which would pay them far better, Arthur pointed out what might happen when you pay peanuts... 😉 

 

So to those who say that the BSS inspectors are incompetent or badly trained/certified-- be careful what you wish for, because if they were all competent and properly trained/certified (and paid the going rate for such engineers) and did the inspections thoroughly my guess is that the cost would be a lot higher than today. Think plumber/electrician hourly rates (for at least two hours?) plus travel time plus training costs plus cut to BSS, I'd be amazed if it came in under £500.

To be honest, we got on perfectly alL right before it and if a few idiots want to blow themselves up or set fire to themselves, I tend to regard it as evolution in action.

The scheme seems to have made no difference to these events causing damage to other boats (at least, the numbers seem to have proportionally remained constant for decades) which could, of course, notice any likelihood of danger and shift themselves out of it.

The new idea of the scheme giving a totally subjective view of a boats worthiness to be afloat looks like an absolute disaster and a little Hitler's charter.

[IanD]

7 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

To be honest, we got on perfectly alL right before it and if a few idiots want to blow themselves up or set fire to themselves, I tend to regard it as evolution in action.

The scheme seems to have made no difference to these events causing damage to other boats (at least, the numbers seem to have proportionally remained constant for decades) which could, of course, notice any likelihood of danger and shift themselves out of it.

The new idea of the scheme giving a totally subjective view of a boats worthiness to be afloat looks like an absolute disaster and a little Hitler's charter.

From what has been said it seems that this already applies in some cases, with examiners who are jobsworths -- with an inflated sense of their own importance and expertise who refuse to admit that they are ignorant of the actual rules... 😞 

 

(plus no effective mechanism to do anything about this via the BSS...)

Edited March 4 by IanD

[Stroudwater1]

53 minutes ago, IanD said:

I wonder what realistic alternative to BSS inspections the naysayers can come up with?

 

Maybe self-certification? Because that worked so well for the water industry... 😞 

 

Given the likely net income to the examiner after costs, I don't see why would any experienced/competent engineer would do this for a living when there are many other jobs which would pay them far better, Arthur pointed out what might happen when you pay peanuts... 😉 

 

So to those who say that the BSS inspectors are incompetent or badly trained/certified-- be careful what you wish for, because if they were all competent and properly trained/certified (and paid the going rate for such engineers) and did the inspections thoroughly my guess is that the cost would be a lot higher than today. Think plumber/electrician hourly rates (for at least two hours?) plus travel time plus training costs plus cut to BSS, I'd be amazed if it came in under £500.

Yes it wasn’t in existence nor was anything until around the late 1980s. Interesting that there’s no scheme for private housing- far more dangerous and many more lives lost annually. 
 

It’s a scheme that scrabbles around to add more burdens - the battery holders now preventing vertical movement for example. 3000 failures reported on that one alone… 

 

If it’s really saving £1.75 million pounds worth of lives annually I should be very surprised! 

[David Mack]

1 minute ago, Stroudwater1 said:

Yes it wasn’t in existence nor was anything until around the late 1980s.

 

Not on the canals, but the Thames Conservancy had standards for pleasure craft long before the BSS.

 

5 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

Interesting that there’s no scheme for private housing- far more dangerous and many more lives lost annually. 

 

No general periodic inspection, like the MoT or BSS. But:

New builds and significant alterations are subject to building regulations;

Owners are restricted in what they are allowed to do to gas and electric installations;

Rented properties are required to have periodic gas and electrical safety checks.

[IanD]

11 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

Yes it wasn’t in existence nor was anything until around the late 1980s. Interesting that there’s no scheme for private housing- far more dangerous and many more lives lost annually. 
 

It’s a scheme that scrabbles around to add more burdens - the battery holders now preventing vertical movement for example. 3000 failures reported on that one alone… 

 

If it’s really saving £1.75 million pounds worth of lives annually I should be very surprised! 

That's a bit less than the value of 1 life using the normal figures for this... 😉 

 

Given the annual death rate on the canals for boat-related defects, I suspect that it does do this in its current form -- just think of all the cowboy installations of things like gas and petrol generators and mains power you'd get today without the BSS, especially given the rise in numbers of people just looking for a dirt-cheap place to live which happens to be a boat, and who have no concept of what is safe or not (or don't care)... 😉 

 

So it ought to focus on things which *do* represent genuine dangers to life especially of those outside the boat, things which have a non-negligible change of leading to major injuries or fatal accidents including fires/explosions/sinkings/CO poisoning/electrocution -- and these should be appropriate to boats on inland waterways, not boats thrashing around Scotland in a Force 10, like the battery holders noted above...

 

This would lead to rather fewer easily-justified rules which could be more effectively checked/enforced, not a long list of piddling little largely pointless ones trying to eliminate unlikely risks with relatively minor consequences -- which is what has brought the whole BSS scheme into disrepute... :-( 

Edited March 4 by IanD

[Momac]

 

There is in general no BSS requirement for boats located in coastal marinas and moorings  that fall outside of areas that require a C&RT /EA/Broads license.

As far as I  know nothing bad seems to be happening as a result.

 

[Stroudwater1]

Just now, IanD said:

That's a bit less than the value of 1 life using the normal figures for this... 😉 

 

Given the annual death rate on the canals for boat-related defects, I suspect that it does do this in its current form -- just think of all the cowboy installations of things like gas and petrol generators you'd get today without the BSS, especially given the rise in numbers of people just looking for a dirt-cheap place to live which happens to be a boat, and who have no concept of what is safe or not (or don't care)... 😉 

 

So it ought to focus on things which *do* represent genuine dangers to life especially of those outside the boat, things which have a non-negligible change of leading to major injuries or fatal accidents including fires/explosions/sinkings/CO poisoning -- and these should be appropriate to boats on inland waterways, not boats thrashing around Scotland in a Force 10 -- like the battery holders noted above...

 

This would lead to rather fewer rules which could be more effectively checked/enforced, not a long list of piddling little largely pointless ones trying to eliminate unlikely risks with relatively minor consequences.

Not on NHS QUALY years though. Assuming we are all old duffers average age 60 one life saved is around £500,000 (25,000 X 20 years)  Is the BSS really saving 3 or 4 deaths a year? 

 

FAR more deaths occur from falling in and or propeller nasties than any BSS will ever begin to save. 
 

The trouble with generators is that they tend to disappear during BSS inspection like several other implements. 
 

Is there a stat. for deaths for boat related defects, and cause? It would help if there was one! Appreciate there are sad stories of CO deaths which probably make up the majority