A BSS section?

[Zen]

Hi all,

 

Still being a complete noob in all of this, I was wondering if there was a benefit for a BSS section. This forum has been fantastic at helping me understand so much already and am really grateful for all of the advice people have given me.

 

I also appreciate and understand that there may well be copyright issues with the standards being uploaded and printed in its entirety but small snippets on specifics areas for educational purposes should be OK, even if done repeatedly. No I am not trying to get the specs for free, I will pay for them myself when I am a few months away from buying but..

 

I thought it may be handy to have posts in this section on specific things like battery where people can discuss simple things that can make you fail the BSS test such as batteries not being secured and the contacts not covered as well as good practices etc

 

regards

 

Zen

[ditchcrawler]

7 minutes ago, Zen said:

Hi all,

 

Still being a complete noob in all of this, I was wondering if there was a benefit for a BSS section. This forum has been fantastic at helping me understand so much already and am really grateful for all of the advice people have given me.

 

I also appreciate and understand that there may well be copyright issues with the standards being uploaded and printed in its entirety but small snippets on specifics areas for educational purposes should be OK, even if done repeatedly. No I am not trying to get the specs for free, I will pay for them myself when I am a few months away from buying but..

 

I thought it may be handy to have posts in this section on specific things like battery where people can discuss simple things that can make you fail the BSS test such as batteries not being secured and the contacts not covered as well as good practices etc

 

regards

 

Zen

They are freely available on the BSS web site

 Private Boat Requirements | Boat Safety Scheme | Go Boating - Stay Safe 

 bss-complete-ecps-private-boat-public-version-2023.pdf

[Alan de Enfield]

39 minutes ago, Zen said:

I also appreciate and understand that there may well be copyright issues with the standards being uploaded and printed in its entirety but small snippets on specifics areas for educational purposes should be OK, even if done repeatedly. No I am not trying to get the specs for free, I will pay for them myself when I am a few months away from buying but..

 

I think you may be confusing the RCR requirements (IsO standards) and the much lower requirements of the BSS.

 

The BSs documentation of everything required is on the BSS website, you can download it, print it or whatever - it is the guide to what is required.

 

It is 195 pages - but make sure you get "V5" dated 2023 as it is very different to the earlier issues.

Edited November 7 by Alan de Enfield

[Zen]

Yes, you are right I was thinking of the RCR ISO standard one but without opening a can of worms, my idea still stands both for the RCR and the BSS, focus should be on the BSS but if someone wanted to add a note on how the RCR would view it and explain how according to the RCR, method A is better than method B I think this could only be a good thing.

[David Mack]

10 minutes ago, Zen said:

 to add a note on how the RCR would view it and explain how according to the RCR, method A is better than method B

The RCR doesn't 'view' anything. For canal boats the boatbuilder declares that the boat complies with the RCR. If he has followed the relevant ISO standards then that is sufficient to comply. If he proposes an alternative approach, that is equally valid providing the (high level) Essential Requirements have been met. There are various industry guidance documents which are probably the easiest way to show compliance, but these are not mandatory.

Edited November 7 by David Mack

[Arthur Marshall]

The BSS is applied so differently by every examiner I doubt a section would be much use. I've had stuff passed for years then suddenly failed for the most peculiar reasons, and stuff fixed to a required standard for one examiner immediately failed by the next.

[Alan de Enfield]

Here is one to get your teeth into.

One of the areas highlighted by surveyors on recent boat sales is the lack of a strong point (towing / anchoring) and questions have been asked here, "what is wrong with the T-stud, and how strong should it be".

 

Well, there are detailed requirements :

 

5.2 The minimum number of strong points shall be as follows:
 all craft: one anchoring/towing point forward;
 craft over 6 m LH: at least one mooring point aft;
 craft over 12 m LH: at least one additional mooring point both forward and aft;
 craft over 18 m LH: at least one additional mooring point both port and starboard.

 

(Where LH is the hull length)

 

6 Strength requirements
6.1 Introduction
The assessment of the breaking strength shall be made according to 6.2, 6.3 or 6.4.
6.2 Horizontal load
Each strong point shall be designed and installed, so that it will take a horizontal load, Pn, in kilonewtons
without failure of the strong point or the surrounding structure to which it is attached:
 

Forward, for anchoring and being towed:
P1 = f (4,3LC − 5,4)

Forward, for mooring:
P2 = f (3,5LC − 4,3)
 

Aft
P3 = f (3,0LC − 3,8)
where
f = 1,0 (design categories A and B ) 
  = 0,9 (design category C)
  = 0,75 (design category D)

LC is the calculation length = (Hull length + waterline length) / 2

The breaking strength of a strong point for any application need not be higher than that required to withstand a
load representing the mass of the boat in the fully loaded ready-for-use condition, mLDC.

Edited November 7 by Alan de Enfield

[David Mack]

Alan, you are at it again. What you have quoted is not mandatory. What do the Essential Requirements of the regulations actually say?

 

Edited to add I've looked it up.

All very general compared to what you have quoted.

Edited November 7 by David Mack

[Gybe Ho]

49 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

The BSS is applied so differently by every examiner I doubt a section would be much use. I've had stuff passed for years then suddenly failed for the most peculiar reasons, and stuff fixed to a required standard for one examiner immediately failed by the next.

 

I mentioned before, the scheme was toughened up around 2021. Were you unlucky enough to encounter a newly evangelized examiner?

If the new forum section is created, could the forum administrators just call it "Alan!!!".

[Alan de Enfield]

57 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Alan, you are at it again. What you have quoted is not mandatory. What do the Essential Requirements of the regulations actually say?

 

Edited to add I've looked it up.

All very general compared to what you have quoted.

 

And you are 'at it again'.

If the ISO specs are complied with, it is an automatic complliance, but it you decide to 'do it another way' you need to provide evidence that your method gives 'as good a' result as the ISO standard.

 

How do 'you' take into account the design characteristics / category without knowing what loads will be applied ?

 

The ISO standard shows how to work out the towing / anchoring loads so it's easy enough to compare alternative methods.

 

It does not tell you HOW it must be attached.

 

Did you finally agree that Hire boats are commercial boats ? (you went very quiet on the subject)

[Momac]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

The BSS is applied so differently by every examiner I doubt a section would be much use. I've had stuff passed for years then suddenly failed for the most peculiar reasons, and stuff fixed to a required standard for one examiner immediately failed by the next.

I  have used the same surveyor for the last three BSS examinations on the same boat all with no issues . 

I suggest you use the same surveyor as last time for the next test since that should solve the difference of opinion problem.

 

 

[Tacet]

47 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

And you are 'at it again'.

If the ISO specs are complied with, it is an automatic complliance, but it you decide to 'do it another way' you need to provide evidence that your method gives 'as good a' result as the ISO standard

You're at indeed at it again, Alan.  Compliance with ISO creates only a rebuttable presumption with RCR.

 

And there is no requirement in the RCR to provide evidence of a method giving as good as a result as the ISO.  Meeting the Essential Requirements of the RCR is sufficient in itself.

Edited November 7 by Tacet

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Tacet said:

Compliance with ISO creates only a rebuttable presumption with RCR.

 

Which is what I said.

 

The application of harmonised standards is not the only

means to demonstrate the conformity of a product.

However, only harmonised standards, after publication of

references in the Official Journal of the EU (OJEU), may

provide an automatic presumption of conformity against

essential requirements covered by such standards.

With the exception of the Directive’s mandatory reference

to some harmonised standards (see Point 3), the

manufacturer can choose whether or not to apply and refer

to harmonised standards. However, if the manufacturer

chooses not to follow the harmonised standards, he has

the obligation to demonstrate that his products are in

conformity with essential requirements by the use of other

means that provide for at least an equivalent level of safety

or protection.

These can be technical specifications such as national

standards, European or international standards which are

not harmonised, i.e. not published in the OJEU, rules of

notified bodies or the manufacturer’s own specifications.

In these cases the manufacturer does not benefit from the

presumption of conformity, but has to demonstrate the

conformity himself. This implies that he demonstrates, in the

technical documentation of a relevant product, in a more

detailed manner how the technical specifications he uses

provide conformity with the essential requirements.

Manufacturers are advised to stay informed about the

developments in international standardisation. Even if

the manufacturer has not used harmonised standards, a

change in the relevant harmonised standard could mean

a change in the state of the art that implies that his product

may not be compliant.

[Zen]

ohh dear those worms are all over the place after all

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Gybe Ho said:

 

I mentioned before, the scheme was toughened up around 2021. Were you unlucky enough to encounter a newly evangelized examiner?

 

Nope.

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Did you finally agree that Hire boats are commercial boats ? (you went very quiet on the subject)

Professionally crewed passenger boats (trip boats, hotel boats etc.) are commercial craft as defined in the RCD and RCR, and are therefore not required to comply with the RCR/RCD requirements. Self-steer hire craft which are hired out for leisure use (without crew) in the course of business are used commercially (small 'c'), but they are classed as recreational craft for the purposes of the RCD and RCR and therefore are covered in exactly the same way as privately owned leisure craft. I quoted the relevant sections of the RCR to support my position the last time this came up.

Edited November 7 by David Mack