Recreational Craft Directive

[Gibbo]

Aaah and all this time I thought you were a clever bloke Gibbo!

 

 

BSI are an influential body whose business is to make money, they are also absolutely necessary especially in engineering and without them we would end up with a hotch potch of crap all deemed by individuals to be of a good or acceptable 'standard' Standards be them BS, En etc have proved to be necessary unfortunately.

 

The point is, if we have to, by law, comply with a certain standard, then that standard should be freely available. The very fact that certain bodies can charge for it gives them a huge incentive to keep getting it wrong, thus mandating a new standard, covering exactly the same issue (with a few changes), 12 months later. Thus everyone has to buy the standard again, because all of a sudden the previous one has become not fit for its intended purpose within what should be a warranty period.

 

So either the people that draw up the standards are utterly incompetent at their jobs (and should therefore not be doing it) or they are deliberately rewriting standards in order to keep their income stream alive.

 

Bolt threads got standardised without any need whatsoever for a BS, EN, ISO number or any other "standard" number. So did volts, amps, watts, pounds, cubits, acres, horsepower etc etc etc. BSI, ISO and all the other standards bodies are completely superfluous to the engineering world.

 

It's a scam. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever in my mind.

[Robin2]

So did volts, amps, watts, pounds, cubits, acres, horsepower etc etc etc.

 

I think you will find that there are exceedingly fine standards for these things. For example, how is an inch defined?

 

 

I agree that charging for the standards documents is b*ll*x

[Ally]

mrartisan, like it or not, you HAVE TO and should, comply to the RCD if you are to sell your vessel now. It is the law, and either you get on with it and prove it complies, or ignore it and either wait and sell a potentially non-compliant boat, or become an illegal sellar. It sounds like you are intending to make a career of this, so just get it right, abide by the law and sell compliant and SAFE boats. I'd given you the benefit of the doubt, but your continued kick against the LAW makes me wonder.

It may feel unjust, but it is what you must do for good reason....we do it...and use an independant surveyor each time at our cost and choice to be sure we comply and are up to date, so just get on and do it correctly!

[Gibbo]

I think you will find that there are exceedingly fine standards for these things.

 

There are indeed. All of which were defined years before these "standards" bodies existed. All the "standards" bodies have done is keep redefining them in such a way that they have never changed so that they can justify their own worthless existence.

[ChrisPy]

 

Bolt threads got standardised without any need whatsoever for a BS, EN, ISO number or any other "standard" number. So did volts, amps, watts, pounds, cubits, acres, horsepower etc etc etc. BSI, ISO and all the other standards bodies are completely superfluous to the engineering world.

 

It's a scam. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever in my mind.

perhaps you should have capitalised the word Standard to avoid unnecessary heckling !

 

I am now retired, and I recognise the symptoms of a cynic.

 

Without nationally or internationally accepted Standards how would I go about procuring engineering materials from a number of recognised suppliers by the tendering process? My experience tells me that relying on their reputation is no longer adequate, especially when the tendering companies will buy in most of their component supplies. Writing my own specification without reference to Standards is unworkable because no-one will take the time to read, understand and check compliance by their production groups and sub-suppliers before tendering.

 

Like it or not (and I learned to resent the QA/QC "profession"), Standards are essential to all branches of engineering that I encountered during my working life (and that was most branches, as I was working in oil and gas facilities and pipelines construction).

Edited August 8, 2011 by ChrisPy

[WotEver]

Linky to PDF of Ryland's CE-Craft details.

 

Tony

[Ally]

I wonder if you are aware of the need, when you CE mark it, for assessing the maximum weights and people onboard that is safe underway...done in a choice of ways, but I rarely have seen anyone do a proper heel test, most seem to pluck a figure from the sky.......what then if there was ever a problem and the insurers asked for heel test results or similar? It is required that you give this info for example....just another example of where a requirement such as 'stability' is NOT the hull builders issue, but yours.

[Gibbo]

Without nationally or internationally accepted Standards how would I go about procuring engineering materials from a number of recognised suppliers by the tendering process?

 

You're missing my point. A volt is a volt. These tin-pot "standards" bodies have reworded how it is defined numerous times. Has the actual value of a volt changed? No. Not one jot. Therefore everything they did in redefining how a volt is defined was a complete and utter waste of everybody's time and money.

 

They come out with a standard. Everyone has to buy it. 12 months later they draw it up again with some minor changes. This isn't because the laws of physics have changed, or because some new discoveries have been made. It's because they drew it up wrong in the first place. Everyone has to buy it again. This goes on for ever.

 

If they were not allowed to charge for these "standards", or were only allowed to charge once and were then forced to give every purchaser the updates for free, you can bet your arse they'd get them drafted up properly in the first place. They deliberately produce standards that are wrong, so that they can charge everyone for them again 12 months later. Either that or they are simply incompetent.

 

It's a scam. I'm absolutely amazed that anyone can be fooled by it.

[ChrisPy]

You're missing my point. A volt is a volt. These tin-pot "standards" bodies have reworded how it is defined numerous times. Has the actual value of a volt changed? No. Not one jot. Therefore everything they did in redefining how a volt is defined was a complete and utter waste of everybody's time and money.

 

They come out with a standard. Everyone has to buy it. 12 months later they draw it up again with some minor changes. This isn't because the laws of physics have changed, or because some new discoveries have been made. It's because they drew it up wrong in the first place. Everyone has to buy it again. This goes on for ever.

 

If they were not allowed to charge for these "standards", or were only allowed to charge once and were then forced to give every purchaser the updates for free, you can bet your arse they'd get them drafted up properly in the first place. They deliberately produce standards that are wrong, so that they can charge everyone for them again 12 months later. Either that or they are simply incompetent.

 

It's a scam. I'm absolutely amazed that anyone can be fooled by it.

I'm not missing the point, I was responding to your statement:

 

Bolt threads got standardised without any need whatsoever for a BS, EN, ISO number or any other "standard" number. So did volts, amps, watts, pounds, cubits, acres, horsepower etc etc etc. BSI, ISO and all the other standards bodies are completely superfluous to the engineering world.

 

As you well know, the ISOs used in the RCD are not about defining volts or cubits, but they are about defining what the industry considers is good practice, after extensive consultation.

 

However I fully agree the process of developing Standards is flawed, but it seems every profession is similarly afflicted with document proliferation. Blame Bill Gates for the ease with which we can update documents willy-nilly.

[Dalesman]

I wonder if you are aware of the need, when you CE mark it, for assessing the maximum weights and people onboard that is safe underway...done in a choice of ways, but I rarely have seen anyone do a proper heel test, most seem to pluck a figure from the sky.......what then if there was ever a problem and the insurers asked for heel test results or similar? It is required that you give this info for example....just another example of where a requirement such as 'stability' is NOT the hull builders issue, but yours.

I have undertaken several heel tests both with hire boats and MCA passenger boats,though I agree with you, how many people ever do the real thing?

Edited August 8, 2011 by Dalesman

[Ally]

I have undertaken several heel tests both with hire boats and MCA passenger boats,though I agree with you, how many people ever do the real thing?

Likewise, on every launch, and it's a darn sight worse now with the new degrees it has to tilt to!! Almost guaranteed to make something go bang as it slides!

[Dominic M]

I agree that cat D boats should be inspected by an appointed person for the task, just as sea going vessels are. But, seeing that they are not then the RCD for cat D is just "a compilation of information'.

 

Yes the certain aspects of the relavent ISOs have to be satisfied but lets face it, it is just common sense. ISOs are long winded documents that cover every eventuality, hardly any of which applies.

 

If a boat has been fitted competently by the owner (as has my own) then that is plain to see, and that is where a marine surveyor should come into play, anybody that is thinking of buying a boat would be mad not to have it surveyed first, regardless of weather its RCDs and BSSs.

 

The RCD is not there to protect the purchaser, it is there to constrain the self-builder. I can't sell my boat (legally) without an RCD as its only three and a half years old and I fitted it out myself. But in eighteen months time I can sell it without one!

 

It's all about money! and It's all a load of bollocks if you ask me!!

Sorry, but the intention of the RCD is to protect the buyer. That is its whole raison d'etre. It is all part of the CE scheme which is designed to ensure all goods conform to a minimum set of standards throughout the EEA. It applies to a boat, a car, a telly, even a cigarette lighter.

 

A builder can simply declare the boat to conform to the standards, whether it does or not (and frequently it doesn't). However, if that declaration proves to be false and there were a serious electrical fire, for example, caused by a failure to fit in accordance with the two ISOs that cover low and mains voltage installations the builder could find himself spending a good number of years behind bars following a conviction for manslaughter.

 

It is understandable that aspects of any scheme that set down guidelines for minimum standards will be open to criticism, and sometimes that criticism brings about a revision of those standards, as in the watered down BSS from 2005 onwards. But it must be remembered that we live in a world where if there is a serious incident such as a train crash, or a fire, etc, and subsequently failures are found in systems or procedures, the public tend to bay for blood and demand tighter regulation. We can't have our cake (warning, may contain nuts) and eat it. (Note, cake does not count towards your 5 a day requirement).

 

Gibbo sees this as a money making scheme, but I know that he has debated fiercely on here in the past about the need to bond the earth of a boat's 240 volt system to the hull. The RCD is the only scheme for boats that insists on this safety measure.

 

I do agree wholeheartedly that the standards should be freely available.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Dominic M

[Gibbo]

Gibbo sees this as a money making scheme, but I know that he has debated fiercely on here in the past about the need to bond the earth of a boat's 240 volt system to the hull. The RCD is the only scheme for boats that insists on this safety measure.

 

Yes but, next year they'll bring out yet another "revision" that everyone has to buy. And it won't affect the serious stuff like bonding the earth to the hull. It will be trivial shit like the colours of the cable. But everyone will still have to buy it. Then the folowing year they'll do it again (maybe define what height the sockets have to be from the floor, you know, a bit like they did with house wiring), and again the following year. It's how they survive: by inventing new nothings.

 

As you well know, the ISOs used in the RCD are not about defining volts or cubits, but they are about defining what the industry considers is good practice, after extensive consultation.

 

Again missing the point.

 

Stop them charging for the standards, and I'll bet you whatever you want that the standards stop changing every year or couple of years. They would get it right the first time, and it would remain fixed in stone for decades.

[WotEver]

Stop them charging for the standards, and I'll bet you whatever you want that the standards stop changing every year or couple of years. They would get it right the first time, and it would remain fixed in stone for decades.

Which I think will be the nub of my reply to that letter I mentioned to you in PM.

 

Not that I expect it will have any effect whatsoever.

 

Tony

[Dominic M]

Yes but, next year they'll bring out yet another "revision" that everyone has to buy. And it won't affect the serious stuff like bonding the earth to the hull. It will be trivial shit like the colours of the cable. But everyone will still have to buy it. Then the folowing year they'll do it again (maybe define what height the sockets have to be from the floor, you know, a bit like they did with house wiring), and again the following year. It's how they survive: by inventing new nothings.

Yes, there is certainly more than a grain of truth in that I think...........

 

Again missing the point.

 

Stop them charging for the standards, and I'll bet you whatever you want that the standards stop changing every year or couple of years. They would get it right the first time, and it would remain fixed in stone for decades.

.......and that would do a great deal to remove the concern about it being there to raise income instead of genuine issues.

[WotEver]

Our boat has never had an Owners Manual which I believe is now one of the requirements for any narrowboat of any age being sold through a trade outlet. I could guess at how to create one (include all the instruction manuals for the various equipment on board, draw a wiring diagram, gas layout etc) but is anyone aware of an example online that I could crib from?

 

Thanks,

Tony

[rjasmith]

Yes, there is certainly more than a grain of truth in that I think...........

 

 

.......and that would do a great deal to remove the concern about it being there to raise income instead of genuine issues.

 

.....And at least it would stop me having to constantly keep looking for a new County Library to join that still offers the free access to BSOL via their website!!

 

Surrey service - Closed down Spring 2011

West Sussex - Closed down Summer 2011

Hampshire - Closed down Summer 2011

Cambridgeshire - Still Going - Hooray for Cambridgeshire - but for how much longer?

 

(Also the British Library will still loan a free paper copy of any BS via the Inter Library loan scheme. But I have a horrible feeling that this is a loophole that someone might spot and cry foul one day!)

 

Richard

[rjasmith]

Our boat has never had an Owners Manual which I believe is now one of the requirements for any narrowboat of any age being sold through a trade outlet. I could guess at how to create one (include all the instruction manuals for the various equipment on board, draw a wiring diagram, gas layout etc) but is anyone aware of an example online that I could crib from?

 

Thanks,

Tony

 

Somewhere above in this thread there was another link to the CE craft website (not your one in post 31). Ah found it - mrartisan's post 13 which takes you here. This pdf has a sample Owners Manual on it which looks quite good. Scroll down to page 20 where it starts.

 

Richard

 

PS Of course you'll have to read ISO 10240 if you want to make it an RCD compliant manual!

Edited August 8, 2011 by rjasmith

[WotEver]

PS Of course you'll have to read ISO 10240 if you want to make it an RCD compliant manual!

Guess who won't be doing that?

 

Thanks for the info about the link... looks good.

 

T

[ChrisPy]

 

 

Stop them charging for the standards, and I'll bet you whatever you want that the standards stop changing every year or couple of years. They would get it right the first time, and it would remain fixed in stone for decades.

better to set up the purchase of the standards on a membership basis where the updates and revisions are automatically sent to members free of charge. I believe American standards (e.g. ASME) are administered in that way.

[Gibbo]

better to set up the purchase of the standards on a membership basis...

 

So you'd fall for that? It's exactly what they want, money for doing nowt. A bit like "health clubs" charging an ongoing membership fee knowing that most people will never go back again because they just joined on a whim.

[Ryeland]

I wonder if you are aware of the need, when you CE mark it, for assessing the maximum weights and people onboard that is safe underway...done in a choice of ways, but I rarely have seen anyone do a proper heel test, most seem to pluck a figure from the sky.......what then if there was ever a problem and the insurers asked for heel test results or similar? It is required that you give this info for example....just another example of where a requirement such as 'stability' is NOT the hull builders issue, but yours.

I did do it! The CE-Craft program has all the instructions, weights etc. So we lined up the people on the gunwale, a couple of drums of water to make up the weight and had a child inside to mark the angle of heel. And yes, one of the kitchen drawers did shoot out and break some things!

 

Richard

[carlt]

And yes, one of the kitchen drawers did shoot out and break some things!

Did you vote "Yes" in the "Flying objects" poll?

[David Mack]

better to set up the purchase of the standards on a membership basis where the updates and revisions are automatically sent to members free of charge. I believe American standards (e.g. ASME) are administered in that way.

I think you can do the same for British Standards. But don't expect the subscription to be cheap!

 

David

[Robin2]

I think you can do the same for British Standards. But don't expect the subscription to be cheap!

 

David

 

The taxpayer paid for these standards to be created - they should be available free to the public.