BSC

[jenlyn]

So, is this another increase we will have to put up with?

http://www.nabse.co.uk/Pages/ECPReview.aspx

Sorry, title should be BSS

Edited July 21, 2012 by jenlyn

[twbm]

It looks to be a revision of the wording, which may or may not involve expense if that revision puts your boat in default.

 

Owners of historic boats may be interested to know that the section on fuel tanks now specifically excludes them from the requirement to have the fuel filler external to the cabin, so that's one less argument with the BSS chap.

Edited July 21, 2012 by twbm

[jenlyn]

It looks to be a revision of the wording, which may or may not involve expense if that revision puts your boat in default.

 

Owners of historic boats may be interested to know that the section on fuel tanks now specifically excludes them from the requirement to have the fuel filler external to the cabin, so that's one less argument with the BSS chap.

Evidently, the extra time it will take on site will make for an increase in the fee.

[Teadaemon]

I did post this a few days ago in another section of the forums.

 

According to the summary, over 60% of the changes are merely rewording the current requirements to make them clearer. Over 30% are slight easing of the current requirements where they have been found by experience to be over-prescriptive or difficult to follow in practise. There are some advisory requirements for 240V systems, which are fairly basic stuff that anyone who wishes to remain alive will probably already be doing, and a few enhanced requirements that are all fairly sensible, and will only affect a few boats (most of them are estimated to affect 10-20 boats per year).

 

Anyone complaining about this either hasn't read the new requirements properly or is complaining for the sake of complaining.

[blackrose]

Anyone complaining about this either hasn't read the new requirements properly or is complaining for the sake of complaining.

 

CWDF members complaining? Surely not?

[jenlyn]

It's NABSE that are complaining.

[Teadaemon]

NABSE have asked for comments, as have the BSS office.

 

I haven't commented yet, but am likely to, and my comments will be positive. One of my biggest criticisms of the BSS currently is that in many cases the requirements are badly worded and use inconsistent terminology, which will mostly be solved by this update.

[jenlyn]

NABSE have asked for comments, as have the BSS office.

 

I haven't commented yet, but am likely to, and my comments will be positive. One of my biggest criticisms of the BSS currently is that in many cases the requirements are badly worded and use inconsistent terminology, which will mostly be solved by this update.

So you don't feel there will be an increase in the fee?

[MtB]

Evidently, the extra time it will take on site will make for an increase in the fee.

 

What extra time? Keeping up with regulations is something any competent examiner does as an overhead of his or her occupation. Its goes with the territory in any profession.

[Paul C]

It's NABSE that are complaining.

 

Do you have a link to their complaining? I guess its buried within their forum somewhere?

[Teadaemon]

So you don't feel there will be an increase in the fee?

 

Nothing I have seen in the revised regulations would lead to a significant increase in the amount of time it takes to do an inspection, so no, I don't think that the changes will necessarily lead to an increase in the fee charged.

 

Digressing slightly, I've been looking into becoming a BSS examiner, and I can't honestly see how it's possible to make a decent living doing nothing but BSS examinations (I know people do, but it looks like bloody hard work to me). I'll be offering it as part of my surveying business, as people expect surveyors to also do BSS work, and it might get me some jobs I might otherwise not have got, but I suspect that it'll take about a year to amortise the cost of the training and the increase in my PI insurance premium, before it starts to make me a penny of profit.

[sueb]

Nothing I have seen in the revised regulations would lead to a significant increase in the amount of time it takes to do an inspection, so no, I don't think that the changes will necessarily lead to an increase in the fee charged.

 

Digressing slightly, I've been looking into becoming a BSS examiner, and I can't honestly see how it's possible to make a decent living doing nothing but BSS examinations (I know people do, but it looks like bloody hard work to me). I'll be offering it as part of my surveying business, as people expect surveyors to also do BSS work, and it might get me some jobs I might otherwise not have got, but I suspect that it'll take about a year to amortise the cost of the training and the increase in my PI insurance premium, before it starts to make me a penny of profit.

I do like an optimist.

[pmms]

It looks to be a revision of the wording, which may or may not involve expense if that revision puts your boat in default.

 

Owners of historic boats may be interested to know that the section on fuel tanks now specifically excludes them from the requirement to have the fuel filler external to the cabin, so that's one less argument with the BSS chap.

No change there. (Re historic boats fuel tanks)

Edited July 21, 2012 by pmms