BSS Examiner Fees

[haggis]

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

I will tell you what mine costs next week. The very first one I had 20 years ago cost me £200+ on the Broads and I probably knew more than the examiner 

I think you are having the same examiner as us and we paid £185 BUT he had to travel to us and he did ask if this was the first time he had examined Kelpie. Perhaps it is cheaper if he doesn't have to find his way round a new to him boat. 

He did a very thorough job, we felt.

Mind you, he started at the stern and the first thing he noticed was that we didn't have a diesel label 🙂 . Not a fail though. If anyone has asked either of us if we had a label we would have said yes!! 

[ditchcrawler]

19 minutes ago, haggis said:

I think you are having the same examiner as us and we paid £185 BUT he had to travel to us and he did ask if this was the first time he had examined Kelpie. Perhaps it is cheaper if he doesn't have to find his way round a new to him boat. 

He did a very thorough job, we felt.

Mind you, he started at the stern and the first thing he noticed was that we didn't have a diesel label 🙂 . Not a fail though. If anyone has asked either of us if we had a label we would have said yes!! 

He stuffed the end of his pen in my vent (O Matron) and said no gauze .

[Big Bob W]

52 minutes ago, haggis said:

Mind you, he started at the stern and the first thing he noticed was that we didn't have a diesel label

I have never understood why this is a BSS requirement. If you put water in the diesel tank in error, you';ll have problems, but not a safety thing is it?

[nick.pritchard]

Depends if you are on a river with weirs alongside locks?

[Arthur Marshall]

7 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

As has been pointed earlier, I think, the formal purpose of BSS is the safety of people and property not on/in the boat. Hence, a marina may consider it in its interests of a duty of care to all moorers that a BSWS is in place, even if many folk do not rate its actual efficacy. These kinds of issues are often about due diligence when the crunch happens. It may be the issue that, not that you did not prevent harm to others, but that you did not take all reasonable steps to prevent it. (and have documented those steps)

 

It may also be the case that the marina's insurers require it (which they are perfectly entitled to).

 

In any case, I made my comment in the (perhaps mistaken) belief that at the time we were talking about inland navigable waterways, not other places. Regular readers of these threads will surely know that there are a number of marinas which were first opened back in the mists of time when the contract with the then BWB was less stringent than those entered into more recently. As such they are exempt from certain CaRT requirements such as the need for a licence - at least whilst the vessel remains in the marina. My previous comments are, I think, correct, if seen in the context of boats on navigable waterways - EA, NT, Basingstoke, IWA, also in my experience - require similarly. (Last year we visited the Basingstoke for the first time and, despite coming from EA waters - and CaRT before that - we had to produce copies of BSS and insurance. Fortunately so far everyone has been content with viewing the document5s on my tablet)

 

Finally, it is incorrect to say that a parked car and a parked boat are the same - they are subject to quite different legislation as well as those of private land owners. Your local supermarket likely monitors your car by automatic checking with DVLA. If only CaRT could do the same  . . . (oops - stirring!)

If your first sentence is correct  what's the justification for the inclusion of CO monitors?

The purpose of the test is to ensure the continuance of the beaurocracy (which I have forgotten how to spell) which is all CRT's board understand. They can probably spell it, too.

[ditchcrawler]

51 minutes ago, Big Bob W said:

I have never understood why this is a BSS requirement. If you put water in the diesel tank in error, you';ll have problems, but not a safety thing is it?

What if someone puts petrol in it?

[Momac]

48 minutes ago, Big Bob W said:

I have never understood why this is a BSS requirement. If you put water in the diesel tank in error, you';ll have problems, but not a safety thing is it?

Perhaps the reason is to avoid petrol being put in a diesel boat or vice versa .

I refuelled once, some years ago,  at York and the fuel guy thought we wanted petrol. I had to point out the word diesel cast into the filler cap but even then he said 'are you sure'. 

But certainly putting water in could quickly become a safety issue on a river.

 

[ditchcrawler]

4 minutes ago, MartynG said:

  

But certainly putting water in could quickly become a safety issue on a river.

 

I have seen that done on the broads, water hose in wrong hole

[MtB]

1 hour ago, haggis said:

I think you are having the same examiner as us and we paid £185 BUT he had to travel to us and he did ask if this was the first time he had examined Kelpie. Perhaps it is cheaper if he doesn't have to find his way round a new to him boat. 

He did a very thorough job, we felt.

Mind you, he started at the stern and the first thing he noticed was that we didn't have a diesel label 🙂 . Not a fail though. If anyone has asked either of us if we had a label we would have said yes!! 

 

 

Flippin' 'eck, its a wonder no-one was killed walking past your death baot.....

 

 

[jonathanA]

29 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

If your first sentence is correct  what's the justification for the inclusion of CO monitors?

The purpose of the test is to ensure the continuance of the beaurocracy (which I have forgotten how to spell) which is all CRT's board understand. They can probably spell it, too.

I think your right Arthur. I responded to the CO monitor consultation against them. Not because I didn't want one but because its thin end of the wedge. At my recent Bss the examiner recorded whether I had a smoke alarm as in his words that's the next thing the BSS want to make mandatory...

Bureaucracy never simplifies anything least of all itself...

[MtB]

1 minute ago, jonathanA said:

Bureaucracy never simplifies anything least of all itself...

 

 

Administrators of schemes like the BSS spend 40 hours a week trying to create new ways of regulating us, all of it at no cost to themselves.

[jonathanA]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

 

Administrators of schemes like the BSS spend 40 hours a week trying to create new ways of regulating us, all of it at no cost to themselves.

And of course they can never manage the extra work themselves it needs an increase in staff.... 

 

This sort of mentality is one of the reason's I walk away from any public sector work  

[Momac]

1 minute ago, jonathanA said:

I think your right Arthur. I responded to the CO monitor consultation against them. Not because I didn't want one but because its thin end of the wedge. At my recent Bss the examiner recorded whether I had a smoke alarm as in his words that's the next thing the BSS want to make mandatory...

Bureaucracy never simplifies anything least of all itself...

I had both smoke and CO alarms on the boat for some years now.   But many people do not do anything until it becomes a legal requirement which is why rules have to be introduced .

 

 

 

 

 

[nick.pritchard]

I was told that one of the major reasons the BSS was created was due to a fatality or fatalities aboard a hire boat caused by carbon monoxide. CO can accumulate in a boat not just from appliances within the boat but from neighbouring boats!

(CO poisoning is the fifth top cause of boating fatalities in the US)

However, to quote the examiner’s training:
“ The remit of the BSS is only related to the condition, equipment and use of boats”

“The BSS must identify, monitor and develop the minimum safety legal requirements”

”To assist owners to identify and control the risks for which they have responsibility including Carbon monoxide poisoning and electrocution”

”Since 2005 the BSS has adopted a risk based approach and the requirements are driven by incident data”

Theres a lot on the BSS site www.boatsafetyscheme.org/stay-safe-advice page

[Momac]

 

 

Just now, nick.pritchard said:

I was told that one of the major reasons the BSS was created was due to a fatality or fatalities aboard a hire boat caused by carbon monoxide. CO can accumulate in a boat not just from appliances within the boat but from neighbouring boats!

(CO poisoning is the fifth top cause of boating fatalities in the US)

 

That cant be  correct.  How many years did it take BSS to introduce a requirement for CO alarms to be fitted?

[Momac]

To answer my own question

BSS started in 1996 

CO alarms became a requirement more than 20 years later  in April 2019 

 

[GUMPY]

Just paid £220 for mine but then the inspector had to travel  the best part of an hour each way to get to the boat.

[MtB]

26 minutes ago, nick.pritchard said:

”Since 2005 the BSS has adopted a risk based approach and the requirements are driven by incident data”

Theres a lot on the BSS site www.boatsafetyscheme.org/stay-safe-advice page

 

Really? 

 

Is the "incident data" actually published somewhere then? 

 

I just had a look on the page you recommend and could see no data in a brief scan. Just a load of unsupported assertions, as usual.

[Momac]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

 

Administrators of schemes like the BSS spend 40 hours a week trying to create new ways of regulating us, all of it at no cost to themselves.

Are you sure they work that many hours ?

[Arthur Marshall]

14 hours ago, MtB said:

 

 

Administrators of schemes like the BSS spend 40 hours a week trying to create new ways of regulating us, all of it at no cost to themselves.

When the numpty examiner decided my boat had to be rewired again I got a quote from the electrician he recommended as one whose work he would accept (as he wasn't an electrician and didn't understand wires). Turned out they were involved in writing the new BSS regs and quoted me several thousand pounds to rewire a Lister diesel with two batteries to the control panel. I didn't use them. 

Seemed to me they were writing the rules to generate more work for themselves.

[MtB]

6 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

When the numpty examiner decided my boat had to be rewired again I got a quote from the electrician he recommended as one whose work he would accept (as he wasn't an electrician and didn't understand wires). Turned out they were involved in writing the new BSS regs and quoted me several thousand pounds to rewire a Lister diesel with two batteries to the control panel. I didn't use them. 

Seemed to me they were writing the rules to generate more work for themselves.

 

Yes. We seem to have a major disconnect between the stated purpose of the scheme (to protect the towpath public from risk of injury from dangerous boats) and the actual content of the scheme and what is inspected. As usual, ever more arcane and unlikely scenarios are imagined and rules written to protect against them. The labelling of stuff is a good example. No-one was killed or injured by a missing label, but I bet someone will answer this point by describing an arcane situation where it could happen, (but never has).

[Momac]

15 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

.........  what's the justification for the inclusion of CO monitors?

 

If people not on the boat have to deal with dead bodies it is traumatic for those people (the ones who are alive).

 

[Alan de Enfield]

16 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

If your first sentence is correct  what's the justification for the inclusion of CO monitors?

 

 

If you go onto the BSS website home page and do a search you will see that  there was a big consultation (involving 100s' -1000's of boaters) regarding the introduction of CO monitors.

There is even the full explanation of the justfication of there introduction (as a safety feature for 3rd parties - NOT the boat owner)

[Tom and Bex]

18 hours ago, Big Bob W said:

I have never understood why this is a BSS requirement. If you put water in the diesel tank in error, you';ll have problems, but not a safety thing is it?

I thought part of their remit was also to prevent pollution? That would be the reason behind labeling of the diesel filler - there's a good chance of significant diesel spillage if someone fills the diesel tank with water until it overflows everywhere!

 

Not that anyone reads the label anyway, but they couldn't claim ignorance if it was correctly labelled. Same reasoning for the engine drip tray requirement, and some other BSS requirements. 

[MtB]

9 minutes ago, Tom and Bex said:

I thought part of their remit was also to prevent pollution?

 

Is it? 

 

If true, there is a perfe4ct example of the mission creep I was whining about earlier. It's called the "Boat Safety Scheme", not the pollution control scheme.

 

Is filling a diesel tank with water and it overflowing diesel into the cut really a problem that needs legislating against? How many times a year did it happen before the BSS, and how many times a year now?

 

 

 

My beef is that there are NO statistics published supporting each of the hundreds of BSS rules imposed on us.

 

Or maybe there are and I just don't know about them.