Consultation opens on proposal for BSS Requirements for CO alarms on boats

[Horace42]

On balance it makes sense to have gas alarms. No complex rules are required. The simple addition of a 'box' to tick on the to the BSS cert to say there is one would suffice - just as a matter of record (where CRT can build up an historical data base of usage).

Albeit as a refinement the examiner could carry a test gas to double check that they work on the gas - as opposed to just being 'on'.

Which leads to another matter of routine checking during the 3 years between BSS tests.

DIY gas canisters of CO are available (better than nothing) - but there is a bit more to it than just spraying the alarm with CO - (it is all to do with accurate ppm levels necessary to trigger the alarm - and the time of response to react to exposure) - which suggests there is a potential market for enterprising canal-side services to set up a simple test facility for portable alarms - or maybe a portable tester for on-board fixed alarms.

But I doubt they will risk the investment unless there is a degree of compulsion for boats to have gas alarms.

Along the lines of car tyres. They are a mandatory part of the MOT - but also must be checked regularly - hence compressors at numerous garages.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, Horace42 said:

But I doubt they will risk the investment unless there is a degree of compulsion for boats to have gas alarms.

If I am understanding correctly when the marine industry refers to 'gas alarms' they are generally referring to LPG, although many are now combined into LPG & Co.

 

Will the next stage of the BSS re-write be to consider 'gas alarms' (LPG) as the build up of gas can result in explosion that injures 3rd parties ?

Will the following re-write then require bilge blowers ?

Will the following re-write then require petrol vapour alarms ?

 

It is 'mission creep' but I am in agreement with it.

 

So many 'fume' & 'gas' sensors already in common usage on boats :

 

https://www.force4.co.uk/department/safety/fire-gas-safety/gas-fume-alarms.html

[Arthur Marshall]

In my opinion, the object that was most dangerous to other canal users was some guy's dog. Not only did it attack cyclists and joggers, but it left noxious deposits on the towpath. Can the BSS be adapted to include this, please. 

Makes as much sense as the rest of the test. 

[nbfiresprite]

3 hours ago, Horace42 said:

On balance it makes sense to have gas alarms. No complex rules are required. The simple addition of a 'box' to tick on the to the BSS cert to say there is one would suffice - just as a matter of record (where CRT can build up an historical data base of usage).

Albeit as a refinement the examiner could carry a test gas to double check that they work on the gas - as opposed to just being 'on'.

Which leads to another matter of routine checking during the 3 years between BSS tests.

DIY gas canisters of CO are available (better than nothing) - but there is a bit more to it than just spraying the alarm with CO - (it is all to do with accurate ppm levels necessary to trigger the alarm - and the time of response to react to exposure) - which suggests there is a potential market for enterprising canal-side services to set up a simple test facility for portable alarms - or maybe a portable tester for on-board fixed alarms.

But I doubt they will risk the investment unless there is a degree of compulsion for boats to have gas alarms.

Along the lines of car tyres. They are a mandatory part of the MOT - but also must be checked regularly - hence compressors at numerous garages.

 

The tests are a bit more complex than you think for CO Alarms, some of which take some 24 hours to do. There are many fakes out there on sale. Which in most cases only work once before the sensors became damaged from the exposure and will no longer function correctly afterwards. You should be able to find online the Beeb program Fake Britain which covered these alarms (Only repeated last week) 

 

Which Report

Can You Rely On Your CO Alarm?

 

[1st ade]

1 hour ago, nbfiresprite said:

The tests are a bit more complex than you think for CO Alarms, some of which take some 24 hours to do. There are many fakes out there on sale. Which in most cases only work once before the sensors became damaged from the exposure and will no longer function correctly afterwards. You should be able to find online the Beeb program Fake Britain which covered these alarms (Only repeated last week) 

 

Which Report

Can You Rely On Your CO Alarm?

 

There must come a point where the annual exam will take 365 days to complete (roll on leap years where you actually get a day to go cruising!!). If the examiner is to make sure that, wittingly or unwittingly all safety devices are not only present but functional and will continue to be so you'll never finish. Warning labels for gas stopcock must be "anti tamper" in case the owner peels them off later. The metal "Water" sign must be fitted with security screws and loctite in case the owner swaps it with the "Diesel" one after the examiner has departed. Any spanners, pipe or joints [pipe variety] found on board will be an automatic fail as it's assumed some work will be done once the examiners back is turned.

[Chalky]

What’s intriguing is the retrospective nature of the BSS. I work in an industry where safety legislation changes frequently ( cars).  Any change in legislation does not apply retrospectively however cars have to meet regs that they’re designed to. Safety features can be brought in early and if they’re fitted they’re tested in the mot, if they’re not fitted then it’s not an issue since they’re not a legal requirement. After a legislative change point non fitment or not working is an mot failure.

The BSS could adopt that model ( which is used world wide) and introduce changes in a way that suits everyone. New boats have to comply, existing ones can comply if they want to and are tested as required.

[AndrewIC]

6 hours ago, Horace42 said:

 which suggests there is a potential market for enterprising canal-side services to set up a simple test facility for portable alarms - or maybe a portable tester for on-board fixed alarms.

Who provides an equivalent service for CO (and smoke - mandatory in new builds) alarms in domestic premises, even those with fashionable solid fuel stoves? Who enforces such routine testing? No one. Why should boats be subject to more stringent and costly encumbrances?

[Robbo]

18 minutes ago, AndrewIC said:

Who provides an equivalent service for CO (and smoke - mandatory in new builds) alarms in domestic premises, 

I believe the fire brigade do.

[AndrewIC]

5 minutes ago, Robbo said:

I believe the fire brigade do.

Perhaps they around your way, around here the FB just dole out battery powered alarms. The main points of my question were the other two parts though.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, nicknorman said:

So when you say “all opinions are sought” does that categorically mean that if a majority of responses are against the proposal, it will be dropped? Or does it mean that, whilst all opinions are sought, you will ignore any that don’t agree with your position and/or try to twist the words used,  pick fault with, or ridicule such responses so that you can justify ignoring them. The latter of course being the way 99% of “consultations” are run.

I can speak for the 1%.

 

Our Trust proposed to close a small local maternity unit. After much lobbying from local councillors and 'mums' it was proposed to keep it open for a trial period and asses up take. Mum's could opt to give birth there or at the local DGH where all the doctors and emergency kit for problem births was. Mums opting for the 'local'  option had been declining for years hence the consultation on closure.

 

After the trial period of something like six months we could count on one hand the number of births at the unit. The trust did of course close it.

 

A long winded explanation of why sometimes a consultation may have a foregone conclusion, ie because in the end it's the most logical outcome.

[Momac]

On 18/08/2018 at 11:18, Arthur Marshall said:

Has anybody any knowledge of an organisation empowered to insist you do stuff running a consultation that wasn't a foregone conclusion?  Even from the BSS ofice's comments above, it's pretty obvious this is going to be done, whatever the "consultation" results.

Interestingly, I had a conversation with a boat electrician who was apparently part of the team that worked on what new stuff goes into the BSS, and, again, it was pretty obvious that this was an empire building business to make sure  more and more regulations would be imposed.  I presume this is to justify the endless increase in the cost of the tests and to make sure the testers get paid enough to make it worth their while continuing.

Don't forget this is the same organisation that asked  tens of thousands of narrowboat owners whether a relatively small number of owners of  boats wider than theirs should pay a higher license fee. And guess what the majority being unaffected by the increase,  said yes . And so the majority vote is being obeyed.

 

It would be very interesting if all of the same majority narrowboat group voted against  the mandatory installation of  CO and fire alarms . 

 

I do have a CO  and smoke alarm on the boat , and  also at home.  They are affordable.

A smoke alarm can be fitted by anyone capable of tearing off the cover from a self adhesive pad and pressing it against the ceiling. A CO alarm needs only sit on a shelf.  

If people voluntarily fit  working CO and smoke alarms there will be no problem if they are part of the BSS examination.

 

.

[ditchcrawler]

You have to be very careful when asking the public anything regardless of if you intend to follow what they say, just think Brexit for one where they followed the public's wishes and Boaty Mc Boat Face for when they didn't. You don't always get the answers you want

[WotEver]

 

On 18/08/2018 at 19:58, OldGoat said:

battery isolators have to be in the negative feed  (mine seemed logical - positive feeds)

Battery isolators are ideally in the positive feed. Some older boats have them in the negative feed but it’s not best practise. I don’t know where you got the idea that they ‘have to’ be in the neg. Not only don’t they have to, they ideally should not be. 

On 18/08/2018 at 20:28, StephenA said:

We had a gas detector sitting mid way between the gas fridge and the cooker when we first got the boat - but it had to be taken out because the BSS inspector said that it's power feed (which was on a 500mA fuse) was "dangerously close" to  the copper gas line (it was about 2 feet away from it). 

Another examiner making up his own rules. 

[Mike Todd]

29 minutes ago, WotEver said:

 

Battery isolators are ideally in the positive feed. Some older boats have them in the negative feed but it’s not best practise. I don’t know where you got the idea that they ‘have to’ be in the neg. Not only don’t they have to, they ideally should not be. 

Another examiner making up his own rules. 

Or a boater not 'hearing ' what the  examiner told them?

[WotEver]

2 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Or a boater not 'hearing ' what the  examiner told them?

Quite possibly. 

[StephenA]

2 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Or a boater not 'hearing ' what the  examiner told them?

You seem to have lost part of what was quoted there....

[70liveaboard]

Been on some builders boats for years, just not mandatory, but yes a good idea at last to have them made 'the norm'..

[MtB]

2 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

Or a boater not 'hearing ' what the  examiner told them?

 

Are fail points not advised in writing then? 

 

They should be, or how would the boater know in detail what to fix?

 

(Especially if s/he was not present during the examination.)

[OldGoat]

12 hours ago, WotEver said:

 

Battery isolators are ideally in the positive feed. Some older boats have them in the negative feed but it’s not best practise. I don’t know where you got the idea that they ‘have to’ be in the neg. Not only don’t they have to, they ideally should not be. 

Another examiner making up his own rules. 

 

11 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

Or a boater not 'hearing ' what the  examiner told them?

I was told quite specifically by a well respected examiner that there HAD to be an isolator in the negative feed - I protested to no avail.

So I fitted one - the positives both have isolators anyway.  Minor hassle. Anything for a quiet life.

It was in the early days of the BSS and quite honestly, there was  a lot of duff information floating around from Willow Grange.

One of the reasons why I've crossed swords with Rob@ on several occasions.

Didn't get me anywhere.

Easier to comply......

[WotEver]

Just now, OldGoat said:

Easier to comply......

Same with someone on here (Alan de E?) who had to fit an RCD because it was ‘required’. 

[Horace42]

On 18/08/2018 at 15:49, dmr said:

 

I did sort of say that in my humorous way by suggesting they should be fitted to protect the children and dogs ?.

Of course you could argue that some safety features are required to protect the emergency services from the unpleasant task of recovering bodies.

 

Whilst you are here...can I suggest that the BSS should specify a CO meter with a digital readout and these give a good indication of low level CO issues that could be a problem later and would be missed with a simple alarm type device. Our multi fuel stove makes zero CO, Doing toast in the grill is the main culprit but usually no more than about 12ppm.

 

..................Dave

That's interesting - you say 12ppm - how do you know - do you have a digital display alarm - or a gas detector meter.

On a point of clarification do you mean by "Our multi fuel stove makes zero CO" - that it emits zero CO into the cabin.

As far as I know,  all stoves make CO.

[MtB]

1 hour ago, WotEver said:

Same with someone on here (Alan de E?) who had to fit an RCD because it was ‘required’. 

 

The correct course of action in circumstances like this where the examiner is making up his own regulations is to sack him and start again with a more professional examiner. 

[WotEver]

2 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

The correct course of action in circumstances like this where the examiner is making up his own regulations is to sack him and start again with a more professional examiner. 

How would that work with your ‘contract’ with him I wonder?  He’s done the exam, he’s refused a certificate for a fault he’s made up. Do you just say “Sue me”?

[MtB]

1 minute ago, WotEver said:

How would that work with your ‘contract’ with him I wonder?  He’s done the exam, he’s refused a certificate for a fault he’s made up. Do you just say “Sue me”?

 

Its an interesting point. I think the answer is 'yes'. If nothing else, this will foece him to put his reason for declining the BSS in writing, citing the (non existent) section and paragraph he claims it fails on. 

 

Case closed!

[MtB]

Getting back on topic though, I have not trawled through the link (kept nodding off and banging my head on the desk) but I have several concerns which may or may not have been taken into account.

 

1) ARE there any CO monitors which the manufacturers state are suitable for use in boats?

 

2) Testing them. If you are making them mandatory, presumably a non-working or dummy CO alarm would be a fail. How are your examiners going to test them for efficacy? 

 

3) CO monitors are subversive. I have encountered a number of people who place a shocking degree of faith in their £15 CO alarms, saying things to me like "I no longer service my boiler as I have a CO alarm", and even more worrying, "I didn't worry too much about the flames licking out from around my water heater as I have a CO alarm and it wasn't going off".  

 

4) False alarms. I used to get a steady trickle of call-outs for "CO alarm sounding". I would advise the caller to turn the gas off and open the windows and doors. But when I got there and turned everything ON again, everything worked perfectly. No CO alarms sounding, my own CO reporting zero CO, all appliances passing safety checks, so very difficult to know what to advise other than blaming the CO alarm. Nowadays there is a specific gas qualification required to investigate a CO alarm call out, which thankfully I don't have. If you make CO alarms mandatory, I think you are also duty-bound to publish a procedure for investigating these events, and establishing whether the alarm is real or false. Or at least issue some official advice in anticipation of problems in this area.

 

 

 

Edited August 20, 2018 by Mike the Boilerman