| TheBoatman |
| (regular) |
| 14/01/2003 16:32 |
Leisure versus commercial training
|
Welcome Rod
I would be interested in your comments on the RYA training courses with regard to the split between what could best be described as "leisure" and "commercial" tickets.
It is my opinion that there has been a general dumming down of what is required to get a commercial ticket. I believe it is now possible to get a commercial YM after doing a 16 week course, this in my opinion is nowhere near long enough to give a true background to what might be expected of a commercial skipper.
To sight a parallel , apprenticeships (which I have also done as a fitter and turner) used to be 5 years long and at the end of it you were described as a "proving" fitter and turner and were still under the basic control of a tradesman. So you were not called a "tradesman" until you had done 7 years. During this time (7 years) you would expect to come up against most problems and were shown how to deal with them. Unfortunately pressure from government and employers reduced this time down to 3 years and you had finished and could call yourself a "tradesman" it was then found that all these newbies didnt quite cut it when let loose.
Now as an "assistant boatman" I had to do a minimum of 4 years (I in fact did 5) with fully licenced DTI/BOT boatman. In that time I learned (the practical way) the basics on how different types of hull performed under different weather / wind conditions, how diesels worked and how to maintain them, dangers of powered winches, basic fault finding on electrical systems, how to safely recover a dahn marker in strong wind a tide, VHF protocols, towing, "going foriegn" with strange boats, how to set up a boat for SAR crew recovery, when to ask your "freight" (paying passengers) when to donn lifejackets and MANY MANY more things, and at the end of this a 2-3 hours session with a DTI/BOT inspector who "tested" me.
Now I'm sorry, but I believe that this cannot be learnt in 16 weeks.
I would argue that the RYA should deal with the "lesure boaters" and the MCA should deal with any "commercial" tickets.
regards
Peter Aird
TheBoatman
| **DONOTDELETE** |
| () |
| 14/01/2003 16:36 |
|
Re: Leisure versus commercial training
|
When commercial qualifications were introduced for yachts there was much discussion as to whether additional experience was required. After consultation it was decided that, as with the driving test, the examination should be the same for recreational and commercial use. The requirement of 2500 miles and the skippered passages etc was set at the level that was reckoned to be that at which a skipper becomes competent. Interestingly the average declared mileage for failed yachtmasters is 7000 and that of passes is 6500. Doubling the mileage requirement or the time requirement does not therefore necessarily provide skippers of greater competence. What matters is the quality of that mileage and whether it is verifiable and also the quality and experience of training prior to the examination.
It is very difficult to run an apprentice scheme for commercial yachting because for most small boats there is only a skipper and no mate or paid crew.
Many talented skippers present themselves for examinations with minimum mileage and have the skills and leadership necessary to pass. Ellen MacArthur was one of these. Putting, say, a two year ‘block’ on such skippers would not necessarily help the yachting industry. Conversely there are each year well over a hundred skippers who, while they have the required mileage, or often greatly in excess of it, are not competent and fail. The only real test is to go sailing with exam candidates. I’m sure any experienced yachtsman such as the questioner on this forum would be able to detect whether a skipper is competent by sailing with them for a day. This is, in essence, the thinking behind the Yachtmaster examination.
There is also the problem of ensuring that the declared mileage is verified. The RYA is looking at the possibility of a logbook, which has to be counter signed by an official. We welcome feedback and ideas on this.
| rhinorhino |
| (regular) |
| 14/01/2003 16:44 |
|
|
Re: Leisure versus commercial training
|
Getting a log-book signed by an offical, more red tape, more money for sailing schools (who must pay the RYA), not, I feel one of your better ideas. Indeed it smacks a little of empire building.
Is there any real evidence of candidates faking thier logs?
Can't the examiners tell if they are up to the standard?
In any event there is currently no check on the quality of the mileage, so to use your own argument, milage is pretty irrelevant anyway.
| bigmart |
| (regular) |
| 14/01/2003 16:47 |
|
|
Re: Leisure versus commercial training
|
I would argue that the standard of qualification is pitched at a correct level.
The difficulty of the examinations are easy enough to attract voluntary candidates yet hard enough to ensure an adequate standard of seamanship. The fact that accident levels are so low & the MCA are apparently happy with the standard would bear this out.
Martin
| Jacket |
| (regular) |
| 14/01/2003 16:59 |
|
Re: Leisure versus commercial training
|
Who would be the "official" who would sign the log book? I've no objection to the idea (indeed, I know of a couple of people who did fake their mileage, and whom I don't feel were at all competent, although they did pass somehow).
I just can't see how the practicalities would work? Who would sign the log book? Can't be the skipper, as in many cases, we are the skipper.
| Vreny |
| (regular) |
| 14/01/2003 17:03 |
|
Re: Leisure versus commercial training
|
I agree, surely the mileage is somewhat more of a guide anyway, as there is no policing it at the moment and surely the examiner would be able to spot a candidate with inadequate experience anyway. Getting logbooks signed by and official would mean extra expense to get the required miles and would act as a deterant to the scheme.
| rhinorhino |
| (regular) |
| 14/01/2003 17:04 |
|
|
|
Re: Leisure versus commercial training
|
If they were not competent, they should not have passed. The defect is in the exam not the milage requirement.
| Jacket |
| (regular) |
| 14/01/2003 17:20 |
|
Re: Leisure versus commercial training
|
I'm not sure I agree with that. the areas in which they were incompetent were things that get better with practice, such as picking up moorings, getting into marina berths with a strong cross wind.
The exams all very well, but you can be lucky with picking up a mooring first time, or there being little wind when berthing.
I can't help feeling its very like the driving test. Can't remember the exact figures, but its something like people who pass their test after 12 lessons are three times more likely to have an accident than those who drive for 6 months before taking the test.
But the real point of my post was to find out who the "officials" who could sign the log book would be.
| aod |
| (regular) |
| 14/01/2003 17:37 |
|
Re: Leisure versus commercial training
|
With all due respect this arguement is flawed.
Statistical manipulation to prove a point is a non-sense.
One in four fatal accidents involve a drunk driver. Thus three out of four accidents the driver was sober thus you are less likely to die in a car crash if you are drunk!
Intensive training courses produce yacht master candidates tuned to pass the examination. They all know it, we all know it and the RYA knows it. You can bury your head in the sand if you like and mention Ellen as glowing proof of standards but what in effect you are doing is condoning a process that leads to a glut of inexperienced commercial yacht masters who simply do not have the experience to safely undertake a passage with a crew of inexperienced people.
As water safety pioneers I am astounded by your approach to this issue but am now convinced that the RYA has lost it's way and become bogged down is politics and avoidance. I can see little point in belonging to such an organisation and for sure I will not be renewing my membership.
Richard