Page 24 of 53 FirstFirst ... 14192021222324252627282934 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 529
  1. #231
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    marinetraffic.com MMSI 235116115
    Posts
    539

    Default Re: The end of owner maintenance ...

    I have had further correspondence with the MCA. They have given permission for the following to be posted here subject to the qualification that they can't guarantee what the final text will look like.

    Thanks for your email.
    We have also amended the opening sentence to 2.5 (Maintenance MGN) to read, " Unless specifically trained, experienced and/or qualified to do so…”, which again will soften the intention whilst maintaining the overall recommendation.
    We would be happy to consider any other points use wish to make.
    Regards,
    The Codes Team


    The word 'experienced' is new. I personally think this amendment goes a long way towards removing the fears of some of us that we were heading towards a future where recreational boat owners couldn't do safety critical maintenance.

    Now that this dialogue is open and the MCA has shown itself to be genuinely listening to consultees may I suggest that everyone who is interested in this does take the time to read the draft guidance and consider what other changes we would like to see.

    We could collate our views here in this forum if that would be helpful, or individuals can write to the MCA direct.

  2. #232
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    SPAIN,Galicia
    Posts
    12,553

    Default Re: The end of owner maintenance ...

    Experience is very subjective,an afternoon,a life time who is going to judge whether I am suitably experienced?But good that they are open to dialogue,as they say

  3. #233
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    758

    Default Re: The end of owner maintenance ...

    Quote Originally Posted by fisherman View Post
    Just to play devil's apricot, do any of you recall huffing and puffing about the Captains Calamity who tried to sail from Scandinavia to the US in 2016, ended up in Hayle where the boat fell away from the quay and 'caught fire' (just a small charring of curtains when the candle fell over). They were rescued nine times....these are the guys who get you a bad name, and attract the attention of the MCA....
    I do remember and you're right, the candle fell over because the boat fell over when the tide went out. This was some time after they had been towed into Hayle by St Ives RNLI, who returned with Cornwall FRS to deal with the fire.

    The nine rescues were all between Scotland and Cornwall, not a great start to their trans-atlantic mission. And because it was a private venture, no legal means to stop them.

  4. #234
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Atlantic
    Posts
    20,468

    Default Re: The end of owner maintenance ...

    Quote Originally Posted by TwoHooter View Post
    Now that this dialogue is open and the MCA has shown itself to be genuinely listening to consultees may I suggest that everyone who is interested in this does take the time to read the draft guidance and consider what other changes we would like to see.

    individuals can write to the MCA direct.
    Now why didn't I think of that?

    Oh, wait a minute.........

  5. #235
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    698

    Default Re: The end of owner maintenance ...

    Quote Originally Posted by TwoHooter View Post
    I've only just read this. Brilliant. I hope you receive the same sort of constructive response from MCA as I did.
    I did get a very constructive response from the MCA. The response came quickly and specifically answered both the questions I had raised, concerning the intent of the MGNs and the scope of the guidance . I was expecting a generic / bland response and was genuinely impressed that I had received a considered response. For those who are interested, the contents of the MCA's reply was as follows:

    Dear Mr F,

    Thank for your email and for taking the time to provide feedback on the consultation MGNs.

    Firstly I would like to stress that the MGN’s are non-mandatory guidance that the owner of a pleasure vessel does not need to follow and they do not prevent an owner from carrying out maintenance on their own vessel. The advice that is contained within the MGNs form part of a recommendation from the MAIB to provide industry guidance on certain elements of operation in order to increase safety.

    The specific text of carrying out maintenance and using a marine professional is written with the wide number of pleasure vessel owners in mind who have a diverse range of experiences and competencies. We have not tried to differentiate between the two ends of this spectrum of knowledge but instead have given generic guidance – as an owner if you think this does not apply to you for a certain element of maintenance then you are able to apply your own safety standards.

    I hope this covers your concerns.

    Thanks,

    Kind regards,

    The Codes Team
    Fortunately, this returns me to my previously held opinion that the MGNs are not the end of owner maintenance. However, I now have some supporting evidence for this opinion.

  6. #236
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    North from the Nab about 10 miles
    Posts
    8,835

    Default Re: The end of owner maintenance ...

    Quote Originally Posted by RobF View Post
    I did get a very constructive response from the MCA. The response came quickly and specifically answered both the questions I had raised, concerning the intent of the MGNs and the scope of the guidance . I was expecting a generic / bland response and was genuinely impressed that I had received a considered response. For those who are interested, the contents of the MCA's reply was as follows:



    Fortunately, this returns me to my previously held opinion that the MGNs are not the end of owner maintenance. However, I now have some supporting evidence for this opinion.
    I would be interested to know how newcomers are supposed to gain sufficient experience to be regarded as capable of undertaking maintenance under the MGNs.

    As far as being the end of owner maintenance, I think it will be. The MGNs themselves may allow some scope, but Insurers faced with a big claim will want evidence that the boat is/was maintained to MGN standards, so what's the difference? Owners would have to justify and prove their skills at any DIY work done, and how easy is it for the Insurers to decide the work was not up to standard, therefore no claim.

    Lose lose in my opinion. I shall write and say so.
    Is Conservation for wildlife or conservationists?
    http://boatownersresponse.org.uk

  7. #237
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Grenoble
    Posts
    30,704

    Default Re: The end of owner maintenance ...

    Quote Originally Posted by RobF View Post
    I did get a very constructive response from the MCA. The response came quickly and specifically answered both the questions I had raised, concerning the intent of the MGNs and the scope of the guidance . I was expecting a generic / bland response and was genuinely impressed that I had received a considered response. For those who are interested, the contents of the MCA's reply was as follows:



    Fortunately, this returns me to my previously held opinion that the MGNs are not the end of owner maintenance. However, I now have some supporting evidence for this opinion.

    One of my concerns would be how the insurance companies react in the event of a claim where an owner has maintained his boat perhaps engine and it is deemed to be responsible for the claim.

  8. #238
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    6,856

    Default Re: The end of owner maintenance ...

    Quote Originally Posted by AntarcticPilot View Post
    There is a corollorary to all of this. What if you ARE a trained professional in a safety critical area? I am a trained professional in cartography and survey, with over 30 years experience. I maintained the standard topographic database of Antarctica for nearly 20 years (www.add.scar.org). I have made marine charts, and been consulted by the UKHO on their products in my geographic area. I have made or managed the production of charts for aerial navigation. I have even participated in the erection of standards for digital mapping, and I can go on like this!

    What if I, a trained professional in a relevant area, decided to produce my own charts? Of course, I lack access to all the data that the UKHO have, so my charts might lack information such as buoyage, accurate depth information etc. BUT my charts would have been produced by a trained professional.

    Of course, being not only trained but also understanding my field, I wouldn't attempt to do that without access to relevant data sources. But I could, and no-one could argue that I wasn't using charts produced by a trained professional! And there isn't much equipment aboard a yacht that is more safety critical than charts...

    The point is that being a "trained professional" means nothing if that "trained professional" is operating outside his or her professional environment. When doing all of the things I mentioned above, I was part of a team in a large organization with appropriate facilities and manpower to handle the many aspects of making maps and charts.

    Translating this to our situation, a rigger isn't going to produce work any better than we can manage if he or she hasn't got access to (for example) swaging tools - which might be the case if a yacht requires repairs but isn't located anywhere near a rigger's workshop. They'd have to use components that are designed for installation with hand tools (e.g. StaLock terminals) - which are intended for use by non-professionals. Diesel mechanics are a bit more "standalone", in that they can carry most of their tools, but then again, with (say) the RYA Diesel Maintenance course under our belt, most of us can undertake routine tasks just as competently as they can, only calling on them when something unusual happens. And anything seriously wrong with injectors or injector pumps is a matter for specialist beyond the capability of most professional diesel mechanics!

    "Trained professional" is a meaningless phrase unless it mentions relevant qualifications and working environments.

    Just to cap it all, I was (and still could be) a Senior Member of the IEEE. That qualifies me as an electrical and electronic engineer, with Profesional Engineer status in the USA. I know less than many others on this forum about electrical and electronc matters! I happens that the IEEE has wideranging interests, some of which do involve my areas of interest - so I have a professional qualification that is meaningless in terms of my ability to do the things it purports to qualify me to do!
    I suggest that you look at "Antares Charts". You will find that the maker and supplier of these charts does his own surveys, and they carry a disclaimer to the effect that "These charts are produced by enthusiastic amateurs". For the areas that they cover, they are excellent.

  9. #239
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    8,833

    Default Re: The end of owner maintenance ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Fr J Hackett View Post
    One of my concerns would be how the insurance companies react in the event of a claim where an owner has maintained his boat perhaps engine and it is deemed to be responsible for the claim.
    They have acted, removed cover for safety critical items on my product liability and public liability cover, I have been designing marine charging systems and switch panels, about 10,000 units, over the last 40 years, so I think I tick MCA boxes.


    Brian
    Kddpowercentre VASR charge

  10. #240
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    698

    Default Re: The end of owner maintenance ...

    A number of people have noted the potential impact on insurance cover, and reasonably so. By way of a response.

    a) the insurance market as we know it is heavily influenced by the foundations of insurance in the UK, which was instigated by owners of sea-going vessels to have some recompense in the event that their vessels came to an abrupt end. The insurance market also drove a number of improvements as it was not uncommon for non-seaworthy vessels to be given a lick of paint and then sent off to sail the seven seas. Most of us are aware of the the story of Edward Lloyd's coffee house, so I won't repeat it here. I make this point to emphasise that taking due care of sea vessels is one of the foundational principles of the global insurance system.

    b) the insurance market is heavily regulated and biased in favour of the consumer. Examples include the unfair contract terms and the ongoing onslaught on PPI (yup, a form of insurance), which has shown that insurance which was mis-sold or unreasonable is frequently weighted in favour of the applicant.

    c) An insurance company cannot enforce anything that is not in its Terms and Conditions.

    d) The insurance industry is competitive in its nature. Therefore, if one insurer insists that all maintenance be done by fully qualified engineers we can switch to another insurer. Personally, I think that the addition of this term would be unlikely - their policy holders would leave in droves. The motor and home insurance industries are also competitive and neither of these enforce work is done by fully qualified engineers. I think the worst that could happen is that the insurance companies would charge an additional premium of owner maintained vessels (to cover the risk) and may specify terms and conditions on specific safety related items (such as 5 year gas check by certified marine gas installer)

    e) The very term' qualified engineer' is challenging in all aspects of marine, motor and household work. Clearly, there are some trades which require a certification (e.g. GasSafe & NICIEC). However, most other trades (plumbing, tyre fitting and yacht rigging) do not have this category. It would therefore be challenging for an insurer to insert a clause requiring all work to always be done by a 'qualified engineer' into their Terms and Conditions.

    f) An insurer can use negligence as a refusal to compensate in the event of an accident. If you change the brake pads on your car, and install unsuitable replacements, an insurer can reasonably refuse to pay out if this causes an accident. However, negligence would have to be proven. An Insurance Company won't say 'you installed that yourself, therefore you're not insured' unless they can prove that:
    - the item was fitted unreasonably
    - the item was designed for installation by by someone with specialist training / certification AND the installer did not have that training / certification
    - their Terms and Conditions specifically prohibited such an installation

    g) In the UK, we are fortunate to have a number of options to pursue if we believe an Insurance Company is unreasonably refusing to reimburse in the event of a claim. We have the FCA, PRA, FOS, OFT and local courts. However, this refusal is (in my opinion) exceptionally unlikely. An Insurance Company will abide by its own Terms and Conditions. It is naturally prescient on the Insured to have a reasonable understanding of the Terms and Conditions as well. Afterall, a contract is made by two parties who have 'capacity' to contract.

Page 24 of 53 FirstFirst ... 14192021222324252627282934 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Latest YBW News

Find Boats For Sale

to
to