Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Where life is good
    Posts
    13,417

    Default Replying to the MCA consultation

    Reading through the thread on the MCA consultation it is clear there is a lot of concern about this "initiative". Someone commented that the RYA seem very silent.

    How about we prepare a joint response from the most widely read boating forum in the UK? (we know it is the most widely read boating forum in the UK because YBW tell us it it)
    Life is too short to drink bad wine.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    East coast UK. Mostly. Sometimes the Philippines
    Posts
    8,879

    Default Re: Replying to the MCA consultation

    I am frankly staggered by the RYA’s inertia on this - yes I am an individual member - and I think the more responses the better - individual and collective.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    8,636

    Default Re: Replying to the MCA consultation

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomahawk View Post
    Reading through the thread on the MCA consultation it is clear there is a lot of concern about this "initiative". Someone commented that the RYA seem very silent.

    How about we prepare a joint response from the most widely read boating forum in the UK? (we know it is the most widely read boating forum in the UK because YBW tell us it it)
    My concern is that we appear to be ignoring commercial insurance policies, if they remove safety critical cover, the professional will not do that work, so who does ?

    Brian
    Kddpowercentre VASR charge

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Atlantic
    Posts
    19,823

    Default Re: Replying to the MCA consultation

    Could it be that the RYA as a pro organisation is investigating and preparing a considered response?

    Better than the knee jerky stuff you read on here.........

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Grenoble
    Posts
    29,801

    Default Re: Replying to the MCA consultation

    Quote Originally Posted by capnsensible View Post
    Could it be that the RYA as a pro organisation is investigating and preparing a considered response?

    Better than the knee jerky stuff you read on here.........

    I doubt that they will go against MCA "recommendations" especially where "safety" aspects are concerned.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Where life is good
    Posts
    13,417

    Default Re: Replying to the MCA consultation

    Quote Originally Posted by Fr J Hackett View Post
    I doubt that they will go against MCA "recommendations" especially where "safety" aspects are concerned.
    Lets not get involved with arguing with each other.
    I think the more pressing issue is to reply to the consultation with a considered approach.
    Life is too short to drink bad wine.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
    Posts
    1,236

    Default Re: Replying to the MCA consultation

    Quote Originally Posted by halcyon View Post
    My concern is that we appear to be ignoring commercial insurance policies, if they remove safety critical cover, the professional will not do that work, so who does ?
    I've already objected to the 6x proposed MGNs and had a proper response from the MCA. From their response I gather:

    1 - The MCA have already engaged with the RYA to get to this point (hence little RYA inertia).
    2 - The insurance companies are all commercial and can do their own thing. The MCA is creating legal regulations.
    3 - The MCA response didn't answer all of my questions fully but did confirm that they weren't prepared to use the term 'competent' for a person that they would consider was OK to work on safety critical systems.

    So, if it all goes terribly wrong, I can see us all doing the RYA diesel engine courses and also our RYA recognised sailing clubs forming 'Boards' to interview us and declare/document us as 'experienced' enough to maintain our own rigs, engines and apply our own antifouling.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    East coast UK. Mostly. Sometimes the Philippines
    Posts
    8,879

    Default Re: Replying to the MCA consultation

    The first thing that I want to know is “Why are the MCA going beyond the scope of work given them by the Judge (small commercial craft) and taking upon themselves matters that the Judge gave to the RYA?.

    And why are the RYA going along with this?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    8,636

    Default Re: Replying to the MCA consultation

    Quote Originally Posted by langstonelayabout View Post
    I've already objected to the 6x proposed MGNs and had a proper response from the MCA. From their response I gather:

    1 - The MCA have already engaged with the RYA to get to this point (hence little RYA inertia).
    2 - The insurance companies are all commercial and can do their own thing. The MCA is creating legal regulations.
    3 - The MCA response didn't answer all of my questions fully but did confirm that they weren't prepared to use the term 'competent' for a person that they would consider was OK to work on safety critical systems.

    So, if it all goes terribly wrong, I can see us all doing the RYA diesel engine courses and also our RYA recognised sailing clubs forming 'Boards' to interview us and declare/document us as 'experienced' enough to maintain our own rigs, engines and apply our own antifouling.
    But some insurance companies have already bought in safety critical exclusions, admittedly only on boat navigation ( propulsion / steering ) and at least one stopped marine cover. The above is for a business working in the marine industry, not comercial vessel.

    Brian
    Last edited by halcyon; 02-07-19 at 09:47.
    Kddpowercentre VASR charge

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Where life is good
    Posts
    13,417

    Default Re: Replying to the MCA consultation

    I think we should be focussing on the extent to which this a problem that needs to be addressed.

    How nay accidents happen each year compared to other types of accidents?

    CR and Hooligan VIII were high profile cases. But how many yachts a year founder after a grounding?
    How many accidents are actually caused by amateur maintenance?
    How many accidents are caused by someone changing the prop, adding a furling genny, changing a pipe from an "approved" one to an alternative etc?

    Is the imposition of "professional only" maintenance a potential cause of further risk by way of imposing extra expense on owners.
    To what extent is "professional only" maintenance a proportionate response to a problem?
    Does "professional only" maintenance absolve the boat owner from responsibility?
    Life is too short to drink bad wine.

Page 1 of 4 1234 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