COMMENTS ON THE SMALL COMMERCIAL VESSEL AND PILOT BOAT CODE FOLLOWING THE FINAL PUBLIC CONSULTATION - JANUARY 2004
| NAME & ORGANISATION | SECTION | COMMENTS | OUTCOME |
| Contents | |||
Graham Hockley IMAREST Technical Affairs | 1 Foreword | The use of the word “instant” in connection with the “power to stop and detain vessels”, in paragraph 1.21.4, seems to be over dramatic. In most cases the relevant statutory regulation is spelled out in the Code but this has not been done in reference to health and safety regulations in paragraph 1.23.1. The standard definition for “Administration” is used (the Government of the State whose flag the ship is entitled to fly) but it is not clear why such a definition is necessary as the Code applies to UK vessels. Would not a better definition be, “means the MCA”? When Government act as a Port State, the term “administration” is used as in paragraph 1.18. | Accept – delete Accept – ref to annex 3 added Not accepted – required for non-UK administrations, i.e. Red Ensign |
Alan Norris Legal | 1 Foreword | 1.1This is not consistent with the regulation 8 of the draft Regulations. 1.7Reference to the Regulations needs to be amended to be consistent with with the Draft Regulations. 1.16It is not clear how this paragraph is consistent with regulation 12 of the Draft Regulations. Under regulation 12, equivalence is subject to the consent of the Secretary of State. 1.18This is not consistent with regulation 11 or 12. Only small pilot boats and dedicated pilot boats can be exempted from the Regulations. There is no power to exempt other boats from the Regulations. There is nothing in the Regulations about vessels permanently based abroad.1.20The criteria for establishing what is a pleasure vessel are set out in the Regulations. With regard to pleasure vessels owned by members clubs see regulation 5(c). This paragraph is not consistent with that provision. What this paragraph sets out is evidence of ownership. Also, I do not understand the reference to section 257 of the MSA 1995. It does not seem to me correct to suggest that the documents referred to in paragraph 1.20.3 are documents of a kind which are referred to in section 257(2).1.21.4Why is there a reference to ‘Administration’? Should this not be the MCA? By virtue of what legislative provision can enforcement powers be delegated to local authorities? | Not accepted Accepted Consistent with Reg 13 Accepted – remove words exempted Accepted – remove ref to MSA Not accepted |
George Turpin Plain Sailing | 1 Foreword | 1.17 Insurance. Coded boats are insured usually through the owners. This item suggest we need to consider further insurance for the skipper of a private charter. | Not accepted – not a legal requirement |
Mary Martyn Seafarer Heath and Safety Branch, MCA | 1 Foreword | Para 1.23.2 line 2 – suggest amend to read “ …that appropriate measures are taken to remove or, where this is not possible, minimise them through improving ….” Line 4 – suggest amend to read “….the risks and how to ensure their own health and safety and the health and safety of others.” Para 1.23.3 line 1 – suggest amend to read “Recognising that some vessels operate both at sea and on inland waters… “ New para 1.23.4 - suggest that it would be useful to add a further para to state that “Guidance on occupational health and safety is contained in the Code of Safe Working Practices for Merchant Seamen, published by The Stationery Office. “ (Although this is specifically for the merchant sector, it does contain guidance which is relevant to SCVs.) | Not accepted Accepted Accepted Not accepted – no increase in standards |
Graham Hockley IMAREST Technical Affairs | 2 Definitions | In the last line of the definition of “decked vessel” the word “be” should be inserted before “taken”. “Immediate family” is defined in connection with of the use of pleasure vessels. In these changing times would the words “partner or spouse” be more appropriate than “spouse”. | Accepted Not accepted on advice sought from Legal |
Alan Norris Legal | 2 Definitions | It is noted that this section contains a number of definitions of terms which are defined in the Regulations. Why have the definitions in the Code not cross ref erred to the equivalent definitions in the Regulations in the same way that the definition of ‘United Kingdom vessel’ cross refers (incorrectly – see below) to section 85(2) of the MSA 1995? This will avoid as has happened (see below) of incorrect transposition of the definition. “authorised person” – this does not read correctly and a word or some words may have been omitted. “competent harbour authority” – this is different from the definition of that term contained in the Regulations. “members club” – this is different from that contained in the Regulations. The full out words at the end of the definition should. “Member State of the European Economic Area Agreement” – this is an incorrect attempt to try and replicate the definition in the Regulations. It is not clear how one can be a member state of an agreement. “small vessel” – this is not the same as that contained in the Regulations. “United Kingdom vessel” – this is incorrect since the reference in section 85(2) is to ‘ship’. Also the Regulations refer to ‘United Kingdom ship’ although there is no need to define the term in the Regulations since it is defined in section 85(2). The Code should therefore refer to United Kingdom ship to be consistent with the Regulations. | Accepted – definition to be checked against SI Not accepted Accepted – to be changed to reflect wording in SI Accepted Accepted – definition corrected Accepted – definition corrected Accepted – definition corrected |
Alan Norris Legal | 3 Application and Interpretation | 3.1.1This is incorrect because it is not consistent with regulation 8 of the Regulations. 3.1.3This is wrong; one should refer to the definition of a member’s club to ascertain what criteria have to be met in order for a club to be a member’s club within t he meaning of the Regulations. There are no provisions in the Regulations which impose conditions which have to be met before an exception can be claimed. In any event how can “a members club [to] claim exception as a pleasure vessel” ? Finally, it is not clear to me why there is a reference to section 290 of the MSA 1995 which applies in the event that an offence has been committed. It seems to me that this paragraph needs to be redrafted. 3.1.5the references to Sections 3.1.1.1, 3.1.1.2 and 3.1.1.3 are incorrect. There are no such sections. Also, reference is made to the ‘Small Commercial Vessel Code 2003. Which Code is this? 3.1.6the references to Sections 3.1.1.1, 3.1.1.2 and 3.1.1.3 are incorrect. There are no such sections. Also, reference is made to the ‘Small Commercial Vessel Code 2003. Which Code is this? 3.1.7Reference is made to the ‘Small Commercial Vessel Code 2003’ Which Code is this? 3.1.8The references to Sections 3.1.1.1 and 3.1.1.3 are incorrect. There are no such sections. 3.1.9the reference to the Regulations is incorrect in both title and date. And the paragraph does not correctly reproduce the wording in the regulation 2(3) of the proposed Regulations. 3.1.10the 1996 Regulations have been replaced by the Merchant Shipping (High Speed Craft) Regulations 2004 S.I. 2004/302. | Not accepted Legal to advise Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted |
Alan Boswell Oyster Marine | 4 Construction and Structural Strength | 4.4.2“as appropriate” is a very vague phrase and should not be used in a mandatory standard. Delete “as appropriate”. 4.4.2There are other suitable methods of sealing, such as expanding foam, flexible adhesives, sealants etc. especially when used in ducts. The question of suitability would have to be resolved by the surveyor and/or by the MCA as currently happens, but the proposed phrasing would permit other systems which have been proven in practice to be used. Change to “… watertight glands or other suitable sealing systems” | Added “,” after word “glands” Not accepted – not considered suitable for watertight bulkheads |
Jonathan Goldie Sunseeker International | 4 Construction and Structural Strength | 4.4.2description of electrical cable glands need more clarity. | Not accepted |
Graham Hockley INMAREST Technical Affairs | 4 Construction and Structural Strength | Is DNV not a UK Load Line Assigning Authority (paragraph 4.2.2.4) and in the definitions section in “Organisation so authorized by the MCA”? | Accepted – to advise correspondent that DNV have withdrawn as a Certifying Authority |
G M Chatfield British Marine Federation Technical Committee | 4 Construction and Structural Strength | 4.1.3.2.2Smaller vessels under 6 metres length of hull often have a large aft working cockpit with a watertight deck fitted and may have diff iculty in meeting the required draining times for Cat A in ISO 11812, as they are restricted to Cat C/D by the requirements of ISO 12217-3 Stability and Buoyancy Assessment for Boats less than 6 metres Length of Hull. Should a clarification note covering this for small vessels be added to the text of this clause? 4.3.2.3This clause appears to be at odds with clause 4.1.3.2.2 as it mentions that a recess or cockpit should comply with ISO 11812, for the relevant design category of the vessel, and not just Cat A, as stated in the above clause. | Not accepted – this is not a requirement but a provision to allow certain operations that are generally prohibited on open vessels. Not accepted – 4.3.2.3. is a general requirement |
| Unknown | 5 Weathertight Integrity | 5. 2.1.2Comment regarding the hinging of doors located on the side of the vessel states that the hinging should be on forward edge, however we have for some time been manufacturing doors that use an articulated arm system that cannot be construed strictly a s a hinge, this is done to facilitate the geometry of the opening, these doors may open forward or aft and be electrically powered and not manually operated. Do they comply if they are not deemed as exit point or means of escape. We therefore think the wor ding is limited given the number of systems of this type already on the market. 5.2.1.3Calls for a coaming at least 300mm above the weather deck; again I believe this is in excess of the requirements within the RCD which is addresses in ISO 11812. 5.3.2We currently manufacture both glass and carbon fibre sunroofs which are electrically operated and have no further securing arrangements other than the electrical drive system. We do not see a need for a separate securing system other than this, do you consi der this acceptable? 5.3.3Calls for the sunroof to be opened from both sides if deemed as a means of escape as currently we only manufacture electrically operated sunroofs or skylights and at present these are only operated from inside the craft. 5.3.4Again reference is made to a blank which should be provided in the event of breakage. We are currently building sunroofs measuring between 3 metres x 3 metres which are curved in profile, I do not see it as being practical to provide such large blanks assuming such openings are permitted. 5.4.1Makes a statement that the item should be of strength compatible with size. There appears to be no means of calculating this specific requirement like-wise in 5.4.2 the statement that the port light or window needs to b e equivalent in strength to the structure it is fitted could potentially exceed the requirements of ISO 112216. 5.4.2Conflict with statement in relation to glazing in the hull. In ISO 12216 the hull is split into 2 distinct areas; area 1 and 2, this standard does not appear to reflect that. 5.4.3Refers to windows and their frames which again is not necessarily the actual requirement as many customers are now using direct bonded glass with no framing. Furthermore a comment that the windows and port lights should meet the appropriate marine standards defined in British or Marine or other standards seems to be too general. The requirements of standards such as BSMA24 and 25 are already in question as their scope does not cover the entire requirements of the market and tends to be limited to large shipping only. As a direct example curved glass is not covered with any of the British or International standards for ships windows although it is commonly used. 5.4.5 and 5.4.7 Refer to the requirement for blanks; our previous comments apply. 5.4.8.1Here again there is a call for frames which is not always a requirement, it also seems to suggest that only laminated glasses should be use din the wheelhouse which is not general practice as most windows are thermally toughened monolithic glass. 5.4.8.2In most other standards tinted glass is permitted in the wheelhouse provided the glass has at least 70% light transmission qualities as stated in ISO 11591. 5.4.8.3Here again the mention of storm shutters in our experience is not necessarily practical due to limited access externally and because of the complexities of size and shape for multi faceted curved windscreens. | Accepted – text added re equivalent arrangements Not accepted – RCD not considered satisfactory Individual interpretation – system details unknown Not accepted – means to close weathertight is required Noted Not accepted Noted Not accepted – ISO 12216 referenced in Annex 13 Not accepted Not accepted – lamination is not a requirement Not accepted – not UK policy Not accepted – however requirement removed for alternative reasons |
Jonathan Goldie Sunseeker International | 5 Weathertight Integrity | 5.1.1.3 - delete fitted with a blank 5.2.1.2 - delete hinged on forward side 5.2.2.1 - delete 5.4.3 - ports up to 500mm dia 5.5.2 - delete or state not engine room ventilation 5.5.4 - explain 5.5.5 - delete 5.6.2 - delete 5.6.3 - delete 5.7.1 - delete 5.8.3 - delete | Not accepted Not accepted Not accepted – washboards can be portable Not accepted Not accepted Not accepted Noted Not accepted Not accepted Not accepted Not accepted |
G M Chatfield British Marine Federation Technical Committee | 5 Weathertight Integrity | 2nd sentence – change “Freeboard deck” to “Weather deck” to show commonality with other clauses in this section. | Accepted |
Alan Boswell Oyster Marine | 5 Weathertight Integrity | 5.The strength and watertightness requirements of ISO 12216 should be made the minimum requirement for strength and watertightness. Then, much of the following parts of section 5 are redundant and can be deleted. 5.1.1.1What is “efficient construction” and “efficient means of weathertight closure”? These are meaningless terms and should not be used. ISO 12216 covers strength and watertightness, so this clause is redund ant, except possibly for the reference to cargo hatches which could in fact be included in the opening statement of Section 5. Delete 5.1.1.1 Move the last sentence to the opening statement of section 5. 5.1.1.2Whether the hatch cover is hinged or sliding is irrelevant, unless this is intended as a definition of a hatchway, in which case it should be in Section 2. The requirement for locking devices is covered by ISO 12216 and so this clause can be deleted. Delete 5.1.1.2 5.1.1.3This requirement is sensib le where a traditional timber hinged hatch with a single securing point is fitted on the foredeck, but this type of hatch appears to be ruled out by 5.1.1.2 which requires more than one locking device. It is also a sensible requirement for any hatch whic h is used for access into the hull while at sea, fore example to a forepeak or sail locker, but these are covered by 5.1.2. It is not a sensible requirement for modern hatches which are installed to supply light and ventilation, or as fire escapes, and so which are not likely to be open when at sea in conditions where boarding seas are likely. Modern metal framed production yacht hatches which have two securing clamps and are shaped to offer little resistance to passing water, are very unlikely to be dama ged by boarding seas whichever way they are mounted. If they are mounted on a coachroof it is even less likely to happen. There are good arguments relating to the requirements for ventilation in warm climates for mounting at least some ventilation and/or escape hatches in the forward part of the vessel with their hinges aft. For thirty years our non-MCA coded vessels have had ventilation hatches with their hinges mounted on the aft side. Many of them have circumnavigated, and there have been no cases of damage to them from boarding seas. Of course, when conditions are rough, their crews keep these hatches closed. Change the first sentence to “A hatchway with a hinged cover which is located on the forward part of the weather deck and which is likely to be regularly used for access to a space within the hull while the vessel is at sea in conditions in which boarding seas are likely to be encountered shall have the hinges …” (NB “should normally” is vague and should not be used.) The second sentence can then be deleted. The third sentence remains intact. 5.1.2The first sentence is an operational suggestion but ignores the desirability of good ventilation when weather permits. It could sensibly be omitted, but if retained should be changed as suggested. In the second sentence “lengthy periods” is very vague. Suggest a more precise phrase should be used depending on the intention of the MCA. We suggest a more operationally related phrase, which would allow hatches to be left open for ventilation for long periods in settled weather without having to meet the requirements of this clause, but would require hatches needed for the commercial operation of the vessel which are likely to be left open in adverse conditions to meet them. Either delete the first sen tence, or change to. “In general hatches are to be kept secured closed at sea when spray or water is likely to come aboard. “ Change the second sentence to “ Any hatch other than companion hatch (see 5.2.2) which is likely to be left open in adverse conditions to enable the vessel to carry out its commercial function should be….” 5.3.1“efficient weathertight construction” is covered by ISO 12216. What is the difference between a skylight and a hatchway? We think a skylight is effectively two hatchways join ed together. If a skylight is being used as a means of escape then it is effectively a hatchway. Is it really necessary to include separate requirements for skylights? Delete “should be of efficient weathertight construction” 5.3.2Closure is covered by ISO 12216. Delete this section 5.3.3Escape hatches are covered by ISO 9094 and Section 14. If this clause is to be retained, then logically the same clause should be added to section 5.1 Copy this clause to 5.1 but change “skylight” to “hatchway” 5.3.4Strength is covered by ISO 12216. Delete this section 5.4The terms “storm shutters” and “blanks” are not defined. The distinction between portlights and windows is not defined. We note that the current code has separate sections for portlights and windows. 5.4.1What is “efficient construction”? Covered by ISO 12216. Delete this section 5.4.2Strength is covered by ISO 12216. Delete this section. 5.4.3Why set a limit on diameter, and then offer the possibility of fitting larger diameter portlights, when ISO 12216 relates the thickness of the portlight glass to the size of the port, and effectively makes this section redundant. What does “in navigation” mean? Does it mean under way, or afloat, or both? Suggest this should be defined. Delete “have a glazed area … Administration” Delete “Proposals to accept … the certifying Authority” Add definition of “in navigation” to Section 2. 5.4.4Why not simplify this to the applicable international standard ISO 12216. The ISO standard was developed from all the other s tandards mentioned, and with the assistance of the national authorities and classification societies. It is the standard that has to be applied to all vessels offered for sale in the EU. It is simply perverse to apply other standards in place of it. Delete this section. 5.4.5“Blank” is not defined. Methods of attachment are not defined. Could it be attached with sticky tape? “to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority” leaves it to the whim of individual surveyors. If the intention is to replace the b roken glass with something of equivalent or better stregth, why not say so? Why not define some acceptable means of attachment, (e.g. bolts, screws, strongbacks, clamps, etc)? Last para: - If a non-opening and a non-readily opening port have the same stre ngth under 5.4.2, why does one require a blank, and not the other? This paragraph should be deleted, leaving the simple requirement for either an attached deadlight or a blank. Define “Blanks” Specify acceptable materials, fixing methods, etc. Delete last paragraph 5.4.6By definition, any port fitted in the main hull below the weather deck has to meet the requirements of 5.4.2., or those of ISO 12216. Therefore the first sentence of this section is redundant. Delete this section 5.4.7It is not clear if this section applies only to “a window fitted in the main hull” as in 5.4.6, or to all windows regardless of position. The final paragraph implies the former, but the first paragraph implies the latter. Which is correct? Clarify the application of this sec tion. 5.4.8The term “wheelhouse” is not defined. Bullet point 2 and the heading “For the wheelhouse” suggests that it only applies to structures containing a steering position or “used for navigational visibility”. It is important to know whether it is i ntended to include or exclude structures such as deck houses, deck saloons, semi-sunk deck saloons, etc which may or may not contain a wheel or steering position. Using ISO 12216 as the guiding standard helps to resolve these issues, as it clearly defines strength standards depending on the size and location of the windows, and not based on operational use or terms open to interpretation. Depending on the interpretation of 5.4.7, bullet point 3 could conflict with 5.4.7. Define the term wheelhouse, or use ISO 12216 as the strength standard for all windows and ports. 5.5.1What does “efficient construction” mean? The reference to Section 14 is vague. It is a large section and none of it appears to be relevant to ventilators and exhausts. Delete “should be of efficient construction and, where” And either delete “consideration….(Section 14)” or give a more specific reference 5.5.2What height is “ sufficient to prevent the ready admission of water when the vessel is heeled” and to what heel angle is this to be applied? Presumably the heights of all commercially available ventilators are sufficient . We note that no attention or consideration is given to the provision of water traps as in “dorade” type vents. We suggest that where such water traps are fitted, the height above deck becomes irrelevant. Does the height above deck refers to height above weather deck or the adjacent surface which might well be a coachroof? We note that no consideration is given to the ability of some cowl vents to be turned away from the direction of the prevailing wind and sea. ISO 12216 has useful definitions of degrees of watertightness which could be usefully employed to make sense of this very vague section. Change to “Ventilators should be kept as far inboard as practicable and th eir intakes shall be higher than the adjacent deck. See sections 11.3, 11.4, 11.6, and 11.8 for requirements relating to stability and downflooding” 5.5.3We think the reference to 5.6.2 within the text refers to the section number of the current code, and should be changed to 5.5.2. Change “5.6.2” to “5,5,2” 5.5.3The phrase“should be specially considered” is vague and should not be used. It leaves builders vulnerable to the whims of individual surveyors. This section should be brought into line with the downflooding and weathertightness requirements of ISO 12217 – Stability and buoyancy., as can be eventually deduced from the sections referred to. Change to “A ventilator … flammable gases shall meet the downflooding and weathertightness requirements of ISO 12217 5.5.4If the proposal for 5.5.3 is accepted, then this section becomes redundant, because the requirements of ISO 12217 will limit the range of operation where necessary. 5.6.1The term “ air pipes” is unusual, and could reasonably be taken to apply to compressed air systems. It would be better to be consistent with ISO 10088 (fuel systems) and use “ vent hoses” or “vent lines”. Change “Air pipes” to Vent lines” throughout this section. 5.6.1“ sufficient to prevent inadvertent downflooding when the vessel is heeled” is vague. Heeled to what angle? MCA should adopt the standards required in ISO 10088 in whole, but could refer to the specific section 6.2 of ISO 10088. For sailing vessels the heel angle required is 30 degrees. Change to “ Vent lines shall meet the requirements of ISO 10088 section 6.2.”. 5.6.2 and 5.6.3This is impractical. For the fuel system and engine to operate the vent must allow air to enter. The risk of significant downflooding through a tank vent is negligible. Vessels should have a water separator to remove any water in the fuel which may occur from condensation, and this will also protect against any small quantities of water which may enter through the vents. Delete 5.6.2 and 5.6.3 5.7.2The words “in an emergency” are redundant . The item is either readily accessible or not. We note that “readily accessible” is not defined. The definition used in all ISO standards should be adopted and given in section 2. Delete “… in an emergency” Add ISO definition of “readily accessible” to Section 2. 5.7.2This section appears to rule out the use of stack pipes or seachests which are bonded in or welded in to become an integral part of the hull structure. Stack pipes which extend above the waterline, make the use of seacocks on the hoses conne cted to them unnecessary. Add a clause 5.7.? “ Seachests for inlets which are built as part of the hull structure, and stackpipes for outlets which are integextend above the static waterline do not need to be fitted with seacocks. Connections to stackpipes above the static waterline do not need seacocks. Connections to seachests do need seacocks. 5.7.4Refers to “ shell fittings as required by Section 5.7.2” No “shell fittings” are mentioned in 5.7.2 The fact that an efficient or effective means of closure i s required is covered by 5.7.1 and 5.7.2 and does not need to be repeated here. Delete first sentence “Inlet and … Section 5.7.2. 5.7.5The terms “Toilets” and “water closets” are used interchangably in 5.7.4 and5.7.5. For consistency use “toilets” throughout. Consider using “marine toilets” , as domestic toilets are not suitable for use in small craft. Change “water closets” and “toilets” to “marine toilets”. | Not accepted “Efficient” is defined ISO 12216 is NOT the standard relied upon” Not accepted Not accepted Not accepted Not accepted Not accepted Not accepted Not accepted Not accepted Accepted – efficient now defined Not accepted Not accepted Not accepted Not accepted Not accepted Not accepted Not accepted Accepted – requirements for storm shutters removed Accepted – efficient now defined Not accepted Accepted Not accepted Not accepted Not accepted Not accepted Accepted Not accepted – “or other effective means of closure” allows for consideration of alternative arrangements. Agreed word “shell” added Agreed word “marine toilet” used |
Alan Boswell Oyster Marine | 6 Water Freeing Arrangements | 6.1Many small craft have vestigial bulwarks for which freeing ports are neither practical or necessary, provided suitable deck drains are fitted. This section should specify a minimum height of bulwark, below which freeing ports may be replaced by deck drains. We note Section 6.3.2 sets this as a m inimum average height of 150mm for sailing vessels. Why not for all vessels? Change “efficient” to “effective” and delete redundant text ”that will ensure the deck can be effectively drained” By definition, effective freeing ports will achieve this It wou ld be logical to incorporate section 6.4 into 6.1 as it applies to all vessels. Change to “When a deck is fitted with bulwarks with an average height over its length of more than 150mm high, such that a significant quantity of shipped water may be trapped behind them, the bulwarks should be provided with effective freeing ports (Delete redundant text”that will ensure the deck can be effectively drained” ). Bulwarks less than 150mm high should be provided with effective deck drains”(To be specific MCA could require deck drains to match the cockpit drains, or could specify some lesser area). 6.4.1This section is very vague. MCA should define the areas and volumes, or better still produce a simple formula relating the area of freeing ports to the area of deck t o be drained multiplied by the height of the bulwark, bearing in mind that in sea conditions when a substantial quantity of water is likely to come aboard, the vessel is likely to be well heeled or rolling substantially, so a significant quantity of the t rapped water will be shed over the top of the bulwarks. This section should be moved into Section 6.1. Move to 6.1 and change to “Total freeing port area shall be determined from the formula Af = 0.5 Ad x Hb Where Af = Area of freeing ports Ad = Area of deck to be drained, and Hb = Lowest height of bulwarks. “to the satisfaction of the certifying Authority” is vague and leaves it open to the whim of individual surveyors. If MCA cannot specify their requirement for deck drainage, then it should simply specify that deck drainage is required and accept whatever provision is made. The word “efficient” is meaningless in this context and should be deleted. This section should be moved to Section 6.1. Delete “efficient” and “ to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority” and move to 6.1. 6.4.5The word “efficient” has no significance in this context and should be deleted. The word “arrangements” is redundant and should be deleted. This section should be moved to 6.1. Delete “efficient” and “arrangements” . Move this section to 6.1. | Accepted – text altered Not accepted Not accepted MCA to investigate Accepted – word arrangements deleted from text. Efficient remains in text. |
Jonathan Goldie Sunseeker International | 6 Water Freeing Arrangements | 6.1 - change wording to include opening aft 6.2.1 - delete 6.3.2 - delete | Unsure of intention of comment Not accepted Not accepted |
Alan Boswell Oyster Marine | 7 Machinery | 7.1.1The first sentence is redundant and should be deleted. MCA should start by requiring installations to meet the relevant ISO standards, and not refer to them as “reference information” Any additional MCA requirements can then be added, and duplication, conflict, and confusion reduced. These references should be made in the relevant part of the text and not tucked away in Annex 13. Delete first sentence. Add “ Installations should meet the requirements of the following ISO standards ISO 10088 Small Craft …. ISO 13591 …. ISO 7840 7.2Who is going to determine whether the engine is “efficient”? This section can be simplified. What is “sufficient tankage for its area of operation” ? This is another vague requirement. If MCA thinks there should be minimum tank capacity requirements for each area category, they should be specified. We think a capacity related to range at say 80% of max rated engine rpm, plus a reserve of say 15% would be a better way of specifying a minimum capacity, as this would take into account engine size, operating speed, etc. Clearly for all Area Categories other than 0 this can be related to the distances used to define the Area Category. Change to “Inboard or outboard diesel engines shall be suitable for marine use. Minimum tank capacity shall be for Area Category 0 - xxxx litres Area Category 1. - yyyy litres Etc… 7.4.1“adequate for the service for which they are intended” Another vague requirement. Who decides if they are adequate? MCA should specify minimum standards, which should be the relevant ISO standards, and if different services require different or additi onal standards, specify them. If these standards are specified as proposed above, then this first sentence becomes redundant. If retained, in its present form the first sentence should be moved to Section 7.1, and the second sentence modified to make sens e in isolation. Change to “ The machinery …. And fittings should be installed and protected so as to reduce….” | Not accepted Accepted. Word efficient deleted from text. Not accepted Not accepted |
Jonathan Goldie Sunseeker International | 7 Machinery | 7.1.2 - delete 7.3.1 - delete 7.3.2 - delete 7.4.2 - confirm in writing not balance pipes 7.4.5 - confirm use flexible piping 7.4.6 - not compliant to CE 7.7.1 - delete drain directly overboard | Not accepted Not accepted Not accepted Not accepted Not accepted Not accepted Not accepted |
Graham Hockley INMAREST Technical Affairs | 7 Machinery | Is the sense of line 1 of paragraph 7.3.1.1 in relation to a small petrol engine that it may be “carried” rather than “fitted”? | Not accepted |
G M Chatfield British Marine Federation Technical Committee | 7 Machinery | 7.4There is not mention of the requirement to fit sheathed (double jacketed) fuel lines on the high pressure fuel lines of main engines and generators of power greater than 375kW. This is referred to in OAN 285 rev 1 dated 14 July 03 section 3 – ALL OTHER VESSELS. Engines below 375kW can be covered by way of a risk assessment under the Health and Safety regs. SI1997 no 2962, which are referred to , but not specifically for engines and generators, in Annex 3 o f the Code section 2.10 Heath and Safety at Work Provisions. If Coded vessels need to comply, then some mention of this requirement should be made in the Code. In any event Coded vessels wishing to transit along inland (categorised) waterways, will need t o have arrangements in place as the above requirements have been written into proposed Technical Standards for Inland Waterways Freight Vessels. | Noted – vessel not required to comply |
| Unknown | 8 Electrical Arrangements | 8.4we are currently working on a batte ry back up system that may be used in the event of a major power failure so that doors and other openings may for a limited period be either opened or closed. Our view is that this would dispense with the outright need for manual override if the back up s ystem is able to either close openings in order to maintain safety from sea conditions or enable openings to be opened for exit purposes for a limited period. 8.5.1Recognised standards for Marine use, could you define these? 8.5.3All wiring to be flame retardant cable, this is not currently required under RCD requirements. | Not accepted Annex 13 Remove 1st sentence of 8.5.3 |
Alan Boswell Oyster Marine | 8 Electrical Arrangements | 8.4.1.6MCA need to define “sealed” . This could range from the ordinary caps on normal lead acid type batteries, which will prevent spillage of most of the electrolyte in a knock down, through hydrocaps, to gel batteries. If they are in a dedicated battery compartment as required by 8.4.2.4, why do they need to be “sealed”? Define “sealed” 8.4.2.4What does “suitably ventilated” mean. As a minimum the vent pipe should run continuously uphill from the battery box to the vent outlet, or a mechanical means of ventilation should be fitted. Clarify “suitably ventilated”. 8.4.3.1It is not clear whether this applies to the “box or locker” mentioned in 8.4.2.3. Clarify which of the options in8.4.2 this applies to. 8.6.2Who decides if a compartment “may” have gas leaking into it or accumulating in it. Does MCA mean to include all compartme nts through which a gas pipe passes, even though it may be a continuous length of pipe and contained in a tube to prevent leakage into intermediate compartments? Taken to the extreme, this could include every compartment in the vessel, as there is always the possibility that even watertight bulkheads “may” leak. Delete “or any compartment into which flammable gas may leak or accumulate”. | Not accepted Not accepted Not accepted – this is guidance on all types of ventilation arrangements Not accepted – compartments other than those that contain appliances may accumulate gas |
G M Chatfield British Marine Federation Technical Committee | 8 Electrical Arrangements | 8.4.1.6Suggest that sealed batteries should be referred to as “sealed” or “maintenance free” type, as per existing Code reference. | Not accepted |
Gary Howland ITT Industries Jabsco | 8 Electrical Arrangements | 'Section 8.4.3.2 refers to the ATEX Directive due to the fact that the battery compartment is considered to have a potentially explosive atmosphere and ventilating this area by mechanical means may present a source of ignition. Why then, is the ATEX Directive addressed for ventilating the battery compartment but not referred to for other potentially explosive atmospheres such as in the engine room of a petrol engine or compartments holding petrol tanks, gas bottles etc? Can the more widely recognized ISO standards for ignition protection be used instead of the ATEX Directive?' | Not accepted ISO standards referenced in Annex |
Jonathan Goldie Sunseeker International | 8 Electrical Arrangements | 8.1.1- tanks and machinery only 8.2.1 - dc systems only 8.3.1 - change wording 8.4.1.5 - delete 5.5.3 - delete 8.6.2 - delete 8.7 - delete | Not accepted Not accepted Not accepted Not accepted Not accepted Not accepted Not accepted |
Alan Boswell Oyster Marine | 9 Steering Gear, Rudder and Propeller Systems | 9.2“ As appropriate to the vessel”, “adequate for the operating conditions of the vessel”, “Recognised design standards should be used” All vague requirements. MCA should specify what standards are recognised in this context, or delete this section. Delete “As appropriate to the vessel” and “adequate for the operating conditions of the vessel” . Specify which standards are recognised. 9.3“As appropriate to the vessel”, “adequate for the operating conditions of the vessel”, “Recognised design standards should be used” All vague requirements. MCA should specify what standards are recognised in this context, or delete this section. Delete “As appropriate to the vessel” and “ adequate for the operating conditions of the vessel”. Specify which standards are recognised. | Not accepted – see Standards Annex Not accepted – see Standards Annex |
G M Chatfield British Marine Federation Technical Committee | 9 Steering Gear, Rudder and Propeller Systems | 9.1.2Should this clause make reference to any existing standards for guidance, such as ISO 11591 – Field of Vision From Helm Position? Or the proposed new EN Standard on Bridge Visibility. A whole section regarding unobstructed view from the helm position has been written in to the proposed Technical Standards for I/W Freight vessels (Article 7.02), which Coded vessels may have to meet if they wish to transit Inland Waterways as part of their normal operations. | Noted however no increase in standards required at this stage |
Alan Boswell Oyster Marine | 10 Bilge Pumping | 10.5.3It is not clear whether the audible alarm is intended to indicate that the pump is running, or that it is flooded but not running. It would be helpful if it is spec ifcally stated that the visual alrm indication to enable rapid location of the source of the alarm need not be at the control position. This is implied in the existing text, but could be open to interpretation. Change to “An auto start …audible alarm, preferably with a visual warning as well, at the control position(s). Should a number … . also be fitted, but not necessarily at the control position, to enable rapid location …” 10.5.410.5.3 has already stated it must be an audible alarm, with a visual warning if more than one alarm. The only additional information in this section is “ preferably a visual warning also, at the control position. Most of this section is redundant, and the last part could be included in 10.5.3. See change above, and delete this section. | Not accepted – applies to auto-start only thus alarm is to indicate that pump is running Not accepted |
George Turpin Plain Sailing | 10 Bilge Pumping | 10.5.1 Bilge alarms, are these really necessary on shallow draft yachts, consider you usually see the water on the side when the boat is heeled. Often not enough space to fit an alarm. | Not accepted |
Alan Boswell Oyster Marine | 11 Intact Stability | 11.3As most builders of new vessels in the EU will be obliged to use ISO 12217, this option (i.e. sections 11.3.8 and 11.3.9 should be moved up to 11.3.1 and the other sections re-numbered accordingly. Move 11.3.8 and 11.3.9 up to 11.3.1 and re-number accordingly. 11.4As most builders of new vessels in the EU will be obliged to use ISO 12217, this option (i.e. sections 11.4.5 should be moved up to 11.4.1 and the other sections re-numbered accordingly. Move 11.4.5 up to 11.4.1 and re-number accordingly. 11.6.1Suggest the list of exceptions should include “sailing vessels which use a halyard to retrieve the vessel’s tender”. After “ anchor handling equipment,” add “sailing vessels which use a halyard to retrieve the vessel’s tender” 11.8As most builders of new vessels in the EU will be obliged to use ISO 12217, this option (i.e. sections 11.8.4 should be moved up to 11.8.1 and the other sections re-numbered accordingly. Move 11.8.4 up to 11.8.1 and re-number accordingly. | Not accepted – no change in requirements, numbering only Not accepted – no change in requirements, numbering only Not accepted Not accepted – section does not apply to sailing vessels Not accepted – no change in requirements, numbering only Not accepted – no change in requirements, numbering only |
G M Chatfield British Marine Federation Technical Committee | 11 Intact Stability | 11.9.4.1The table reference in the 4th paragraph should be 11.9.5. | Accepted |
David Greening boatsurvey.biz | 11 Intact Stability | 11.2.1It appears that all sailing yachts operating in Area Category 0 or 1 with 7 or more persons will have to demonstrate Damage Survivability. Is this the intention, since this will present a significant problem for sun-15m sailing yachts, where production methods and layout design do not lend themselves to water tight subdivision? This represents a major shift from the requirements of the Blu e Code. 11.2.1.1The wording is ambiguous as to what constitutes Damage Survivability, since it hints at water-tight subdivision (11.2.1.1) but states “Vessels should be arranged that after minor hull damage… it will satisfy the residual stability criteria below…this MAY be achieved by fitting water-tight subdivision…” Could this section be improved by defining what “minor hull damamge” is considered to be, and what alternative methods would be considered satisfactory; i.e. are the use of mattresses or sof twood plugs considered to be satisfactory? 11.8 This section provides for vessels which require stability books, a sub-set of which may also require Damage Stability assessment (Area Category 0 or 1 with 7 or more persons) in which case the reference in 11.8.4 for the use of ISO 12217 Part 2 data and the table 11.9.5 indicates equivalence between ISO Option 1 Design Cat A and MCA Code Category 0. 11.1.1My reading of this section is that any sailing vessel operating in Area Category 0 or 1 must be prov ided with a Stability Information Booklet approved by the Certifying Authority and a subset of this group; those with 7 or more crew must also demonstrate Damage Survivability. Therefore the cross reference from 11.8.4 to 11.9.5 is ambiguous in that section 11.9.5 specifically states “…other that 0 or 1 and carrying 15 or less persons”. Also ISO 12217 Part 2 does not consider Damage Survivability. Shouldn’t any reference to MCA Code Category 0 or 1 be removed from the table in 11.9.5? Which sailing craft can be assessed using ISO 12217-2 equivalence between Design Category A and MCA Code Category 0 or 1 given the requirements of 11.1.1.2.1? My reading of section 11.8.4 is that in this instance only the GZ data can be used from the ISO 12217 stability dat a, and then in a modified form to correlate to the specific craft and MCA load condition. This should be made very clear, since designers and operators are under the impression that if a craft is Design Category A it has direct equivalence with Area Categ ory 0 or 1. If this were the case I would be extremely concerned, since the ISO is manufacturer driven and does not have the rigour of the MCA Code, the STIX Value of 32 for Design Category A is not very demanding and may have much to do with the marketing requirements of the builders of “marginal” craft. In my view there should have been a “Blue Water” category with a higher STIX threshold. For instance for ISO 12217 compliance a manufacturer may not regard opening portlights in the coachroof as downflood ing points, provided they are appropriately labelled, however for a MCA Coding submission the same opening (say above a galley) might be regarded as “an opening…regularly used for ventilation”. Another example is that the Loaded Displacement Mass may be e xtremely large, in order to encompass all possible specifications that may be requested in the lifetime of the model, the use of this data in an uncontrolled manner may result in misleading stability information for a specific yacht, when taken out of con text. The manufacturer is primarily interested in selling his craft and regards the RCD an the associated ISOs as a set of hurdles that he must jump over, by how far he clears them is of little interest as long as he can sell boats with the commercial adva ntage of having Category A on the builder’s plate, safe in the knowledge that a large proportion (if any) of his boats will never be tested in “Ocean” conditions. An employee of a well known boat builder once said to me; “we don’t expect our boats to be used in Ocean conditions, but we still have to sell the dream!” However a charter operator coding a boat for MCA Code Category 0 or 1 is specifically considering the risk of exposure to his craft in extreme conditions, in which case he would be better prot ected by more demanding criteria that equivalence between MCA Code Category 0 or 1 and ISO 12217 Design Category A. | Accepted Not accepted Not accepted – damage stability is a separate requirement Not accepted Not accepted Not accepted – use of ISO produced GZ curve to produce booklet Not accepted – ISO 12217 not considered as direct equivalence |
Neil Edden Yacht Designers and Surveyors Association | 11 Intact Stability | Having attended the PBA meeting and heard their comments regarding the application of 11.4.2 to all vessels operating in Categories 2 and 3 we would concur with the point raised that this clause should only apply to all vessels over 15 metres not now requiring a stability book operating in Categories 2 to 6. Having applied 11.4.2 to some 20 vessels using MIN 153 it is very clear that the smaller they are the larger the GM obtained and all those under 15 metres pass with such a nigh figure that the calculation is meaningless. We would also agree with the PBA comment that the remit of the working group was not to make the Harmonised Code unnecessarily more onerous for the under 15 metre vessels. | Addressed – vessels under 15 metres not required to have advanced heel for categories 2-6. Vessels over 24 to use advanced heel test for categories 2-6 |
Andrew Blyth British Marine Federation | 11 Intact Stability | Further to Mr Hamilton’s letter of 11th February requesting views on this draft Code, I should like to raise an issue in relation to the heeling test described in clause 11.4.1 of the Code. In brief, I am concerned that this heeling test has recently been shown to be inadequate. You will of course be aware of the incident that occurred to the day hire boat “Breakaway 5” on 19th July last year resulting in one fatality, and the subsequent investigation by the MAIB, published in MAIB Report No 2/2004. The MAIB found (Conclusions 16 and 17) that this form of heeling test is unsatisfactory in that: ·the use of 75kg per person may seriously underestimate the weight of those on board. There is an 87% probability that a group of males may weigh more than 75kg each, and 5% of males may weigh as much as 86.5kg each. ·the test does not ensure any level of reserve of stability beyond the test condition, so that capsize may easily occur if the test conditions are exceeded. ·the test does not include any margin for potential extreme conditions, differences in interpretation in its conduct, or any dynamic effects when the boat is underway. MAIB specifically recommend that MCA review the stability tests currently within the small craft codes to introduce a margin of safety and allow for heavier persons (Recommendation 2004/127). While I can understand any reluctance to delay the introduction of this Code, we have a responsibility to learn the lessons from this tragic incident in order to avoid, if possible, any further fatalities. While I would not wish to preclude further consideration of alternatives, simply raising the test weight used per person to at least 100kg would address all of the criticisms of the MAIB. I also remain gravely concerned about permitting boats to operate out to 60nm from shelter when their stability has only been assessed by means of this test, which does not consider large heel angles in any way. Naval architects know that this is unsafe. I sincerely hope that we are not forced to reconsider this practice as a result of further fatalities. In my opinion, a heeling test is only acceptable for operation in Area Categories 4, 5 and 6. PS: Editorial Points In the definition of D esign Category in Chapter 2, the definition of Category D has now been amended to refer to a significant wave height of 0.3m instead of 0.5m. This was recently promulgated in the amendments to the Recreational Craft Directive. In 12.1.2, the dimensions in the figure should be in millimetres not metres, so as to accord with the text. | Noted Accepted Accepted |
| Unknown | 11 Intact Stability | 11.3.9The permitted areas of operation. This is an observation on our part, many of our cu stomers in the UK and Europe generally manufacture boats up to at least 70’ and classify these under the RCD rules as design category B. However to propose the MCA Codes do not relate to weather conditions merely distance from safe haven. I am fairly confi dent that most vessels in category B especially the larger ones would easily exceed the distances stated and would by definition need to be moved into RCD category A which is in direct conflict with thinking by most of our major customers although I think it is necessary to pint out that we are talking about recreational craft that may be used for charter purposes other than boats built specifically for commercial applications. | Noted |
Dave MacRae & Keith Bradley MCA | 13 Life-Saving Appliances | 13.4.2Servicing certificate – only applies to inflatables. 13.5.1‘grab bag’ – where is this to be stored? 13.5.2.1,2 & 3, after ‘Immersion suits’ add ‘anti exposure suits’. No insulated suits?? Table 13.1No immersion suit included, insulated or non insulated. | Text removed Not accepted Not accepted |
Matthew Barr Premium Liferaft Services | 13 Life-Saving Appliances | I refer to the draft copy of the code and specifically the section on Liferafts and the servicing thereof. My reason for writing is that in one section there is, I believe a little ambiguity. Section 13.2.3.5 confirms that existing ORC rafts should be serviced annually, however section 13.2.4 then suggests that rafts should be serviced to the manufacturers recommended intervals. If section 13.4.4 refers to th e open reversible raft in the section immediately preceding it, it should say so or if it refers to the ISAF raft it should also say so otherwise I believe there is room for confusion. Also I assume there is a typographical error where an F instead of a G has been inserted where you refer to GRP containers. | Noted – MCA to add clarification Not agreed – fibre reinforced plastics Not Agreed. Fibre |
Alan Boswell Oyster Marine | 13 Life-Saving Appliances | 13.2.2Bullet 3For existing production vessels which have been designed to reach Cat 1 under the existing code, there is a problem with the new requirements where a larger raft has to be fitted into a space designed for the previously acceptable and smaller canister. Suggest this exemption be extended to all such vessels indefinitely. Add “ Series production vessels with FRP decks and superstructure for which construction of the first vessel was started before the coming into force of this code may continue to use the life rafts accepted under the previous code.” 13.2.2Bullet 5For existing production vessels which have been designed to reach Cat 2 - 6 under the existing code, there is a problem with the new requirements where a larger raft has to be fitted into a space designed for the previously accept able and smaller canister. Suggest this exemption be extended to all such vessels indefinitely. Add “ Series production vessels with FRP decks and superstructure for which construction of the first vessel was started before the coming into force of this code may continue to use the life rafts accepted under the previous code.” | Not accepted Not accepted |
Robin George McMurdo Ltd. | 13 Life-Saving Appliances | 13.7.1 & 13.7.2 'floating free and automatic activation if the vessel sinks' Class 1 being manual deployment 13.7.3 EPIRB testing is not mentioned? 13.8 SART Keith Bradford said, | Not accepted Not accepted – MED requirement removed Accepted – registration now made a requirement Not accepted – manufacturer’s recommendations Not accepted – no increases in standards Accepted – add “buoyant” – smoke signals have always been required |
George Turpin Plain Sailing | 13 Life-Saving Appliances | 13.3.1 Life buoy markings, could do with an understanding of exactly what we should be putting on the life buoys 13.4.5 Life jacket servicing, as a Sea School and charter business we currently carry this task out each year. This implies we cant do not understand why. 13.11 Training manual, is this the definitive list 13.12 Instruction manual is this definitive | Not accepted – specified in text Wording altered Not definitive Not definitive |
Doug Hamilton Hamble Point Yacht Charters | 13 Life-Saving Appliances | 13.4.6The proposed wording is ‘In the intervening years they are to be examined annually to the manufacturer’s recommendation’. We have discovered through considerable correspondence with the manufacturer’s Baltic and Lalizas, followed by discussion with out Coding surveyor, Peter Tier, who in turn went to the surveyor’s group of the Certifying Authority YBDSA, that manufacturer’s standards vary dramatically and are whatever they want to make them. We generally use Baltic Lifejackets whose standard test for inflation is to support a person/body for 12 hours. We had some Lalizas lifejackets who standard test is to support a body for 4 hours. In response to questions, Lalizas argue that after 4 hours you would be dead anyway. This is dangerous nonsense. At Hamble Point Yacht Charters, we have banned Lalizaz lifejackets and insist any lifejackets on our boats stay inflated for 12 hours. The Code needs to set proper minimum standards for lifejackets. With increasing low coast, far east manufacturing, sourcing, it is dangerous to hide behind manufacturers. | Noted – this is viewed as a standard issue not Code – MCA to check standards |
Alan Boswell Oyster Marine | 14 Fire Safety | 14 and 14.8We note that no mention is made of ISO 9094 (Fire protection) This standard is not limited to recreational craft. As most new vessels buil t in the EU will need to be built to this standard, it should be used as a basic standard by MCA, with any additions that MCA think are required for commercially operated vessels. We note that the MCA requirements for means of escape differ in a few impor t ant areas from ISO 9094. These differences should be resolved. In our experience surveyors have interpreted section 14 in different ways on essentially similar boats. Insert a reference to ISO 9094 as the basic standard required. Resolve the conflicts and differences with ISO 9094. | Not accepted |
Jonathan Goldie Sunseeker International | 14 Fire Safety | 14.1.1 - delete 14.2.2 HAS TO BE SPECIFIC 14.2.4 - delete equivalent to A 15 all we "have an oxygen index (01) of at least 21 according to ISO 4589-3 at an ambient temp of 60 deg C 14.3.2 - delete 14.7.2 - delete | Accepted – text to be added re override to be added Noted – test to be redefined with acceptable temperatures Not accepted Not accepted Not accepted |
Dave MacRae and Keith Bradley MCA | 15 Fire Appliances | 15.7after ‘liquefiable solids and’ replace ‘are’ with ‘may be’. 15.7.5delete ‘before 31st December 2003’. | Accepted Accepted |
Alan Boswell Oyster Marine | 16 Radio Equipment | 16.2It is not clear which satellite systems are acceptable. Under notes 2. and 3 of the table. Could these include Sat C, Mini-M, Iridium, or any others? Clarify which systems are acceptable. | Not accepted – Inmarsat stated |
George Turpin Plain Sailing | 16 Radio Equipment | 16.1.2 DSC radio, I thought we are waiting for existing radios to break down and then fit with DSC, this suggest we need them now. | Not accepted |
Graham Hockley INMAREST Technical Affairs | 17 Navigation Lights, Shapes and Sound Signals | In this electronic version, Table 17.1 and Annex 3 Tables 1 and 2 are not in the sam e format as the rest of the document and with the possibility of something off the page being missed when later someone accesses the Code via the internet. | Noted |
Alan Boswell Oyster Marine | 20 Anchors and Cables | 20.2.5Some charter yachts have anchors mounted on retracting or stowing rollers or carriages. It is not clear if it is MCA’s intention through this clause to prevent certification of vessels with such arrangements. How “ready for use” does the anchor have to be? We have understood that under the e xisting code such systems have been permitted provided they are manually operated. | Not accepted – if anchor deployment is accomplished through such a system, and this system is ready for use, then it will be considered acceptable. In the event of such a cr itical system being power operated, suitable back up means would be required in event of a power failure. |
Jonathan Goldie Sunseeker International | 21 Accommodation | 21.2.2 - delete | Not accepted – note added to remove this requirement for non air-conditioned vessels |
Mary Martyn Seafarer Health and Safety Branch | 21 Accommodation | Para 21.2.7.2 Is one toilet/one wash hand basin for every 12 persons sufficient ? The Crew Accommodation Regs. require one of each for every 6 persons. | Not accepted – Code vessels exempted from Crew Accommodation Regulations |
Alan Boswell Oyster Marine | 22 Protection of Personnel | We note that ISO 15085 is mentioned only for reference purposes in 22.2.1. Given that most new vessels built in the EU will use this standard, it would make s ense for MCA to adopt it in its entirety as the basic minimum standard required and add to it any additional precuations felt necessary for MCA certification. This would greatly simplify section 22. | Not accepted |
Jonathan Goldie Sunseeker International | 22 Protection of Personnel | 22.2.3 - delete 22.10 - delete 22.10.5 - delete | Not accepted Not accepted – guidance only, not requirement Add “entrances to enclosed spaces” |
G M Chatfield British Marine Federation Technical Committee | 22 Protection of Personnel | 22.10.4In view of the latest proposals by HSE to reduce the top noise limit to from 90dB(A) to 85dB(S) without ear protection, should the limit for machinery spaces be reduced to 85dB(A)? | Not accepted – guidance only not requirement |
Alan Boswell Oyster Marine | 25 Requirements Specific to the Use of the Vessel | 25.1.1Previously for vessels which have more than one roller furling headstay (e.g. cutter rigged) have not been required to fit a separate storm jib. | Not accepted – roller furling headsails not considered suitable for use as storm canvas |
George Turpin Plain Sailing | 26 Manning | Manning, is this definitive? | Not accepted – unclear comment |
Mary Martyn Seafarer Health and Safety Branch | 26 Manning | Para *26 .1 (p.110) This refers to a Department for Transpo rt First Aid Certificate; although some people may still hold such certificates, they are no longer issued. Subject to advice from Burnie Powell, Training and Certification, I suggest that the reference should be to “ a Proficiency in Medical First Aid Certificate issued by an MCA approved training provider, or the (equivalent) predecessor DoT first aid certificate”. | Accepted – Seafarers |
Kevin Mowatt South West Regional Standing Committee | 26 Manning | The views and comments of the South West Regional Standing Committee on Safety of Small Craft relate only to Section 26 on the subject of ‘Manning’. These comments are therefore also linked to the details contained within Annex 3. It is the view of the Committee that a RYA Powerboat Level 2 Certificate as a n entry-level qualification for a commercial skipper is completely inadequate. It is appreciated that the MCA have perhaps taken note of this view in the past by adding the condition that there should be “12 months relevant experience” however, we cannot see where ‘relevant experience’ is in any way defined within the Code and it is therefore extremely subjective. The main point that the Committee would wish to make to the MCA relates to the need for commercial skippers to have local knowledge in certain geographic areas. As far as we can see in the current draft document there is no recognition of the need for any local knowledge for Skippers engaged in the commercial operation of small craft. In our collective view this appears completely at odds with
the approach adopted by the MCA with the Boatmasters syllabus or indeed the recommendations within the new Inland Waters Small Passenger Boat Code. It surely cannot be right that the owner/managing agent, when considering the safe manning of the vessel, n eeds to take into account the relevant experience of the type and size of vessel, the machinery on the vessel and the type of operation in which the vessel is engaged but does not need to consider the location in which the vessel is operating. It has bee n the experience of our Committee that accidents and incidents relating to small commercial craft, although not always well documented, are often as a result of poor local knowledge rather than the more obvious issues of lack of safety equipment or the sea
worthiness of the craft. It is our understanding, from Julie Carlton, that this general issue seems to have been adequately approached during the recent revision of the Boatmasters syllabus and we believe that a similar approach should be adopted for the
new harmonised code. We collectively fail to understand how local knowledge can be a critical part of the syllabus if you are meeting the manning requirement by holding an MCA Boatmasters licence Grade I, II and III, yet it is not considered relevant for any of the alternative equivalent qualifications. Indeed, the endorsement records on the Boatmasters Licences clearly state that they are only valid for certain operating areas in the context of Class V, VI and VIa vessels. It surely cannot be the MCA ’s i ntention to imply that local knowledge is relevant if you are carrying thirteen or more passengers but is not relevant if you only carry up to twelve passengers. We are certain that this matter requires further serious consideration before the new code i s finalised. As previously stated the members of our Committee have a wealth of experience and knowledge in licensing small commercial craft in our respective areas. The membership is principally made up of Local Authorities and Harbour Authorities and al l those involved are practitioners in managing small craft safety around the South West peninsular I therefore hope and trust that the MCA will take our views and comments extremely seriously. | Noted not for inclusion in Code – MCA to discuss out side of Code review in association with Boat Master’s Licenses revision |
Alan Boswell Oyster Marine | 27 Procedures, Certification, Examination and Maintenance | 27.2No annex 14 was attached. Attach Annex 14. | Noted |
Dave MacRae and Keith Bradley MCA | 30 Packaged Dangerous Goods | 30.3.3delete ‘should’ and replace with ‘shall’. .4at beginning on sentence, add ‘when required’. 30.9.1delete ‘any’, ‘on a vessel’ and ‘the proposed’. 30.9.2replace ‘and’ by “with”. 30.10.1 Replace text with: “When packaged dangerous goods are carried the relevant Emergency Response Procedures for Fighting Fires, dealing with Spillage and First Aid Medical Procedures should be provided on board, ….. ” 30.11.1.2 It is noted that 2.1 and 2.2 have been omitted from the list. For completeness these should be included. 30.11.1.6 replace “packing group .3” with “packing group III” 30.11.1.9 replace numerical references to packing groups currently “.1”, “.2” and “.3” should be changed to “I”, ”II”, and ”III” respectively 30.11.3 replace “Environment and Cargo Safety Branch” with “MCA vie the Certifying Authority” | Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted |
John Fearnley MECAL Ltd | ANNEX 03 The Manning of Small Vessels | One of our examiners pointed out a typo error Last line of table 1 (single manning) refers to para 6 instead of 7 | Accepted |
Colin Chandler Ship Safe Training Group Ltd | ANNEX 03 The Manning of Small Vessels | (a) Annex 3 para. 2.8 - whilst the FAAS qualification more than covers t he EFA content, the EFA did not have a predecessor. The FAAS is the predecessor to the Medical First Aid certificate. Both the FAAS and MFA are at a higher level than the EFA, and perhaps this point could be better expressed by saying that either the FAAS or MFA is an acceptable alternative.
(b) Annex 3 Table 1 - reference is made to Boatmaster Licences Grades 1, 2 & 3 and Modified Grade 3. Will this be expanded to include reference to the proposed new UK National BML.
(c) Annex 3 Tables 1 & 2 - Note 1 in both cases refers to different qualifications to those tabled, but of equal standing or specialist application, being considered. It would be useful to include a catch-all phrase here covering MN certificates of competency and licences as being accep table, if this is the case. | Noted – text to be amended to reflect Noted – not considered necessary for explicit note |
Southampton Calor Gas Centre Ltd Peter Spreadborough (Marine and Leisure Sales Manager) | ANNEX 05 Liquid Petroleum Gas Installation for Domestic Use | 4.3No mention of flexible hoses being kept to a minimum length or being protected from inadvertent damage. Previous Codes published by the MCA refer to this. The wording of this draft in my opinion is retrogressive. In addition there is no mention of the service life. Secondly and by far my most serious concern is the total disregard of the GAS SAFETY (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998. Under Section 35, employers have a duty to ensure that a gas system and its appliances are maintain ed in a safe condition. Section 3 requires that any person doing this maintenance work MUST be registered with CORGI. Section 2 part 5 includes vessels (1) hired out in the course of a business (2) made available to members of the public in the course of a business carried out from the vessel. This is NOT a note of guidance, this is NOT a recommendation, this is NOT a Code of Practice, this is a Statutory Instruction. In my opinion this Instruction includes Charter vessels, Sailing Trusts and Sailing Schoo ls. It also puts an obligation on employers who operate workboats, fishing boats and pilot vessels. Whilst I applaud the suggestion in Section 9 that gas systems should be checked on a regular basis, I cannot see how you feel this can be carried out by an Owner/Operator effectively unless they are registered by CORGI. | Accepted – wording to be added Not accepted – GSIUR does not apply to seagoing ships. See Regulations 2(5)(b) |
Chris Balls MCA | ANNEX 08 Handover Procedures for Owners/Managing Agents who Bare-Boat Charter a Vessel | The handover procedures should be more detailed; Familiarisation to include Manoeuvrability, loading and stability aspects. Especially for vessels where a stability booklet is not provided. Operational limitations also to be outlined at handover. Include local factors effecting operation of the particular boat type and local navigational hazards etc. The familiarisation given can be tailored according to previous experience and qualifications of charterer with respect to vessel type and operating area. Keep a reasonable level of information, to ensure the main points are adequately understood. Such requirements will vary according to operating area as well as vessel type size. | Noted – note to be added stating that this is not an exh austive list |
Doug Hamilton Hamble Point Yacht Charters | ANNEX 08 Handover Procedures for Owners/Managing Agents who Bare-Boat Charter a Vessel | The proposed wording of this Annex 8 is absolutely fine in Section 1 (Familiarisation at handover) and Section 2 (Documentation). Together, these sections cover all requirements to allow the charterer to proceed with safety and confidence. However, Section 3 – Procedure on Return of the Vessel to the Owner/Managing Agent sets up a process which is totally impractical for both charterer and managing agent and intrudes improperly on the commercial relationship. Our UK yacht charter business operates year round. In winter it gets dark around 16.00. It is impossible to inspect a yacht in darkness so charterers would need to return by 15.00 to allow effective inspection. Conversely, charterers need to finish their handover inspection at the start of charters in daylight, or wait until next morning. Inspection and inventory in a modern fully equipped, private yacht cannot be done in less than an hour. So the proposed coding would require charterers to return early and then wait around. Charterers want their full allowance of time and they don’t want to wait around. Furthermore, weather and tides can mean charterers can miss their return time making an effective total inspection/check even more impossible. Our charterers prefer us to check the boat next day and advise any issues. This system us much better for the owner/managing agent as the yacht can be more fully inspected. From time to time, charteres quite cleverly conceal damage which is exposed in a very thorough inspection (e.g. instruments broken off were put back in place as though nothing was wrong. All that was visible was a think split round the back of the instrum ents). If charterers don’t trust their charter company to be honest, then it is an issue they must settle with them or go elsewhere. It is not a Coding issue. The proposed procedure on return should omit the inspection and inventory check with the owner/man aging agent and charterer having to be present. This requirement has no place in the Code as it is not a safety issue but rather one of process in a commercial relationship-not the concern of the Code. Essential safety and seaworthiness requirements for the return of a vessel should be: -charter skipper should advise the managing agent/owner of any lost or damaged equipment -charter skipper should advise the managing agent/owner of any defects on the vessel -the owner/managing agent should be present at the yacht return to review any matter deemed important by the charter skipper -above details should be noted on an appropriate form which is to be signed by the owner/managing agent and chartering skipper This covers all safety and seaworthiness issues which are the terms of reference of the Code. It keeps out of the commercial relationship between owner/managing agent and charterer where it has no place. | Accepted – wording to be altered |
Jonathan Goldie Sunseeker International | ANNEX 09 Fire Test for GRP | Delete | Noted – fire test to be reworded |
Jonathan Goldie Sunseeker International | ANNEX 10 Ignitability Test for Combustible Material | Delete | Not accepted |
Mike Barrett British Waterways | General Comments | The relationship between the Harmonised Code and the new na tional standards for inland waterways vessels was discussed at a recent meeting of the Inland Waterways Vessels Standards Working Group meeting. Members felt that in view of the substantial difference in the risks of navigating at sea and on inland waterw ays, navigation on inland waterways should be outside the scope of certification under the ‘Code’, beyond normal port calls as part of a sea going operation. The position is summarised in Julie Carlton’s note VS/04/06. This view is supported by British Waterways and I trust will be taken into account when finalising the Harmonised Code. | Noted – MCA to develop joint committee to monitor and align Codes |
Richard Churchill Pearl Motor Yachts | General Comments | I have been through the code, fairly quickly as there is so much of it. My thoughts are that it could have done a lot more to harmonies with the RCD. There are places where, on a first quick read, it appears to be less stringent. Where it speaks about Guard Rails it mentions 11085 if, for operational reasons, 1000m rails cannot be used. But it does not say that it is OK to refer to 11085 instead. Similarly I am confused over the use of 12217-1 for stability purposes Why if a boat has been assessed by a notified body does it need another one as well? The Equipment and Crew regulations are fine. | Noted – RCD is trade standard to recreational craft, not applicable to commercial operation. ISO Standards have been incorporated where they meet the minimum Code requirements |
Alan Boswell Oyster Marine | General Comments | The word “should” implies an element of doubt or choice. MCA should use the word “shall” instead of “should” throughout this document. Change “should” to “shall” The words “effective” and “efficient” are used sometimes interchangeably throughout t he text. The word efficient should only be used where it is intended to exclude inefficient devices, and efficiency can be measured. For example, who is going to measure the efficiency or otherwise of freeing ports? Are they going to conduct timed and met ered flow tests? Effectiveness is a less precise and more practical assessment that can be made by inspection by an experienced person. In general, the word “effective” is most appropriate, and should be used consistently throughout. Change “efficient” to “effective”, except where the use of “efficient” is etymologically correct. There are many instances where requirements have to be “to the satisfaction of the certifying Authority”. It is our experience that different surveyors, and even the same surveyor o n different boats, will have different requirements before they are satisfied. This is a very unsatisfactory situation for builders and owners who can see different standards being applied to different boats. The MCA should avoid leaving so much discretio n to individual surveyors, especially where international standards have been agreed. Wherever possible eliminate any reference to “the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority” or any other similar phrase. Decide what the requirements should be and specify them clearly. If the requirement can not be decided, then it should not be a requirement. It is noteworthy that while ISO standards are sometimes used as acceptable alternative specifications, they are seldom if ever used as minimum requirements. In gener al, all new vessels being offered for sale in the EU will need to meet the relevant ISO standards, so it would make sense for this code to adopt them as the basic requirement. This would also mean the code could be reduced in size, and the additional requ irements to meet MCA standards would become more obvious. Adopt the relevant ISO standards as the basic minimum requirements, and modify the code accordingly. | Not accepted – this Code of Practice, not regulation, “ should” be defined in associated SI. Noted – definitions added Noted – RCD not suitable at this time however work in ISO standards will continue in future |
Paul Bew British Marine Federation National Federation of Sea Schools Committee | General Comments | My main concern is how the MCA i t blatantly sidelining the RYA, I did bring this up at the last NFSS meeting and find the whole issue a worry for BMF and NFSS members and feel the BMF need to bring this to the MCA's attention. The qualifications all have RYA scored out next to them and MCA Qualifications next to them, this will have a big impact on your NFSS BMF members. | Not accepted – not only RYA certificates are approved |
Mike Balmforth British Marine Federation Scotland | General Comments | I have no particular observations about the new CoP, because I am not a user of the code for business purposes, except that I regard the unified code as much more convenient than the old separate codes. My only experience to date has been in the design of sales literature for a training company (Seatrek), and that was certainly pretty challenging for me (and for them!) On a presentational point, there might be criticism from those who previously only had to refer to one CoP book, and who might find the extra information irksome. You could therefore introduce a colour (or distinctive mono) margin bar (old code colours?) which would distinguish the categories any section might apply to. In many cases there would be 4 margin bars, but it would still be useful. | Noted |
Eddie Hill Yacht Charter Association | General Comments | Below are some comments from one of our Members. His points are valid in my view and we need to change the wording of the new CoP accordingly? As we have discussed at length at our various meetings, the standards being applied need to be clearly stated, ideally in the CoP rather than quoting some BS or ISO standard not readily available to our members. Leaving the annual life jacket inspection standards to that recommended by the manufacturer seems to be one step worse? Minimum standards in this case should surely be quoted in the CoP to ensure uniformity of safety standard performance? The example of 12 or 4 hour inflation performance standards quoted below by Doug Hamilton surely demonstrates this? His point that we need to separate the safety issues (an MCA responsibility) and the commercial issues (a company / YCA issue for its members) is fundamental and reflects the different roles that the MCA and the YCA play in guiding practices within the UK charter industry. Certainly the CoP quoted 'Hand back' process is an ideal scenario but practice shows that inventory checks are often spread over the next few days as cleaning / tidying etc, say on a 14m yacht, can easily unearth losses and damage (particularly to sails) that otherwise could go un-noticed. Certainly my own company (Firstaway) follows a hand back process closely aligned to that outlined below by Doug Hamilton, namely: - the owner/managing agent shall be present upon the yacht return to review any matters deemed important by the charterer / skipper and to receive any 'incident' reports, particularly those relating to health and safety - charterer / skipper should advise the managing agent/owner of any lost or damaged equipment - charterer / skipper should advise the managing agent/owner of any defects on the vessel, particularly those relating to safety - above details should are noted on an appropriate form, (along with key easily inspected inventory items), which is to be signed off by the owner/managing agent and charterer / skipper - subsequent discovery of shortages / damage will result in a discussion between the the managing agent/owner and the charterer / skipper and a mutually agreed course of action determined. | Noted – MCA to develop guidance Accepted – procedure to be reworded |
Graham Hockley INMAREST Technical Affairs | General Comments | It is suggested that it would be helpful if an Annex that refers to a specific article in the body of the document was cross referenced in that specific article. For example if in Article 13.4 – Lifejackets, there was reference to the fact that Annex 1 (part 5) also contained relevant information. This is only one instance, but the comment applies across the whole spectrum of the Annexes. | Noted |
Kevin Mowatt South West Regional Standing Committee on Safety of Small Craft | General Comments | This response is for and on behalf of the South West Regional Standing Committee on Safety of Small Craft. This regional Standing Committee was set up in March 1968 to advise licensing authorities in Devon and Cornwall on matters concerning the safety of small craft, chartered or hired by members of the public or plying for hire. It was agreed that the purpose of the Committee would be to encourage uni f ormity in the control and regulation of such craft and to keep licensing authorities informed of the developments in the control of craft and the improvement of safety equipment. I am sure you can therefore appreciate that the Committee and its members h ave a wealth of knowledge and experience spanning more than three decades on this particular subject matter. The process of harmonising the various existing codes of practice was never going to be easy and I think that the MCA should be congratulated on pr oducing such a thorough document. It is further appreciated that the work of the MCA has been helped through the use of a Steering Group and various Working Groups involving many partner organisations. | Noted |
Andy Thompson Principal Tiller School and Corsair Sailing | General Comments | I haven't managed to read all of this massive tome yet but my overall impression (based on the first 100 pages or so) is that it has taken the old reasonably manageable separate code booklets (e.g. the sailing yacht blue cod e), added complexity and made the resultant document needlessly difficultto read, understand and use. It may just be a matter of presentation. Colour coding sail, power, fishing, pilot specific sections might help to make it more comprehensible. At leas t we would know the bits that matter. Thinking more laterally why not then pull the common bits out into one document and have an annex for each type of vessel? Theycould even be published as separate documents! My impression is essentially that the only winners from this merging of the codes will be paper manufacturers, printers and lawyers. If this was the goal it has been brilliantly achieved. If the goal was to make life easier for the hard pressed users of the code I would say that it has failed. There isa lot of duplication in the early sections. We are told the same things several times and that tends to add to reader fatigue. Overall it just seems to add complexity, obscurity and repetition to what one might have hoped wouldbe a simpler document designedto make life easier for the reader rather than the bureaucrats.How much is spawned by EC laws and style of phrasing? | Noted |
Mary Martyn Seafarer Health and Safety Branch, MCA | Draft Regulations | I suggest, subject to the views of Legal, that the Schedule should also include in the list of Regulations The Merchant Shipping (Medical Examination) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2025). The Medical Regs. require anyone employed on a vessel certificated for service at sea to have an ENG1 medical ce r tificate or recognised overseas equivalent. As things stand this means that the ML5 medical certificate (introduced earlier this year) is not an accepted equivalent under the Regulations, whereas the draft Code provides that this is acceptable for anyone who operates on a boat certificated for operation up to 60 miles from shore. We intend the ML5 certificate to be acceptable for those on such Code boats, so I believe this means the Medical Regs. should be added to the list of Regs. that you don’t have to comply with if you operate on a boat certificated under the SCV Code. | Accepted – SI to be added to list of exemptions |
Dr Rohan Holt Countryside Council for Wales | Background and General Comments | It would appear from that the latest draft of the workboat co de fron MCA that our genral comments regarding the over-prescriptive nature of the first draft of the codes (see my letter 12 June 2003) were largely not considered. It would also seem that true small boats (eg. Between 5 and 12 m), inflatables and RI Bs are still being dealt with inconsistently with regard to detail and variation in design. There is much detail regarding mandatory use of items such as life buoys, fire fighting equipment and life rafts that make little sense with regard to use onboard small open boats, inflatables and RIBs but still no mention for the need for twin (or backup) outboards where appropriate. I listed specific points in my previous letter (copy enclosed). There is obviously a need for a thorough assessment of risk thro ughout the whole draft code, rather than basing so much of it on perceived risk and handed-down learning from ocean-going shipping legislation. There is a need for various government departments, HSE, NGO;s etc. to standardise the manner in which safety legislation is applied to people at work. At one end of the scale the “modern” approach to safety appears to be based on assessment of risk and “fit for purpose” whereas at the other end of the scale MCA appears to be attempting to make rigid, prescriptiv e rulings fit all. There seems little point in creating such codes when so many users will have to apply for equivalences or exemptions to gain certification. There is also a need for MCA and other government departments to harmonise areas such as the r equirements and standards for medicals. For example the HSE diving medical is far stricter than the MCA medical but the former only lasts for one year when applied to the workboat code. It seems rather illogical that a person can walk out from a singl e medical examination with two different medical forms signed by one examining doctor-one lasts one year for diving and the other 5 years for boat work but there is no allowance for interchange in the system. Many of the previous items of concern in our or iginal latter seem to have been ignored. Is MCA going to provide any feedback on what was considered or not considered from the previous consultation exercise from the various organisation around the country ? the entire process aught to be “ transparent” and decision making processes auditable. While being fully aware that individual replies might take a long time to produce, a general summary of how the various comments from different organisations were considered would be appreciated. | |