Changes in ISO 12217

[Guillermo]

ISO/FDIS 12217:2010 which includes a vaste array of improvements/corrections to all three parts is ready to be voted. I look forward to knowing the final thing soon.

In the mean time something interesting:

Some times when a boat is unable to comply with the ISO 12217 standards builders/designers use inappropriate standards to assess a recreational boat's stability, i.e. the IMO criteria which is not conceived for these type of small boats. I now of a paradigmatic case of a less than 6 m length, 1500 kg mass motor boat produced by a Spanish builder which was allowed by a Notified Body to be categorized in Category B blessing such kind of, in my opinion, inappropriate criteria used by the builder and the designer.

However, if a harmonised CEN standard is not used, then the boat does not carry a "presumption of conformity" with the RCD, and could be stopped from being imported into another EU State by their Trading Standards (Market Surveillance) Authority. They could simply state that they do not accept the criteria being applied as being sufficient to comply with the Essential Requirements of the RCD. A Notified Body is supposed to satisfy themselves that the standards applied are suitable for the purposes of the RCD - but they are in business so are sometimes not overly rigorous. Again Trading Standards could and should address this.

Something to be seriously considered and taken into account.

[Ad Hoc]

In the cases of "Class" and "Flag" of commerical boats, even though, at times, both authorities can be a pain, there is a way around an 'issue'. However, this requires a lot of common sense on the part by the builder/designer/surveyor/approval body. Common ground and dispensations of sorts can be applied partially, but does not restrict the boats entire approval.

I suspect that in the case with ISO is that it is just a "bit of paper" and not an Institution which is governd by those enforcing said rules, like Class. It is a set of regulations thrust upon them, (local plan approval body), whether they agree with them or not too. As such, appeals for dispensations etc shall be rare if at all. Leading to incorrectly catagorized boats either in a positive or negative sense. ISO is not a body to which one may appeal...it is a like it or lump it, enforced by local survyors/approval officers whose hands are ostensibly tied.

If there ends up being many gross errors, then may be something shall be done to redress the balance, otherwise, i suspect that it shall remain a fait accommpli

[Guillermo]

There are two aspects of the question:

Firstly, the safety issue. A 6 m long, 1000 kg (lightship), recreational boat with a big open cockpit, intended for the common user, should not be categorized in Category B (force 8 wind, 4 m significant height waves) under no circumstances, in my opinion. And I'm not alone in this.

Secondly, taking the risk of commercializing in the EU a boat which can be stopped from being imported into whatever EU State by its Market Surveillance Authority because of not carrying a "presumption of conformity" with the RCD, is not a very sensible strategy, again in my opinion.

[fcfc]

About non sailing boat stability, do someone know how the wave resistance requirement (6.3.3 RM30 25 kN.m GZ30 20cm minimum) has evolved in the forthcoming stability rule ?

Thanks.

[Guillermo]

No changes.
Cheers.

[fcfc]

Thanks for information.