The Elements of Boat Strength: For Builders, Designers, and Owners

It is becoming muddled, because that is what all these laws are, muddled, ill conceived and ill implemented. The whole EC directives ahve been forced down because of a spat between a woman on the EU parliament that was snubbed by the "boys" committee.!! There was no IMO or maritime review at all.

I didn't say the Vibration directive has anything to do with the RCD. I used that as an example, since i sit on one of the MCA committees. So i know how the "process" works, and where these directives, commercial or pleasure, are coming from. If you think this is not the case, then fine, but this is not from the experience I have. Do you sit on any of the MCA committees?

"..To advance this premise you need to give evidence of the rate of these accidents before the RCD and the percentage reduction which can be solely attributed to its introduction and not any other factors..."

As I've tried to explain and also the MCA report does stress this note this too..this data is sketchy and from various sources, some reliable some not, and often with not enough sample history. But the "perception" is that.....it needs regulating, because the "perception" is that there is an increase in accidents, generally made very public by the media (which always distorts the views). Which is exacerbated by any minor incident, with a pleasure boat, that has an accident. Ergo...about time it is regulated, etc etc. It is a self fulfilling prophecy. No one really knows what the true figures are, perhaps never will, other than Spain and Ireland. I'm not advancing any premise at all,...just stating the current position.

The introduction of the 'wheel mark' for equipment, as all RCD boats must comply with...as i noted, nowt to do with harmony to sell in member states, as is the common belief; it is totally risk/safety driven. Why is this then, if your assertion of 'cross border only' for the code, is the premise?

But if you think otherwise, fine..clearly you're not convinced and remain in the belief that the RCD is purely for "ease of cross boarder selling" only.

 

Have to remember the difference btw the political motives in the EU (common market and standardisation etc) and the more case sensitive goals in the specific committees and the fact that they are not contradicting each other..

 

I'm perfectly aware of the 'politics' in the committees formulating the various parts of the RCD, but I was hoping an allegation that a "number of accidents and sadly the occasional death" being caused by shoddy design practices prior to the introduction of the RCD might have been based on more than perceptions and self fulfilling prophecies.

It's also worth remembering when quoting the MCA, that much of their output is to advance their commercial aims. They are semi autonomous agency and need to continually develop new operations to either generate revenue streams or justify continual increases in Government funding. As they say: "Our vision is to be a world-class organisation that is committed to preventing loss of life, continuously improving maritime safety, and protecting the marine environment: Safer Lives, Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas". They are quite open in recognising that increased legislation and licensing helps them meet all these aims. Understandably, they therefore produce 'reports' to advance their ambitions. No one's suggesting they're 'untrue' in any way, but the authors have no responsibility to consider any other issues because if they can find someone to fund their cracking of an egg with a sledgehammer, so be it. As long as it's their sledgehammer.

A good (albeit small) example of their expansionist tendencies, is their provision of 'rescue facilities' on the major Lakes in the English Lake District. Up to now, this has been done entirely by volunteers with no problem whatsoever. However, after some lobbying by the MCA of politicians using the 'what if' scare mongering scenarios, a large amount of government money was found for the MCA to take over, with new boats, buildings, 4x4 vehicles, etc, etc. A small example, but typical of the mindset of the MCA at present. (This is not unique to the UK; in fact it pales into insignificant compared the the US 'Department of Homeland Security!)

Interestingly, when the MCA was established, the most admired and professionally recognised part, the Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB), was kept separate from them and under full public control at the Department of Trade. It's the MAIB's reports (often at the behest of Trading Standards) into things like Hooligan V's keel loss, the swamping of Mollyanna off Anglesey, etc, that have given real insights into problems that need to be addressed. If you combine the insights from the MAIB, the training and education (and Notified Body work) done by the RYA and the protection of young novices by the Adventure Activities Licensing Authority, you can see why most people in the UK think this is a satisfactory way to ensure a very good safety record in the recreational boat world. They can also see that the MCA's ambitions are unnecessary and unwanted - but that won't stop the MCA lobbying for them. We just need to recognise much of their output for what it is; propaganda.

 

VIVA Gerr

 

Viva Che Gerr-vara you mean?

 

I would not call him a communist terrorist, ever. It means hurray Gerr.

 

Yes, I know what you meant. I speak Spanish fluantly.
Gonzo, Gonzo, you take life to seriously, I was just kidding, I thought you will get it.

Cheers
Daniel

 

Your photo looks suspiciously alike with Fidel's. I thought maybe you were him in disguise.

 

Gonzo, You make my day.
It is true, now you told me I find some some similarity with him, althought I have the whole set, and they say he as a missing piece
Cheers
Daniel

 

So, viva señor Gerr

 

I use Gerr's book for double checking my calcs on small wooden boats. I also use it to help size things like chine logs and stems as I have never found any really good method of calculating these items. Most times my calculations are more conservative than similar successful boats, making me wonder how that boat is holding together.

I was taught that blindly following ABS rules when designing is cookbook engineering. The proper way to do it is to calculate the structure and then check to see if it meets the applicable standard.

As for ISO rules, I always thought categorizing boats as to how large a sea they could be used in was the height of foolishness. I can see some beginning boater getting killed because the sticker on the boat said it could go out in 10' seas, when the captain was only qualified to run a boat in a mill pond.

 

I think that Gerr is very honest about the scope and limitations of his method.

 

great book... im currently relying on that... 3 cheers to writer..