A fair few of you might be interested to know that at the Half-Yearly meeting, SARA accepted a proposal to incorporate a boat bouyancy requirement into the Water Safety Code. By 1st Jan 2007, all new boats will have to meet the FISA guideline and all other boats will have to be retrofitted with bouyancy at each seat.
By timely coincidence, an article on the subject of bouyancy had winged it's way up from Staines to appear in Rowing Action (our magazine) which was published about 2 weeks before the meeting.
I don't recall there being any objections to the principle at all - the main concerns were about regulation and monitoring. Do we sink-test every retrofitted boat? How does a governing body monitor the non-racing fleet? Should they/we?
There were questions asked about what action the ARA was taking - does anybody know? From what was said, clubs are starting to move on this but nobody knew what the ARA's position was.
"Rob Collings" <robin.collings@gmail.com> wrote in message>
There were questions asked about what action the ARA was taking - does> anybody know? From what was said, clubs are starting to move on this> but nobody knew what the ARA's position was.>
Stephen Blockley 16 March 2005 03:38:22 [ permanent link ]
Rob Collings wrote:> A fair few of you might be interested to know that at the Half-Yearly> meeting, SARA accepted a proposal to incorporate a boat bouyancy> requirement into the Water Safety Code. By 1st Jan 2007, all new boats> will have to meet the FISA guideline and all other boats will have to> be retrofitted with bouyancy at each seat.>
Excellent stuff.
By timely coincidence, an article on the subject of bouyancy had> winged it's way up from Staines to appear in Rowing Action (our> magazine) which was published about 2 weeks before the meeting.
Excellent man.
I don't recall there being any objections to the principle at all -> the main concerns were about regulation and monitoring. Do we> sink-test every retrofitted boat? How does a governing body monitor> the non-racing fleet? Should they/we?
"Where there is a will there is a way"... once minds are put to the problem then surely solutions will appear. Get help...use experts....liaise with other interested bodies e.g. RNLI, manufacturers.
There were questions asked about what action the ARA was taking - does> anybody know? From what was said, clubs are starting to move on this> but nobody knew what the ARA's position was.
Rob Collings wrote:>all other boats will have to be retrofitted with bouyancy at each seat.>
That is the bit which astonished me. Is the exact wording of the proposal online anywhere? How much buoyancy are they after? Can we just tie our old empty water bottles to the boats?
Seriously though, we just retrofitted a Sims VIII, and it was both an enjoyable and straightforward task. (I'll post a methodology when I get a few moments). BTW - we do not intend to swamp that boat to check our work.
Neil Wallace wrote:> Rob Collings wrote:> >all other boats will have to be retrofitted with bouyancy at each seat.> >
That is the bit which astonished me. Is the exact wording of the
proposal> online anywhere?
No. It was amended from the original one (circulated by e-mail) due to a technicality in that the FISA proposal refers to the plated weight. A 30 year old clinker probably does not have a plated weight. Another issue - where there isn't a plated weight (and the rating isn't known), how do you assess how much buoyancy is required? Enough to float a 60kg crew? 75kg? 100kg?
Why astonished? Pretty common sense - being in an old boat won't stop it sinking! Or is the astonishment at the wording?
How much buoyancy are they after?
I can't remember the exact wording (if Katy is around then she might) but it was something like "all other boats shall be retrofitted with similar buoyancy at each seat."
Can we just tie our old empty water bottles to the boats?
Cheap version of buoyancy bags? You shouldn't have given away all the extra ones at your head There isn't any specification for the "how" just the "how much." If bonding 500 sealed water bottles to the hull does the job, then I can't see anyone complaining. Aside from the crew that has to row it..
Seriously though, we just retrofitted a Sims VIII, and it was both an
enjoyable and straightforward task. (I'll post a methodology when I
get a> few moments). BTW - we do not intend to swamp that boat to check our work.
because they have gone so much further than any other governing body.
I would have been less surprised with an *earlier* date for buoyant new boats (as SARA has advocated the consideration of this for 2 years already), and a longer period of grace to get the mastic out on existing.
I would like to examine the full proposal ASAP, and certainly before I make any further comment here. I presume they will be sent to member clubs shortly?
Neil Wallace wrote:> Rob Collings wrote:> > Why astonished?>
because they have gone so much further than any other governing body.
It was a St Andrew BC proposal, that was tweaked and agreed with.
I would have been less surprised with an *earlier* date for buoyant
boats (as SARA has advocated the consideration of this for 2 years
already),> and a longer period of grace to get the mastic out on existing.
The date of 1st Jan 2007 was lifted directly from the FISA rules. Scottish Rowing doesn't really have the clout to enforce much on boat manufacturers. But anyone who orders a boat knowing that it will need retrofitted in less than two years probably isn't thinking things through.
I would like to examine the full proposal ASAP, and certainly before
I make> any further comment here. I presume they will be sent to member clubs
shortly?
Full agenda e-mailed, although the proposal was amended. I can't remember the exact wording (will e-mail Katy) so don't want to comment further in case I get it wrong...
"Rob Collings" <robin.collings@gmail.com> wrote in message news:<1110984228.231554.177940@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>...>
Full agenda e-mailed, although the proposal was amended. I can't> remember the exact wording (will e-mail Katy) so don't want to comment> further in case I get it wrong...>
Drum roll please...
Boats constructed or delivered after 1st January 2007 shall meet the FISA Guideline for Minimum Flotation: "A boat when full of water with a crew of average weight equal to the design weight stated on the boat's production plaque, seated in the rowing position should float such that the top of the seat is a maximum of 5cm below the static waterline." All other shells shall be required to have similar buoyancy below each seat by 1st January 2007
"Rob Collings" <robin.collings@gmail.com> wrote in message news:<1110984228.231554.177940@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>...
Full agenda e-mailed, although the proposal was amended. I can't> remember the exact wording (will e-mail Katy) so don't want to comment> further in case I get it wrong...>
Apologies if this repeats, I think my first attempt disappeared into the ether.
Drum roll please...
Boats constructed or delivered after 1st January 2007 shall meet the FISA Guideline for Minimum Flotation: "A boat when full of water with a crew of average weight equal to the design weight stated on the boat's production plaque, seated in the rowing position should float such that the top of the seat is a maximum of 5 cm below the static waterline." All other shells shall be required to have similar buoyancy below each seat by 1st January 2007
David Biddulph 17 March 2005 00:37:35 [ permanent link ]
"chris harrison" <unsliced@gmail.com> wrote in message news:423816ea$0$38044$bed64819@news.gradwell.net... ...> That might help to partially plug the racing/non-racing loophole - the ARA > on its own cannot legislate for non-racing shells. ...
The ARA can legislate for any boat used by an affiliated club.
Don't fall into the trap of saying that boats get checked only at races. That may have been close to the truth in the past, but we all know that the main danger applies during training, not racing, so the checking needs to be done within the clubs, with occasional spot checks by regional Water Safety Advisers. -- David Biddulph Rowing web pages at http://www.biddulph.org.uk/ and http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/david_biddulph/
David Biddulph 17 March 2005 00:37:36 [ permanent link ]
"chris harrison" <unsliced@gmail.com> wrote in message news:423816ea$0$38044$bed64819@news.gradwell.net... ...> That might help to partially plug the racing/non-racing loophole - the ARA> on its own cannot legislate for non-racing shells. ...
The ARA can legislate for any boat used by an affiliated club.
Please don't fall into the trap of saying that boats get checked only at races. That may have been close to the truth in the past, but we all know that the main danger applies during training, not racing, so the checking needs to be done within the clubs, with occasional spot checks by regional Water Safety Advisers. -- David Biddulph Rowing web pages at http://www.biddulph.org.uk/ and http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/david_biddulph/
Chris Harrison 17 March 2005 14:07:19 [ permanent link ]
David Biddulph wrote:> "chris harrison" <unsliced@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:423816ea$0$38044$bed64819@news.gradwell.net...> ...>
That might help to partially plug the racing/non-racing loophole - the ARA >>on its own cannot legislate for non-racing shells. ...>
The ARA can legislate for any boat used by an affiliated club.
Can it? It can legislate for what it allows to compete in a sanctioned event, but it cannot for training and general use. It might try to recommend what standards club-owned shells meet, but (IANAL) it wouldn't take a legal professional long to dream up ways around any attempts at enforcement.
The river/lake authorities in charge where you boat might have legislative powers to be able to enforce what can and cannot be used, but the ARA cannot control what boat I do or don't store in and use from the boathouse!
Don't fall into the trap of saying that boats get checked only at races.
That's a different matter again - and I wasn't! As an umpire, I regularly check the boats I row in (or happen to be on trestles when I walk past) - including every time I'm helping re-rig a boat when returning from a trip.
Douglas MacFarlane 17 March 2005 14:40:25 [ permanent link ]
In article <423956d9$0$38043$bed64819@news.gradwell.net>, unsliced@gmail.com says...>
David Biddulph wrote:>> "chris harrison" <unsliced@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:423816ea$0$38044$bed64819@news.gradwell.net...>> ...>>
That might help to partially plug the racing/non-racing loophole - the ARA >>>on its own cannot legislate for non-racing shells. ...>>
The ARA can legislate for any boat used by an affiliated club.>
Can it? It can legislate for what it allows to compete in a sanctioned >event, but it cannot for training and general use. It might try to >recommend what standards club-owned shells meet, but (IANAL) it wouldn't >take a legal professional long to dream up ways around any attempts at >enforcement.
What is the status of the ARA "Water Safety Code" then - some parts of that apply to training boats, not just racing boats. Is the code merely advisory?
Douglas
The river/lake authorities in charge where you boat might have >legislative powers to be able to enforce what can and cannot be used, >but the ARA cannot control what boat I do or don't store in and use from >the boathouse!>
Don't fall into the trap of saying that boats get checked only at races. >
That's a different matter again - and I wasn't! As an umpire, I >regularly check the boats I row in (or happen to be on trestles when I >walk past) - including every time I'm helping re-rig a boat when >returning from a trip.>
Chris Harrison 17 March 2005 16:03:01 [ permanent link ]
mpruscoe wrote:> And from Section F of the Rules of the ARA (not the rules of racing):>
"the council may reprimand, suspend from competition, suspend or > disaffiliate from membership of the Association, fine or otherwise > penalise clubs which are Members of the Association.">
Section E of the rules says that adherance to the water safety code is > mandatory.
None of which is wrong, after all adhering to the WSC should be something that happens automatically and implicitly, but all of which have legal holes you could drive a truck through if the ARA tried to mandate what you can and can't own and use for your own recreation.
Am I allowed to use oars in a sail boat? A canoe? A surf board? A pedalo? A bathtub? An antique long boat, rescued from a Spanish Galleon? Any of the hundred and one other weird and wonderful craft you see processing past in the Great River Race?
If the ARA attempted to expel or otherwise punish a club for owning and using in training a (racing) shell that did not meet a set performance standard, I can foresee legal problems stretching from here to eternity. Activities that might not meet the Water Safety Code might result in clubs or members being advised to rethink policies and actions, but to absolutely forbid and impose draconian penalties? I rather think not.
Not in practice - and if you're not willing to do something in practice, it's almost not worth having the threat existing in theory.
But we are straying from the point; * The ARA *should* lay down a performance standard for buoyancy and general fitness-for-purpose. * The ARA *should* ban anything not provably meeting this standard from sanctioned events. * The ARA *should* recommend than any club or member refrain from even using anything for rowing training or recreation that does not meet this standard. * The insurers of rowing shells in this country *should* insist on the ARA's standard being met in order for a shell to be covered by their policies * The manufacturers of boats *should* ensure that their products at least meet, and preferably exceed, the standards laid down by the ARA. * The powers that be should instigate a system of regular testing, similar to the MoT, that after 5-6 years of age (or a serious incident - definitely anything involving a hull breach), a shell should require a re-certification (which could happen in conjunction with hull renovation and overhaul) * Any shell which has doubts over its meeting the standard should be placed on an at-risk register, with the owner given, say, 6 months to get it tested and certified.
I don't recall there being any objections to the principle at all ->>> the main concerns were about regulation and monitoring. Do we>>> sink-test every retrofitted boat? How does a governing body monitor>>> the non-racing fleet? Should they/we?>>
"Where there is a will there is a way"... once minds are put to the >> problem>> then surely solutions will appear. Get help...use experts....liaise with>> other interested bodies e.g. RNLI, manufacturers.>
There's a spectrum of possible regulatory monitoring; from a simple > affirmation that "something has been done" to the imposition of an > MoT(*) like (annual?) test of fitness for purpose. (When we've decided > what that means, obviously.)>
Neither is going to work in practice, the answer lies somewhere in > between but we do need to have some idea of how it might operate rather > than hope for some random emergent property. After all, isn't one of the > complaints about the ARA up to this point that solutions did not appear > despite the manifested problems?
Some thoughts on this:
1. Swamp testing individual boats is unrealistic.
2. Are there other, simpler ways of testing individual boats?
3. After Jan 2007 new boats in use in Scotland will be buoyant according to the standards (assuming purchasers have followed the regulations).
4. The reason for this is that the builder built the boat to a design and using a process that has been shown to produce buoyant boats.
5. So what about old boats? Would it be possible for those same builders to produce kits of a proven design which when retrofitted using a proven process (maybe by the builders themselves) have been shown to produce buoyant boats?
6. It would then be possible to check that the correct kits were fitted by an approved fitter.
So rather than check individual boats, check the method by which the boats were upgraded.
While the RNLI, the manufacturers and others are bound to be > 'interested' it's going to be reasonably obvious that they'll be > supportive of some sort of scheme of regular testing. After all, they > are businesses who will see this as a new - and even better, obligatory > - revenue stream. Cynical, moi?
What testing is there done on sailing dinghies? It seems to me that safety regulations between sailing and rowing are becoming more similar.
"It can be done by measurement and analysis, just the way that hydrostatic calculations have always been done ever since Archimedes cracked the problem 2250 years ago. But this will not how whether someone failed to seal a bulkhead. So, no, there is no simpler way. Indeed, every year quite a lot of crews do swamp & sink without any pre-planning. So it can't be that hard to do."
Actually, one can still use the Archimedes principle, and still verify if a bulkhead is sealed. Rather than using a liquid, the volume of a space could be measured with a gas at low pressure. This is done by having a gas at a known volume/pressure released into the unknown volume (but known pressure). The unknown volume can then be calculated by the pressure difference. If something is not sealed, the final pressure will be one atm. Maybe boats can be fitted with a standard valve for making such measurements, maybe something like a standard tire valve?
