TSA international page

Many members of the TSA have paper qualifications, such as those offered to people by the RYA, after they complete a suitable study course for the exams. (Usualy done at night school through the winter. It takes two or three years to complete the course.) The decision to join the courses seems to be taken after spending enough time sailing cautiously, to realise that it is prudent to systematically learn the bits that the random lessons of experience have not yet covered.   Likewise, people spend time and their own money on the RYA practical courses that back up the Night School theory.

A smaller number of members of the TSA hold an International Certificate of Competence, needed when sailing over foreign waters. (If the skipper wants to use European inland waters that carry barge traffic, the ICC requires a CEVNI endoresement to show that the Certificate Holder has a full understanding of the way that huge barges behave.)

The ICC requires the holder to have an ability to pass an examation that is both practical and theoretical, which can sometimes be taken at a convenient time during a TSA cruise - if a qualified RYA examiner is also on the same cruise. Sailing is supposed to be fun - formalities are kept to a minimum.

Nobody is required to have passed any level of exam before joining a TSA cruise, because everybody is entirely responsible for their own safety, and is not expected to rely on other people.   However, almost nobody can resist giving good advice when asked, and a novice joining a less than ambitious cruise may feel that it is
a good place to find many helpful answers.

                     It is up to each and every skipper to be his/her own examiner to decide
                                        if both boat and crew are competent for any activity.

Everybody has to start somewhere, and if the activity is enjoyable, experience is often a better instructor than the best of teachers.

It would seem* at first sight that there is no need for British citizens to hold any sort of formal qualification to put to sea as the skipper of a small boat. This would also appear to be a formula for disaster.

Statistics show that in the real world it is the absolute opposite.

Why is it in the real world, that in order to have any statistics about small boats, the British Government has to include accidents of people falling off inland bridges into rivers etc., before there is a significant number of 'Water related incidents' to have any statistics about ?

The answer perhaps has a lot to do with the fact that people who put to sea in small boats actualy want to learn more about what they are doing, as evidenced by the fact that practical sailing magazines are so popular.

The Royal Yachting Association correctly believes that the tiny number of negative boating related incidents is due to the policy of 'Educate - not Legislate' being the reason why sailing is such a safe activity.

It is definitely true that the immensly popular RYA night-school classes that run every winter throughout Britain, are filled with thousands of people who want to be there. They want to learn things that they will actualy benefit from, rather than just the minimum needed to pass an exam.

(This is the exact opposite to people who briefly memorise enough information to pass an exam, because they must have the qualification. RYA students who pass the RYA exams won't immediately forget what was learnt the moment the exam is passed, because they did the course to LEARN !)

(Details of the courses are published each Autumn in magazines such as Practical Boat Owner, and can also be obtained from the RYA.

Anybody interested in using a boat knows that if anything goes wrong, it is not possible to walk back home. (Walking on water has not been done for almost 2,000 years.) Because it is not possible to walk home, anybody with the slightest amount of common sense is keenly aware that something might go wrong, and has an immediate interest in learning about the strange ways that the watery environment operates.

A PERSONAL COMMENT

The author of this section has observed that large number of the riders of Wet Bikes, or Personal Water Craft, (PWC), seem to assume that there is no difference between riding one type of noisy machine on the sea, and sitting on a different type of equally noisy machine with two wheels on dry land. To some extent they are correct with the assumption that turning the handlebars and twisting the accelerator grip have similar effects, however they seem to lack any sort of ability to realise that they are playing in two utterly different environments. The sea, or a lake, is not the equivalent of an open field for a motor-bike. One is made up of water, and the other made of solid ground. Regretably, it seems that the majority of PWC riders don't understand what follows from such an obvious fact, and their behaviour demonstrates that they have even less interest in learning how to navigate their craft properly, without putting other users of the sea or lakes at risk of serious harm or even death.

There is no point in demanding that the riders of PWC pass an examination to obtain some sort of 'Driving Licence', because the dangerously ignorant riders seem to have the mind-set that ignors current Laws. Knowing that their PWCs are fast enough to avoid arrest, they deliberately set out to be dangerously stupid. Those with a positive attitude to the Law will probably find out about how to navigate safely, which is the whole point of having a test and licences. There is no need to force people to do that which they are already willingly doing, whilst knowing that those that refuse to learn, are also well aware that they can't be caught and made to learn.

My own private opinion is that PWC riders should be required to carry the same sort of Insurance that every normal boat carries, and carry a certificate on board as proof, just like any other boat. Because PWCs are difficult to catch when afloat, before being allowed to launch their craft onto salt water, their riders should be required to demonstrate to the owner of a beach or slipway that the PWC carries ALL the equipment required to meet the SOLAS V standards. This includes having the written passage plan required by SOLAS V, and adequate charts on board etc.

I do wonder if, when somebody is killed as a result of a PWC being mis-used , the owner of the beach or slipway who permitted the PWC to be launched over his land, could be considered to have some sort of responsibilty for the resultant death or injury.

Adequate Laws ALREADY EXIST to govern the way boats and ships are navigated, as well as the noise made by them, and there is no reason why any PWC should be exempt from Laws because nobody makes an effort to catch and prosecute them. My boat is slow enough for Authority to easily stop it, and request proof that it complies with SOLAS V in every way, and therefore I make sure that it does.

It is hardly fair when an ill-informed British Judge can decide that something like a PWC, that floats on the sea, is not a 'Vessel' as descibed by SOLAS V, and is thus not subject to the same Laws that a rowing boat of the same size, must comply with in all respects.

An 'Accident' is an un-foreseeable event. The Judge's decision to release incompetent PWC riders from any responsibility to follow the 'Coll Regs' - and everything that goes with regulations that govern the use of every other craft on British waters - has the forseeable consequence that somebody will be killed. When that happens, it will not be an 'accident', because the event is entirely predictable. (I believe that the people who allowed their personal persuit of wealth to lead to this situation should feel a deep sense of shame for what they have done.)

As mentioned above, this section is my personal opinion, and not part of a TSA policy to campaign for a sensible decision to remove an inane exemption for PWC to meet all SOLAS V requirements.

There are plenty of Laws that all boat owners, including the skippers of trail-sail boats, need to know about.

However these are not specific British Laws, but are those covered by SOLAS V, where SOLAS means the Safey of Life at Sea, version 5. (Britain is a signatory to SOLAS V convention, and applies all of it's regulations, including the abuse of alcohol and drugs whilst afloat.)

The difference between SOLAS V and any domestic Laws generated by the British Government about the use of boats, is that all the delegates - including very active British Representatives - to the Committee that generates the International Regulations for the Prevention of Collison at Sea, are all experienced mariners.
.
The 'Coll-Regs' that people generally call the the collection of Legally enforceable Rules, are based on a cool and careful analysis of facts, and the need to regulate the way that the whole world uses the same sea that washes against so many different national coastlines. The resultant set of Laws and rules have nothing to do with local petty Party Politics or the personal hates of any self-important government official.

(Any Law that is introduced, when there is a lack of any evidence suggesting that it is actually needed, is a pointless Law. To date, most British polticians have avoided being tempted into such inanities by infrequent newspaper headlines, and have relied on demanding that there is proper enforcment of the requirements of Coll-Regs by all users of sea around Britain's coastline. )

This is why, at first sight, it would seem that in Britain there are no Laws covering what British citizens must do when they put to sea. Any why, in fact it is the reverse because Britain is an active participant in the SOLAS organisations that regulate what it's own citizens can or can't do. Hence the comment at the head of this web page saying that it seems like there are no Laws, when in fact there are many. It is just a matter of looking in the right place.)

The fact that every year or so, a single fool makes the newspaper headlines, after doing something dangerous or stupid, only serves to indicate just how Law-abiding all the other users of the sea are. Were it otherwise, it would not be newsworthy when somebody is stupid. It is beyond arguement that the few fools who make the headlines always break the numerous existing Laws that govern the conduct of their vessels.

Adding more Laws to the list to be broken will not act as a deterrent to people who deliberately flout the Law. Fortunately, the sea does not seem to attract the sort of person who wilfully ignores any number of Laws, be they current ones, or any new ones. The TSA would not welcome anybody who had sympathy with dangerous attitudes, but does welcome everybody who sees sailing as a never ending learning curve.