Originally Posted by Polux
I agree on the first two points and I disagree on the last. The RCD is all but simplified category system and it is the best available tool to evaluate boats.
It seems you don't know the RCD annexes where all "complication" is. If you want (and if i can find them) I can send them to you.
I have the PDF of the RCD on my ipad, the annexes add little. , plus the 2013 additions and all annexes
People think the RCD was about boat safety
and standards of construction , ie a customer , sailor type of standards. Nothing could be further from the truth., it's primarily a way of preventing countries from making it difficult to sell another countries boats by using national standards or national assessment procedures.
The ISO standards are great well thought engineered standards. But they are voluntary , just like ABYC. .they are actually far better and more compressive then the ABYC.
The RCD standards say things like " opening should be weather
proof " , or on seacocks that they should have a shut off , or on strength , the vessel " should have adequate strength " etc
What should have happened was that the ISO specs should have been developed first and then the RCD could have referenced them.
Maybe in time , it will . But right now it's an " aspirational specification"
The biggest singke issue most manufacturers had with the RCD was meeting the manufacturing and quality documentation
system requirements , this was especially true of smaller manufacturers.
The easiest thing , and yes above 30 feet ( the smaller boats suffer in relation to numbers carried and their effect on stability , not due to hull
strength or innate stability ) was to pass the NB tests for the boat.
But there no point to this debate. I will contend that there is no evidence that the RCD was introduced as a result of anything to do with boat safety
per se , you seem to beleive otherwise , that's that.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk