A valid RMS mooring licence requires that the mooring is serviced annually PLUS CAPABLE OF ADVERSE CONDITIONS ETC.
A bit of research indicates some mooring contractors conditions exclude this requirement - one only warrants work for 3 months.
I suggest all check the mooring contractors conditions inconjunction with the RMS licence conditions.
Should adverse conditions be excluded for the 12 month maintenance period insurance may also be null and void.
Trouble is no gov department wants to define what an "appropriate mooring apparatus" is.
So no matter what happens the end result is we are screwed by both the Gov and insurance companies!
I asked RMS for a wind strength as on the Beaufort scale and below is the RMS reply:
"NSW Maritime are unable to provide a specific wind speed in relation to the Beaufort Scale, but recommend that contractors service mooring apparatus with regard to wind speeds, including gusts and squalls, that are likely to place additional strain and pressure on the mooring apparatus components."
Locally we are covered for 12 months by the mooring contractor (conditions apply) research revealed some in Sydney only warrant for 3 months with extensive conditions.
Will make an interesting court case and lawyers will love it.
It's just staggering there is no standard for mooring apparatus considering the number of moorings and $ involved.
WARNING
RMS Are tighting the requirements progressively so interesting time ahead.
I am no lawyer, but deal with contract clauses, Government regulations and guidelines all the time at work.
It seems to me that a clause like "all possible adverse conditions" cannot be sustained in law, because it is unlimited and unqualified.
Fundamentally, the law recognises that you are limited in what you can and cannot do, so a reasonable clause would require a reasonable test. A reasonable test would mean, say, the mooring remaining anchored in a current of [pick a number, let's say 4, for argument] knots, or that it survives a pull-out test of [pick another number, say 6] tonnes. OK, so my numbers might be conservatively high or low, but the point is that they are quantifiable and you could test them or design something, or certify something that complies. You could even dial them up or down to balance the competing needs of better moorings or more access to moorings or more competition for mooring-providers.
What is unreasonable is something like "all possible adverse conditions". This would include, for example, your mooring surviving a 100m high tsunami, caused by a giant meteor hitting the Coral Sea, as it engulfed the western seaboard of Australia, followed by the extinction of all life on earth. Of course, in such a situation, a broken mooring is probably the least of your worries. However small the likelihood , it is "possible" in the sense of the clause, and therefore requires your mooring to comply.
Dumb clauses like this are doomed to failure. However, it needs someone to stand up to them to get them struck down.
The Kiwis have done a top report on mooring tackle as here.
They get a bit of breeze so it should be valid.
I would suggest that this be taken on as a global standard but who am I to pontificate. I have nothing to do with the report or whoever paid for it.
www.boprc.govt.nz/media/456922/ocel-swing-mooring-design-report-v2.pdf
There are ISO standards for your deck cleats etc ..............
www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:15084:ed-1:v1:en
Select to expand quoter13 said..
The Kiwis have done a top report on mooring tackle as here.
They get a bit of breeze so it should be valid.
I would suggest that this be taken on as a global standard but who am I to pontificate. I have nothing to do with the report or whoever paid for it.
www.boprc.govt.nz/media/456922/ocel-swing-mooring-design-report-v2.pdf
There are ISO standards for your deck cleats etc ..............
www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:15084:ed-1:v1:en
They have completely ignored the requirement for the environmental moorings, the screw in type, for privately owned vessels in some locations that are now compulsory. Tram/train wheels will always out perform concrete. Requiring a minimum of 7 metres of chain on the bottom will be near impossible in a crowded mooring field. I have just replaced mine with 4 metres of 25mm thick links. 1.5 metres of that goes through the wheel so the actual scope is about 3 metres. Any longer than that the vessels in a tidal estuary will wander too far in tide changes.
Tram wheels weigh about 420 kilos.
The US coast guard has a lot of good info on moorings.
Ok. Found this site from up north............
gcwa.qld.gov.au/manage-access/buoy-moorings/
This doc includes all types including helix............
gcwa.qld.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/BuoyMoorings-Review-Mooring-Infrastructure-2014.pdf
Too many words in this doc but some interesting reading if time permits..............
gcwa.qld.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/BuoyMoorings-Consultation-Outcomes-Consideration-July-2014.pdf
Select to expand quoter13 said..
Ok. Found this site from up north............
gcwa.qld.gov.au/manage-access/buoy-moorings/
This doc includes all types including helix............
gcwa.qld.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/BuoyMoorings-Review-Mooring-Infrastructure-2014.pdf
Too many words in this doc but some interesting reading if time permits..............
gcwa.qld.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/BuoyMoorings-Consultation-Outcomes-Consideration-July-2014.pdf
This is the interesting Queensland thing on the first link!
REMEMBER YOUR ANCHOR LIGHT A vessel using a buoy mooring must exhibit an all-round white anchor light at night, of the prescribed intensity described by the Collision Regulations. The anchor light is a condition of all buoy mooring authorities, and like all other conditions, you must comply with this condition.
Select to expand quoteRamona said..r13 said..
The Kiwis have done a top report on mooring tackle as here.
They get a bit of breeze so it should be valid.
I would suggest that this be taken on as a global standard but who am I to pontificate. I have nothing to do with the report or whoever paid for it.
www.boprc.govt.nz/media/456922/ocel-swing-mooring-design-report-v2.pdf
There are ISO standards for your deck cleats etc ..............
www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:15084:ed-1:v1:en
They have completely ignored the requirement for the environmental moorings, the screw in type, for privately owned vessels in some locations that are now compulsory. Tram/train wheels will always out perform concrete. Requiring a minimum of 7 metres of chain on the bottom will be near impossible in a crowded mooring field. I have just replaced mine with 4 metres of 25mm thick links. 1.5 metres of that goes through the wheel so the actual scope is about 3 metres. Any longer than that the vessels in a tidal estuary will wander too far in tide changes.
Tram wheels weigh about 420 kilos.
The US coast guard has a lot of good info on moorings.
Yes the did [screw type] better re read that paper Ramona!
Agree about the length of chain but.
In our river its useless putting the swivel between the rope and chain as it usually is fouled up in a couple of weeks and doesn't swivel any more. I have mine between the chains where it has contact with the sand bottom and that keeps it clean and working.
PS, If the concrete block or railway wheels are not buried then they are BOTH useless, especially the wheels or concrete fulled tyres.
