Bluebird K7 Bye Law amendments

Post Reply
malcolm uk
Posts: 520
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:53 pm
Location: Derby, England

Bluebird K7 Bye Law amendments

Post by malcolm uk » Thu Aug 05, 2010 8:50 pm

Just to update the forum.

After a consultation on the wording of the Coniston Water bye laws, which require amendment if we are to conduct trials, will be taken for approval to the Park Strategy and Vision Committe next Thursday = 12th August.

The papers are on the LDNPA website. 23 out of 24 responding organisations were in support of the bye law amendment. 230 out of 241 members of the public were supportive.

The LDNPA officers have noted comments made. The draft bye laws are to allow development runs at planing speed up to 100 mph. The length of course which we can use is to be 3 miles long. The proving runs have not changed in number and remain as twelve (12).

Thanks to all who are supporting us. The next stage, once the LDNPA are ,will be their submission to DEFRA for the bye law changes. They have themselves to comment on legal matters before the 12th. If DEFRA agree to all that is proposed then after a further period for 'reflection' to allow the public to comment again on the bye laws they may be: passed or further amended or a public enquiry could be called. Let us hope they are passed. Should it be the last option we will need a big bucket as the BBP will have to fund an enquiry.

Once the bye laws are in place for Coniston Water the Operations Team will move ahead with the safety plans, risk assessment and operations documents to ensure a safe period of trials with the 'blue boat' trialled where it belongs.
Malcolm Pittwood
The Bluebird Project
Operations

polo
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: Bluebird K7 Bye Law amendments

Post by polo » Thu Aug 05, 2010 8:59 pm

Good news for the moment but I don't like the 12 runs bit..what exactly does it mean?

How about a way round all these rules.
Approach the UIM and ask for the formation of a Historic World Water Speed record boat class for boats ever 40 yrs old.
If it is passed then the record will be 0mph and we can go from there..just thinking outside the box.

then just jack up the record by 1mph every so often!

malcolm uk
Posts: 520
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:53 pm
Location: Derby, England

Re: Bluebird K7 Bye Law amendments

Post by malcolm uk » Thu Aug 05, 2010 9:25 pm

Twelve proving runs means a dozen full power passes, either up or down the lake (described as north to south or south to north). As we are not record breaking they can be hours or days apart rather than six pairs.

The BBP have maintained that the record breaking days of K7 are at an end. You do not go abusing an iconic craft.

What time would it take to get a UIM class into the rules. What is Historic? Would Ken W be allowed to bring out his original boat and run that?
Malcolm Pittwood
The Bluebird Project
Operations

malcolm uk
Posts: 520
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:53 pm
Location: Derby, England

Re: Bluebird K7 Bye Law amendments

Post by malcolm uk » Thu Aug 05, 2010 10:17 pm

Read the bye law wording carefully and do not believe what the papers are publishing today and may follow on with tomorrow. Proving runs have a distance limit not any set speed. But for those who are concerned there is no intention to operate the craft at speeds seen in the 50's. 'Full power' is to be well reduced from the max an Orpheus can produce.

Everyone knows the BBP works on a near zero budget so funding a public enquiry is not going to happen. It will probably be cheaper to freight the team to Australia, if the cost of the Windermere speed limit process is used as a guideline.
Malcolm Pittwood
The Bluebird Project
Operations

User avatar
Mike Bull
Posts: 4403
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:57 pm

Re: Bluebird K7 Bye Law amendments

Post by Mike Bull » Thu Aug 05, 2010 10:23 pm

As ever our very own Sir Malcolm does us proud. Thank you, Malcolm.

Here's hoping it all goes through in one piece, and we can get on with the task in hand- letting a certain old blue girl make the comeback to beat all comebacks. 8-)

Terminator
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:19 pm

Re: Bluebird K7 Bye Law amendments

Post by Terminator » Fri Aug 06, 2010 8:26 am

Hi Malcolm
Yesterdays Gazette made for interesting reading all be it with its incorrect facts re speed and distance. However having been involved in the bye law application myself how many of these committees have to give their nod of approval for god sake!" I thought Defra was the next and final hurdle this is just job justification in my book old chap.

On the basis of your comment below Malcolm -
"Everyone knows the BBP works on a near zero budget so funding a public enquiry is not going to happen. It will probably be cheaper to freight the team to Australia, if the cost of the Windermere speed limit process is used as a guideline."
I refer back to a comment made some time ago by our infamous leader below and hope it does not come true-

"I have an awful feeling that the bureaucrats are going to blow this and blame everyone but themselves when K7 is launched on the Tyne..."

The Lakes and especially Coniston need Bluebird K7 more than ever given the savage cuts announced by this Coalition Government this week!

Novie

"I hope Bluebird will be back to strut her stuff !" :roll:
"Never ride faster than your Angel can fly"

User avatar
Mike Bull
Posts: 4403
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:57 pm

Re: Bluebird K7 Bye Law amendments

Post by Mike Bull » Fri Aug 06, 2010 8:46 am

I share Novie's frustration in that at times it feels like we're having a consultation about a consultation about a consultation, though I guess that's just the way these things work and so for now we all need to-
KEEP-CALM-POSTER-LOW_large.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

sutol
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:46 pm

Re: Bluebird K7 Bye Law amendments

Post by sutol » Fri Aug 06, 2010 9:52 am

The process does appear to be very protracted. The cost implication of a Public Enquiry must be a concern although I would assume there would be costs on the Government side that they would be keen to avoid in the time of austerity. I also note the LDNPA do not expect any cost to them when the event takes place. Has the BBP considered the cost of the event at this stage? Even with volunteers there must be considerable cost involved.

User avatar
Pullman99
Posts: 243
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 4:05 pm
Location: New Forest, Hampshire

Re: Bluebird K7 Bye Law amendments

Post by Pullman99 » Fri Aug 06, 2010 11:11 am

Still not out of the woods yet but getting there. Let's hope for a positive outcome to the meeting on the 12th August. The process will be at its most delicate stage in the period following of course but the news that Cumbria Tourism is to make job cuts, and the announcement today by BT of a call centre clousure in Barrow with consequent job losses, does to some extent focus attention on the return of K7 to Coniston as at least one way of counteracting all the doom and gloom. Hopefully any local detractors will not influence the outcome to the extent that a public enqury has to be called. Any such action would be regarded as selfish at the very least and would hopefuly be overcome by the clear wishes by the majority of local people as well as enthusiasts to see Bluebird K7 on Coniston Water once more.

Now, if we can just identify the 11 individuals and 1 organisation that did not support the amendment...
Ian Robinson
Bluebird K7 - the restoration project of the Century.

User avatar
Mike Bull
Posts: 4403
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:57 pm

Re: Bluebird K7 Bye Law amendments

Post by Mike Bull » Fri Aug 06, 2010 12:40 pm

sutol wrote:Has the BBP considered the cost of the event at this stage? Even with volunteers there must be considerable cost involved.
Yes, this has of course been long thought about and the matter is safely in the hands of Bill and the Ops Team.

Post Reply