What Does Us$120 A Day Cover For Yacht Crew?

[Lighthouse]

The fact that the forum is considering shutting down this service rather than engaging in healthy dialogue, also suggests an underlying problem. So perhaps it is in the forums best interest to discontinue the service. That would be especially true if the policy makers do not see it as a core service to the cruising community but just a headache.

So much positive feedback that we have received over the years clearly indicates that our crewfinder is a good service for the CRUISING COMMUNITY - to those that are happy to accept the CL crewfinder usage policy. However, there are many that wish to bend the CL crewfinder "rules" and go to great lengths to tell us (often with much abuse) how to change these rules to suit their own agendas. To those I say; open your own facility and set your own "rules". This is the "headache"!

I have personally been involved in this "issue" for 10 years now. If I appear to be unwilling to debate the issue (again) it is because I have been down this road so many times and I am tired of it. My vote is to close down the crewfinders, but, the decision will be taken after rational engagement with the full admin team.

My apologies to you, our forum readers, crewfinder users and the rest of the admin team for my unwillingness to further discuss this issue here.

With great respect.

[JeanneP]

Originally Posted by tomonjuno

When you read the initial threads, it is apparent that the moderators opinion is against the policy of allowing paid crew....

Moderate, but do not mandate, what will or will not be discussed. If a given modertor finds it difficult to answer the policy questions, or if the bulk of posters find a consensus on an issue that is contrary to a set of forum rules, perhaps a review of policy is in order.

Warm Regards

Tom

First, welcome back.

I would hope that disagreeing with one or more of the moderators of this board doesn't mean that we are disagreeable?

This board is moderated by a motley crew with widely varied attitudes and opinions on many topics, but we all get along and we can agree to disagree. You're free to choose with whom, what, and when you agree or disagree on this board.

Part of my personal position with regard to the crewfinder is my distaste for a cruising boat owner asking for contributions to the operation of the boat from the crew that he needs to help him run the boat. We've only taken on crew once, and a great crew member he was. We didn't really need his help, but it was welcome. We did not need any contribution from him, and did not take any. He was pleasant company on a longish passage (3 legs, 19, 13, and 4 days) and a great help. We met many people who took on crew, or simply friendly hitch-hikers, and I don't recall any of them making a contribution beyond a reasonable share of food and their own personal expenses. Which is as it should be. If an owner can't afford, for example, the Panama Canal transit without his crew contributing a share of the fee, I don't believe the owner should be transiting the Panama Canal! If the owner can't afford the boat fee for Cocos Island without the crew kicking in part of it, well then he shouldn't be going there. The per person charges, though, are understandably crew expenses, provided that the crew knows about them in advance. If the skipper is the only person who wants to go to Cocos but can't get there without crew, and the crew don't want to go, well, then, why is the skipper asking the crew to pay to go where they don't want to? You get the idea, I think.

I repeat myself I know, but here goes.

There is another issue here, and that is the safety and protection of the crew. In our experience we have seen that if there is any reason that an insurance company can find for not paying a claim, it will not. I know of one time that a crew member was seriously injured in a boat accident and the owner "snuck away in the dead of the night" leaving all medical expenses to be paid by the injured crew or the charity of others. I assume it was because the owner did not have insurance that would pay for the bills. Either that or he was a rotter. It's one reason I urge all crew to be sure to see the boat's insurance policy and make note of pertinent information before they leave the dock. If the owner is found to have illegally used the boat for charter and he is not insured for it, is not a licensed captain when one is required by the laws of his country and the insurance compay, well, then, no insurance benefits are available to that crew/"charterer."

I would not require that an owner state how much a crewmember should kick in for food since in many places it would be significantly less than $10 or $15 per day, but other moderators on the board don't agree with me, and well, it's not that big a deal. It could be more, I agree, but it would have to be a filet mignon and truffles diet to get up in the $15 per day range in most places.

I really don't care how an owner tries to justify his charging; as the owner of the boat it is he who decides whether to run the engines, stay in a marina, visit countries that charge the boat for entry. If he is asking his working crew to pay any portion of that when it is not specifically a charge assessed for each person on the boat, then the owner is profiting from his crew without providing anything but a sailing trip and a place to work in return. I personally would not want to be on a boat where the skipper could not afford to run it without taking on paying crew to help with his expenses. If he can't afford to visit places without help, what else on the boat can he not afford to pay for? Proper maintenance? Working gear?

Now I'm repeating myself a bit too much.

If an owner can find crew willing to pay boat costs in order to work on the boat, that's the crew's choice, but we do not want that posting on CL. Make your money from somebody else's crew board, not this free one. If we learned of a boat misrepresenting itself in that way on the CL crewfinder, well, you already know that we're going to delete the post, don't you?

Finally (I think), the issue of delivery skippers and crew. For persons who need experience or miles, crewing on a delivery boat is a good way to get that experience and miles and I think it's a great opportunity for wannabe cruising sailors. If a delivery skipper made his crew pay for food or boat expenses, we would most likely delete his post here. However, I personally see no problem with a delivery skipper posting for crew on CL provided he follows the same rules as all the other boats. It would be a sorry delivery skipper if he made his working crew pay for their food and board - run, crew, run from such a skipper. Yes, a delivery skipper is paid for his work, and sometimes he has to pay crew. Then it's purely commercial and again, not for this board.

I like delivery skippers and have several friends who do that work, some for pay, some for the sheer pleasure of getting out on the water.

If the skippers provide us with more information about the good, and bad, boats, we have an invaluable resource there. One thing that too many cruising sailors fail to do is to be brutally honest about the problems and mistakes they have made. I include my husband and me in that assessment, though I TRY to be honest. Delivery skippers, though, usually have little invested in the boat, particularly the horror story boats, so they can provide us with some good information. (Paid captains can't do that, and I understand their reluctance to bite the hand that is feeding them and don't hold it against them).

However, all my discussions and arguments aside, I can't understand why you want to belabor this issue. If you don't like CL's restrictions and rules and you know we're not going to change, you don't have to use our crewfinder.

One final issue before we say the last rites for this dead horse. I like the Crewfinders, but it is more work and causes more consternation than any of the other categories on this board. It is a rare skipper or crew who give anything back to this board after finding their boat or crew, so perhaps we're doing a lot of work for nothing in return. Yet you think that our position on allowing commercial posts is wrong-headed. Why do you feel that the webmaster of this free forum should pay for the privilege of lining somebody else's pockets?

My fellow moderators are probably groaning right now, "oh, Jeanne, don't encourage him - again." I like to argue though I doubt that I can change your mind. That's okay, though. We can still be friends on this board.

Fair winds,

Jeanne

[tomonjuno]

Thanks Jeanne for the welcome back, and for responding to the delivery skipper issue.

I agree that folks can agree to disagree. I would also note that the moderators on this forum are as good as it gets, way better than on some other forums, the only notable difference is they spend more time discussing some topics than on moderating! I have no reason to find them personally disagreeable, indeed, if they were here in Grenada, we could sit down at De Big Fish and enjoy a beer, my treat! It might be a good idea to steer clear of this topic, and discuss the proper amount of scope, the right type of anchor, the proper cruising rig, or politics, sex or religion or similar non heated topics!

The board has every right to set policy. If they do not wish to have private boats posting for recreational crew who share expenses, they have every right to do so. When the policy is inconsistent with the implementation, or if the policy is to one extreme or the other of the cgeneral consensus, it can be expected to see some rigorous discussion in the appropriate forums. Hence I see no reason not to post here, even though I disagree with the policy. As I have said before, this is a forum, it is not for me to go and open another one to express my views, I should be able to do it here. But someone does not want discussion, they can open a blog site!

I believe I understand the argument you and the others have put forward regarding recreational crew paying for shared expenses. I believe there are three basic arguments. First, the practice is considered illegal. Second boats should have insurance. Thirdly, if the owner can not afford to operate the boat without crew, he should not take on board these crew.I would point out that the first two are not requirements by any international body, and while they may be required in certain instances in certain locations, it is not a universal law. I would suggest that all such arguments are really just expressions of opinion. The latter is clearly a matter of opinion.

Whether any one of these a good practice for an individual boat is certainly open for discussion, so long as the discussion does not turn personal.

However in several of the posts, I have noted comments that if a boat engages in this practice, that somehow the skipper is operating illegally or is operatig a scam. Since the underlying premise of the argument is false (nothing requires an boat owner to do or not do these things) I would categorize the argument as Ad Hominem, and by their very nature they are fallacious. I think you can understand that I would feel a bit upset by someone making a statement that would characterize my operation of Juno as a scam, even indirectly. Ad Hominem arguments often bring that kind of reaction. Presenting these kinds of argument, ie, saying such operations are illegal, is doing a diservice to the public who reads these posts.

Other than suggesting that legal and insurance issues are just opinions, I have no new insight into these issues that have not been expressed time and again, other than to add my belief that it is the owner/operator to make a decision that he/she can live with when problems arise!.

On the issue of operations and affordability, ie, not taking anyone onboard unless you can afford it, I would pose a hypotetical. I am a single guy, and in the course of my cruising I met a lady whom I would like to have on the boat as a partner/companion for a long term committed relationship. . But I do not have enough money to travel with another person on board, but she is independently wealthy. Should I or should I not ask her to help cover the additional costs of her living on the boat? I understand that if she has no money, it is a moot question, I must make a responsible decision about whether to continue cruising or chosing a different lifestyle. Just so one does not think I am being patronizing about men /women, what if the owner/operator was a lady with the same dilemna?

I do not see a difference between this scenario and recreational crew, well aside from the romance issues, but surely you are not going to throw that on the table as a defining issue?)

Regarding delivery skippers, if the rule is no commercial ventures, then that is the rule. To allow an exception for one is not fair to those who complied with the rules and then were asked to leave, like myself, because some underlying criteria changed. Now my personal belief is the same as yours Jeanne, that the delivery skipper is ok doing what he is doing. I believe I am am doing ok, but our personal beliefs are not the issue here. The issue is whether this should be allowed. No rule has changed, it has been this way for more than several years, and these charter delivery guys are not being kicked off as I was, even though I scrupioulsly followed the rules. I find this to be inconsistent and a bit arbitrary.

Thanks again Jeanne for engaging in the dialogue, I appreciate the courtesy.

Warm regards

Tom

[JeanneP]

Tom, I love a debate more than most, otherwise I wouldn't continue to moderate this forum. However, this issue is being nit-picked until it's bloody.

First, Cruiser Log is not a charter broker, employment agency, welfare agency, lonely hearts club, bordello or pimp. It is a free forum for cruisers seeking a place to exchange information and generally interact with other like-minded souls. There are lots of places on the internet to find what we are not, and everyone is free to do so.

None of us care if you want people to pay you to take them on your boat. We also are not interested in your love life, and if you can find a woman who is willing to pay you for your companionship and attention, go for it. Do whatever you want, but don't advertise it for free on this board. That is the commercial aspect we balk at.

Delivery skippers who are looking for unpaid crew do not, IMO, present a contradiction of our "rules", provided that the skipper is not charging the crew for boat expenses, is not looking for professional crew expecting payment, and the posting is clear on the subject of what the passage entails. I can see that this seems to be a contradiction to some people, but so it goes. Lots of people are looking for blue water miles, and delivery skippers are some of the best options, though there's no romantic cruising going on with these deliveries. In my opinion, the crew is gaining significant benefits from crewing on a delivery passage.

We're still not going to let you advertise on this board for somebody to pay you to take them sailing.

However, the legal and insurance issues are not just opinions. Do you have boat insurance? If you do, have you discussed the issue of taking on paying passengers, and whether your insurance covers them? Have you ever been in a South American jail? I don't believe that you have informed us of what flag your boat flies, though on offshore passages other laws prevail.

I would wish that some of those who benefit from the crewfinder sections gave back a bit more to this board, and I continue to lobby for keeping the crewfinders in the expectation that we will hear from one of them for something more than another passage.

In the end, my focus is on protecting potential crew from being exploited, though I recognize that the better qualified the crew, the more offers and options they have. The inexperienced crew are left to their own devices and often feel they have to pay in order to convince a boat to take them on. I want to assure them that "it ain't necessarily so", and beyond that, I concur with the board on not permitting boats to post here if they are looking for payment beyond sustenance for the crew.

Another repeat: If an owner can't pay their boat's expenses, I want to warn crew that maybe that boat isn't safe to be crewing on. That is my biggest hobbyhorse.

Even if we disagree, we can still be friends.

Fair winds,

J

[Tailwalker]

i feel like i am cought in the middle of this, no worries i am learning a lot in a very short space of time, this is heighly educational for me!!

thanks think i am going to log out of here//

troy

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by Tailwalker

thanks think i am going to log out of here//

troy

I wouldn't do that - I think that this is the best place for you to be in your circumstances. Lots to learn here! There are so many "crew" out there that just go in blindly and don't ask the right questions. You have asked and received good, straight forward answers from both sides of the debate and should be in a better position to negotiate your step forward.

Do not feel that you are in the middle of this - this debate has raged for 10 years on this forum. The good thing about it is that there is much for you to learn from it.

[tomonjuno]

Thanks Lighthouse

Regretably for you as the moderator, because of the time involved, these issues will not die until some misconceptions are cleared, and ambiguous policies adequately explained. This not nit picking, these are issues of relevance to many, if not all. If it were not so, the dialogue would have stopped 9 plus years ago. If matters not whether it is me, because there will be others asking the same or similar questions. You must accept that as fact.

I did not ask you to comment on my love life. The question was hypothetical. Your answer is an ad hominen response, and by definiton it is fallacious.

I will ask again, if a solo lady meets a guy she is interested in having aboard for a period of time as a sailing partner, and can not afford to pay for that persons share of expenses, but the other person can chip in to assist, what is wrong with asking for a shared expenses arrangement to be made?

All the arguments of insurance and legal issues are wonderful, your points on these subjects all have merit and should be considered by those who need to consider those things. I wish I could agree that they have been over done. But I still see people, some of them moderators on the site, saying that such activities are illegal. We know they are not. It disturbs me that folks are still expressing opinions that are just flat out contrary to the facts.

If I understand the position of the forum, the comercial delivery skipper who is being paid for a trip, and does not charge for food, but will not meet the other requirements that may be required for crew like return fare home, can post primarily because you feel it is not a commercial venture. The sole difference between his boat and mine is then is the issue of shared food costs. None of the legal or insurance issues matter in his case? But they apply in mine? Have I correctly stated your position?

As I said in my earlier posts, I have no problem with the delivery skipper doing these activities, I just wish I could do the same thing without it being impuned that I am breaking the law or being irresponsible.

I look forward to your response, particularly on the hypothetical, it speaks directly to the issue of food costs.

Regards

Tom

PS Are you sailing these days? If you are near Grenada, perhaps we can get together for that beer. I promise not to bring this topic up, OK?

[Tailwalker]

I know lighthouse...

Have to be focused and multitasking so many levels.. learn only one way and that's the hard way.. You guys are opening up my mind - i am taking it in both sides - like a sponge.

Its good for me to hear what Tom has to say coz i need to know these things, its important as i taking this subject rather seriously..

Ps. I always listen to both sides of the story ( argument) I always seem to wind up on the extreme part of life - you guys assist me on so many ways...

thank you all of you..this is very educational

[redbopeep]

Tom,

I really wonder what is your agenda here? Lord help us if your goal is to make every fallacious argument in this list!.

Being not the brightest bulb on the porch myself, I had to look up ad hominem:



"Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.

2. Person B makes an attack on person A.

3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made). "

I found myself laughing since I think you're totally out to lunch to be calling Lighthouse's post ad hominem... Perhaps someone has recently called your arguments such? I do believe it was Jeanne, not Lighthouse, who referred to your example of girlfriend btw...

On to real thought...

The CL crew boards are provided for passage making yachts to link up with crew at no cost to the crew or the captain. It doesn't matter if the passage making yacht is owned by a not-for-profit such as a church, if it a vessel on a delivery trip, if it is owned by cruisers...whatever. The goal is simply to link up these folks for a good passage at no cost to or profit by either party to the other. In various countries the "no cost" definition has been that crew can pay for their own food while aboard so, of course, we find this reasonable. It should be clear, to an intelligent human being such as yourself, that the delivery skipper's pay and his relationship with his employer really has nothing to do with whether the skipper can meet the requirements of the CL policy of crew not paying for anything more than their own costs (food, transport to and from boat). Right?

You know, (well I'm almost certain that you know this....) that in some countries (like the USA) even having friends and family cover the cost of fueling up your boat after you've spent a day on the water with them is not legal unless you have the requisite licenses for yourself and your vessel. Take that money and it becomes a commercial activity. My sister-in-law has worked her way through a number of impressive USCG licenses but won't take money, food, alcohol, anything from friends/family because her present boat is NOT insured for charters AND because many times she has more than 20 folks on board when out for a day trip and the boat is not an inspected vessel (required for more than 6 folks on board in the USA). Therefore, smart girl, she just won't accept money, food, fuel, etc. Here in the USA, the Coast Guard takes the position that your guests for a daysail can't even provide you with food and drink (beyond their own share...) unless you have the requisite licenses for yourself and your vessel (dependent upon party size, etc.)

You are obliquely and directly slamming the CL and its mods with your posts. This seems a bit petty, IMHO. And, you're slamming the mods and CL for things that aren't even true. That's fallacious for sure! but really not nice, you know? I mean, a simple, straightforward, and really not arbitrary policy is in place for the crew postings--no money changes hands except for the cost of food of the crew. No exceptions there. Nothing unclear or arbitrary about it. CL doesn't care if the boat is an inspected vessel if the captain is licensed or not.

The real bottom line that CL cares about is that the crew is not paying for anything beyond their own expenses...things that in most cases (unlicensed captain etc) they shouldn't be paying for, legally--and for that matter we also care that the crew aren't being paid (as employees) by the boat owner (other side of the coin that you don't seem to care about here...) The goal here is simple and I'd think you'd appreciate it-- a newbie doesn't get taken advantage of, period. Further, some innocent cruisers might not even realize that if they take on "paying crew" that they are opening themselves up to liabilities that their regular insurer isn't going to cover.

Since you do seem to have a business/take profit from crew--Are you a licensed skipper in one or more countries? Is your vessel an inspected vessel in the country it is flagged in?

Since you're insinuating that we're actually being dishonest about the licensing requirements--what countries do you know for certain do not require commercial charters to be licensed? I would be happy to have that info available here. Because what you're talking about is defined as a commercial activity in most places, I personally would love to know if such no-license places exist. This info could warn potential crew, at a minimum, that chartering boats flagged in those countries might not be a good idea.

It would be likely useful to the CL community to know what the licensing requirements are in a variety of countries. I imagine knowing what they are would take a bit of research--after all, there are a lot of countries out there, right? Thinking of this, the CL policy of not allowing posts for anything more than "no cost" is even more a good idea. We try to actively support each and every cruiser who posts an ad; with no money changing hands we don't have to deal with or worry that we may be actively linking up crew with a captain who is breaking the law in a given country. Seems a reasonably policy. So, if you could, please stop slamming CL with your posts about how arbitrary the policies are.

If you, like the delivery skippers J refers to, are willing to take passengers/crew at no cost (to the passenger/crew), great, it seems there's no problem--post a free ad about a no-cost crewing opportunity.

If you do have the proper licenses, managed to be properly insured, and are operating a business taking in money from those paying passengers/crew, then go to a site that accepts your ads and post there (including the free crewfnder here which you are welcome to use. That page was set up just for cases like you--people who want money to change hands. Again, the crew finder linked to is NOT supported by CL, it is simply provided so that folks like you can have a place to go at no cost and post their ads ).

But back to my question--what is your agenda? I'm finding it very tiresome to read your posts in which you seem to not understand the direct and straightforward stance has been presented to you. CL doesn't care what a skipper's profession is when a skipper is posting an ad; CL only cares that the crew is not being asked to pay for more than that crew members food (which is considered reasonable world wide.) Got it?

Fair winds,

Brenda

[JeanneP]

Originally Posted by tomonjuno

I will ask again, if a solo lady meets a guy she is interested in having aboard for a period of time as a sailing partner, and can not afford to pay for that persons share of expenses, but the other person can chip in to assist, what is wrong with asking for a shared expenses arrangement to be made?

And I will reply again, None of us care if you want people to pay you to take them on your boat. We also are not interested in your love life, and if you can find a woman who is willing to pay you for your companionship and attention, go for it. Do whatever you want, but don't advertise it for free on this board. That is the commercial aspect we balk at.

If I understand the position of the forum, the comercial delivery skipper who is being paid for a trip, and does not charge for food, but will not meet the other requirements that may be required for crew like return fare home, can post primarily because you feel it is not a commercial venture. The sole difference between his boat and mine is then is the issue of shared food costs. None of the legal or insurance issues matter in his case? But they apply in mine? Have I correctly stated your position?

No, you have not correctly stated CL's position, and I'm sure that you know it. WHAT legal or insurance issues are you talking about? Is that your ad hominem argument? Why are you saying "but will not meet the other requirements that may be required"? Where did that come from?



I have a bunch of wonderful nephews and nieces, and your postings remind me of one of the nephews when he was about 8 years old. He just couldn't let a refusal of anything go without pushing it. Tell him he couldn't do something and he'd say, "well, can I do (??)" Reply no, and he'd ask, "well, how about (??)", and this could go on all day. He'd push, and push, and push. Not because he cared so much, but just because he couldn't stand being told he couldn't do something.

Is that what this is about? Are you trying to see if we make a mistake and say "yes" to one of your scenarios, and like my nephew, try to finally wear us out?

Okay, you have my permission to ask anybody cruising with you on your boat to share all your boat expenses. You don't have CL's permission to post for such a person on our crewfinder, however. You can ask a crewmember to pay you $50 a day and do all your work for you, and we won't care. We do care if you put it on the crewfinder.

Now, how hard was that?

[Lighthouse]

Just as an aside. from recently updated regulations for France: (my guess is that many other countries have become aware of the practice to "fudge" the rules/laws)

Taking on paying "crew" is not permitted in France - this is considered to be chartering. If a vessel is carrying paying passengers, this must be declared to Customs on arrival in France, the yacht imported and TVA (Value Added Tax) must be paid.

It would be very difficult to police but, all it needs is one "unhappy" crewmember to have a boat impounded and the balance of the "crew" in the position to have to make their own way home.

You take your chances! If caught, you pay the price!

The practice is widespread and CL has no interest in how cruisers fund their passages except (to repeat) that these types of ads should not be placed on a FREE facility such as this. Pay for advertising!

We do however have concern for "crew" that blindly pay for their crew-spot and do not realise that in doing so they have become "paying passangers" with a very different legal status aboard. This discussion has been educational and therefore has served a purpose.

[Tailwalker]

Is this correct then - its illegal and most countries know this...

[Nausikaa]

Is this correct then?

Let me quote Watkins, insurers at Lloyd's.

B. PRIVATE PLEASURE PURPOSES WARRANTY

Unless otherwise agreed by Us in writing and/or by an Endorsement being noted on the Schedule, You warrant

that the Vessel will be used for private pleasure purposes only and that it will not be let out for charter, hire or

reward or otherwise used for commercial purposes

Now, by paying the owner or master anything above and beyond your share of the provisions you will, in effect, have a contractual agreement of passage. In other words, you are a fare paying passenger and, thus, the entire shooting match becomes a commercial venture and, as specified above, you loose your insurance unless the insurer has expressly permitted this in writing.

I have just done an extensive web search and only CL seems to be protecting prospective crew members by informing them of this situation and prohibiting ads for paying crew. That's something we can be justifyably proud of.

Aye // Stephen

[Tailwalker]

THANK YOU, got it..

[sundown]

Those who are arguing that CL should change the posting rules forget that we, as members of the forum, are essentially 'guests'. The folk who are actually writing the checks to pay the bills get to call the shots and make the rules. If you don't like the guidelines make your suggestion: if it is not accepted shut up or ship out, start your own forum.

I suspect that there are more than just a few of us who like the 'crew finder' ; and who are more than a wee bit upset that a limited number of 'posters' can cause so much grief, and waste so much of the mods valuable time and experience.

[Lighthouse]

I suspect that there are more than just a few of us who like the 'crew finder'

Thank you - you have made my day.

[Tailwalker]

i like this.... participating in a online school of life

[idpnd]

"Any charge above your own food contribution, personal visas and permits, etc., constitutes a "commercial venture" with dramatic and serious insurance and legal implications. Paying for any fuel, dockage, etc., makes you a "paying guest/passenger"

Intimidating as it may be and whilst I accept the crewfinder rules on this forum, following a thorough look at all threads on this subject, I would like to challenge the "cost sharing is highly illegal" school of "legal opinion" that has prevailed simply on the basis of anecdotal information from certain jurisdictions with regards to this subject, and a fair bit of guesstimating.

To my mind, the line that was drawn in this instance seems purely arbitrary without any basis in fact.

The regulation of amateur boating in the EU alone varies to such an extent that I would not dare produce any blanket "legal advice" regarding the legal and insurance implications of cost-sharing arrangements and the like for my own flag state of choice - let alone on a worldwide basis. The quote from France for instance seems to suggest that they want to stop foreign charter companies operating without VAT registration, not siblings/neighbours/acquaintances sharing the petrol or docking costs to get up the coast on their joint holiday. You just wouldn't get anyone prosecuting that. How would the courts to determine if sailing buddies are actually friends or a businessman and his/her customer?

It would be of interest to see some actual test cases from common law jurisdictions (if there are any). I would assume that outcomes would differ widely depending on the jurisdiction and the merits of the case at hand.

[JeanneP]

Originally Posted by idpnd

I would assume that outcomes would differ widely depending on the jurisdiction and the merits of the case at hand.

Of course it would. And?

[MMNETSEA]

Originally Posted by idpnd

It would be of interest to see some actual test cases from common law jurisdictions (if there are any). I would assume that outcomes would differ widely depending on the jurisdiction and the merits of the case at hand.

Sure the hypothesis that rulings made in common law cases would be interesting - however, the Regulations covering the subject are made in terms of Statutory instruments - these made by Governments either individually or collectively, not prescribed by common law.

In the case of the United Kingdom its regulations for example are amended to reflect any new regulations brought into force by the EU. SEE CODE of Practice