MCA public meetings re. CG 'modernisation'

[Nick]

.
Thanks Steve, for a full and informative report.

I think the bit I found most significant was

I do encourage people to go to the meetings and get club commodores, marina managers etc to go along too, Bill left last night with no doubt about how the people in the hall felt, I think we should do everything in our power to shake the MCA mangement's confidence in their plans.

It sounds to me as though there may be a certain lack of joined up thinking in the entire scheme, and if it goes ahead and is a disaster it will be a long time - if ever - before we can afford to rebuild the system - so let's keep picking holes in it the hope that they get darned over at least.

[Arghiro]

I think letters to our MP's may be one way to go. Anybody written one yet that could be used as a general structure? - no way that we want duplicated copies.

[stevepick]

A further point I failed to mention about the proposed setup. It was stated that the UK has 164(IIRC) CG VHF aerials. The proposed new 2 centre system will split monitoring of the aerials between them. However, although it was claimed that there is 100% redundancy between the 2 stations - which to me implies that either station should be able to manage the whole CG task for the UK - each station will only access a limited set of the other stations "principal" antennae , so if Aberdeen goes down, the south station will only be monitoring a limited set of Scottish aerials. Those who sail on the west coast can probably reel off a list of places where there are current VHF "holes", it will be worse in a failure scenario, since the number of monitored aerials will be reduced ( no figures were given for this, but if someone is going to another meeting please ask about it! We ran out of time).


Steve

[sahona]

Unfortunately I had to be in Glasgow that evening, but had already contributed to the online document, stressing the VHF coverage issues on the Scottish west coast. As well as linking the stations (they could take a lesson from fault fallback architecture used by the 'hole-in-the-wall networks the banks had set up years ago) the difference in propagation between chan16/00 and the working channels still has to be addressed.
I don't suppose for an instant that the MCA could influence a tax window for our DSC equipment if they are really relying on it carry out their published duties? Just a thought

[Rowana]

A further point I failed to mention about the proposed setup. It was stated that the UK has 164(IIRC) CG VHF aerials. The proposed new 2 centre system will split monitoring of the aerials between them. However, although it was claimed that there is 100% redundancy between the 2 stations - which to me implies that either station should be able to manage the whole CG task for the UK - each station will only access a limited set of the other stations "principal" antennae , so if Aberdeen goes down, the south station will only be monitoring a limited set of Scottish aerials. Those who sail on the west coast can probably reel off a list of places where there are current VHF "holes", it will be worse in a failure scenario, since the number of monitored aerials will be reduced ( no figures were given for this, but if someone is going to another meeting please ask about it! We ran out of time).


Steve

This was along the lines of the question that I raised in Aberdeen.

The aerials are all connected back the the MRCC's via BT landlines, so what happens if and when the BT network goes down as has happened in the past, expecially from remote places like Stornoway/Shetland.

I was assured that in the event of a failure of this nature, the coast rescue teams would be dispatched to the aerial sites, and be able to use them locally. I presume that the landrovers are equiped (sat phone?) to then communicate with the co-ordination centre, but this wasn't stated specifically.

Jim

[sahona]

...... so what happens if and when the BT network goes down as has happened in the past, expecially from remote places like Stornoway/Shetland.


Jim

That's why I mentioned the banking network in my previous post. There was redundancy built in, with the availablilty to automatically re-route should a link or node fail.
The technology has been there for a while, but it seems the CG had been unable to take advantage of it - for whatever reason - and been left with the very basic 'isolated pairs' system that leaves lots of places like Ardnamuchan on a crack in the floorboards. ( the geographical boundary between each pair)

[Arghiro]

That's why I mentioned the banking network in my previous post. There was redundancy built in, with the availablilty to automatically re-route should a link or node fail.
The technology has been there for a while, but it seems the CG had been unable to take advantage of it - for whatever reason - and been left with the very basic 'isolated pairs' system that leaves lots of places like Ardnamuchan on a crack in the floorboards. ( the geographical boundary between each pair)

Banks will pay for redundancy because they lose business if their network fails. But the CG changes are cost driven so they will not be prepared to pay the charges for the redundancy circuits & switching eqt. All they will lose is some poor casualty's life . . .