Coastguard Reorganisation

[marisca]

I don't know whether to be up in arms over the plan to close Clyde, Forth and Stornoway/Orkney or not. Listened to some heid bummer of the MCGA on the wireless yesterday and was not convinced of any benefit other than cost saving - apparently, they are suddenly going to start paying decent wages, aye right! I also reread the MAIB Report on Aquila http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cf ... Report.pdf which comments on the Clyde/Stornoway muddle though they reckon it didn't make any difference. Then if you throw in removing the Anglian Prince and the privatisation of SAR helicopters, the future gets more doubtful.

I suppose it is inevitable that the special place that mariners have held in the safety of life sphere should be eroded to the level of the land-based pensioner or motorist. Why should the land-based majority pay so much to support so few? It would take an oil tanker disaster with lots of photogenic oil-covered puffins and seals with celebrities like Joanna Lumley involved in the clean-up and if possible cute, blonde-haired children, to start a meedja campaign before the masses would even notice. An increase in the number of yachty or fisherman casualties (if that is the result, and I'm not at all sure it will be) is unlikely to be noticed or commented on.

[Arghiro]

Perhaps this is an opportunity for the expansion of RNLI activity? They (unlike Govt) have plenty of resources (money & volunteers), they have the remit from their charitable objectives and the support of the general public. I'm assuming that the Govt haven't deliberately created a situation where the RNLI feel obliged top take over life-saving activities formerly handled by HMCG - or have they?

Am I a cynical old Hector - or a clear seeing observer?

[Fingal]

Perhaps this is an opportunity for the expansion of RNLI activity? They (unlike Govt) have plenty of resources (money & volunteers), they have the remit from their charitable objectives and the support of the general public. I'm assuming that the Govt haven't deliberately created a situation where the RNLI feel obliged top take over life-saving activities formerly handled by HMCG - or have they? ?

I think that's a very good question. Tories no doubt would argue for a free market solution, in which case the RNLI would surely be a plausible tenderer. The Labour Party would historically have argued for the state to be running the service, and as an anarcho-syndicalist I would hope that the workers who provided the service were actually in control of the organisation.

[Olivepage]

I went to a meeting on behalf of a colleague a few weeks ago with all the SAR agencies in the region.

I obviuosly can't say too much about the discussion but basically it seems that HMCR will remain the marine rescue agency but will have fewer of their own resources to actually carry out rescues. One example may be such things as cliff rescue where such organisations a cave rescue and mountain rescue will work under the control of HMCR.

Such things as towing will be arranged on a as "and when" basis using any available contractor.

Clearly the agenda is cost saving, and I don't think anyone is pretending otherwise. Equally clearly the workload of the operators in both quantity and quality will increase so there may be an argument for improved salaries - though I would'nt hold my breath.

Personally I have mixed feelings - the loss of a number of MRCCs I do not think will make a huge difference. Comms technology means that contact initially will feel no different as a user although the accent of the operator may be different to what we're used to. The main issue I think is getting the "back-office" bit right.
Will the local knowledge off the rescue "agencies" be adaquate and available in the period after the first report?

Can the comms between land, air and marine based rescue resources be made to work together so as to pass critical information quickly and accurately?

I guess we'll have to wait and see - cos its going to happen!

[ParaHandy]

Can the comms between land, air and marine based rescue resources be made to work together so as to pass critical information quickly and accurately?

When, in 1999, the Oban & Pentland CG were closed much was made, by the GMB Union particularly and a sceptical public, of the CG's dependence on technology; this was the relatively unproven CCIS system which the CG had pinned a great deal of faith on and which used BT land lines to communicate with other stations. The riposte by the CG was that voice lines could always be used if all else failed. This was treated with derision as most highlanders had experienced disruption to their telecomms through bad weather at one time or another.

In practice this has worked. The capsize of the Aquila which would have been handled, pre 1999, by Oban CG and would have been less than a third of the distance to the casualty from either Clyde or Stornaway CG demonstrates this as Marisca mentioned. The number of diving related incidents around Mull which are routinely handled would also indicate a successful operation post 1999?

There is one change which will, I think, bite us in the back which is the gradual diminuition of experience of CG staff. In the past, retired merchant seamen occupied these posts but this has changed and many more much younger men and women, most of whom have never been to sea, are more likely to meet the first job requirement of computer literacy. The young man who was the assistant HM at Hull who froze as a huge tanker dragged her anchor over a gas pipeline which supplied 30% of the UK's gas (fortunately, although the pipe was lifted out of its trench it did not rupture) is an example of failure in a job instructed by the methodolgy of risk analysis to teach experience; the analysis will work where the risk is known but once outside that zone, the education and experience of the individual becomes paramount.

HMCG will, I am sure, view their recruitment policy as non-discriminatory but I would bet that it has not been unhelpful in an organisation where employment costs are so significant as to be able to reduce labour costs by "de-skilling" the job, broadening the field from which recruitment is made and employing younger people.

[Olivepage]

"HMCG will, I am sure, view their recruitment policy as non-discriminatory but I would bet that it has not been unhelpful in an organisation where employment costs are so significant as to be able to reduce labour costs by "de-skilling" the job, broadening the field from which recruitment is made and employing younger people."

Yes

No disagreement from me.

I think the principle is that the purpose of the HMRC will be to bring resources with the appropriate skills and knowledge to bear rather than being able to supply that knowledge themselves.

How or even if it will work - your guess is as good as mine. In its support it is the same principle that shore based emergency planning works so there is at least a model to follow.

As for comms - will always be an issue I suppose but BT network is much more resilient now than 10 years ago also there are back-up systems that did'nt exist then. My feeling is that the Comms issue is not so much the mechanism but the integrity and accuracy of the information. The main point where there is scope for cock-up is the initial call between a casualty and the MRCC. Someone calls to say they're aground off the Humber mouth but can't give an accurate position will an operator in Scotland know the questions to ask to get some guess at a position. If he does will he know whether cliff rescue is needed, where an ambulance can get to for best access which side of the river start with - etc etc etc - local knowlege I suppose, difficult to measure and quatify its value, your tanker an excellent example.

Last point was wages - there is a view that watch officers (think thats title) are underpaid. However if you look at vacancies, there are very few and they seem to be filled easily. Clearly this is not a job for any old dope - so who are they taking on now? how are they training them? is there a retention issue? is there a comparison with bobbies or firemen or ambulancemen based on skills and responsibilities? or are they glorified call centre operators working to set procedures requiring little value add.

The question is can they form an effective link between the casualty and whatever resoruces are needed - the link to back-office. If they can make it work with an effectively de-skilled front end then I doubt there will be much degredation. My feeling however is that they need direct access from a casualty to an operator who can add value by advice or local knowledge and that will mean paying for those skills - which of course is what they are trying to avoid.

I have the impression that this is a problem that they do not know how to solve, my view is to go for a skilled front end even if fewer of them, a sort of technical support for hard problems.

[Gardenshed]

"The main point where there is scope for cock-up is the initial call between a casualty and the MRCC. Someone calls to say they're aground off the Humber mouth but can't give an accurate position will an operator in Scotland know the questions to ask to get some guess at a position. If he does will he know whether cliff rescue is needed, where an ambulance can get to for best access which side of the river start with - etc etc etc - local knowlege I suppose, difficult to measure and quatify its value, your tanker an excellent example."

A good point, well made. It is the tacit knowledge and experience that is needed when things go wrong that we will lose.

This is my main concern about the culling of the CG stations.

Last year, a friend who drives a large Boeing for a living was lamenting the fact that BA had retired a lot of the long service ground staff who organise the logistics on the ground at Heathrow, using the T5 move as the reason & citing the great new communications and IT systems that would organise everything. What was lost was the tacit knowledge and felxibility that complement good systems. He then reeled off a dozen examples where he had been delayed due to apparently simple tasks not being completed or e.g. a tug being allocated to the pier next to his and the system lacking the flexibiity to re-allocate it to his flight as he was ready but there wasn't even a plane on the stand next to him...

The coastguard is making the same mistake but in doing so is playing with the lives of seafarers.

No doubt there are areas where the back office of the CG can be streamlined and where significant cost savings can be made by working with other resources but it is the knowledge of the local topography, the knowledge that there is someone locally who may have a piece of kit or who has some skill etc etc that I worry will be lost.

While there is urgency in reducing the pubic sector deficit and we do need cost savings, it is alarming that these propsals have appeared so quickly and that real "consultation" with those in the know surely cannot have been completed so quickly.

do the govt really care for seafarers?
+ Our fishermen get little if any support
+ the merchant navy was abandoned years ago
+ there is little if any investment into coastal facilities to allow use of the coast and help develop the coastal economy (as the Oban Marina debate illustrates)

Going to sea in a boat whether for business or pleasure is clearly an unfortunate irritation to the civil service and the loss of the occasional coast walker, yachtsman, fisherman or diver is an acceptable price to pay compared to the cost savings that can be achieved by getting rid of enthusiastic, knowledgeable local resources.

Next for savings will be lighthouses/navigation buoys and the introduction of compulsory seafaring charges (licence to go to sea). A quango will be set up with a Chairman, CFO and various highly paid posts for friends of the politicians who will be tasked to enforce the new regulations, all at cost greater than the savings. They will then require a chain of coastal command centres to verify that those on the sea are complying with the new licence system ...... and they can use the abandoned CG stations to do this!!

[marisca]

I am a cynical old git but my paranoia level hasn't quite reached that level. Luckily, given the rate at which government implements change, I probably won't be around to pay for my licence.

[Ocklepoint]

and as an anarcho-syndicalist

Ah, that takes me back.

If memory serves me right the CNT did run the Andalucian and Catalonian Coast Guard Servicesfor a while.

[ParaHandy]

... my paranoia level ...

Once aeroplanes could be identified electronically then its like car registration numbers and an organisation like NATS can control them cheaper than the police? And you can charge the people you're controlling for the privelege. Quite a lot given that NATS made +£100m profit.

Marine agencies have a bit to go before they get there. However, the RNLI run a voluntary Guardian System which regularly transmits the boats position to a satellite and which is fitted to protect fishing boats; the marine agencies will eventually replace VHF AIS with satellite comms which will then allow them to track vessels anywhere and reliably.

Well, something like this will happen for all marine users .. eventually!

[marisca]

Ah, this explains the satellite controlled VHF Ch16 theory allegedly being taught by RYA accredited centres like Port Edgar. Obviously they know what's coming!

[Olivepage]

"Ah, this explains the satellite controlled VHF Ch16 theory allegedly being taught by RYA accredited centres like Port Edgar. Obviously they know what's coming!"

This is one that I've not come across. Can you tell me something about it please.

[marisca]

"Ah, this explains the satellite controlled VHF Ch16 theory allegedly being taught by RYA accredited centres like Port Edgar. Obviously they know what's coming!"

This is one that I've not come across. Can you tell me something about it please.

It was the subject of a TOP thread a while back and appears to have been promulgated at more than one training centre. The bit below comes from the PEYC Beamer magazine http://www.peyc.org.uk/images/stories/b ... 201010.pdf and was written by the ex-head of the PE Sailing School who is still giving the radio courses. I should, of course, have said Ch70 not 16! One of the scary bits was the email conversation I had with one of his students who simply could not get his head round the idea that any of the information he had been fed on a RYA course by a RYA instructor at a RYA approved training establishment could be wrong - faith is a wonderful thing!

The Advantages of DSC in Emergencies
Without doubt the most important factor relating to DSC is the very significant improvement of the chances of a Mayday transmission being received by the search and rescue authorities. This is because a DSC distress alert will be picked up by one of the INMARSAT or COSPAS/SARSAT satellites and then relayed to the nearest ground-based SAR co-ordinating centres. There will nearly always be a satellite within “line of sight” of a ves-sel in distress whatever its location, and the transmission will not only give the position but also identify the vessel (by its MMSI number), and possibly the nature of the distress. A yacht that only has a VHF radio de-pends upon being within “line of sight” of a Coastguard station or another vessel that happens to be keeping a radio watch.

[Olivepage]

Oh dear

I'd like to hear him explain aerial mismatch and VSWR meters

[sahona]

"Ah, this explains the satellite controlled VHF Ch16 theory allegedly being taught by RYA accredited centres like Port Edgar. Obviously they know what's coming!"
etc.etc.
This is because a DSC distress alert will be picked up by one of the INMARSAT or COSPAS/SARSAT satellites and then relayed to the nearest ground-based SAR co-ordinating centres. There will nearly always be a satellite within “line of sight” of a ves-sel in distress whatever its location, and the transmission will not only give the position but also identify the vessel (by its MMSI number), and possibly the nature of the distress. A yacht that only has a VHF radio de-pends upon being within “line of sight” of a Coastguard station or another vessel that happens to be keeping a radio watch.

I assume the offending 'instructor' has been dragged back indoors and given a good smacking by the RYA, otherwise it could lose international credibility,
and, 'cos they do our ICCs...
the alternative doesn't bear thinking about( - not that I'm going anywhere anymore.)

Maybe the RYA need to do more classroom inspections to make sure their instructors stick to the curriculum.