alahol2
Well-known member
I agree with what I think is the majority, leave it as it is. CG66 is well known. "The Voluntary Safety Identification Scheme" describes, more or less, what it's all about.
CG66 rename?
- Thread starter EastYachty
- Start date
Rigger Mortice
N/A
It may, or may not, be well known but, with only 22k CG66's, the system is certainly not being well used by the boating public.
Boomshanka
New member
And perhaps (feel free to shoot me down in flames as it's a wild assumption) that those who do take the time and trouble to complete a CG66 are the least likely to need it
Thistle
Well-known member
CG66 is well known so please keep that part. By all means add Voluntary Safety Blah Blah Blah if you want.
Re uptake, would the insurance companies be prepared to send out a registration form with proposal forms and renewal notices?
Re uptake, would the insurance companies be prepared to send out a registration form with proposal forms and renewal notices?
Rigger Mortice
N/A
And perhaps (feel free to shoot me down in flames as it's a wild assumption) that those who do take the time and trouble to complete a CG66 are the least likely to need it
No shooting down necessary. I was wondering exactly the same!
Sandyman
Well-known member
I assumed that was one of the main reasons for your post in the first place.
'GC66' means nothing & says nothing. Its not even an abbreviation.
Bosun Higgs
N/A
Happy with it. Stuck in my memory now so why change? Short and reasonably snappy for VHF use.
capnsensible
Well-known member
Its CG. Think about it, Coast Guard.
Form number 66. All government numbers its paperwork, especially for example, military.
So meaningless, certainly not. Old fashioned, well perhaps.
Bosun Higgs
N/A
Given that we have SRC and linked to that epirbs etc, why do we need CG66? Surely it is all linked together on an excellent piece of govt IT?
prv
Well-known member
I suspect a number of the posters in this thread haven't noticed that the existing full name is "CG66 - The Voluntary Safety Identification Scheme" (I didn't know that either until now). Many of the proposed alternatives are no better than that, and I suspect their authors would be happy with those words, so nothing needs changing.
The action that EastYachty can take away from this (as modern management jargon would put it ) is to make sure that the existing full name is being used instead of just the code in all situations where a person who is unfamiliar with the scheme might see it.
Then, as a separate consideration, look at better publicity for it. I like the idea of piggybacking off radio registrations - you're already in the admin frame of mind at that point. Although of course, as BoomShanka says, perhaps those most in need of rescuing don't register their radios (or carry radios) anyway.
Pete
The action that EastYachty can take away from this (as modern management jargon would put it
) is to make sure that the existing full name is being used instead of just the code in all situations where a person who is unfamiliar with the scheme might see it.Then, as a separate consideration, look at better publicity for it. I like the idea of piggybacking off radio registrations - you're already in the admin frame of mind at that point. Although of course, as BoomShanka says, perhaps those most in need of rescuing don't register their radios (or carry radios) anyway.
Pete
clyst
Well-known member
All for keeping it CG66 . Doesn't matter what its called newcomers wont know it exists till told . CG66 is short and sweet .
HarryF
Member
Harry F
I agree tht it shouldn't be changed unless absolutely unavoidable but if it were to change SAR66 is short and sweet and says what it does on the tin.
I agree tht it shouldn't be changed unless absolutely unavoidable but if it were to change SAR66 is short and sweet and says what it does on the tin.
Cantata
Well-known member
I'd be in favour of keeping the CG66 name. As you say, it needs to be concise on the radio, it's a snappy name, and (most) people know what it is.
IMHO it ain't broken and therefore doesn't need fixing.
IMHO it ain't broken and therefore doesn't need fixing.
ukmctc
New member
keep it the same, just advertise it more!
gerry99
New member
I would leave it unchanged. It is short and succinct and most folks who attend courses or safety briefings are often taught about it. If you change it for no good reason (and i struggle to see any apart from political correctness) then many publications and websites will have to be changed for no good reason
Sanderling_
Member
Another vote to keep things as they are.
If you do change, whatever you do please do not use the words register or registration as some higher power will suddenly decide that a 'registration fee' would be a good idea!!
If you do change, whatever you do please do not use the words register or registration as some higher power will suddenly decide that a 'registration fee' would be a good idea!!
Lodesman77
Member
Sorry, but I beg to differ. The scheme is not about 'identifying safetys', it's about identifying vessels. "The Voluntary Vessel Identification Scheme" would make sense...
.
Tidewaiter2
New member
And perhaps (feel free to shoot me down in flames as it's a wild assumption) that those who do take the time and trouble to complete a CG66 are the least likely to need it
+1- how often does Lee-on-Solent CG give a shout for a 17-20' 'small fishing launch' "broken down/out of fuel/problem of choice" late on the tide/ Sunday pm, about 5 miles offshore, no flares, poor vhf/ mobile phone only, somewhere every weekend from the Owers to Poole or a Mayday for a Sunseeker out of ice/ aground in the Emsworth Channel.
And CG has s@d all to go on, on a sunny pm with the Solent full of boats
The parable of the Wise & Foolish Virgins waiting for the Bridegroom springs to mind.
Or is it the eliminators for the UK Darwin Awards Team
Appledore
Member
My thoughts exactly. All on this Forum know what CG66 is, and changing the name won't make any difference, but perhaps just lead to some confusion by trying to remember 'what is it called now?'
If only 22K are registered, then I'd suggest periodic advertising in the yachting/boating press is required, but I wonder if even that would increase registration dramatically? Not all boat owners have Certificates of Competence, nor even insurance, let alone buy yachting magazines
But advertising must surely bump up the membership whatever the Form is called.CG66 is simple, and easy to remember.
PhillM
Well-known member
Call it Search and Rescue Registration.
Make it compulsory before a SSR is issued.
Encourage the insurance industry to make it a requirement that it's kept up to date, otherwise it could invalidate a claim.
Your database would soon fill up.
SAR would be easier. Less wasted time = Money saved and perhaps a few jobs saved?
I know this issnt going to be a popular post, but you know it makes sense.
Make it compulsory before a SSR is issued.
Encourage the insurance industry to make it a requirement that it's kept up to date, otherwise it could invalidate a claim.
Your database would soon fill up.
SAR would be easier. Less wasted time = Money saved and perhaps a few jobs saved?
I know this issnt going to be a popular post, but you know it makes sense.