CG66 rename?

[alahol2]

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...

.

If we are going to get pedantic the scheme is not even about identifying vessels, it's about ascertaining the characteristics and capabilities of a vessel given its name.

 

[mcframe]

Yes we will need to look at publicity, the system etc, but I first wanted a feel for the name CG66.

As on a previous posting there are 22,220 CG66's.

Keep it - see P45, V5, MOT, WD40 references.

But, (as a geek who has read RFC1, and many of the subsequent ones), I do wonder what a the first 65 forms† were for ;->

How about a couple of case studies (q.v. Rambler PLB registration on the Fastnet) where having an up to date CG66 has made a difference?

† "CG1 was introduced in 1698, when Winstanley was asked to register the Eddystone as A Lighthouse, following several false alarms regarding a wrecked vessel with an unusually strong masthead light..."

 

[Babylon]

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Please don't change it just for the sake of change.

Not long a go we had Road Traffic Accidents (RTAs) now we have Road Traffic Collisions (RTCs). While RTC might be a more accurate description we all wander about thinking whats a RTC?

There is a specific financial-legal reason why the word 'Accident' had to be removed: blame is easier to ascertain in a 'Collision' thus facilitating the smooth transfer of money away from the hapless drivers.

As to the CG66 name: keep it as it is.
- Most coastal and offshore sailors know exactly what it is, whether they're registered or not.
- Those who don't know what it is, or chose not to register, won't care if you change the name.
- 22,200 doesn't sound like a lot of registrations as a proportion of total boat ownership in the UK (and Scotland!), but many boatowners don't venture offshore (and many mildewed trailor-sailors don't venture beyond the front drive of semi-detached houses miles inland).
- You don't (or shouldn't) have the funding to reprint stationery!

As to the CG66 scheme: publicise it better.
- Consult with the RYA for them to promote it within their course material from DS through to YM Offshore; and/or produce a low-budget flyer for them to distribute with course material to all UK-based schools/instructors.
- Talk to the editors of the RNLI magazine for members - they're always looking to fill space, and if you can provide examples of where recovery of casualties was directly facilitated - lives saved! - by the existence of a CG66 registration then you've got a PR hook.
- Talk to the editors of YM, PBO, YW, ST etc - get them to publicise the scheme in their editorials and articles (periodically, like the endless repeats of the Sadler Story, The Westerly Legacy, etc). And - again - provide examples of successful SAR where SG66 identification played a key role.
- Ditto other boating or sailing organisations who publish magazines or members' handbooks, eg The Cruising Association, the myriad of Owners Associations etc.
- In fact, every time a boat registered on the scheme is involved in a successful rescue or recovery, you've got a PR hook, so set up a simple system to be able to effortlessly fire off press releases as-and-when to the main organisations abovementioned.
- Market your web-page as a link in every one of the abovementioned's websites.
- Finally (in case you weren't paying attention to the digital landscape) now that this thread exists, every time someone does a google on 'CG66' a link to this very thread will come up right up near the top of Page 1. So get onto the honchos at ybw.com and see if they'll do you a mention in their various magazine home-pages.

POSTSCRIPT:
Bugger! - http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG66

 

[Ex-SolentBoy]

Please do not spend any of our money even thinking about this. It works, most people know about it. The RYA teaches about it.

If one day you change the system significantly then by all means rename it.

 

[laika]

As per most others, we know what cg66 means. If logging routine traffic with the Coast Guard you don't want to increase the number of syllables needed to note that you've got the appropriate form logged with them.

""Re-Branding" is going to require changing literature, web sites and links. I'm sure the Coast Guard can find better uses for their diminishing budget.

1 vote for "leave it be"

 

[Searush]

I have to admit I am deeply concerned about the "Don't Change it " brigade. It is obviously clear that only the people who use it know what it is & we are a tiny proportion of the potential users. In addition as already suggested we are probably the ones least likely to need it. Even the reprinting costs argument is uterlly specious as you simply reprint with the new name as & when you run out of old forms - and I suspect the majority of inputs are on the internet these days anyway!

It HAS to reach out to a wider audience, people like the "Birmingham Navy" who buy a speedboat & trailer off e-bay & zoom off to a strongly tidal area the next weekend to test it without any real understanding of the risks, or any prior research & testing of what equipment they need or have that works. They are not likely to have the least clue what a CG66 is or why it might help them.

I suggest linking in with the RNLI & their Safety Checks scheme, work on joint publicity material for example. But the only way to get to the wider public is by TV which is expensive or "going Viral" on social media.

 

[prv]

It HAS to reach out to a wider audience, people like the "Birmingham Navy" who buy a speedboat & trailer off e-bay & zoom off to a strongly tidal area the next weekend to test it without any real understanding of the risks, or any prior research & testing of what equipment they need or have that works. They are not likely to have the least clue what a CG66 is or why it might help them.

So how is changing the name (remember, it's already called CG66 - The Voluntary Safety Identification Scheme) going to help them find out about it?

I agree with you about publicity, but that's a separate issue and one to which the OP will shortly be turning his attention.

Pete

 

[Appledore]

It HAS to reach out to a wider audience, people like the "Birmingham Navy" who buy a speedboat & trailer off e-bay & zoom off to a strongly tidal area the next weekend to test it without any real understanding of the risks, or any prior research & testing of what equipment they need or have that works. They are not likely to have the least clue what a CG66 is or why it might help them.

I very much doubt that they would be interested in registration of any kind, never mind what it might be called. And as I said previously, do they even buy boat magazines whereby they might actually read about registration. I wonder how many boat owners do know about CG66 but haven't even bothered to register?

It was several years before I did, and I did my formal courses years beforehand, where I was informed about the registration. Changing the name won't alter anything to my mind.

 

[[2068]]

To the uninitiated, CG66 sounds like an offence code that you might have on a driving licence.

Those asking for "no change" already know about the scheme: having a more meaningful name will increase visibility and get more boats on the database from the interested but unaware group (this group - probably quite new to boating?).

How about something like a "Coastguard Card". You send in registration details as per current CG66, and in return you get something credit card sized with Boat Name, call sign, mmsi, etc. plus the option to sign up to some relevant emails or printed stuff to read in the bath.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Why not just combine the CG66 with our application for a Radio Licence? Much of the information is common to both.
It would be better than wasting money on advertising and promotion.

 

[Hostage]

Keep it as it is. I dont want another ambiguous acronym.

CG66 I am used to.

 

[Tidewaiter2]

Except that

Why not just combine the CG66 with our application for a Radio Licence? Much of the information is common to both.
It would be better than wasting money on advertising and promotion.

You can file a CG66 without having even a h/h VHF on board, just flares, mobile, LJs, PRAYER BOOK, etc

 

[Rigger Mortice]

You can file a CG66 without having even a h/h VHF on board, just flares, mobile, LJs, PRAYER BOOK, etc

Yes, I know........ but I would be happy to take a bet that there are very, very few CG66's filed by owners who don't have radios on board.

 

[Storyline]

I would be inclined to say don't change for the sake of change. If you are looking for more subscribers, maybe more publicity is required.
.....

Have to agree more publicity required.

We always put in a passage plan with the CG when making overnight or longish passages round the coast but have to admit I have never heard of CG66.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

I found out about CG66 within a year of becoming a boat owner - admittedly, through these forums. I do not care what is called - there are many forms out there, some of far more earth-shattering importance to peoples' everyday lives that have much less obvious names. As others have said, the important bit isn't what the FORM is called - frankly, who gives a damn? It is the publicity associated with the form that matters - and that needs to be a top link when you put words like "Safety identification for yachts" into Google.

 

[LadyInBed]

'GC66' means nothing & says nothing. Its not even an abbreviation.

OK (don't think that is an abbreviation either ) how about:
United Kingdom Coast Guard Form 66
Then it could be abbreviated to CG66

 

[Babylon]

Scrap everything - CG66, RYA, RNLI, MCA, MSA, SAR, AIS, DSC, PLB, EPIRB, SOLAS, YM, PBO, ST, YW, MBM, SM, YBW, CB, CA, ROCNA, RSnYC - and see what happens.

 

[Babylon]

I found out about CG66 within a year of becoming a boat owner - admittedly, through these forums. I do not care what is called..

Agree.

I found out about the CG66 scheme from my DS theory instructor. Simple.

When I did my YM theory with the same instructor - by this time I had my own boat - he told me about it again!

 

[Searush]

Why not just combine the CG66 with our application for a Radio Licence? Much of the information is common to both.
It would be better than wasting money on advertising and promotion.

Not only do many boats not have a VHF, not all that do will bother with a licence.

Going back to OP, how about a little research into when the CG66 is used to aid a rescue - can you identify any particular "groups" that do or do not have a valid entry? That may help you understand who you need to focus on reaching with you publicity.

I suspect that many on here who have filled in the form in the past may not yet have updated it to include their new sprayhood, topsides repaint, sailcovers, etc etc. I also suspect that there will be thousands of boats in the database that have new owners or moved to new sailing grounds & the old entries have not been removed. Perhaps a couple of student volunteers to do a bit database verification?

 

[Stork_III]

Not only do many boats not have a VHF, not all that do will bother with a licence.

Going back to OP, how about a little research into when the CG66 is used to aid a rescue - can you identify any particular "groups" that do or do not have a valid entry? That may help you understand who you need to focus on reaching with you publicity.

I suspect that many on here who have filled in the form in the past may not yet have updated it to include their new sprayhood, topsides repaint, sailcovers, etc etc. I also suspect that there will be thousands of boats in the database that have new owners or moved to new sailing grounds & the old entries have not been removed. Perhaps a couple of student volunteers to do a bit database verification?

You are requested to revalidate the information on a CG66 every 2 years, a reminder is sent and I believe the info is not retained after 5 year if not revalidated. There was a problem with upload of photos, but local MRCC are very helpful, and will do it for you, may be fixed now.