CG66 Voluntary safety scheme

Are you registered on HMCG's CG66 scheme?

  • Yes, and I regularly update and have a picture loaded

    Votes: 124 57.4%

  • Yes, but haven't updated

    Votes: 71 32.9%

  • No, but I will now

    Votes: 1 0.5%

  • What is CG66? Never heard of it...

    Votes: 8 3.7%

  • No, never will, too much like big brother

    Votes: 12 5.6%
  • Total voters
    216
lustyd said:
Just updated mine - the Coastguard seem to refer to the deck as topsides and topsides as upper hull :confused:

Uploading the photo didn't seem to work at first. One of the following was the fix:
switch from firefox to IE
add site to trusted sites
reduce file size even further than recommendations
remove spaces from file name
reduce file name to 8.3 format

The actual fix, of course, is to hire a web developer who know what they are up to - the error messages were worse than useless. If this is an unfunded piece of work then by all means ask here for coding help and I and probably several others will be more than happy to help :)
Dave
Click to expand...

The terminology thing peed me off a bit.

Its incorrect and could easilly lead to confusion. If the CG cant use correct terms then they should use simple unambiguous terms such as colour of hull above water line and colour of decks and superstructure or something similar.

Topsides are the sides of your hull above the waterline up to the gunwhale/deck edge except when filling in a CG66. :-(

I have registered a CG66 with a photo but rarely file any passage plans with the CG.

.
 
I originally registered when you posted off a card but have since updated online and added a photo. I don't remember any particular difficulty uploading the pic but the whole site is very amateurish (putting it politely) and the topsides terminology nonsense is a bit silly from an otherwise professional organisation.
 
chanelyacht said:
Thanks so far for all the comments, I will anonymise them and let our IT guys know.

Anyone who really hates it online and wants a card to fill in, PM me an address and I'll get one sent out.
Click to expand...

No need to "anonymise" my comments - the web site is OK apart from the photo upload problem already mentioned

However, it would be VERY useful if you could enter a second alternate shore contact - for example, in our case, the best shore contact is an occasional crew member but since he's usually only on board for weekends it would be a lot of faffing about to keep changing the shore contact details backwards and forwards every time
 
chanelyacht said:
As a follow on from an earlier thread, and purely as a straw poll, I'd be interested in seeing how many people are already using HMCGs CG66 - and if you don't, I'd be interested in knowing why.
Nothing official about this, but if there are some barriers to people using the scheme, it would be useful to know what they are.
Click to expand...

Have uploaded details and photo, also updated it, but I NEVER call the CG to report making a passage (and only once in 45 years for a radio check, when I had genuine reason to doubt my radio).
 
lustyd said:
Just updated mine - the Coastguard seem to refer to the deck as topsides and topsides as upper hull :confused:
Click to expand...

Indeed, I remember that.

lustyd said:
The actual fix, of course, is to hire a web developer who know what they are up to - the error messages were worse than useless. If this is an unfunded piece of work then by all means ask here for coding help and I and probably several others will be more than happy to help :)
Click to expand...

+1 to all counts. It's a while since I used it so I can't remember the details, but I recall thinking it seemed as if somebody's teenage son had knocked it together for pocket money. The way it appears to email a random watchkeeper to manually enter the details into a database is cute too, though I suppose if you have the capacity on a quiet watch then it's quite a good way of sanitising the data.

The picture upload was largely broken, and probably the reason for a large number of records without photos, though I was able to email mine to the above-mentioned random watchkeeper for inclusion.

I don't call in passage plans; they don't do anything with them unless someone reports you overdue, and anyone likely to report me overdue would know more about my plans than what the Coastguard record. But as Chanelyacht says, the Coastguard is as good a choice as any if you don't have an appropriate person ashore and want someone to know where you're going.

Pete
 
Last edited:
My experience has been similar, charming PM here from a lady on CG who put the photo on the system for me (do hope I remembered to say big thanks at the time).

I agree that a second shore contact would be useful.
 
prv said:
I don't call in passage plans; they don't do anything with them unless someone reports you overdue, and anyone likely to report me overdue would know more about my plans than what the Coastguard record. But as Chanelyacht says, the Coastguard is as good a choice as any if you don't have an appropriate person ashore and want someone to know where you're going.
Click to expand...

I've called in cross channel passage plans. Not having boaty friends, the people I usually tell where we are going are often nervous of their perceived "responsibility". They're much happier knowing I've separately logged the details with the coastguard and all they have to do is call the number I've given them if they haven't been able to contact me by such-and-such a time quoting the information I've sent them (inc. callsign, mmsi, start point, destination, eta). Of course the coastguard doesn't have that much more info, but it makes the shore contacts happier thinking if they make a mistake the coastguard already has the info and seems to give the crew an added sense of security.

Plus it's the only time I normally get to use the DSC, and as it's usually 4-5am on a day when conditions aren't too bad I can kid myself that rather than being a burden I'm breaking up the monotony for the good folks at lee on solent :-)
 
I am registered but have no photo because the size limit is tiny and I couldn't shrink the picture I had enough to get it to accept it even on maximum JPEG compression and with a reduced size.
I do appreciate that memory/bandwidth cost money but you might get more people with pics if you upgraded the limit to somethinglike 1MB. That's still not a massive photo but should present people with less difficulties.
 
G12 said:
I am registered but have no photo because the size limit is tiny and I couldn't shrink the picture I had enough to get it to accept it even on maximum JPEG compression and with a reduced size.
I do appreciate that memory/bandwidth cost money but you might get more people with pics if you upgraded the limit to somethinglike 1MB. That's still not a massive photo but should present people with less difficulties.
Click to expand...

The limit is fine for what they are trying to achieve - they could do with instructions on how to shrink the picture though. If you're struggling PM me and I'll give you my email to send the pic, I'll then shrink it for you.

1MB sounds reasonable to you, but if 1000 people send in 1MB then that's 1GB. Although at home you will get 1GB fairly cheap, a proper server system with redundancy, backups and replication etc can run to many hundreds or thousands of pounds when everything is taken into account so your 1MB limit is less reasonable than you think!
 
Is it possible to create a CG66 for a foreign registered vessel? I can see the benefit and for my occasional crossings (only one so far) it would be nice to know that the LB knows what to look for in the event of a calamity.
 
G12 said:
I am registered but have no photo because the size limit is tiny and I couldn't shrink the picture I had enough to get it to accept it even on maximum JPEG compression and with a reduced size.
I do appreciate that memory/bandwidth cost money but you might get more people with pics if you upgraded the limit to somethinglike 1MB. That's still not a massive photo but should present people with less difficulties.
Click to expand...

For those who struggle with photo editing or don't have a program to do it, there is a user friendly image editing site at www.cranno.com It is free. No connection - I use it a fair bit. Simply upload your image, and enter the physical dimensions and quality(filesize) you want.
 
Last edited:
TR report and CG66

I am registered on CG66 ,usually only post a Traffic routeing when cross channel, but this weekend had to single hand from Pompey to Newport, unusual but see my other thread...( I want to say Thankyou)
Did a TR to Solent who also wanted an update when I landed at Newport. Sent on Ch 67 so had dual purpose to check the radio and inform.
CG seemed happy to log it, guess any information is better than none, especially as the amount of Maydays & Pan Pans this weekend seemed huge.
 
Wunja said:
Is it possible to create a CG66 for a foreign registered vessel? I can see the benefit and for my occasional crossings (only one so far) it would be nice to know that the LB knows what to look for in the event of a calamity.
Click to expand...

Can't see a problem with that, you should be able to create one from the website, or drop me a PM and I'll send you a form.
 
Daedelus said:
I agree that a second shore contact would be useful.
Click to expand...

I put a second person's phone number in one of the boxes (home/mobile/work) under the shore contact section. I'm sure they'll figure it out if they need to call and get a name they didn't expect but who nevertheless knows me and my boat.

The ability to properly enter multiple contacts (not two) would be better, of course.

Pete
 
A1Sailor said:
For those who struggle with photo editing or don't have a program to do it, there is a user friendly image editing site at www.cranno.com It is free. No connection - I use it a fair bit. Simply upload your image, and enter the physical dimensions and quality(filesize) you want.
Click to expand...

Getting a suitable image is quite straightforward - but I found that uploading it to the CG66 part of the MCGA website isn't. When I registered, no amount of browsing/selecting the image on my PC then clicking on the "Add Photo" icon got the site to respond. I eventually gave up, but a member of MCGA staff very kindly added it for me when I contacted them. I've just logged back in to upload a more recent picture, and once before can't get it to work - so I've given up.
CG66 is a brilliant scheme - but I concur that the web interface could perhaps be improved.
 
jwilson said:
I NEVER call the CG to report making a passage
Click to expand...

A common attitude but as the CG themselves put out messages asking you to do so, why not? You say it as if it were a virtue. Do you never make long passages? Do you not want assistance if you get in trouble?
 
Last edited:
So here's a question I've been pondering for a while and can't find any clear guidance on ...

When is it appropriate to advise the Coastguard of your passage plan?

Indeed, when would the CG like to be so advised and when would it have nothing more than nuisance value?

During our "summer cruise" I routinely and fairly religously sent text updates as to our whereabouts, plans and status to our designated shore contact and by prior arrangement he would (in theory!) have pressed the panic button if he hadn't heard from us by the appropriate time

However, that was very reliant on being able to get a mobile signal - as it happened we always could but I could envisage lobbing up somewhere where the local mast was off line and not being able to make contact

That makes me wonder whether I shouldn't have logged our passage plan with the CG but where do you draw the line?

It would seem a bit OTT to call them up on the radio to say we were planning to sail from, say, Fambridge to Bradwell. But IS it OTT?

On the other hand, it would, on reflection, perhaps have been a good idea to log our intention to sail from Lowestoft to Blakeney overnight.

How do I, as a novice skipper, decide when and if it would be appropriate to log my passage plan with the CG???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top