Coastguard conumdrum - 2

[HoratioHB]

Having read Bilbo's thread with some concern the other day I decided to test the water and sent the nice Mr Cardy an E-mail and suggested maybe he ought to read what the forum was saying. I sent it at 1030 AM, his e-mail came back to me at 2330 on a Saturday! Which to me indicates some degree of professional dedication.
I replicate his reply in full. I can't say I agree with all he says - but at least he appears to be listening which is a first step.

'Thank you for taking the time to write to me. Your experience speaks for itself and you will readily understand some of the reasoning behind these proposals. One of my top priorities has to be for the safety of our volunteer Coastguards, as I'm sure you'll agree. Taking in time-expired pyrotechnics of unknown provenance, in uncertain condition, has never been one of the obligations of the Coastguard. We did it to be helpful and because there was a disposal route onward. Now that the MoD's service is ceasing , we are struggling to find a way of disposing of them at an acceptable cost. Technology moves on and just as the Boxer rocket was superseded, so the white flare has been overtaken by lighting technology. For the same reason that I'm concerned about accepting time-expired flares, I'm concerned about the storage and safe use of pyrotechnics that are now used so rarely as to be obsolete. I'd be interested to hear about your experience, as a helicopter pilot, of the use of these flares to illuminate a casualty. You may be imagining that a risk assessment has to be done with a clipboard and checklist, and while that might be preferable, thinking the situation through before acting hastily is a good start. I'm sure that as a yachtsman and divemaster you wouldn't go to sea without checking tides and weather and doing some passage planning before deciding to cast off; that sounds like what I mean by 'risk assessment'. Our 4x4s are serious bits of kit, light or laden, and sadly there have been accidents that could have been avoided if even a rudimentary risk assessment had taken place. I hope this explains some of the thinking behind our proposals.

Greetings

Peter'

 

[KenMcCulloch]

I'm not really convinced that he is listening. I also emailed him and received a similar reply with different personalised references. He's done a standard response justifying the policies which he is decorating with a few touches to make it look like a personal reply. I'd be interested to know what arrangements he would like to see for the disposal of out of date flares, and exactly what new technologies have superseded the white paralume flare.

 

[pmyatt]

Methinks we should now all get large strobe lights at the masthead to replace white flares - maybe someone might take a bit of interest then(?). However, as a retired civil servant who left because of severe disenchantment with the risk averse PC outlook of his bosses, I doubt it!!! Remember, the definition of a civil service committee - that to which the only alternative is a decision.

 

[sailorman]

i think he doesnt want us to shoot his helios down with white rockets /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

 

[JKay]

no chance of that ,They can't go out at night /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

cheers Joe

 

[dulcibella]

In fairness, if you keep being asked the same question it is good use of time to decorate a standard answer. It also avoids the risk of giving different shades of meaning by writing an individual reply to each correspondent. What is really lacking is a high-level decision over which agency should have responsibility for disposal and what would be an appropriate charge to cover costs.

 

[Grumpybear]

the other definition is a cul de sac down which good ideas can be lured and quietly strangled

 

[rhumlady]

" What is really lacking is a high-level decision over which agency should have responsibility for disposal and what would be an appropriate charge to cover costs. "

How about the manufacturers? Surely they know how to dispose of them and they ship to chandlers somehow.

 

[tangomoon]

Disposal of out-of-date flares is not his responsibilty.

White flares - thermal imaging - etc

They also don't row the lifeboats out there any more.

 

[OldWarthog]

Hey Guys,

It's November the Fifth soon!!

(only joking, before I get tons of indignation)

Keith

 

[Seagreen]

So, as one who's actually had to use flares in anger (16 years ago), I take it that the CG attitude is that, in a nutshell, Flares are an obsolete technology and the CG no longer want to have the hassle of either collecting old ones, or letting their staff use them. Various govt. departments are all trying to shuffle the responsibility for them off to someone else, and no one dept. is taking a lead.

At the same time (and I reference the Captain Calamity thread amongst others), the MCA and SOLAS require that flares are carried as safety equipment.

So, does this mean the MCA/CG are now reliant on solely electronic methods of distress signals? When I used flares for real, it was as a back-up system in case of battery failure. As it was, the VHF was draining power, and in the days before GPS was commonly available to small yachts, the RDF was not working. I was rescued because flares showed the RNLI where I was, and the remaining battery power helped me and them coordinate ourselves.

I'm sure that the MCA and CG, MOD etc., really don't want to face the aggro of having to dispose of all of these redundant flares. That's beside the point. While SOLAS recommends (for leisure sailors) that flares are carried as safety equipment, then the govt. has a duty, both as a result of SOLAS and whatever EU regulations, to carry the responsibility for disposing of them.

Frankly, I find the cost of replacing flares every few years quite irksome, but will do it as I know that in extremis they really help the RNLI to find you on the dark and stormy night. The fact that I intend to spend every dark and stormy night from now on within walking distance of a pub is beside the point.

The MCA/CG management are being unrealistic if they think that flares are outmoded and that electronics will solve everything. Will it take the first preventable deaths and the resulting blame-shuffling to provoke a re-think?

More importantly, will the likely price hike to cover the cost of disposal via the sellers and manufacturers deter people from buying them in meaningful quantities to make manufacturers stop making them, or at least selling them to the public?

 

[michael_w]

Flares don't only help the RNLI. A few years ago I was involved in a rescue near the Nab Tower on a very dark night, a lumpy seaway and a F7 breeze.

The boat in question, her rudder had been forced through the hull and she was foundering. Her crew took to the liferaft. There were VHF communications with HM Coastguard, though the casualty couldn't hear us.

The liferaft was impossible to see against the lights of Portsmouth. I requested that a flare set off. Instantly, the liferaft's position was clear and rescue could be effected.

Another occasion staying ashore near Dublin, I saw a parachute flare go off. My report enabled the Coastguard to triangulate the sighting and advise the lifeboat accordingly.

I'll always have pyrotechnics on board.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Don't think the story is about whether we should have flares aboard, but is about the CG not being allowed to use them for illumination shoreside. Don't know how far they expect a searchlight to carry out to sea, or what area they expect it to illuminate, but it's no alternative to a good flare at 1000 feet.

 

[chanelyacht]

It also ignores the fact that the use of a white flare is recognised as an answering distress call - of great solace to someone who have fired all their flares and does not know whether they are likely to be rescued or not.
Another triumph of Spring Palace diktat over reality out on the coast...