Coastguard conundrum

bilbobaggins

bilbobaggins

N/A
Joined
12 Feb 2005
Messages
9,993
Location
Grey Havens Marina - Elves pontoon
Visit site
One of my spies in Her Majesty's CoastGuard has told me of a couple of Southampton HeadShed decisions that seem to defy all understanding. He then went on to explain that the decisions were taken essentially on Health and Safety grounds. It would seem he was certainly right, in that the decisions were taken, but that one of them has been shelved 'until later', when someone else can be found to take the blame......

They're detailed below, and I am assured that certain MCGA officers and employees in that Great Faceless Building in Southampton will look in here to gauge public reaction, and so that they can say they've done some 'Public Consultation' without having to face the wrath of the great hordes of unwashed. I'll put an email address at the bottom, for those who believe in bearding the lion in his den


WouldYouBelieveItNumberOne: The MCGA, from the depths of their wisdom, have withdrawn all 11,000 Illuminant Flares from Coastguard Rescue Teams' offices, vehicles and lockers right around the country. "On Health and Safety grounds...", said a spokesman. "No, there was nothing wrong with them. But things move on. An internal consultation decided that we just couldn't justify them."

When asked about alternatives, the same spokesman muttered about "torches, vehicle headlights, helicopters....." At something in excess of £8000 per hour of operation, that makes the leased Agusta-Bell and Sikorsky choppers almost the most expensive way of 'shining a light' imaginable. There are no plans, apparently........

WouldYouBelieveItNumberTwo : The present arrangements for the safe disposal of out-of-date flares are about to expire, as of 31 December 08. Despite much to-ing and fro-ing this summer between a dozen Departments of State to cobble together a semblance of agreement on 'what next', apparently nothing at all has been agreed. So no-one quite knows what'll happen next Spring when lots of yotties toddle along to their local Coastguard Centre/police station/EOD TA barracks clutching their crumbling, 20-year old handhelds and red rockets. It also appears that no-one wants this info to leak out before Bonfire Night, for reasons that no-one is willing to explain.....


For some reason the words 'piss-up' and 'brewery' come to mind. And if you have a view or an idea you'd like to express, I am assured that the very politically-correct Chief Executive Peter Cardy ( I nearly wrote 'Julian Clary'.... ) would be most pleased to hear from you.

Email to: peter.cardy@mcga.gov.uk

/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif <span style="color:blue"> </span>
 
Bilbo - at last something we can agree on.

It's madness isn't it.

They've got to do something about the disposal of flares.

I reckon that in the end they will put it back to the manufacturers, who will expect a fee for disposing of them safely. Actually, that's a quite a difficult and expensive process to meet environmental legislation.

As a sea survival instructor can I just reaffirm there is a good reason not to use flares on bonfire night - unlike fireworks parachute rocket flares may not extinguish before landing. Nothing will stop them from burning - not water that's for sure.

So if you want to catch your local neighbourhood alight then using Out of date flares is a good way to go about it.

Using long out of date handflares also has it dangers but nuff said on that.

Shorn
 
I once saw a yacht fire a paralume to light up the entrance to Porlock Weir.

Probably seemed a good idea at the time except that the weir is surrounded by cottages .Some with thatched roofs. /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Luckilly it landed somewhere safe. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Bilbo - you think the MCA operates to provide a service to you and me whilst in reality its like any other civil service dept (and lots of big companies) in operating to the best interests of the employees in general and the managers in particular. In the case of the MCA there are no prizes for taking risks, but there are prizes for following whatever is the fashion in the organisation at any one time. So they protect the public purse from rapacious no win no fee lawyers by avoiding any risks under the HS&E headline.

If I were a career MCA manager I would do exactly the same.
 
Maybe I'm being incredibly naive and/or stupid here, but aren't flares not only for distress alerts but also for SAFETY?

I agree that on health grounds they might be a bit noxious (so don't try sniffing them), but????

Is the elf so far up it's own backside now we can see it waving?

Simon
 
If I cannot get rid of them when they are out of date, then I will not carry them.
Is it therefore reasonable to stop carrying flares and rely on torches too?
But my crew might sue me if I do not have flares or if they use a flare or similar device and injure themselves - I might sue them if they drop hot phosphorous over my boat.
The insurers will say that I am ill equipped?

Oh gosh, life used to be so much simpler. Or am I getting old?
 
As a serving CG foot-soldier, can I add to this thread.
Bilbo is exactly right in what he reports.
Up to now we have used white paraflares for night searches. Maybe not that often, but you'd understand if I said that a white para is brilliant at iluminating a big area of, say, marshland, where we might be searching for, say, a lost child. As we have actually done.
But suddenly we cannot.
The flares are being removed by local managers and (deep breath) they have been instructed to fire them all off to dispose of them.
Why all this should be, I don't know. Because nobody at MCA HQ has told us, nor did they consult any CGs first, so far as we know.
There is, however, something else new. It's .....
WouldYouBelieveItNumber3
Before any servant of the CG drives a CG vehicle, he or she must first fill out a Risk Assessment form. And yes, you're right, that includes driving to an emergency.
Do please ask Mr.Cardy what's going on. We don't know.
 
Mr Cardy is a Post Room Manager or is surrounded by them /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
HMRC went the same way sometime ago- don't go out of the offide without a Risk Assessment, blah, blah. Then they wondered why the Compliance yield went through the floor, and all sorts of villains did basically what they wanted with small ie zero, chance of catch up.

Once the Risk Averse, CV polishers get in, thats yer lot.
We used to watch them wet themselves when us old codgers talked about working the East End Railway arches, lockups and scrapyards pre mobile phones, pre vhfs, just a diary and Notebook /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Before any servant of the CG drives a CG vehicle, he or she must first fill out a Risk Assessment form. And yes, you're right, that includes driving to an emergency.
Do please ask Mr.Cardy what's going on. We don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]


The risk assessment is because of the new corporate manslaughter laws. Police have been instructed to go after employers if their staff have accidents. Basically if you kill someone on the way to an emergency they want to get someone in the dock.

We run a small fleet and we have to tell our drivers not to break the driving laws. We have to show we have done it, if we don't then we have had it if an accident happens.

You could do a generic risk assessment and just review every year. ROSPA have a load of crap on this to help cover arses. Its a pain for us, a pain for our staff and in your case probably lessening the chances of being saved if someone needs you urgently.

I am all for safety for my team, they don't have to meet time deadlines, they can stay overnight if tired, no pressure. We put triangles, first aid kits, extinguishers and yellow jackets in the cars ten years ago, without having to be told to do it. But that's not good enough.

What gets me is the people making these rules probably drive less than 12k-15k miles per annum. With some of the things they bring in, they are clearly not competent to be making such decisions. My view is, unless you drive over say 20k or 25k miles per annum then you are not suitably qualified and experienced to decide what is dangerous on the road.
 
[ QUOTE ]
At something in excess of £8000 per hour of operation, that makes the leased Agusta-Bell and Sikorsky choppers almost the most expensive way of 'shining a light' imaginable. There are no plans, apparently........

[/ QUOTE ]

Haven't the Portland Agustas been gromded because they are not equipped to fly after dark?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I'm being incredibly naive and/or stupid here, but aren't flares not only for distress alerts but also for SAFETY?

Simon

[/ QUOTE ]

Got to differentiate between the safety of the MCA staff (employers liability etc) and the rather less important safety of the oiks being rescued. The rescued OIK isnt likely to sue the MCA (and the one that isnt recued wont be around to sue) but the employees are.

There is a clear public sector problem here - you see it regularly with the coroners reports on deaths in Iraq and the resulting claims, or the sex and race discrimination claims in the police or the claims against the NHS. Lawyers know that claims against the public sector will always be paid and are unlikely to be fought with the force that might be the case in the private sector for a whole variety of reasons . Bring back the days of crown immunity - killed off by the EU.
 
Ah, yes. A very good point. But what would professional 'bean-stealers' know about night helicopter operations?

The argument might well run "As we now have no Illuminant Flares to light up a scene and help find casualties, there's no need for rescue helicopters to fly at night. Casualties can wait till morning, can't they? They're not going anywhere, are they......?"

/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
Bilbo,

What you highlighted in your last few posts isn't the tip of the iceberg - it's the very slight frosting on top of the tip of the iceberg.

The whole creation of the MCA has been one unmitigated disaster - the diversion of resources away from its core function (search and rescue) and the creation of meaningless, paper pushing admin tasks and ever expanding reasons to be for the dolts who inhabit Spring Palace and the marine offices, many of whom wouldn't know the pointy bit of a ship from the blunt end.
I could detail local areas with NO CG patrol cover because the fuel budget won't stretch to routine stuff, the ever constant lowering of experience in the ops rooms (yes, there isn't a crecruitment problem...but one hell of a retention problem), the joke southern helos who's fuses all blow when the nightsun is turned on and then won't restart, etc etc.
The previous Chief CG fought his best to turn this tide of shite, having started in the service as a watch officer and knowing the needs, but this has long since disappeared in the rise of the mediocre and politically ambitious that the MCA now comprises.
All this is huge insult to the 000s of CG rescue personnel around the coast, the dedicated sector managers (there are some left) and those who know and love the service for what it SHOULD and could once again be.
There is an answer, but it's not one that will happen under this government or this regime.
 
Once upon a time, we had a few good investigative journalists around who'd take this lead-of-a-story and run with it. Not any more; "it's more than their job's worth".

There's a malaise in this country, a serious ill-health. It's not what I worked for. It's not what I want, and I imagine it's not what most on here want. The useful and public-spirited are being shown the door by those whose only aim is to climb up the greasy pole by trampling on those others mentioned.

But how to change it? /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
 
But how to change it?

That's just the problem. I have worked for a local authority for the past 4 years. I have seen the 'idiocy' and incompetence at all levels, Local, Regional (GLA, LDA etc in London) and Central Government. Local and national politicians who have the jobs for the social activities and attendance allowances. There are few who are genuinely there for the good of the country and its people.

How to change it? Unfortunately the only way to change things is to become involved yourself - but then you are on the 'inside' and there are the social activities and attendance allowances .......!!!

We need more politically independent people involved. People with real world experience and a want to get things changed for the better. (But who defines better?) To get change people need to become politically active and get their ideas on to the radar, not the self effacing people that are involved at present.

One of my personal rants is about politicians. People go to university and do 'political studies'. They then become 'researcher' at parliament. If your face fits you are put up for a parliamentary seat and you become an MP. Real world experience for the job - NONE. And we vote for them!

There, that's that off my chest for a Sunday morning!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

Barton Seagoon
Containers fallen into the Solent
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
wonkywinch
wonkywinch
S
EU citizen traveling with "durable partner"
Replies
18
Views
779
AntarcticPilot
AntarcticPilot

Share this page

Top