DSC or Voice calls to HM Coastguard?

[l'escargot]

It seems pretty obvious that this is the case.

But not as stupid as someone who quotes another post supporting my view whilst trying to argue against it though...

 

[l'escargot]

An O/D incident is normally triggered by a call to CG - worried relative, trailer and car found on a slipway, missed berthing arrival when departure was known, etc. To be made as a broadcast the first steps - telephone contacts, shore contacts, etc would have been done.

Having a passage plan would tell us where to start the search, the likely course of the boat, which bx aerials stand the best first chance, etc. It also enables us to construct a backtrack search pattern.

Of course, if you're l'escargot, all of this is rubbish and I don't know what I'm talking about.

But you do have a history of not knowing what you are talking about on a wide range of subjects don't you. How long since you worked as a coastguard?

 

[maby]

But you do have a history of not knowing what you are talking about on a wide range of subjects don't you. How long since you worked as a coastguard?

My CG66 documentation pack which was issued by the Coast Guard just over a year ago recognised the value of logging a passage plan under the appropriate circumstances.

 

[chanelyacht]

But you do have a history of not knowing what you are talking about on a wide range of subjects don't you. How long since you worked as a coastguard?

You really are an offensive little oik aren't you?

I left last year - and still have involvement in what's going on currently.

Remind me how many SAR incidents you've coordinated?

 

[l'escargot]

You really are an offensive little oik aren't you?

I left last year - and still have involvement in what's going on currently.

Remind me how many SAR incidents you've coordinated?

None but then I'm not claiming any expertise - unlike you... If you don'like being on the receiving end, best not to set out to be offensive yourself.

Your argument started to fall apart when you had to agree that it wasn't policy to implement searches based on passage plans, which was the original discussion before you meandered off in other directions.

 

[l'escargot]

My CG66 documentation pack which was issued by the Coast Guard just over a year ago recognised the value of logging a passage plan under the appropriate circumstances.

That's fine, but there is the little rider on the end. We're getting back to the confused mother waiting for her son to come home for tea though aren't we?

It would be far better for some person to ring up causing the CG to initiate a search with an updated passage plan rather than having an out of date passage plan lodged at the start of the trip which will be studiously ignored by the CG unless they get an overdue report from someone.

 

[maby]

None but then I'm not claiming any expertise - unlike you... If you don'like being on the receiving end, best not to set out to be offensive yourself.

Your argument started to fall apart when you had to agree that it wasn't policy to implement searches based on passage plans, which was the original discussion before you meandered off in other directions.

Hang on a mo - it was you that first raised the subject of filing passage plans - the original discussion was on whether one should call the CG by voice or DSC. I've just skim read the thread and can see no suggestion that the CG would ever initiate a search on the grounds of a passage plan that has not been matched with a call confirming arrival. We all recognise that filing passage plans is optional and will not automatically result in a search being launched. Various sources either in the CG, or associated with it have confirmed that they are willing to accept plans and that they can be useful in the event of an emergency.

 

[chanelyacht]

Your argument started to fall apart when you had to agree that it wasn't policy to implement searches based on passage plans,

I'd never said it was, that was your implication. You said they were a waste of time - I merely pointed out, from a lot of experience, that they are not a waste of time. That's the bit you can't accept.

My "argument" (in fact was a statement of what actually happens) is that the passage plan is not designed to trigger an overdue search, but to reduce the time and elements involved should one be needed. That remains the case, it is how the system works.

If you don't want to file one, fine - I couldn't care less. But there are people that do not have reliable shore contacts, or like the security of filing a plan, or who simply wish to do so - and it is wrong to say that they are wasting their time.

 

[Blue Sunray]

You really are an offensive little oik aren't you?

I left last year - and still have involvement in what's going on currently.

Remind me how many SAR incidents you've coordinated?

:encouragement:

 

[l'escargot]

...the passage plan is not designed to trigger an overdue search...

And in that respect is a waste of time...

...If you don't want to file one, fine - I couldn't care less. But there are people that do not have reliable shore contacts, or like the security of filing a plan, or who simply wish to do so - and it is wrong to say that they are wasting their time.

And I'll continue to disagree - a passage plan that won't be looked at offers no security and still looks like a waste of time to me. It is only as good as the shore contact, an unreliable one is a waste of time too, a reliable one will have an updated plan and actually cause a search to be initiated - a far better outcome. Perhaps I'll stick my own rider on for the hard of understanding - they are a waste of time without a reliable shore contact. How's that?

 

[southseaian]

And in that respect is a waste of time...


And I'll continue to disagree - a passage plan that won't be looked at offers no security and still looks like a waste of time to me. It is only as good as the shore contact, an unreliable one is a waste of time too, a reliable one will have an updated plan and actually cause a search to be initiated - a far better outcome.

I think this person is arguing about something he/she does not understand.
Rather than reading the posts and learning he tends to get offensive with others.
Watch his response, I'll be the next to be called ignorant or lacking knowledge.

It's quite simple. If a passage plan has been left ashore, either with HM Coastguard or a responsible person then any search following a report that a boat is overdue has a head start.
In the same way as a description of the boat, crew, range equipment etc will help..
No one has ever suggested that following a leaving a passage plan with the CG and then not reporting in would result in a search.
I'm also a retired CG Officer and I can assure you that when looking for a 'missing' boat having an idea of which way it went is a tremendous help.

 

[maby]

I think this person is arguing about something he/she does not understand.
Rather than reading the posts and learning he tends to get offensive with others.
Watch his response, I'll be the next to be called ignorant or lacking knowledge.

....

That is his standard approach on many topics - he seems to feel threatened and victimised much of the time.

 

[l'escargot]

I think this person is arguing about something he/she does not understand.
Rather than reading the posts and learning he tends to get offensive with others.
Watch his response, I'll be the next to be called ignorant or lacking knowledge.

It's quite simple. If a passage plan has been left ashore, either with HM Coastguard or a responsible person then any search following a report that a boat is overdue has a head start.
In the same way as a description of the boat, crew, range equipment etc will help..
No one has ever suggested that following a leaving a passage plan with the CG and then not reporting in would result in a search.
I'm also a retired CG Officer and I can assure you that when looking for a 'missing' boat having an idea of which way it went is a tremendous help.

My only response is that you clearly haven't read or don't understand my early posts on this thread. Your response is based on what others have said and you even drop in your own little straw man. I notice you also creep in the little "or responsible person' rider - if you do actually bother to read what I have said instead of trying to use your post as a platform to demonstrate your "expertise", you will see that is what I've actually said right from the start. You can't get away from the fact that the CG won't even look at a passage plan unless someone else tells them to...

 

[l'escargot]

That is his standard approach on many topics - he seems to feel threatened and victimised much of the time.

I certainly don't feel threatened or victimised but I see a few people who feel their perceived "expertise" threatened because my viewpoint is different from theirs...

 

[Mikehp0]

I had a RIB and then a speed boat for 6 years but that's just playing. I bought a grown up boat to do longer trips. I like to do things properly for the safety of family and friends so I took a Yachtmaster course last year. I was taught to always log a passage plan with MCA. I did Poole to Fowey in less than perfect conditions in July. I submitted a passage plan for that (called on 16, got sent to 67), CG said he was very grateful, "have a safe trip" etc. When I got to Fowey, I called Falmouth CG on 16, nothing heard so called them on the phone as soon as I got service - 5 mins after the specified arrival time. Duty CG said he was very pleased to hear from me, adding that VHF is rubbish in Fowey due to aerial planning permission problems. I guess because I was on a phone not VHF he felt able to chat for a few seconds. "I wish everyone would contact us as diligently when they arrive", he said then added "In your case, we saw you arrive via your AIS plots so we weren't worried". That gave me great confidence. So, I believe someone is looking after me. Don't shatter my illusions, chaps (and get out of my thread if you want to fight each other!)

 

[southseaian]

You can't get away from the fact that the CG won't even look at a passage plan unless someone else tells them to...

I'm certainly not suggesting HM look at passage plan in normal routine. They are kept on file (also recorded) and referred such they be needed.
What you must try to understand is the value to the CG of having a passage plan when a boats is 'overdue'.
Both I and the other person who has worked with overdue boats has pointed this out to you.
Filing passage plans either with a responsible person or HMCG is clearly not a waste of time.

 

[l'escargot]

..."I wish everyone would contact us as diligently when they arrive", he said...

And that is probably why we are where we are today with passage planning and CG's - for too long people haven't bothered to follow through the process and now only lip service is paid to it.

 

[l'escargot]

I'm certainly not suggesting HM look at passage plan in normal routine. They are kept on file (also recorded) and referred such they be needed.
What you must try to understand is the value to the CG of having a passage plan when a boats is 'overdue'.
Both I and the other person who has worked with overdue boats has pointed this out to you.
Filing passage plans either with a responsible person or HMCG is clearly not a waste of time.

Again, you have not bothered to read my posts before responding. What would you rather have, an updated passage plan given to you by the person reporting the overdue boat or an outdated one given to you at the commencement of the voyage? What you must try to understand is the former is of more value and will initiate a search and the latter is going to waste your time...

 

[chanelyacht]

Again, you have not bothered to read my posts before responding. What would you rather have, an updated passage plan given to you by the person reporting the overdue boat or an outdated one given to you at the commencement of the voyage? What you must try to understand is the former is of more value and will initiate a search and the latter is going to waste your time...

Right, for the last time -

Not everyone has such a shore contact. Some people are single, sail on their own, don't carry a mobile phone / VHF to update changes, etc. We are after all dealing with the real world.

Let me give you an incident narrative (a real one) to illustrate. A regular of ours on my old patch sailed, single handed, a trailer sailer, from one of two or three regular points of departure. He always filed a plan. About 1930 one night we had a call from the local pub, his car was still by the slipway and they new he rarely sailed in the dark. Quick check of passage plans from that port that day found his, ETR was 1600. We did a local broadcast for info from other vessels, ran a backtrack SARIS plot from hourly intervals as we knew where his lunch destination was planned (from his plan), and tasked the local LB to run back along the line. They did that, found him halfway with a broken mast.

Now think of a similar situation where all we have is a car on a slipway, no known plan, no ETR, nada. Makes finding the o/due a bit harder, yes?

If you are in contact with shore contacts to update your plan, your way of thinking works. No problem with that. But it doesn't work for everyone, so therefore it's not a waste of time for those in that position.

You're a former PO I believe. I wouldn't question your experience of how prisons run or what your processes were and the values they have in doing them - please don't question others' experience in their professional fields when they tell you how their systems work.

 

[l'escargot]

Right, for the last time -

Not everyone has such a shore contact. Some people are single, sail on their own, don't carry a mobile phone / VHF to update changes, etc. We are after all dealing with the real world.

Let me give you an incident narrative (a real one) to illustrate. A regular of ours on my old patch sailed, single handed, a trailer sailer, from one of two or three regular points of departure. He always filed a plan. About 1930 one night we had a call from the local pub, his car was still by the slipway and they new he rarely sailed in the dark. Quick check of passage plans from that port that day found his, ETR was 1600. We did a local broadcast for info from other vessels, ran a backtrack SARIS plot from hourly intervals as we knew where his lunch destination was planned (from his plan), and tasked the local LB to run back along the line. They did that, found him halfway with a broken mast.

Now think of a similar situation where all we have is a car on a slipway, no known plan, no ETR, nada. Makes finding the o/due a bit harder, yes?

If you are in contact with shore contacts to update your plan, your way of thinking works. No problem with that. But it doesn't work for everyone, so therefore it's not a waste of time for those in that position.

You're a former PO I believe. I wouldn't question your experience of how prisons run or what your processes were and the values they have in doing them - please don't question others' experience in their professional fields when they tell you how their systems work.

You're very welcome to question anything I say on prisons, I'll be the first to say my knowledge isn't current and probably out of date, I know things change. If you can give sound arguments why the systems don't work though I'll probably agree with you - in fact I probably would be one jump ahead of you and be leading the argument. Sorry if you don't like to have your opinions questioned but that's life, I would have thought you have been around forums long enough to know that.

Your rather long post is just an exceptional situation to argue against a generalisation - your one example doesn't change the value of thousands or even tens of thousands of other worthless passage plans that were never looked at again after being written down one iota.

Just one more time - and you have already agreed with this statement - without someone raising the alarm, the passage plan is a total waste of time, which was my original point and would have been the case in your example too.

Try reading posts in context and entirety instead of just picking out one phrase you want to argue against - it makes you more credible and probably helps your blood pressure in the bargain.