Ouzo & EPIRBs

[cliffb]

Re: Ouzo & EPIRBs

I've a personal EPIRB and I'd like to think that if it's ever activated then the search would commence for the source of the signal. Not the vessel that it's registered to.
Knowing our wonderful SAR guys I'm sure they'd attempt a rescue first and sort out any registration anomalies later.
I'm sure we've all read of tales about SAR going after an EPIRB signal that has been traced to some land-based source. In these circumstances they didn't say to themselves " it's obviously not the registered vessel, so we won't bother". At the end of the day, any EPIRB is better than none.

 

[Guest]

I have been discussing this report with another - his question was ... "How can I be more visible at night to a big ship" ... etc.

I have to say that I read the report in a state of "it's conjecture" and "experts' interpretations of probable factors.

I'm sorry to the family and those affected - but real answers will only come forth IF they ever find the boat.

EPIRB would have been a great help - assuming the "Expert" quoting survival times in the water is correct ...

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Ouzo & EPIRBs

How, unless the CG66 is reverse-searchable? We have (used to have?) a coastguard forum member - wonder if he's around? As you say "anything is better than nothing" but only if it doesn't give you a false sense of security and cause you to rely on it, neglecting a manual or DSC distress call. This is the big problem I see - in genuine distress you'd hit the DSC distress button and the EPIRB at the same time and now the MRCC gets an alert that apparently two vessels are in distress at the same time and place. OK, so you get two helicopters, maybe? /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif I really don't know but it needs to be cleared up before trusting your life to it. Ambiguous distress calls must surely downgrade the service especially if they are having to prioritise in times of heavy load on the service.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Ouzo & EPIRBs

[ QUOTE ]
At the end of the day, any EPIRB is better than none.

[/ QUOTE ]Probably true, but for the sake of a bit of investigation, if you can get it all properly registered then that has to be a good thing?

 

[mel80]

Re: Ouzo & EPIRBs

[ QUOTE ]
Are personal EPIRBS not available for mountaineers etc? If they are it must be possible to register then to an individual rather than a vessel.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they are not (not in this country at least). In other countries (e.g. New Zealand and the US) mountaineers can buy personal locator beacons (PLBs) which are essentially the same as EPIRBs, but transmit a slightly different signal. In the UK you can buy, what are called, PLBs, but these are actually just small, portable EPIRBs, which must be resistered as such and can only be used at sea. It's all a bit confusing!

 

[oldsaltoz]

G'day Tom (Topcat47),

We also sail other peoples boats, deliveries, races and training etc. I always take the personal EPIRB, portable GPS and hand held radio along, each in it's own waterproof bag. I ring the local Coast Guard and advise them of our plans; They record this information but I'm never sure what they do with it, but I do know they pass it on to Coast guards along the planned rout because they have have confirmed receipt of the information when I contact them and confirm our progress.

The personal and fixed EPIRPs and hand held radio are registered to our current Cat. I also carry a hand held compass, first aid kit and book, just to mention a few 'essential' items.

Keep it safe andavagoodweekend......

 

[Anonymous]

It looks as though the vessels were going to be dangerously close then the give way vessel, Bilbao suddenly turns to starboard and the Ouzo, the stand-on vessel, does not seem to take action.

Two key things come to mind from the report.

1. Obviously the Bilbao didn't see the yacht until too late, but why didn't they stop? The lights they saw could have been other vessels or the Ouzo still showing lights after having been wrecked but just afloat.

2. Despite being the stand on vessel, why was the Ouzo continuing on course (red still showing) when so close to a vessel as large as the Bilbao? I would have thought he'd have steered +125 or +180 as they must have seen the Bilbao. I am not suggesting that the (clearly competent and experienced) crew of the Ouzo made a bad call, but it is odd.....

Could it be that the Ouzo believed the last minute helm change of the Bilbao was to give way and they trusted the Bilbao to calculate that this would give safety clearance, when in fact, as we see from the evidence, the change in heading was nothing more than a course change as the Ouzo had not been seen until after the turn had been completed. Imagine the shock and horror to find that the Bilbao takes up a fixed heading and is bearing down on you a few cables away and you can do almost nothing.

 

[StugeronSteve]

Re: Ouzo & EPIRBs

For my trip with a brand new epirb (collected on the same day and registration posted off, but not received by MRCC Falmouth) I thought it best to advise Solent of the ID number etc, whilst passing routine passage information - as is my normal procedure for a x-channel trip. As far as I am aware the passage information is filed as live and disregarded unless concern is raised. My thinking was that Solent would be informed that an unregistered UK epirb had been activated on their patch and they would probably check through live passage information, note that I had an epirb and then, using the CG66 registration number I had given, obtain my emergency contact details, etc.

Not ideal and not really relevant to regular use of an epirb on different boats, but better than an unidentifiable epirb going off without any means of verification.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Ouzo & EPIRBs

[ QUOTE ]
As far as I am aware the passage information is filed as live

[/ QUOTE ]The last time I looked into this (circa 2001/2) these Routine Traffic reports were very haphazard. Our base was Falmouth and we often sailed straight out into Brixham (no, not Brixton as one yachtie announced on the VHF a few years back /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif) MRCC or across to France and at one time I went through a phase of doing it as we do in the air - handing over from one zone to another. It clearly didn't go down well. There seemed to be no flow of information between the CGs and they appeared not to care. Sure, they could always have looked it up hours, days or years later but if you didn't arrive nothing would happen! Pointless other than to confirm an EPIRB or Distress call, perhaps. Maybe they have got it sorted out now, but I haven't heard about it.

 

[fiveflipflops]

Could this be he answer to using other Boats. Not cheap!!!

http://breitling.com/en/models/professional/emergency/

 

[Anonymous]

I don't think so, Dave, as it is only 121.5 which is not very reliable in many parts of the world. Great from homing in SAR but you'd still need to ID yourself (there is no ID string with 121.5).

Amazing piece of kit, tho'! For the man who has everything - except self-confidence /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[kengill]

Apparently Ouzo was first seen at 300m range i.e. 30 seconds from impact at 21kts.

Not a lot that they could have done. Except stop and check after the event.

 

[William_H]

121.5 mhz epird have been around for a long time and are here in oz mandated for carriage on light aircraft and known as a crash locator beacon. (permaently fixed in the tail with a remote activation switch and a G switch for auto activation)
I have been told that over recent years the false alarms have been as high as 4 out of 5 signals received. The authorities must be a little reluctant at that rate to turn out full resources. Especially as the usual way to track a signal is from the air.
The big advantage of registration is that I would imagine you have to give a variety of contact phone numbers of either family firends or even coast guard either via the beacon registration or the associated ship registration. If the search authorities can contact someone who can confirm that your boat (or you away from your boat ) may be in a distress situation then there is reason for confidence in committing resources.

406mhz beacons will probably still be occasioanlly activated by accident or maliciousness but still a false alarm so it is hoped the registration process will enable the authorities to confirm a distress or at worst be able to take to task perpetrator of any false alarm.

just a few thoughts which may not be totally applicable in UK however.... olewilll

 

[Stork_III]

Listened to a Coastguard coordinated rescue search on the VHF on Monday 9 April, off East Coast 20Nm east of Harwich. EPIRB 121.5 signal picked up by satelite pass, Harwich AWLB, Dutch Military Helicopter off Navy vessel in the area, and RAF Resue 125 Seaking all deployed in expanding square search on noted position, awaiting next Satelite pass (approx hourly) for position confirmation.

Turned out to be a signal from light aircraft flying west from Holland and well inland by the time next pass over, inadvertant activation.

Rescue service didn't seem to care what the EPIRB was registered to, but got on with search till find something or confirm false.

 

[William_H]

High Stork a 121.5 beacon of course is not registered to anyone. It is good that all the effort was put into what turned out to be a false alarm. I was not really suggesting that they would not turn out for a distress beacon received however you can't help but feel that effort might be diluted by so many false alarms and subsequent cost.
It think the registration of 406 meg beacons and the possibility of finding out something about the beacon owner in the early stages of a search might give more confidence to the worth of the search. olewill

 

[Guest]

To be honest - because the report is based on "supposed" and circumstantial evidence ... who can say anything really.

Calculation of probable positions / possible scenarios all leading to this report.

TRhe report itself makes it plain at start and end - that it is not hard Fact and is not evidence for Judicial proceedings ... therefore to try and use it for discussions about Ouzo not altering course etc. etc. is not possible IMHO ...

 

[Anonymous]

[ QUOTE ]
To be honest - because the report is based on "supposed" and circumstantial evidence ... who can say anything really.

[/ QUOTE ]The second officer is presently on trial for manslaughter, based on this report.

 

[Guest]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To be honest - because the report is based on "supposed" and circumstantial evidence ... who can say anything really.

[/ QUOTE ]The second officer is presently on trial for manslaughter, based on this report.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am aware of that .... but you have obviously read the report as well ...

I would hazard a guess that there are other factors we are not aware of that have added to bring the guy to court. The report itself says that it is not to used Judicially ...

 

[Anonymous]

[ QUOTE ]
I am aware of that .... but you have obviously read the report as well ...

I would hazard a guess that there are other factors we are not aware of that have added to bring the guy to court. The report itself says that it is not to used Judicially ...

[/ QUOTE ]Yes, I have read and re-read the report very carefully but I don't recall it saying that it is not to be used judicially. Do you have the reference to hand? - I can't readily search the report as I don't know which words to search for.

 

[Bajansailor]

I think this is the bit that Nigel was referring to - it is on page 2 of the intro :

"This report is not written with litigation in mind and, pursuant to Regulation 13(9) of the Merchant Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 2005, shall be inadmissible in any judicial proceedings whose purpose, or one of whose purposes is to attribute or apportion liability or blame".