Registration of EPIRB

[TwoHooter]

I applied to register our boat's EPIRB with the UK Distress & Security Beacon Registry (part of the MCGA) in November. I had to fill in a paper form. I got an acknowledgement saying they were very busy and would need 12 weeks. I've heard nothing since then and 15 weeks have gone by.

Today I was online at OFCOM getting an ATIS number and noticed I could register the EPIRB at the same time, so I did that and it went through in less than 10 minutes. I must say the OFCOM IT people do seem to be very on the ball these days, well done them. But I am now wondering whether I should just ignore the Coastguard or whether I should pursue the registration of the EPIRB there in addition to OFCOM. Surely the two government agencies share the same system for identifying an EPIRB when it squawks? Don't they?

 

[Tranona]

No.

Your experience with Falmouth is quite normal although you are unlikely to hear anything more for several months, not weeks when you will get a meaningless bit of paper confirming what you already know.

Your EPIRB is live and you would get response if you activated it, so don't worry!

 

[Little Dorrit]

I applied to register our boat's EPIRB with the UK Distress & Security Beacon Registry (part of the MCGA) in November. I had to fill in a paper form. I got an acknowledgement saying they were very busy and would need 12 weeks. I've heard nothing since then and 15 weeks have gone by.

Today I was online at OFCOM getting an ATIS number and noticed I could register the EPIRB at the same time, so I did that and it went through in less than 10 minutes. I must say the OFCOM IT people do seem to be very on the ball these days, well done them. But I am now wondering whether I should just ignore the Coastguard or whether I should pursue the registration of the EPIRB there in addition to OFCOM. Surely the two government agencies share the same system for identifying an EPIRB when it squawks? Don't they?

I originally sent my paperwork off at the beginning of August and just last week (f6 Months later) I received confirmation. I did however contact them in October and they told me not to worry as any distress call would be responded to so I was not too worried. I also registered it on the OFCOM site too...I suspect everything will be streamlined eventually meantime perhaps we should not complain too much as overall the service offered by OFCOM and MCGA are excellent.

 

[TwoHooter]

Thanks to both. Clearly I should cross this pointless job off my list.

 

[matthewriches]

They are a useless organisation body. As bad as when we had to deal with the crown prosecution service in my old job.

Glad everything is ok. I am programming all of your equipment in the morning.

 

[PaulRainbow]

Surely the two government agencies share the same system for identifying an EPIRB when it squawks? Don't they?

You could be forgiven for thinking so, but you'd be wrong.

The Ofcom site is for getting your license to use the EPIRB, or other equipment.

The registry is for registering your details so they know who/what they are dealing with when the thing gets activated (hopefully never).

You did need to do both things :encouragement:

 

[TwoHooter]

You could be forgiven for thinking so, but you'd be wrong. The Ofcom site is for getting your license to use the EPIRB, or other equipment. The registry is for registering your details so they know who/what they are dealing with when the thing gets activated (hopefully never). You did need to do both things :encouragement:

Well that is just cock-eyed. Stupid. Antedeluvian. Two government agencies collecting the same information and not sharing it. For an EPIRB to be registered at HMCG you have to provide the following information:

• Personal data
• Type of vessel
• Maximum number of persons carried
• MMSI
• Callsign
• Details of radio equipment
• EPIRB manufacturer
• Beacon type
• Beacon serial number
• Hex ID

Guess what.... to register it at OFCOM you have to supply pretty much identical information. I would guess that the database field definitions and data types are 90% identical, the only one I noticed as being significantly different is the vessel type field where OFCOM uses the IMO classifications and HMCG doesn't.
There is no technical reason why the data couldn't be collected by one agency and patched through to the other electronically at nil cost to anyone. Judging by the high level of competence I have been happy to experience from OFCOM today I'd say their guys could do the job in a few working days.
If it was just a nuisance I'd keep my trap shut but this is safety-critical. HMCG clearly cannot cope with the number of registrations they are being asked to perform and their systems are not fit for purpose - users are filling in paper forms and scanning them or posting them and then the data is being input by their people and paper acknowledgements are being sent out. It all takes time and it means that if an EPIRB is triggered before it is registered and HMCG is (God help us) the agency responsible for co-ordinating a response they don't have the full information at their fingertips. So.... not trivial.

 

[TwoHooter]

They are a useless organisation body. As bad as when we had to deal with the crown prosecution service in my old job.

Glad everything is ok. I am programming all of your equipment in the morning.

Matt - please see your email

 

[Railbob]

I applied to register our boat's EPIRB with the UK Distress & Security Beacon Registry (part of the MCGA) in November. I had to fill in a paper form. I got an acknowledgement saying they were very busy and would need 12 weeks. I've heard nothing since then and 15 weeks have gone by.

Today I was online at OFCOM getting an ATIS number and noticed I could register the EPIRB at the same time, so I did that and it went through in less than 10 minutes. I must say the OFCOM IT people do seem to be very on the ball these days, well done them. But I am now wondering whether I should just ignore the Coastguard or whether I should pursue the registration of the EPIRB there in addition to OFCOM. Surely the two government agencies share the same system for identifying an EPIRB when it squawks? Don't they?

Just had written confirmation from MCA for my EPIRB last week, not bad you say, well I applied in January 2017 , so just over a year :ambivalence:

 

[MoodySabre]

A positive for the Beacon Registry. My PLB needed reconfirming and they had written to my old address and the letter returned in the post. They rang my mobile and they took the updated info and sent me confirmation a couple of weeks later. Now I didn’t know that I gad to reconfirm the details so they get a thumbs up from me.

 

[TwoHooter]

A positive for the Beacon Registry. My PLB needed reconfirming and they had written to my old address and the letter returned in the post. They rang my mobile and they took the updated info and sent me confirmation a couple of weeks later. Now I didn’t know that I gad to reconfirm the details so they get a thumbs up from me.

I'm not criticising the agency as a whole. I am criticising the duplication of data collection (two government agencies collecting the same data and not sharing it) and HMCG's inadequate system which cannot produce timely results. It's good that they took care to contact you - well done them - but I don't think that makes the current system of registering EPIRBs fit for purpose.

 

[Tranona]

I'm not criticising the agency as a whole. I am criticising the duplication of data collection (two government agencies collecting the same data and not sharing it) and HMCG's inadequate system which cannot produce timely results. It's good that they took care to contact you - well done them - but I don't think that makes the current system of registering EPIRBs fit for purpose.

They are not strictly speaking both government agencies. Ofcom has no remit for beacons which are managed under a different international setup. Falmouth is the contact for the satellite network and nothing to do with the radio system.

So, when your beacon is activated Falmouth notifies the appropriate coastguard nearest to the source of the signal.

Can't see any operational reason why the two (VHF and satellite) should be managed by the same agency, but no doubt other who know more about it will correct me if I am wrong.

 

[TwoHooter]

So, when your beacon is activated Falmouth notifies the appropriate coastguard nearest to the source of the signal. Can't see any operational reason why the two (VHF and satellite) should be managed by the same agency, but no doubt other who know more about it will correct me if I am wrong.

I am not suggesting that beacons and radios should be managed by the same agency. I am suggesting that since OFCOM is able to collect EPIRB data efficiently they could send it through to HMCG who, the evidence suggests, are not collecting it efficiently. And from a safety point of view, if all HMCG have on their screens is an EPIRB signal which is coming from an unregistered beacon they will know where it is but they won't have a clue what sort of vessel the EPIRB belongs to and the choppers and the lifeboats won't know whether they are looking for a yacht or a motorboat or a fishing vessel or a support vessel or whatever.
I think we are very fortunate to have kit like EPIRBs available to us. I just wish that HMCG weren't taking up to a year to register them, and I'm suggesting a way of speeding things up. That's all.

 

[Tranona]

I am not suggesting that beacons and radios should be managed by the same agency. I am suggesting that since OFCOM is able to collect EPIRB data efficiently they could send it through to HMCG who, the evidence suggests, are not collecting it efficiently. And from a safety point of view, if all HMCG have on their screens is an EPIRB signal which is coming from an unregistered beacon they will know where it is but they won't have a clue what sort of vessel the EPIRB belongs to and the choppers and the lifeboats won't know whether they are looking for a yacht or a motorboat or a fishing vessel or a support vessel or whatever.
I think we are very fortunate to have kit like EPIRBs available to us. I just wish that HMCG weren't taking up to a year to register them, and I'm suggesting a way of speeding things up. That's all.

You are missing the point. Your EPIRB is registered immediately your form is received. The form has all the information on it and this is registered against your beacon. There is no delay and you receive an email confirming this.

It is a piece of paper repeating this that takes months to get to you, but it serves no useful purpose other than another piece of paper to put in your files.

It is not a happy state of affairs but it makes no difference to safety.

 

[dunedin]

Just had written confirmation from MCA for my EPIRB last week, not bad you say, well I applied in January 2017 , so just over a year :ambivalence:

Me too - one year, one month and one day after my initially registering it online.

And as far as I can see zero value add over the information I had entered online in the first place. A hugely inefficient non-process

 

[Gwylan]

Only 13 weeks? Count yourself lucky.

We had a similar, but worse experience. We had made an electronic change to our boat details in March. Been away all summer cruising [May - September] and the registration turned up just before I got back on 27th September.

Hopefully the response to the PLB was not restricted by the glacial pace of the application process

 

[FulmarJeddo]

Well that is just cock-eyed. Stupid. Antedeluvian. Two government agencies collecting the same information and not sharing it. For an EPIRB to be registered at HMCG you have to provide the following information:

• Personal data
• Type o

• 
  
  What you are missing is two statements you used "Two government agencies" and "
• Personal data." It is illegal for one agency to share your Personal data with another without your explicit permission. So their systems would have to be modified to ask you for that permission and store the fact you have given permission.
  
  From what I heard there are two ladies in Falmouth that have to manually enter all the data in addition to other duties. When I registered my PLB there was some query with it. I can't remember what, but I had a call from them and then exchange of emails to sort it all out. All done very efficiently and friendly.

 

[TwoHooter]

What you are missing is two statements you used "Two government agencies" and "[*]Personal data." It is illegal for one agency to share your Personal data with another without your explicit permission. So their systems would have to be modified to ask you for that permission and store the fact you have given permission.

I'm not missing anything because I am familiar with both the current DP law and the GDPR which comes into effect in May:- https://ico.org.uk/media/1624219/preparing-for-the-gdpr-12-steps.pdf and https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/resources-and-support/data-protection-self-assessment/getting-ready-for-the-gdpr/. I have a compliance supervisory role in a business. I think you are setting up a straw man, for two reasons. First, the data relating to an EPIRB is not personal data because by definition an EPIRB is related to a vessel, not a person. The personal data relates only to the individual who registers the EPIRB. Second, it would be trivial to create a compliant system under which users enter the personal element of their data (essentially their name and address) once for two agencies to use.

From what I heard there are two ladies in Falmouth that have to manually enter all the data in addition to other duties. When I registered my PLB there was some query with it. I can't remember what, but I had a call from them and then exchange of emails to sort it all out. All done very efficiently and friendly.

Well that's charming, and heart-warming, and I'm sure the ladies are doing the best they can, but if your description of the process is accurate their manager has landed them with a system which is inefficient for both users and HMCG. Users are entering data twice, once electronically for OFCOM which supplies a certificate electronically within a very short time, and again for Falmouth on paper. The two ladies are then employed to enter the data manually (ladyually? ) and confirm they have done so - a job which OFCOM does electronically.

And back to why it matters:

You are missing the point. Your EPIRB is registered immediately your form is received.

Is that really correct? The email I got from Falmouth said: 'Your application to register or amend details of your 406 MHz beacon has been received by the Beacon Registry and it will be actioned as soon as possible. Due to unprecedented demand for registration we will take twelve weeks or longer to register your beacon. I would like to assure you that even if an emergency beacon is not registered it will still transmit an alert, if activated, to the Search & Rescue authorities and action will be taken.' It doesn't sound to me as though the details of my vessel are recorded against the EPIRB until they enter the data on the system, in which case my point stands: if the EPIRB is triggered Falmouth (and other monitoring stations around the world) will receive the signal but the SAR teams won't know what they are looking for.

EDIT: After I posted this an email popped up from Falmouth, with the EPIRB registration attached as a pdf. I've checked it - all OK. I'm very pleased to see it.

 

[Bilgediver]

One important bit of info you did not give Ofcom.You just have them mmsi details. When you register it with the MCA you also give them your emergency contact details. I believe they often check the emergency contact to confirm that you are likely to be where the epirb says you are and if they don't have these details there might be a slight delay whilst other checks are made.