request for information - red diesel & Closure of CG Stations

[jant]

Forum members may be intrested in the following which appeared on the Cruising Association (CA) site today. For non CA members RATS is the acronym for "Regulations and Technical Services Group"..... the CA is a very professional body that is well respected within the cruising fraternity.......

"To all Members --
RATS request for information

Belgium
RATS would like to know about the experiences of Members who visited Belgium this season. Information about any dealings with their Officials, or other details such as having red diesel in the engine fuel tank(s), will be of use when RATS talks to their Belgium contacts about the possible situation for visiting UK craft in 2016.

Closure of CG Stations

Some Members have told RATS that following the closure of a number of CG Stations, there has been a decline in the quality of their transmitted Inshore forecast signal from the aerials they employ..

In particular, there can be significant delays between the initial warning on VHF Ch 16 and the broadcast of the forecast along with any WZs. As well, there appears to be uncertainty from time to time at the central control office of the actual coastal location of an incident.

RATS would welcome any Member's observations on these concerns for the basis of an early discussion with the MCA.

Replies, please, via rats@theca.org.uk

 

[Mariner69]

The VHF weather reports in the Blackwater and Orwell aerial areas have been a bit erratic in they have been late broadcasts five to ten minutes after the indicated time. Since they are taped announcements I should have thought it would be relatively simple for them to go ahead without too much input.

 

[Koeketiene]

Closure of CG Stations

Some Members have told RATS that following the closure of a number of CG Stations, there has been a decline in the quality of their transmitted Inshore forecast signal from the aerials they employ..

In particular, there can be significant delays between the initial warning on VHF Ch 16 and the broadcast of the forecast along with any WZs. As well, there appears to be uncertainty from time to time at the central control office of the actual coastal location of an incident.

RATS would welcome any Member's observations on these concerns for the basis of an early discussion with the MCA.

Replies, please, via rats@theca.org.uk

Would be nice if CG could get rid of their schizofrenia.
One minute they are Thames CG, then Humber GG and then back to Thames CG.
I don't care one way or the other where they are actually located, but it would be less confusing if they stuck to the same call sign in relation to the same incident.

PS: also some training for new staff would not go amiss. Some leave a very dazed and confused impression when handeling radio traffic. Others (thankfully still the majority) are their usual professional selves.

 

[sailorman]

Would be nice if CG could get rid of their schizofrenia.
One minute they are Thames CG, then Humber GG and then back to Thames CG.
I don't care one way or the other where they are actually located, but it would be less confusing if they stuck to the same call sign in relation to the same incident.

PS: also some training for new staff would not go amiss. Some leave a very dazed and confused impression when handeling radio traffic. Others (thankfully still the majority) are their usual professional selves.

I was told last w/e that
North East of the Deben is Humber
South West of the Deben is Thames

 

[Koeketiene]

I was told last w/e that
North East of the Deben is Humber
South West of the Deben is Thames

Highlighted my point - in case you missed it.

I don't care one way or the other where they are actually located, but it would be less confusing if they stuck to the same call sign in relation to the same incident.

 

[Tomahawk]

Would be nice if CG could get rid of their schizofrenia.
One minute they are Thames CG, then Humber GG and then back to Thames CG.
I don't care one way or the other where they are actually located, but it would be less confusing if they stuck to the same call sign in relation to the same incident.

PS: also some training for new staff would not go amiss. Some leave a very dazed and confused impression when handeling radio traffic. Others (thankfully still the majority) are their usual professional selves.

I heard one say this is "Solent …. no Thames coastguard" … thought hmmmmmmm

Though to be fair they did get some pretty fast action about the electrical alarm going off last Saturday night.. So possibly not all bad?

 

[Cantata]

Would be nice if CG could get rid of their schizofrenia.
One minute they are Thames CG, then Humber GG and then back to Thames CG.
I don't care one way or the other where they are actually located, but it would be less confusing if they stuck to the same call sign in relation to the same incident..............

Your last point is certainly pertinent. I can't imagine why Humber and Thames would both be in touch over one incident unless one handed it to the other.
As discussed a few months back, Humber is Humber, and Thames is actually the NMOC (National Maritime Ops Centre) at Fareham.
I believe that when Dover CG is absorbed into the national network (due shortly), Thames will cease to be; Humber will then handle all stuff southwards to the Dengie area and Dover will handle traffic south of that.
There may be occasions when the NMOC handles some of either station's call traffic, and it will then use that station's callsign. so "you shouldn't notice the difference".
I only know this detail because (a) I was until recently a local CG volunteer, and (b) this helped me get told advance details to include in the new edition of ECP that came out this year.

 

[Tomahawk]

Typical of public bodies... Sil from the Blackwater to Burmham
Humber handing over to Thames part way through an average sail on the East Coast..

 

[Lucky Duck]

It does seem rather an odd choice, I suspect it will make the MSI broadcasts rather troublesome as there will presumably two broadcast schedules for the North and South of the Thames :ambivalence:

 

[Koeketiene]

Your last point is certainly pertinent. I can't imagine why Humber and Thames would both be in touch over one incident unless one handed it to the other.

This was the same woman on the radio: one minute she refers to herself as Thames CG, the next as Humber CG, and then back as Thames CG.
All in relation to one and the same incident off Harwich.

Which is also why I made the point about operator training. It's needed!
Some sound like they're on 'job experience week'.
I do realise that we were all new at our job once and that everyone's got to learn, but by dropping people in at the deep end the CG isn't doing anyone any favours. Not themselves and certainly not the poor bloke on the other end looking for assistance/help/guidance.

 

[Cantata]

Fair enough then Wil. Good info for the CA survey.
I too have heard them trip over their call sign, e.g. "This is So..Thames Coastguard".
I wonder if individuals are being asked to run two CG identities simultaneously, it would be a recipe for getting confused.

 

[AliM]

We were very unimpressed by the response by Thames to a call from a fisherman who had a suspected mine in his nets. See my post about it below.
The coastguard did not recognise "Rochford" or "long sand head" but worse, clearly hadn't plotted the position given him. There were very long delays between transmissions - the fisherman had the mine in his nets for several hours before he was told what to do with it. The CG did not check AIS to get the boat's position, apparently. And next day, although the CG answered the ch16 call, and transferred to ch67, they took a good 5 minutes to call back on ch67, by which time the fisherman had clearly given up, and it seemed that the CG had not associated that call with the long saga the previous day. This is all from listening to Ch16 and 67 on a very quiet Thursday and Friday when the only other calls we heard were maybe half a dozen radio checks in about 10 hours altogether.

 

[jant]

We were very unimpressed by the response by Thames to a call from a fisherman who had a suspected mine in his nets. See my post about it below.
The coastguard did not recognise "Rochford" or "long sand head" but worse, clearly hadn't plotted the position given him. There were very long delays between transmissions - the fisherman had the mine in his nets for several hours before he was told what to do with it. The CG did not check AIS to get the boat's position, apparently. And next day, although the CG answered the ch16 call, and transferred to ch67, they took a good 5 minutes to call back on ch67, by which time the fisherman had clearly given up, and it seemed that the CG had not associated that call with the long saga the previous day. This is all from listening to Ch16 and 67 on a very quiet Thursday and Friday when the only other calls we heard were maybe half a dozen radio checks in about 10 hours altogether.

I would think this post along with others would be very useful information to send to the CA, do you have a date when the above happaned? e mail to;
rats@theca.org.uk

or i can pass the deatils on if you wish

all the best

jant

 

[Koeketiene]

I would think this post along with others would be very useful information to send to the CA, do you have a date when the above happaned? e mail to;
rats@theca.org.uk

or i can pass the deatils on if you wish

all the best

jant

Feel free to pass the details of the incident I discribed along.
Don't recall the exact date, but it was the first week of August.

 

[Cantata]

I have emailed the CA pointing them to this thread.

 

[AliM]

Jant,

The mine incident happened last Thursday (8 October). Please pass on whatever details you like. I can name the boat concerned, if that would help, but In my account, I thought I'd better keep some details back in case the fisherman concerned did not want to be identified.