Rescued,like it or not.

SOSREP powers are designed for control of major incidents. If this was a result of the exercise of SOSREP powers then it is akin to that counter terrorism foul up in Forest Hill a couple of years ago when the street was sealed off and the suspect house pulled to pieces before the discovery of absolutely nothing.
 
[ QUOTE ]
If I heard this story in a Yacht club bar I would have taken it with a pinch of salt.Its printed in Mays edition of Yachting Monthly,Im sure that YM would check the facts on a potentially controversial report such as this.

If you are accusing me of being a $hit stirrer please check the facts for yourself before levelling accusations at me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Graham, well now, you will be having the advantage of me, I don't buy yottie mags, but if I did, I would have little faith in anything this controversial, to be reported accurately buy any journalist, never mind a YM one!

Now wind your neck in, nobody is accusing anybody of anything, other than maybe saying things without showing the evidence to support them? /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif But hey, this just a forum, not a court of law, so I guess people can say what they like eh?
 
[ QUOTE ]
SOSREP powers are designed for control of major incidents. If this was a result of the exercise of SOSREP powers then it is akin to that counter terrorism foul up in Forest Hill a couple of years ago when the street was sealed off and the suspect house pulled to pieces before the discovery of absolutely nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's beginning to sound like it isn't it? If indeed SOSREP was intitiated, surely the question we ought to be asking is why, and on who's orders, or advice?........er, not that anyone that may have been in the driving seat at the time is likely to say so /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
The detail is in the YM article that you have not read and in my conversation with the skipper involved who is a fellow member of the RNSA.

I have referred to the initiation of SoSRep by the Observer in the aircraft diverted to look for Gentle Jane. In my view it is this Observer who incorrectly initiated this coerced tow. As previously stated the Cox'n of the lifeboat as I understand it has to follow these orders.

If you don't want to believe it that is up to you.
 
Frustratingly the MCA website is playing up so I can't see what they say about the powers of the SOSREP. However surely any action would need to be approved by the SOSREP himself rather than the observer on the ground.
 
Hello mate, it's not about wanting or not wanting to believe, it would just be nice to get the proper SP on this, other than what has been said in this forum, and by a magazine.

As has already been said, the SOSREP powers, are for major incidents, so how can a wee yacht making her way to port, not in difficulties, be interpreted as a major incident? You got to wonder haven't you?
 
Thank you for clarifying the position. I find it really quite frightening that you or I could be minding our own business and be put under what is tantamount to arrest owing to the invocation of powers that are just not designed to be applied to little boats.

I do entirely understand why the skipper in this case acceded to the coerced tow. That is a simple matter of living under the rule of law.

If mistakes were made in the application of the law in this case then I would hope for more than an apology to the aggrieved individual. The officials concerned need to be asked and to answer some very serious questions.
 
Perhaps it is time for someone to make an FOI request to MCA asking for details of when SOSREP powers have been invoked?

Are these isolated incidents or is it part of a wider pattern
 
[ QUOTE ]
I have referred to the initiation of SoSRep by the Observer in the aircraft diverted to look for Gentle Jane. In my view it is this Observer who incorrectly initiated this coerced tow. As previously stated the Cox'n of the lifeboat as I understand it has to follow these orders.

[/ QUOTE ]Right, so I am motoring along nearby and the CG calls me into the SOSRep incident... I mosey on over and am told to 'please go away'. Am I expected to overpower the skipper of the stricken yacht to force a tow, am I expected to standby even though I can see there is absolutely no problem whatsoever?

As most understand, the RNLI cox and crew have no more standing than any other person at sea, who am I answerable to if I say to the coasty I have looked it over and there is no problem to resolve, will I be arrested when I arrive back ashore?

This whole thing puts everyone in the area in an impossible situation, it seems more regularly as the peaked caps panic when out of their depth.

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't want to believe it that is up to you.

[/ QUOTE ]Chrusty1 checks every thread and purposely finds the contrary argument to attempt to amuse her ego, otherwise known as a troll, best just ignore her.
 
Perhaps it may be a little more useful to the boating community if those complaining of "desk bound" idiot "MCA managers" and all actually give the ponitificating a rest and await the MAIB report?

And I am glad to see that we have so many experienced, qualified SAR managers on this forum with years of experience behind the comments they make...oh, sorry, my mistake, none of you have actually done the job, have you....
 
How long does a report take?

The coerced tow was in June 2007? I think as an unqualified SAR Manager even I could have written a report in that time if there was going to be one.

The YM article and the facts from the skipper himself show incompetence in managing this situation and misapplication of the regulations quoted so if you do this job then perhaps whoever you colleague was that should have got it right ought to go down to the job centre.
 
Given the circumstances I would think that MAIB involvement is inevitable.
Local MRCCs cannot invoke SOSREP powers without authority from SOSREP or his deputy - so "an incompetent" local manager would not have had the final call.
For the record, I am not involved with the MCA - so the "colleague" comment is pointless - but I do work at the sharp end on the "warm" side of the Channel where I can assure you their approach to boating is far more regulatory than you are lucky enough to have on this side.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Given the circumstances I would think that MAIB involvement is inevitable.
Local MRCCs cannot invoke SOSREP powers without authority from SOSREP or his deputy - so "an incompetent" local manager would not have had the final call.
For the record, I am not involved with the MCA - so the "colleague" comment is pointless - but I do work at the sharp end on the "warm" side of the Channel where I can assure you their approach to boating is far more regulatory than you are lucky enough to have on this side.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah - so you don't know for certain, you are just pontificating in fact /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Why should MAIB get involved - their remit is to investigate serious or potentially serious incidents, by no stretch of the imagination does this qualify.

If you check the MAIB then it is not listed as an ongoing investigation.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Given the circumstances I would think that MAIB involvement is inevitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not listed on their site, and their remit is only "marine accidents to or on board UK ships worldwide, and other ships in UK territorial waters". As no accident occurred, why is their involvement inevitable?

It would certainly be an anticipated report, and I'm sure they'd have wanted to speak to the owner of the vessel as soon as possible. Perhaps someone who knows the person involved could ask if he has been interviewed by the MAIB?

Rick
 
The following is from Hansard - a written response to a parliamentary question:

Secretary of State Representative

Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 3 December 2002, Official Report, column 673, what resources the Secretary of State representative will have at his disposal; where he is based and if the Secretary of State has powers to intervene to direct him to act. [87521]

{**con**}{**/con**}

Mr. Jamieson: (1) The following major resources are available to SOSREP:


Aircraft


2 surveillance aircraft and 2 dispersant spraying aircraft.


Helicopters


4 x search and rescue helicopters.


Emergency towing vessels


Four Government funded emergency towing vessels, strategically placed around the UK.


Counter pollution and salvage stockpiles


The MCA has extensive stockpiles of specialised counter pollution and salvage equipment located at Milford Haven and Burnt Island and can provide equipment such as thermal imaging cameras and intrinsically safe equipment in the event of an incident.


Personnel


In the event that SOSREP is unavailable when an incident occurs, the following officers may also exercise the SOSREP powers: the Maritime and Coastguard Agency's chief executive, director of operations and deputy director of operations.


The MCA has 10 designated marine casualty officers (MCOs) around the country that during an incident would go aboard a casualty to act for SOSREP.


SOSREP has one full time administrative support officer that deals with the every day running of the SOSREP system.


SOSREP also has a list of independent call-off contractors that can provide salvage, technical or specialist advice. During incidents when a salvage control unit has been set up, SOSREP can request additional administrative support and this is usually provided by the coastguard service.


Buildings and offices


SOSREP's office is located within the Maritime and Coastguard Agency's headquarters in Southampton. SOSREP has access to all the facilities within the agency's building including the maritime emergency incident room from which the first stages of an incident are often controlled until the individual response units have been mobilised.


SOSREP also receives information from, and can make use of, the 19 coastguard stations that are located around the UK coastline.

(2) The powers of the Secretary of State:

Lord Donaldson's 1999 Review of Salvage and Intervention and their Command and Control concluded that:


XMinisters are entitled to be kept informed in the case of more serious incidents and may subsequently be accountable to Parliament. However, whilst operations are in progress, they must stand aside, and be seen to stand aside, leaving operational

18 Dec 2002 : Column 815W

controls in the hands of the Secretary of State's specially trained and appointed representative. As in military operations, with which a serious incident has much in common, Ministers must back the man in control or sack him."

This is the principle on which the UK operates the SOSREP function. It is this which sets the UK's response to incidents apart from that of all other nations.

You will notice there is no mention of the RNLI being a resource available to the Secretary of State Representative.

You may also notice that there are 3 senior people in the MCA who can exercise SOSREP's powers. it would be interesting to know if any of these individuals were involved.

This would raise the question of whether the RNLI carried out an illegal arrest of the good Commander's vessel.

It would also raise the question of whether the whole business was in fact a SOSREP event if neither the SOSREP or the MCA deputies were involved. It has the ring of some jobsworth getting ideas above his station.

I suspect the RNLI should have declined to arrest the boat. My understanding is that the coastguard can only ASK the RNLI for their assistance they CANNOT order it.

PS

Just looked at the job advert for SOSREP:



Although not essential, it would be an advantage if the new SOSREP were to be someone who has a working knowledge and understanding of current UK maritime law and international conventions and agreement. Additionally a track record of contingency planning emergency incidents would also be an advantage.
 
That was very interesting indeed! many thanks, I will depart this thread now, before anybody else accuses me of being a troll /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Are we really to suppose that RNLI Coxswains are a bunch of inexperienced muppets??? Are we really to suppose that the CG is manned by the same?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, the CG do send rescue assets out for no reason. I've heard them send a rib out to a vessel that had categorically stated on CH16 it did not need assistance and did not wish and assistance to be sent to it.
 
It is probably that in this day and age, they are covering their arses. You can imagine the scenario where someone who has refused help then goes on to drown and the relatives then start suing. You would hear statements like "He wasn't in his right mind", "His judgement was impaired".

So caught between apologising and being sued, the RNLI and MCA may err on the side of caution.
 
I thought it rested with the master of a vessel whether to accept a tow or not?
There was a famous incident in the 50s I think when the crew of a freighter whose engine had failed in heavy weather had been taken off, but the captain stubbornly refused assistance or a tow because then rival tugs would have got the salvage money. He was hanging on until the company tug arrived. The story reached the national media, with pictures of this heroic lone figure in oilskins while the vultures circled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top