Solent coastguard - muppetry at its finest

henryf

henryf

Well-Known Member
Joined
31 May 2007
Messages
4,752
Location
Uxbridge
www.911virgin.com
A simple enough situation. Sailing yacht with fouled rudder off Cowes . Chap clearly gives lat long and all necessary details. Solent CG reacts like a startled hare requesting everything from the chaps inside leg measurement, weather conditions, radio call sign, etc.

At no point does SCG ask for any vessels nearby to assist. In the end local vessels gave up on SCG and sorted out a tow themselves.

We were 7nm away at displacement speed. Given the location we knew there would be other vessels able to assist so didn't go to planing speed.

From start to finish a total and utter disaster. This was ladybird book 1 and something I could have coordinated from my helm position whilst eating my lunch and drinking my tea.

Shocking

Henry :(
 
It just seems so wrong and so very different to how things used to be. With the exception of the ability to scramble the RNLI I really can't see what value they are adding.

I know it's my second thread on the subject and I hope people don't see me as someone with a particular axe to grind but today's incident really was an embarrassment. I suspect I wasn't the only person to think so, hence at least two other vessels took it upon themselves to take charge of the situation rendering SCG a bit of a nuiscance, getting in the way of an otherwise successful "rescue".

Henry :)
 
Whitelighter said:
'Roger, Wilco' is perfectly acceptable - in fact its correct radio phraseology.
Click to expand...

"Roger": Means only that "I understand your transmission." It does not mean that I agree or disagree with what you said.

"Wilco": Means "I understand your transmission and I will comply with your request." (WIL = will, CO = comply)

In spite of what you may have heard in old war movies, there is no such thing as "Roger Wilco"! It is either one (Roger) or the other (Wilco), but not both.
 
Firefly625 said:
"Roger": Means only that "I understand your transmission." It does not mean that I agree or disagree with what you said.

"Wilco": Means "I understand your transmission and I will comply with your request." (WIL = will, CO = comply)

In spite of what you may have heard in old war movies, there is no such thing as "Roger Wilco"! It is either one (Roger) or the other (Wilco), but not both.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong but I have a sneaking suspicion that Whitelighter moves in air traffic control circles.

Unless I am mixing him up with someone else...

In which case, the usual apologies are freely offered.
 
Roger is R in the old phonetic alphabet. 'R' was transmitted to mean received, hence 'Roger' means 'I have received and understood your transmission'

Wilco as you correctly say is short for 'Will comply'

Roger, Wilco is unnecessary but not incorrect. 'I have received your message and will comply'.

And its not what I have heard in war movies, its what I have heard from professionals using radio communications on a more regular basis than a sunday sailor
 
Firefly625 said:
Afaik VHF marine speak and aviation speak not quite the same though is it.
Click to expand...

It's funny you should say that because, as far as I could work out when I was learning the stuff*, the advent of powered flight took the British legal system by surprise and so the origins of aviation law work on the premise that aircraft are basically ships moving through a different medium.

* Not that I would claim to have any useful knowledge of aviation or maritime law.
 
benjenbav said:
It's funny you should say that because, as far as I could work out when I was learning the stuff*, the advent of powered flight took the British legal system by surprise and so the origins of aviation law work on the premise that aircraft are basically ships moving through a different medium.

* Not that I would claim to have any useful knowledge of aviation or maritime law.
Click to expand...

and a bit quicker.
 
Vhf regulations are the same.

The big difference is discrete frequencies used in aviation.

Phraseology and technique are (or should be the same). Marine VHF is much less neat as generally people have the time to waffle on. Not so in the london TMA at 300 knts
 
Whitelighter said:
Phraseology and technique are (or should be the same). Marine VHF is much less neat as generally people have the time to waffle on. Not so in the london TMA at 300 knts
Click to expand...

Which is where you are going wrong in the PR battle.

Hi there, how are you doing? Good flight? how did the Bangkok flight go last week? Did you go to the restaurant I suggested ? Anyway, let's see if we can find you a slot into Heathrow. Any particular route requirements or straight in ? It's a lovely run over Windsor this morning. Oh, Fred has asked me if you picked up his Woodbines in duty free ?

If you let Solent Coast Guard loose on ATC for the morning there would be plenty to report in the evening news. A plane impounded in the old Plymouth Airport would be the least of your worries...

Henry :)
 
benjenbav said:
It's funny you should say that because, as far as I could work out when I was learning the stuff*, the advent of powered flight took the British legal system by surprise and so the origins of aviation law work on the premise that aircraft are basically ships moving through a different medium.

* Not that I would claim to have any useful knowledge of aviation or maritime law.
Click to expand...

yep,

aircraft navigation lights are nicked from shipping, as are a lot of the early regulations
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top