Please feel free to email us on any matter that concerns you or if you know of any upcoming events or opportunities that would interest others.
This notice board is for all. Make your voice heard on any concerns or propositions you would like to see spearheaded.
If you would like to see what is going on in the southern region check out:
www.ryasr.org.uk |
Response by Chichester Harbour Federation, February, 2011
The comments are the consensus view of the members of the Federation, which were obtained by asking for comments and by circulating a draft copy of this response for their comment.
Consultation Questions
The following questions have been suggested in the text to highlight the key themes on which we invite your comments:
Q1. Chapter 1. We have set out the changes that would affect the way the Coastguard needs to operate. Are there any other changes and pressures that should be taken into account in our plans for a modernised Coastguard service? Please provide supporting evidence for your comments.
1. AIS is not infallible. Experience in the Solent and South Coast of UK shows that a significant number of ships do not transmit correct AIS information. It can only be treated as a guide.
Q2. Chapter 2. We have explained the current Coastguard structure and the potential weakness in that structure in the face of increasing demand. Are there other strengths or weaknesses in the current arrangements that we should be taking into account? Please provide supporting reasons for your comments.
2. The distribution of stations around the coast means that coastguard officers usually have local knowledge which is valuable for coordination of rescue operations. Although local SAR crews will provide local knowledge, this does not fully compensate for lack of this knowledge by the coastguard coordinator.
3. A subsidiary point is the level of reassurance given to recreational boats in difficulty by an operator who obviously knows the area.
4. The main coastguard stations provide an important facility for collection of out of date pyrotechnics for recreational boaters.
Q3. Chapter 3. Under our proposals we would establish two Maritime Operations Centres handling emergency messages 24 hours a day, supported by a number of sub-centres operating at times of peak demand linked by a national network of radio connections and information sources. In your view, does this provide an appropriate and effective approach to Search and Rescue coordination response? Please provide supporting reasons for your comments.
5. It is very important that the systems and technology used to handle emergency messages and SAR coordination are robust with fully redundant systems and a very high level of reliability. Our members have a concern that the current cost cutting measures may result in a down-grading of reliability.
6. Our members are concerned that lack of local knowledge by officers at the MOCs will affect the reliability of SAR coordination.
7. Local knowledge is also necessary to respond to 999 calls. We believe that a significant proportion of 999 calls are made from mobile phones and that the caller is often not able to give a position by lat/long or postcode.
8. We are concerned that the contact with local volunteer resources (RNLI, Coastguard Rescue Service) will be by the local sub-centres but that most SAR coordination will be by the MOCs. This will result in loss of local knowledge by the coordinating officers.
Q4. Chapter 4: Our proposals for Maritime Operations Centres and sub-centres locates these around the UK coastline and makes use of the MCA current estate. What is your opinion on the proposals for the location of these Centres and sub-centres? Please provide supporting reasons for your comments. Do you have particular comments or information about factors that should influence the choice of sites for sub-centres in either Belfast or Liverpool, or either Stornoway and Shetland?
9. No comments.
Q5. Chapter 4. In your view, are the new roles and responsibilities for Coastguard officers at different levels in the proposed structure appropriate to the tasks that need to be delivered? Please provide supporting reasons for your comments.
10. No comments.
Q6. Chapter 5. Under these proposals the regular Coastguard working in Maritime Operations Centres and sub-centres will draw more heavily on the local knowledge of geography, community and coastal risk provided by the network of local volunteer HM Coastguard Rescue Teams and increased liaison with partner SAR organisations. Do you agree that this is the best way to ensure the availability of such knowledge. Please provide supporting reasons for your statement.
11. We understand the improvement in coastguard resources to manage the volunteers and liaise with other SAR groups. However, this appears to reduce the direct contact between officers at MOCs and these SAR groups. This appears to be an area where local contact and knowledge will be lost to the officers who are normally responsible for coordinating SAR operations.
Q7. Chapter 5. In your opinion, will the proposed strengthening of management for the Coastguard Rescue Service organisation, including the introduction of 24/7 on-call Coastal Safety Officers, provide a more resilient Coastguard Modernisation Consultation 40 response service to those in need in UK coastal areas? Please provide supporting reasons for your comments.
12. No comment.
|
Jim Tanfield has kindly agreed to be the contact between CMBHA and Jetty Reps. Could you keep him informed of any change of email, phone numbers etc. Email Jim at jimtanfield39@aol.com.
Jetty Reps are required on K L O Q R U V Y
If you are interested in filling the above gaps, please email Jim at the above email address. |
|
