The RYA acknowledges this morning’s statement by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning) concerning the modernisation of Coastguard services and the launch of a 14 week consultation period on proposals to deliver a more integrated and improved level of service.
The RYA’s primary concern in relation to Search and Rescue services is more about what is delivered rather than how it is delivered. We therefore welcome the Minister’s clear statement that the Coastguard’s commitment to delivering Search and Rescue services at the highest level will not change.
RYA Cruising Manager Stuart Carruthers comments: “We note that the consultation document identifies several significant weaknesses in the current system caused by increasing demand and the lack of a genuinely national system. If that is indeed the case then the RYA welcomes initiatives to address them.
“We will be considering the consultation document in detail over the next few weeks with a view to submitting a comprehensive response to the MCA in due course.”
“We will be considering the consultation document in detail over the next few weeks with a view to submitting a comprehensive response to the MCA in due course.”
.
Running the whole of Scotland from Aberdeen - plus scrapping the Stornoway-based tug - seems like a sure fire recipe for disaster at some point in the not too distant future. All we have heard from the MCA is that local geographical knowledge is less significant than the deployment of modern technology. Well, I hope that the technology isn't internet based. Most of Scotland North of Glasgow suffered several major broadband outages last year in September, October and November. I wonder what would have happened if Aberdeen were trying to co-ordinate a major rescue in the Minch during one of those outages.
There has also been no firm commitment to the retention of the SAR helicopter at Stornoway - which has saved 16 lives in the last week alone (a Tornado down in the Minch on Thursday last week then the 14 crew taken off the Jack Abry II aground on Rum in a gale on Monday.
With the scrapping of the Stornoway and Shetland tugs it is only a matter of time before lives are lost or environmental damage done. These tugs are where they are for good reason - ever increasing tanker traffic through the Minch and increasing oil exploration West of Shetland.
There is no doubt that this measure is driven by accountancy, and I believe it should be opposed bitterly. Maggie 'only' dismantled our manufacturing industry - this government seem determined to dismantle huge swathes of the country's infrastructure, and once gone it is unlikely to return. I would have preferred to see the RYA erring much more strongly on the side of safety and saying 'we're sceptical - now convince us you are right'. if they come out with some half-hearted objections several weeks or months down the line it may be too little too late.
I'm inclined to agree with Nick, but doubt that the Barstewards will give a damn. "Consultation" is a euphemism for ignoring people. Coastguard's have long been examined on their local knowledge before gaining a post. Now it is irrelevant - yeah, right!
How many "Tarbert"s or "Sgier Ddhu"s are there around your coastline? Or "Traeth Mawr"s etc round Wales? No problem for people with DSC VHF, GPS or AIS who can give a Lat & Long off their screen, or by pushing a button, but the smaller, low value & open boats may not have (or normally need) those capabilities & will have intimate local knowledge of their waters. Similarly, walkers reporting incidents by mobile phone 999 calls will have only vague knowledge of their actual location, or of the general location of any incident they report. I would like to see at least a pilot of the concept & the technology before the whole existing (and working) set-up is scrapped. But I don't see that happening.
A genuflection in the direction of a dictionary containing the word "Consultation" is what the law requires and therefore what our politicians will do. There will be no real quaity, considered debate.
Unfortunately those with experience who may have good ideas on how to get value from the combined resources of all the blue light services will be ignored.
Its not a vote winner....
I think it may have less impact on the 'likes' of us (an all-encompassing term, I know), but more on trippers to the sea-side who will not have access to vhf etc. etc. and may not even know which County they are in let alone know that there is a Tarbert near-by
I too am instinctively dismayed by these latest proposed cuts but I suppose people said the same thing when Oban coastguard was closed.
You still hear people calling Oban every year to get the somewhat laconic response "Oban coastguard has been closed for some years sir. This is Clyde coastguard. How may we help you?"
Fully agree with the "local knowledge" argument and am not confident in the counter argument that "technology is a more practical and better substitute"
Early June last year in very poor weather a small power boat got into difficulties and reported his position on VHF 16 to Clyde Coatsguard as being in Loch Fyne !! Clyde Coastguard asked him to describe what he could see and to cut a long story determined boat was actually in Kilbrannan Sound a mile or so of Lochranza !!!
Wind by this time was a good F6 coming straight down the Sound, not a place for a small 20 foot power craft, the fact that casualty position was determined so quickly and responded to may well have prevented a fatality
There are some interesting facts and figures re cost of and calls responded to etc. by Coastguard station at the undernoted link
If you are going to seek to oppose this proposal you do really need to be more precise in the issues.
For example a 999 call for a lost walker will be routed to the local police who will involve the most appropriate resource - probably mountain rescue - to deal. Its unlikely to involve coastguards.
The problem of localising the exact site of an emergency is probably the most critical one and one of the possibilities that may be included in these reforms is the loss of a DF capability that the coastguard has at present. I would suggest that this is a winable debate and a worthwhile one.
I believe that the MCA have 3 tugs on permanent standby. Clearly this is an enormous cost and it will be a difficult arguement to win. I understand that there is a considerable towing resource that at any one time is un-used and the proposal is that this would be how emergency tows would be found.
It may be the case that a particular location is a "special case" but again it will need to be a very robust special case.
The point I am trying to make is that going in and trying to "carpet bomb" the proposal will fail. All that will happen is that they - whoever they may be - will highlight the obviously ill thought out ideas and ridicule them, thus tainting the whole objection with ridicule.
I think you need to have a much clearer understanding about how the system works now and who has what capabilities and responsibilities. For example Coastguards do not carry out search and rescue except in very particular circumstances. That is carried out by RNLI and Military - and a few others.
Also worth remembering the coastguard have non marine responsibilities - flooding mainly. One may wonder if their talents (and the funding of them) would be better focussed on their primary maritime role and leaving inland flooding etc to the Fire Service.
One argument I would avoid is the "lookout" thing. Coastguards do not look out to sea watching for disasters. Related to that is the "lost" sailor. Running an argument that sailors who cannot navigate and don't know their location need a multi-million pound organisation on stand-by in case they get into trouble - which is how it will be presented - will be laughed out of court.
The fact of the matter is that whatever the emotive response the arguments against this proposal are at best somewhat thin, particularly when you look at some of the other cuts - aircraft carriers etc - that are being made.
If you want to counter them you need to be very focussed on what it is you dislike the most and find counter proposals that can be cost justified - emotive shouts of lives will be lost simply will not work. You are up against very hard headed people who have been sated with lost lives arguments over the years.
Be reasonable? I didn't get where I am today by being reasonable.
Olivepage wrote:
It may be the case that a particular location is a "special case" but again it will need to be a very robust special case.
~ Tanker traffic in the Minch
~ Oil exploration West of Shetland
If you know the area and the nature of these two particular threats then the retention of both Shetland and Stornoway CG plus the two tugs based there is a no-brainer.
I don't know the area so I'll take your word for it.
Problem is the gov probably won't - so you need to be able to quote number of times these tugs have been used, quantities of traffic, and all the rest.
How realistic is the notion of being able to hire a tug at short notice. I would GUESS that there are lots of tugs working in the Shetlands/N Scotland area but I don't know. If there are significant numbers in the area then it would seem reasonable to assume that at any given moment one or two would be available. Do you know the level of utilisation of these boats, is there evidence that its say 75% or greater?
One question you need to consider is the English Channel - reputedly the busiest shipping lane in the world. Why would a tug based in Shetland have a higher priority than one based in Dover?
I'm afraid telling me its a "no-brainer" will cut no ice at all
Be reasonable? I didn't get where I am today by being reasonable.
(Details of incidents attended by the Anglian Prince are in Appendix 4)
The deployment of these tugs is part of the National Contingency Plan For Marine Pollution From Shipping And Offshore Installations. Dropping random elements from this plan to save a few bucks without re-examining the whole plan is short sighted in the extreme IMO. Tanker traffic through the Minches has been increasing year on year, as has the development of the oilfields West of Shetland.
Current deployment of ETVs in the UK: ETV locations have been depicted with a nominal 100 nautical mile radius indicating likely zone of response, based on ten hours steaming at ten knots from a central position.
Availability of Commercial Tugs and Towing Vessels from Bonn Agreement States The following figure presents tugs with a bollard pull of greater than 100 tonnes which are located at other UK ports (black shading) as well as tugs which could be available to assist in an incident under the Bonn Agreement (red shading).
You will see that there is virtually no overlap between the areas of operation of the two Scottish ETVs and commercially available tugs. OTOH, it would seem that the two Southern ETVs areas of operation could potentially be handled by commercially available tugs.
Scrapping the two Scottish ETVs means IMO that a potentially preventable major pollution incident in the area is only a matter of time.
Nick wrote:... a potentially preventable major pollution incident in the area is only a matter of time.
This was recognised, I thought, by Donaldson in his report on the Sea Empress disaster at Milford Haven in 1996 whose estimated cost was £120m and whose impact would have been much reduced if a big enough tug had been available. The 'fruit' of that report was the rescue of the MSC Napoli which still cost £120m.
If as seems likely they open the artic route, the north of Scotland will feel like Clapham Junction ...
