blog - Coastguard SOS

How long is a piece of string ? Coastguard SOS

25. March 2013 · Write a comment · Categories: Uncategorized

March 2013 – RAF crew battled winds and rain to rescue a seriously injured French fisherman from a stricken vessel, 50 miles to the west of Welsh port town Milford Haven in the Irish Sea. English and French coastguards, HMS Echo and RNLI lifeboat Angle also attended the rescue. Photo: RAF

So …what is the length of a piece of string?

Well, it seems it depends on many things like temperature/tension in the string/material/accuracy of equipment etc.

OK I’m sure you get my drift; and it’s a similar situation when you ask “what is the length of UK coastline”.

Even experts disagree but here is a selection of answers when doing an Internet Search:

Wikipedia quotes 19,491miles but also gives the CIA Factbook 7,723miles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_of_the_United_Kingdom

UK Coast Guide states around 7,760miles.

http://www.ukcoastguide.co.uk/

Panoramic Earth website quotes nearly 19,500miles.

http://www.panoramicearth.com/article/uk-ocean-cruises.html

The RNLI also state around 19,000miles

http://rnli.org/aboutus/aboutthernli/features/Pages/features-content/Bournemouth-Marathon-Route-Revealed.aspx

The most explicit answer comes from the British Cartographer’s Society which qualifies its figure of 19,491miles at mean high water mark based on 1:10,000 scale maps, however this is for Principle Islands only!

http://www.cartography.org.uk/default.asp?contentID=749

The general consensus is at least 19,491miles which is why it is utterly surprising that the Maritime Coastguard Agency quote “over 10,500 Nautical miles of Coastline” which equates to over 12,083miles.

It is extremely worrying that the agency responsible for our coastline has underestimated the scope of their remit. So it was rather tongue in cheek that the Coastguard SOS team released a map showing the lost coastline as that responsible by the Maritime Rescue Coordination Centres that are due to close under the current disastrous “modernisation” plan.

Joking aside, how can an agency convince all the general public & stakeholders in Maritime Safety that they have any credible concept of how big the job is when they have something like 160% error rate! This error has been queried with the MCA but they remain unfazed about the lack of accuracy.

The Coastguard SOS campaign group has used the 19,491miles figure in many of its communications as it comes from impeccable sources of both the BCS and Ordinance Survey (the UK Map authority). Indeed we approached OS for a conclusive figure.

OS state that the figure is dependent on the many factors discussed before and pointed us to the BCS site and figures.

How shocking it is to find that a comprehensive answer to the question has already been established via an MP and that it concludes that the figure is around 24,144miles!

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/100623w0007.htm

On 23^rd June 2010 the following answer was given to an MP’s question:

“ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham): Information provided by Ordnance Survey for Great Britain and by Land and Property Services, an agency of the Department of Finance and Personnel for Northern Ireland, indicates that the lengths of the coastlines at mean high water (MHW) and mean low water (MLW), (mean high water springs [ordinary spring tides] and mean low water springs in Scotland) are:

Country	Length of Coastline at Mean Low Water (MLW) [Miles]	Length of Coastline at Mean High Water (MHW) [Miles]
England	8,417	9,462
Northern Ireland	620	542
Scotland	14,675	13,186
Wales	2,323	1,999
United Kingdom	26,035	25,189

These coastal lengths include all offshore islands, and land areas which are above MLW.The precise length of coastlines will vary from time to time due to natural and gradual changes arising from coastal erosion and silt deposition.”

YES, I believe there is a mistake & that UK lengths are swapped round – (I base this on the fact that the same methodology should give consistent differences between the two figures). There is something of a debate going on about this information here http://www.edparsons.com/2010/06/call-yourself-a-geographer/

Without getting into any further debate, I think that these are figures that truly reflect the lengths of Coastline:

Country	Length of Coastline at Mean Low Water (MLW) [Miles]	Length of Coastline at Mean High Water (MHW) [Miles]
England	9,462	8,417
Northern Ireland	620	542
Scotland	14,675	13,186
Wales	2,323	1,999	difference
United Kingdom	27,080	24,144	2,936

Taking the 24,144miles figure, this is a staggering 200% greater than that quoted by the MCA.

Now you might ask Why this is significant, well not only is it indicative of the complex issue of assessing the scale of the coastline that needs covered by our volunteer Coastal Rescue Officers, RNLI and Independent rescue crews. It is also an excellent gauge of every coastal feature that invariably has a name or even several names for the same one. At low water our coastline increases by nearly 3,000miles, adding yet more features & names to any database!

It’s a good job that OS are partners in the current project with the MCA to capture all the local names & descriptions of features around the whole UK coastline, because of the two organisations, OS has some measure of the task!

This project is called FINTAN http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/news/2012/06/collecting-names-from-coast-to-coast.html

It’s a very ambitious project to have EVERY name of EVERY feature on our coastline in one database. The information is being gathered from multiple sources, in multiple local languages (Welsh, Gaelic etc) and by people that will have not have access to the system. Eventually this database will be integrated with several other Computerised Search & Rescue tools as mentioned in this blog: http://coastguardsos.com/mission-impossible-the-mcas-future-coastguard-system/

It makes you wonder on what basis the MCA was able to justify the cost of this new database. I just hope that they were not using the coastline figure from their website as a guide to acceptable cost per mile; otherwise the final bill will be in error by 200%.

If you consider the coastline length ranking on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_length_of_coastline

16	United Kingdom	19,717
28	Italy	9,226
33	France	7,330
34	Spain [Note 20]	7,268
52	Germany	3,624

You can see that it is no wonder the UK developed the first Coastguard service over 191 years ago, for a relatively small country, we have a high ratio of coastline regardless of what base measurement is chosen.

It can be said that the UK punches above its weight when it comes to coastline and Maritime Safety.

This is one of the reasons the UK needs to continue to build on the expertise, knowledge and hard learnt lessons that HM Coastguard has experienced in its history.

The Maritime Coastguard Agency has amply demonstrated that it can get facts wrong with the particular subject of coastline. The Coastguard SOS campaign group has striven to enter into dialogue with the MCA regarding the ongoing changes to HM Coastguard.

With the promise of a meeting between the Group and the MCA, we hope to raise a considerable number of concerns including the deepening staffing crisis and safety issues.

Our ‘piece of string’ has grown in a similar way to Coastguard staff being stretched – something is bound to snap and we are becoming increasingly worried if there will be a service left for us to defend.

Written by CoastalJoe

Mission Impossible – the MCA’s Future Coastguard System

26. February 2013 · 1 comment · Categories: Coastguards, CoastguardSOS, Common Sense, Government, Local Knowledge, MCA Cuts, SafetyAtSea, Technology

I have blogged about the use of Technology & HM Coastguard in the past (see http://coastguardsos.com/techno-trouble/), but on reading the MCA’s brave new vision for the Future Coastguard System, I’ve touched on the topic again.

I say ‘Brave’ new vision, should I have said ‘Impossible’? Please read and make your own minds up.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/mca/supporting_documentation_final.pdf

“Underpinning maritime domain awareness is the knowledge base of HM Coastguard. The knowledge

base is geographical information covering the entire service area enriched by an awareness of

environmental factors, social relationships, the availability, capabilities and limitations of SAR assets

and any other significant features that allow staff to fully understand the scene of action remotely.”

Under the ‘Old’ Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre (MRCC) System (before Forth & Clyde MRCC’s closed) there were 18 MRCC’s around the UK.

Given that HM Coastguard is responsible for in excess of 19,491miles of coastline (the MCA website is wrong), we can approximate that each MRCC had the responsibility for around a 1,000 miles of coastline.

The importance of Local Knowledge is such that each officer has to sit an exam & prove their competence.

By closing 50% of MRCC’s each coastguard will have immediately learn the complete Local Knowledge of an approx extra 1,000 miles of Coastline.

“Under our proposals, the MOC will be supported by a subsidiary site at Dover, where the site

infrastructure is such that it can assume the role of the MOC once reinforced with additional staff.

Other Coastguard Centres will be located at Aberdeen, Shetland, Stornoway, Belfast, Milford Haven,

Falmouth, Holyhead and Humber; with a much smaller operation on the tidal River Thames in

London.”

During the closure program and before the new Maritime Operation Centre is working, the remaining coastguards must manage without the new technology to assist and also, importantly without sitting any additional local knowledge exam.

“Operators will, supported by technology, spend the necessary time validating and developing this knowledge base, and remain competent in its application. Trainees will commence with a section proximate to their normal place of work but will, over time, become familiar with the entire service area.”

(The statement above assumes that Coastguards will move from closing stations, that there will be time to learn when workload has doubled / trebled and that there is a full complement of staff.)

So, eventually Coastguards will be expected to be ‘familiar’ of all 19,491+ miles of coastline and given that the Future Coastguard System talks about “UK Maritime Domain Awareness” this will include anywhere in the world that a UK flagged ship is at anytime i.e. Global Awareness.

Even if the new technology that this plan relies heavily on does work, the sheer magnitude of the scope of ‘local knowledge’ that Coastguards will have to be proficient in cries out for more staff not less!

The introduction of technology (computer systems, databases, automated monitoring and communications) is not something that I am against, far from it, I fully embrace technology where I can but I would not bet my life on it without proven back-up alternatives.

HM Coastguard MRCC’s are being closed before the new MOC is running and any real world proof that replacement systems work – FACT.

The hasty rate of closures are failing to capture existing local knowledge, there is documentary proof that the so called ‘Pairing’ system between MRCC’s only worked between 2 of the original 18 rescue centres.

These facts are important because they underpin the basis of the new Future Coastguard System (FCS).

Please bear with me on the next bit… I’m not going off topic but trying to make a very important point about technology & safety requirements!

International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974

http://www.imo.org/about/conventions/listofconventions/pages/international-convention-for-the-safety-of-life-at-sea-(solas),-1974.aspx

These regulations are intended to provide proper safeguards for all vessels using our seas.

SOLAS V/19 – Carriage requirements for ship borne navigational systems and equipment

V/19.2.1 All ships irrespective of size shall have:

V/19.2.1.4 nautical charts and nautical publications to plan and display the ship’s route for the intended voyage and to plot and monitor positions throughout the voyage; an Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS) may be accepted as meeting the chart carriage requirements of this subparagraph;

V/19.2.1.5 back-up arrangements to meet the functional requirements of subparagraph .4, if this function is partly or fully fulfilled by electronic means.

http://www.imo.org/ourwork/facilitation/documents/solas%20v%20on%20safety%20of%20navigation.pdf

In other words; yes, you can use technology of computerised navigation systems but you need to have a tried and trusted back-up system of in-date’ physical charts and manual navigation equipment.

There are many other maritime laws which demand the use of human involvement as a back-up to technology!

So why are the Government, DfT and MCA ignoring the wisdom and proven requirements of human (Coastguards) back-ups of sufficient MRCC’s around our coast? Especially as the replacing system is not proven!

The truth is; concerns are being ignored by those intent on seeing the service decimated, just to meet an unreasonable cost saving target that completely ignores operational sense.

Some of the MRCC’s closed/closing have excellent facilities which combine the knowledge and expertise of everyone in the responsible area, including the experts in HMCG that perform other functions such as Marine Surveying, safety assessments. The fact that most of these stations have staff living in a local proximity means excellent local on-scene response. The greater the area of responsibility will increase response times with a negative impact on incident containment.

Each MRCC is already in a location of need and incident numbers confirm this. Similarly, the more stations you have, the greater chance you will have of stations picking up any weak Mayday calls or automatic transmissions.

Again, there have been instances where EPIRB equipment is fitted but auto distress and positioning has failed.
”No alarm was raised, even though the vessel was fitted with an emergency position indicating radio beacon (EPIRB) and a MOB Guardian.”
See MAIB report http://www.maib.gov.uk/publications/investigation_reports/2013/betty_g.cfm

Rescue coordination staff already have enough workload to contend with; there are multiple systems to monitor simultaneously, e.g. monitoring radio traffic from several masts which are all fed into one computer & speaker. Simultaneous broadcasts can be an issue; as stronger ones will drown out weaker ones.

Perhaps the MCA should be concentrating on improving existing systems with better prevention of communications breakdowns which have been highlighted in the press recently.

http://www.cable.co.uk/news/bt-outage-causes-communications-blackout-for-shetland-coastguards-801390143/

In the recent Transport Select Committee inquiry, much evidence was given about repeated communications problems but the MCA appear not to be addressing the issue, which will have greater impact as MRCC’s take on bigger areas to manage.

Failure to address current problems with existing technology that the FCG system will be built on is reckless, the MCA is making unproven claims of system ‘robustness’ and resilience.

Staffing is a crucial factor for the FCS, but it’s not surprising that the latest staffing figures for MRCC’s are still showing a significant shortage of staff especially at the ‘safe’ stations. (Even with the 2 closed stations taken out of the equation). The Transport Select Committee review was highly critical of the way moral has been affected and staffing levels.

Are Coastguards leaving because they are fearful of workload/responsibility with a deep mistrust of the current plan?

Manning levels at the majority of MRCC’s are at crisis level, it is unlikely many will remain in the stations earmarked for closure; the bold assertions in the FCS concept of operation will flounder with the lack of experienced coastguards with local knowledge for many areas. This will have a dire impact on the FCS working.

In summary; the current plan is looking more unworkable each day, valuable knowledge and experience is being drained away at an alarming rate, reliability and communication issues are not being addressed.

The Future Coastguard System is a Mission Impossible!

There is no technology out there that can perform miracles.

HM Coastguard has 191years of hard learnt lessons in achieving today’s level of competence. The FCS looks likely to throw away much of this competence on an unproven operational theory.

NB. Just prior to me writing this blog, 5 Coastguard Officers from Liverpool MRCC were awarded the Chief Coastguards commendation for Exceptional and Meritorious service, this was for their part in rescue coordination of 23people from the MV Riverdance ferryboat exactly 5 years earlier. The rescue was in a Force10 gale in 7M seas and described as one of the most challenging rescues in modern maritime history.

http://m.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/traffic-travel/travel-news/riverdance-rescue-heroes-recognised-1-5428834

Why mention this? Well two reasons:

1). The existing MRCC’s work, in a proven statistical and operational way.

2). The MCA has failed to make any public acknowledgement of the stations achievements because it proves how vital this station is! When asked to comment in the newspaper article (link above), the MCA gave this reply:

A Maritime and Coastguard Agency spokesman today vowed there would be no change in how emergency situations were dealt with.

She said: “As part of the new structure, the Maritime Operations Centre will maintain an overview of activity right across the country and make sure work on search and rescue coordination, tackling pollution incidents and monitoring shipping is effectively managed.”

No mention of the award, no acknowledgement of staff, just a reference to the MOC with propaganda claims that contain no proof operational certainty.

Awards are scarcely given and this is not a unique occurrence, between the 5 Coastguards they hold 13 of these awards. It is something of a record and brings home the issue of MRCC being located in areas that have high incidents due to traffic volumes & notoriously treacherous areas of coastal responsibility (unlike the MOC – which is not on the coast!).

By CoastalJoe

Comments on the HOC Transport Committee meeting re the Coastguard on 22.10.2012

07. December 2012 · 2 comments · Categories: Coastguards, CoastguardSOS, Common Sense, Government, Integrity, Local Knowledge, MCA Cuts, SafetyAtSea, Technology

I have delayed writing this because I am at a loss to comprehend how the government is completely deaf to the real concerns and evidence given against the proposed cuts in our Coastguard Service. Most of the post will refer to the meeting of 22.10.2012, but I also want to get up to date with other events. The views in this post are those of the author.

HOC TRANSPORT COMMITTEE Monday 22 October 2012

Wilson Room
Meeting started on Monday 22 October at 4.11pm. Ended at 5.59pm

The Coastguard, Emergency Towing Vessels and the Maritime Incident Response Group: follow up
Witnesses

Steve Quinn, President, Coastguard Section, Brian George, Liverpool Branch Representative, and Alex Dodge, Shetland Branch Chair, PCS, and Allan Graveson, Senior National Secretary, Nautilus
Stephen Hammond MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport, Vice Admiral Sir Alan Massey KCB CBE, Chief Executive, Maritime and Coastguard Agency.

Members of the Transport Select Committee are: Mrs Louise Ellman (Labour/Co-operative, Liverpool Riverside) (Chair); Steve Baker (Conservative, Wycombe); Jim Dobbin (Labour/Co-operative, Heywood and Middleton); Julie Hilling (Labour, Bolton West); Kwasi Kwarteng (Conservative, Spelthorne); Mr John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester Withington); Karen Lumley (Conservative, Redditch); Karl McCartney (Conservative, Lincoln); Lucy Powell (Manchester Central); Iain Stewart (Conservative, Milton Keynes South); Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton).

As you can see from the times above, the meeting lasted for just over one and three quarters hours.

In a concurrent investigation, Ireland has undergone a thorough probe and report into its Coastguard service and the proposal of a new centralised base in Dublin. Last week it was announced by Leo Varadkar, the Minister for Transport, that Coastguard centres at Malin Head, Valentia and Dublin will remain open.

“Through the utilisation of the most modern communications and IT infrastructure across a single national Coast Guard network, I will be proposing that the three centres will be more closely aligned and integrated,” he said.

“Therefore the current structure of three Coast Guard centres in Dublin, Malin and Valentia will continue to provide their current service but will be required to deliver new efficiencies in how these services are provided.”

Supporters for retention of the three stations claimed local knowledge during search and rescue missions would be lost if staff were forced to operate out of a centralised base in Dublin.

Joe McHugh, Fine Gael TD for Donegal North East, said the decision was a victory for common sense.

Here, the Commons Select Committee for Transport is due to publish the findings of its second inquiry next Tuesday; we wait in hope. But whatever the recommendations are, it doesn’t mean things will change. The government gave absolute assurances that no coastguard station would be closed until the new operation centre was up and running. We have already seen these promises broken with the premature closures of Forth and Clyde. Strangely, both these Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centres (MRCCs) were also closed before the appointed dates that were given ahead of the new system being in place.

The British Isles, the clue is in the name, has a long and very proud maritime heritage. We are surrounded by water and consequently the vast majority of our trade is via the sea. Oh my goodness, as I’m writing this, there is a report coming in of a collision between two ships, near to Holland. The English Channel is one of the busiest shipping lanes there is, we need the full complement of our MRCCs in order to be able to comprehensively cover in the event of accidents and emergencies.

We have a very rugged coastline in places, where it is hellishly dangerous when the sea is rough. Literally, thousands of lives have been saved by our Coastguard and now is not the time to shirk our duty of care.

To get back to the meeting on 22nd October; Louise Ellman, MP, chaired the meeting. I’ve had the pleasure of meeting with her at Portcullis House, she is a lady of knowledge and integrity.

I think it is evident within the first fifteen minutes that the views of Allan Graveson are not the same as those of his fellow witnesses. I doubt very much they are the views of his members either. I’ve met and spoken with a good number of people working in different MRCCs and I have not met one who agrees with the modernisation proposals (as they are) or who would be happy with just 11 coastguard stations! Such a ridiculous statement to make.

When the discussion got round to the retention of staff and, consequently, local knowledge; it would appear the the coastguard service is going to lose the majority of its workers. A large number of Coastguards are looking elsewhere for work and, in Liverpool alone, four very experienced coastguards have been lost in the last four months.

Another startling fact is that 15% of coastguard positions are currently vacant. When Forth was closed there was a complement of 12 staff; just 2 transferred to Aberdeen, and ten left the service. When the early closure of Forth happened, it was open one day and closed the next. All four urged the government to stop and reconsider the very serious concerns. Louise Ellman then thanked them for their time and after an hour, they left and in came Stephen Hammond, the new Shipping Minister, and Sir Alan Massey, head of the MCA.

Stephen Hammond started by reading out a statement. He said that the command centre would be operational by April 2014. Louise Ellman then stated that the statement he had just read out, contrasted starkly with what had just been heard from the four people from the PCS and Nautilus. Mr Hammond said there had been disagreements with some people actually involved and went to state that his predecessor, Mike Penning had meet with them in July 2010 and July 2012, so there had been extensive communication with them throughout the whole period. One meeting in 2010 and then waiting two years before having a second one, could never pass for extensive. It beggars belief that he believes what he says to be plausible. He then tried to pass the answering over to Sir Alan Massey, but was thwarted by another question concerning the assurances that no closures would happen before a robust system was in place. Stephen Hammond said this had happened and that they were going ahead with the timetable as before. Now, we know that to be untrue as Forth closed early, and Clyde effectively closed last month. And no, he hasn’t visited any MRCCs or spoken with any Coastguards. And no, he didn’t know what the MOC (Maritime Operations Centre) was nor how it was meant to improve upon the current system. He is completely certain that everything in the process is fine as he has discussed with civil servants and Sir Alan Massey. NB Not one person who would be within the operational teams has been asked anything by him.

Sir Alan Massey was asked how the MOC would help when up and running. He said, If you had a large incident off the south west coast which was too big for Falmouth to deal with, you’d be able to bring in help from Shetland or Humber. WHAT????? Methinks that would take more than the extra ten minutes he has already stated may be added on to the response times. If you google ‘how long does it take to drown?’ you will see it’s about four minutes. You can drown twice over within the ten minutes extra response time and as for waiting for them to get down from Shetland …… I’m not even going to go there! When it was pointed out that the other views (from actual people in the service) they had heard differed from what these two were now saying, the response was, well they’re wrong. By this time Mr Hammond seemed to be losing some of his patience and getting rather belligerent about the fact that the statement he made was being questioned. He also stated that he believed the staff to be happy when asked about the contrary evidence – not sure the Coastguards would share his beliefs there, in fact, not one of the people I have spoken to, do!

As to local knowledge, by the end of this process, 159 staff with local knowledge will have left. And no, there is not a 15% vacancy rate, there is only 13.8% and this hardly affects anything – hmmmmmm!

And so it went on. The steering group was very knowledgeable, asking vital questions that demonstrated their concern for maritime safety. Too often, Sir Alan Massey’s answers seemed to be “trust me I’m an expert” while Stephen Hammond replied that he had asked Massey and been told it was okay, so that was that. In fact, Hammond demonstrated clearly, his complete ignorance of operational matters and, after claiming he had spoken to staff and gained their assurance that they were happy with the proposals, had to admit that he had not visited a single MRCC and the staff he had spoken to were in fact civil servants within the Department of Transport and Sir Alan Massey. Oh dear!

Written by Lynne Gray

Fact and fiction – when it just doesn’t add up!

13. November 2012 · 2 comments · Categories: Coastguards, CoastguardSOS, Common Sense, Government, MCA Cuts, SafetyAtSea, Technology

Forth Coastguard station has already been closed

Much has been made and said about the ‘Modernisation’ of HM Coastguard (HMCG) but the reality is that it’s neither an improvement nor acceptable when the CEO of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) admits that response times to rescues are likely to be delayed up to 10 minutes.

It is in truth, purely a cost saving exercise dressed up with a sprinkling of technology upgrading. There is also the introduction of a new concept of ‘Coastguard domain awareness’ which is based on theory and has no proven operational competency.

If the current plan for HMCG was sound, safe and being implemented in a common sense way, then the Transport Select Committee (TSC) would not have taken the unusual step of re-opening the Inquiry into the changes affecting HMCG. Also, the devolved governments in Scotland and Wales would not be so concerned

One of the KEY arguments for the current plan, which is being hastily executed, is the need for efficiency and a cost saving benefit of a smaller network of HMCG rescue coordination centres.

If we ignore the practical implications of fewer staff covering larger areas and increasing workloads & incidents, we should try to look at the wider picture and the significant impact that these changes will make on the maritime economy.

The MCA say that HMCG costs the UK taxpayer about £35 million per year, there are about 30 million taxpayers… so that equates to around £1.16 per taxpayer.

The MCA say that the current savings IF* all the changes go according to forecast £4.6 million…. so that’s 15.3p per taxpayer. (*The introduction of a Maritime Operations Centre MOC is reliant on new technology being reconfigured and systems. Govt. IT implementation has a poor track record of both delivery & budget).

COST SUMMARY

HMCG COSTS £35 million = £1.16/taxpayer/year CLOSURES Est. SAVING £4.6 million = 15 pence/taxpayer/year

In the most recent report to determine value, the following facts were claimed:

http://www.maritimelondon.com/Maritime%20UK%20statistics.pdf

UK MARITIME INDUSTRY

Directly creates 227,000 jobs, contributes £13.1 billion to UK GDP and generates £3.1 billion for the UK Exchequer

The industry also supports considerable activity in other sectors…….in total, including indirect and induced effects, it supported: 531,000 jobs, contributed £26.5 billion to UK GDP & generated £7.8 billion for the UK Exchequer

SUMMARY

We live on an Island, our Maritime Environment is critical to every aspect of our future, 95% of goods travel by the sea, all our current & future energy is influenced by the sea.

By failing to take into account the Maritime Financial Domain and the challenges it faces, our Government is failing to protect the whole country by focussing on poor value high risk cost savings in cutting 50% of HM Coastguard Maritime Rescue centres.

HMCG is a vital 999 service for our Maritime Environment; it provides services similar to Police/Fire/Ambulance. Common sense alone would dictate that we invest & strengthen HMCG to meet increased risks from climate change related weather events and increased reliance on wind/sea generated energy.

The importance of our Maritime Industry has been underlined by the forming of the UK Maritime Industries Alliance:

http://www.ukmarinealliance.co.uk/

The maritime industry report has identified areas of growth for the whole industry which are a good premise of fiscal policies to help the UK economy.

Indeed potential for growth & economic recovery has also been identified by EU Fisheries Commissioner, Maria Damanaki, for this area:

Ms Damanaki said, “the marine and maritime economic sectors already employ well over five million people and account for a gross value added of €500 billion.” ….. “According to a recent study, these figures are expected to grow to €600 billion and seven million employed people in 2020.”

http://www.fishupdate.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/18360/EU_fishing_and_marine_industries_to__be_worth_600_bn_euros_by_2020_.html

ANY reduction or weakening of our Coastguard service can only be seen as a counter productive move which will undermine our opportunities for economic recovery. What message do the HMCG closures send to our Maritime Industry?

Therefore it is my opinion that the current ‘modernisation’ plan for HM Coastguard is the biggest threat to UK Maritime Safety since WWII.

HM Coastguard was formally 190 years old on 15^th January 2012; it has been the world’s premier Coastguard service. It is my firm opinion that we should develop and build on the existing system we have without closing any MRCCs by measured introduction of new systems & technology utilising existing experienced staff.

The Future Coastguard system must be fit for purpose; it must be as safe if not safer than the existing structure.

To embrace UK & Global Maritime domain awareness, it must be fully aware of the current value of the UK Maritime Industry and the potential for growth it has.

The current closure plan for HMCG is morally, practically, operationally wrong and I think you can add FINANCIALLY wrong too.

A man of principle – we sincerely hope so!

04. October 2012 · 1 comment · Categories: Uncategorized

Patrick McLoughlin

He’s only been in his new position of Secretary of State for Transport a matter of weeks but the Rt. Hon Patrick McLoughlin has stopped the rail franchise farce in its tracks! Today he said “unacceptable mistakes” were made by the Department for Transport (DfT) in the way it managed the franchise bids. On top of that, three Department for Transport officials have been suspended.

WELL DONE! I hear you say and cautiously we echo that sentiment. If, as we are led to believe, Mr. McLoughlin has flexed his muscle and as a man of principle, decided to do the unthinkable then good on him. It should also raise hope for everyone connected to the campaign to save Coastguard rescue coordination centres if Mr. McLoughlin is adopting a “no nonsense – do it by the book or bugger off” attitude towards ruling his maverick department. Maybe he’s got the guts that so many of us demanded from his predecessors (both of them) to investigate the flawed Coastguard closure plan and stop it now before someone dies as a result of desk bound idiots having no comprehension of the tragedy that will unfold as a result of the closure programme.

OR, maybe the sheer fact that Sir Richard Branson began legal proceedings was a big enough wake up call to the Government and they knew that Sir Richard would make his legal action stick because the process was hookey. The terms “Jumped before being pushed” and “falling on your sword” spring to mind but will we ever know what has really gone on behind the closed doors of the DfT? The answer surely lays in Mr. McLaughlin’s next move…….He MUST investigate the closure process that the DfT and MCA have backed to the hilt. He MUST review every statement made by the former Shipping Minister, Mike Penning MP for accuracy and truth (or otherwise) and he MUST examine every piece of evidence which has been presented to his department by Coastguard officers, industry experts and campaigners who have repeatedly warned of the dangers that will without a shadow of a doubt come in the future.

Go on Mr. McLoughlin – Show your fellow MPs that it is not big or clever of them to support blinkered, deceitful and idiotic plans which will risk the lives of coast users. STOP THE CLOSURE OF COASTGUARD RESCUE COORDINATION CENTRES NOW.

Written by Dennis O’Connor.

Red for danger, red for Save Our Coastguard

01. September 2012 · 5 comments · Categories: Uncategorized

Members of the Coastguard SOS team made the (very long for some) journey up to Greenock for the flotilla/demonstration against the closure of Clyde MRCC. This was a significant gesture as Clyde is the second HM Coastguard station to close in just a few weeks’ time.

The demonstration was peacefully run by the local campaign group and culminated in the setting of red distress flares …. there had been warnings by Strathclyde Police not to do so!.. see quote:

“Whilst members of the public are welcome to gather on land or on boats or vessels to show their support for the event, the setting off of red distress flares for anything other than a genuine emergency is illegal under the Merchant Shipping Act. Anyone who does so might be subject to an investigation by officers from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.”

An irresponsible act?

Well, that really depends upon your viewpoint… a pure legal stance.. it is breaking the law but many would argue that fair warning was given and there was no malicious intent.

Flares are let off with a dispensation from HM Coastguard; this can be for training purposes or an exercise.

There have been high profile examples of Olympians letting off orange smoke flares without any repercussions.

Orange smoke flares are designated as a daytime distress signal and red light flares are designated as night/day distress signal.

There is another argument… “situations will occur from time to time of which all, or almost all, right thinking people—the “common people” would say that it would be right to break the letter of the law”

Here we have a situation where the ‘normal’ processes of complaint and dialogue have been dismissed by the Government.

The ‘common people’ are in distress about the loss (against their will) of rightful protection and service from HM Coastguard which is funded by the people.

The frustrations of the good people of the Clyde area were borne out tonight in a show of unity & purpose.

If any prosecutions are forthcoming against any of the participants, then the letter of the law must be upheld against all… including … the windsurfer, the canoeists, the 40-50 boats… the Sea Cadets that lined the shore and the Olympians that appeared on the TV.

There is also a warning from campaigners… should any tragedy be attributed to the loss of a Coastguard Station against the will of the people, then those who failed to listen to us, MUST be prosecuted to the fullest extent !

I am proud to have travelled up to Scotland & witnessed the voice of the common people.

Written by CoastalJoe

As I watched tonight’s protest … I could not fail to notice how a considerable number of Parachute Flares failed to deploy properly or reach any height. Perhaps this was a good demonstration of just how unreliable some of these emergency devices are.

I recommend that the Maritime & Coastguard Agency spends some time investigating the reliability of these devices.

Mike Penning “.. a regional structure will put lives at risk ..”

01. August 2012 · Write a comment · Categories: Coastguards, CoastguardSOS, Common Sense, Environment, Government, Integrity, Local Knowledge, MCA Cuts, SafetyAtSea

It is always gratifying when you read quotes from people who agree with the same principles you are fighting for. So I ask you to read the following article, quoting Mike Penning and appearing on his web site.

Mike Penning

Labour cuts threaten fire safety across Hertfordshire

19th August 2005

Mike Penning, MP for Hemel Hempstead and a former fire fighter, today expressed his concern at the announcement by John Prescott’s Whitehall department that it is to shut down the local fire control room, replacing it with a distant regional call centre based in Cambridge.

These cuts to local fire services have occurred without any input from local people, and mean that 999 calls will be answered up to 100 miles away – by operators who have little knowledge of Hemel Hempstead and the surrounding villages. The restructuring process will cost a massive £72 million, re-diverting resources away from frontline protection.

Mike Penning asserted,

“Despite the rejection of regional government in November’s North East regional referendum, John Prescott is moving ahead with his expensive plans to create new regional fire quangos. This will mean the local fire control room will be shut down.

“As a former fire fighter I know from personal experience how a regional structure will put lives at risk, since 999 operators will have less knowledge of the Hemel Hempstead area The East of England region contains 5.4 million people, and covers a mammoth area of 19,000 sq km. Civil resilience could also be damaged by placing all our eggs in one basket. If the regional centre is forced offline by a disaster or attack, the whole emergency response will go down across a massive geographical area.

“I oppose this damaging regional agenda. I believe that fire and rescue authorities must remain close and accountable to local people. I fear that local fire stations could be next if distant regional politicians continue with their cuts. John Prescott’s regional empire building is playing politics with fire safety.”

A well presented argument for not using a regional structure for the fire service, with emphasis being put on the loss of local knowledge. The building Mike Penning is talking about is a regional centre, not a national centre, such as Penning’s Folly, the newly proposed HQ for the Maritime Coastal Agency.

It was a strong, and successful, argument for not having a regional call centre for the fire service. And that was with the added bonus of people being able to use postcodes, street names and landmarks to identify where a fire was.

Now imagine the argument against having a national call centre for the Maritime Coastal Agency. If this is Mr Penning’s view of a regional centre, why oh why, is he trying to push through a national centre for the Coastguard Service? All the above points made by Mike Penning, Shipping Minister, are absolutely spot on for keeping every single coastguard station and not playing politics with people’s safety at sea. Even more so when you imagine the tides and currents taking people and boats a long way from the original incident site. Oh yes, and there aren’t many street names to go by, nor postal codes nor buildings! Cliffs and rocks, yes, everything else would be down to critical local knowledge.

So what has changed? Nothing, just the names and the party in power! But the wonderful thing about all this is that Mike Penning has given us the perfect argument against the cuts to the Coastguard Stations and this empire building.

Graham Warlow, ex Watch Manager, has re-jigged the last two paragraphs to show how Mike Penning’ arguments are absolutely perfect for

Justine Greening

the Coastguard SOS team trying to save the Stations from closure.

As an ex Coastguard, I know from personal experience how a national structure will put lives at risk, since the operators will have less knowledge of the any area other than where they live. The fact that Mike Penning opposed a regional structure for the fire service because of an area the size of the East of England, covering a mammoth 19,000 square kilometres, makes the notion of a national centre, covering an area of 243,610 square kilometres (nearly thirteen times the size), as bordering on insanity! If the national centre is forced offline by a disaster or attack, the whole emergency response will go down across the whole of the United Kingdom.

I oppose this damaging national agenda. I believe the Coastguard and rescue authorities must remain close and accountable to local people. I fear that more local Coastguard stations could go if distant national politicians continue with their cuts. Justine Greening’s national empire building is playing politics with people’s lives.

Written by Lynne Gray

‘The Shambles’ aka MCA head office

16. July 2012 · 2 comments · Categories: Coastguards, CoastguardSOS, Common Sense, Government, Integrity, Local Knowledge, MCA Cuts, SafetyAtSea

The Coastguard SOS team is made up of members of the public who have serious concerns for the safety of people when the Coastguard stations closures are implemented, as unfortunately members of the actual Coastguard service are subject to gagging orders and cannot speak – who said this country was democratic?!

We’ve been telling you the good news that Mr Cameron stated in his letter; “Finally, those centres that are planned for closure will remain open until 2015 in order to ensure that the planned transition to the new arrangements will maximise the retention of local knowledge.”

A very straightforward statement and one that was welcomed by the Coastguard SOS team fighting to keep all the stations open. Thank goodness the Prime Minister has the sense to make sure the stations will stay open until 2015 at the very least, so that the changeover to a national call centre (see Penning’s Folly), would be smoother and give appropriate time for everything that would be necessary for the hand-overs.

Today, the news from Inverclyde Now gave the news about this, stating -

THE Clyde Coastguard rescue co-ordination centre at Greenock will close later this year as planned, it has been confirmed, despite a letter from the Prime Minister which appeared to say that Coastguard centres ear-marked for closure would stay open for another two years.

Coastguard campaigners received a copy of a letter from Prime Minister David Cameron to a constutuent which stated: “Those centres that are planned for closure will remain open until 2015 in order to ensure that the planned transitions to the new arrangements will maximise the retention of local knowledge.”

Campaigners issued statements saying the centres — including Clyde — had been granted a “reprieve.”

I would like to take issue with the words highlighted in red – the letter did not appear to state; the letter categorically stated that Coastguard centres earmarked for closure would stay open: and also for another two years; the years from 2012 to 2015 are three, unless my fundamental knowledge of mathematics is incorrect!

The page goes on to state -

But the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) insisted there has been no change to the plan and that Clyde Coastguard will shut in December with its work being transferred to the centres in Belfast and Stornoway.

Navy Buildings, Greenock

An MCA spokesman said: “The reform of Coastguard stations will go ahead as planned. The PM has written to his constituent to clarify the matter. (i) Under the plans the Coastguard co-ordination centres at Forth, Clyde, Great Yarmouth, Liverpool, Thames, Swansea, Brixham and Portland will close progressively by 31 March 2015.

“The Ministry of Defence (MoD) plan to close their base at Clyde [Navy Buildings in Eldon Street] and part of that plan means that the Clyde Coastguard and all its associated equipment must be removed. Staff are already informally aware of the intended closure date of 31 December 2012. (ii)

“A change team comprising operational staff from Clyde, Belfast and Stornoway is actively managing the technical and operational work required to achieve the decommissioning of Clyde by 31 December 2012. We aim to transfer operational coordination for Clyde’s area to Belfast and Stornoway by 18 December 2012. This will avoid trying to manage technical switchover during the Christmas period.”

(i) The Prime Minister has written to this constituent to clarify the matter – indeed he has, and as said before, he categorically stated the coastguard stations would stay open until 2015. There has been no other letter received.

(ii) Staff are already informally aware of the intended closure date of 31 December 2012. And Happy New Year to you too! But seriously, what utter disregard and disrespect for the people in the team working there.

What an awful state of affairs this is. The Prime Minister makes a statement in black and white and the MCA media team states this is incorrect! A very good question would be, Who is running this country?

From the first announcement, this MCA plan has been riddled with inconsistencies and errors. There has been no transparency, no listening to peoples’ concerns and, certainly, no risk and assessment exercises carried out on each particular station. And, even more importantly, this is despite requests from the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. Horrendous ~ you cannot describe rocks and waves to a national call centre, which obviously does not have the local knowledge that is critical to successful rescues.

This is a cost cutting exercise that only benefits the Department of Transport and the elite of the MCA. Shame on them.

Written by Lynne Gray

Reprieve from Mr Cameron regarding Coastguard closures!

16. July 2012 · Write a comment · Categories: Uncategorized

After finding significant flaws in the plans to close 50% of HM Coastguard Maritime Regional Coordination Centres, campaign members of the Coastguard SOS campaign group made representations to the Shipping Minister, Mike Penning, and the Prime Minister, David Cameron.

The comprehensive and detailed report featured 10 Major Concerns. Each concern in its own right would warrant serious consideration as to the safety of the current ongoing closure and restructuring programme. Each concern was backed up wherever possible with linked documents which (in the main) came from the Maritime Coastguard Agency.

The only response we have received to date (15^th July2012) was the referenced letter from Mr. Cameron (see letter).

	LETTER FROM Mr CAMERON 12thJULY2012	RESPONSE FROM COASTGUARD SOS CAMPAIGN GROUP	linked Reference
A	I believe that there are a number of benefits to the proposed reforms	You have failed to list “a number of benefits”, the reply given was lacking any substance unlike our detailed & substantiated list of concerns,
B	The current rescue co-ordination arrangements have changed very little since the removal of the visual watch system in 1970′s	Inaccurate: In Nov 1997 Select Committee on Public Accounts on HM Coastguard looked at the structure changes to HMCG including closure of stations, advances in the use of technology and upgrade to digital technology. Results of which led to procedural changes and skills testing including exams on local knowledge. Significant improvements made to rescue coordination.	B-Ref
C	By introducing a nationally-integrated network, the coastguard will be more resilient to sudden increases in workload	With 50% less rescue centres, remaining staff have considerably more work/responsibility exacerbated by current staff shortages; there will be little resilience for the system to manage sudden workload increases.	C-Ref
D	The recent consultation led to the Government keeping open at least one of each paired coastguard centres.	A fact on paper, however the split in area responsibility has meant that (for example) Belfast was never paired with Liverpool but is now taking over this area as their responsibility without any local knowledge or experience of the types of incidents that Liverpool regularly deal with ie: mud rescue at Morecambe bay. Additionally,Belfastis one of the smallest areas with the least number of incidents per year.
E	Operational pairs have experience and knowledge in managing incidents across their shared geographical area.	Pairing fiction. ‘Pairing’ between MRCC’s is, in reality, (if it happens) limited to switch over of 999 calls and monitoring of local VHF channels. Local knowledge is NOT shared. Assurances were given on the basis that one of each pair could fully take over the others area, which is simply NOT TRUE.
F	By keeping at least one centre from each pair, we will ensure that this invaluable experience and local knowledge is retained”	The MCA’s own document states: “With the exception of Aberdeen, MRCCs are neither staffed nor equipped to provide full cover across a pairing.”	F-Ref
G	changes will allow us to have more money for full-time staff to train the volunteers, more equipment and a professional career and pay structure that we would all be happy with, rather than the structure we have today	MCA & HMCG have a statutory duty of care to provide proper training & equipment for all staff, especially those engaged in hazardous activities such as cliff rescue, mud rescue etc. HM Coastguard is no different from any other 999 organisation e.g. Fire/Rescue and should already have acceptable pay/career/training. Sacrificing 50% of rescue centres to achieve budgetary requirements without demonstrating operational ability to meet mandatory requirements of SOLAS is criminal negligence.	G-Ref
H	those centres that are planned for closure will remain open until 2015 in order to ensure that the planned transition to the new arrangements will maximise the retention of local knowledge	This statement encouraging yet contradictory, the first centre was to have closed September 2012 according to recent announcements. To confirm that NO centre will close before 2015 is a welcomed reprieve and falls back in line with the original House of Commons statement by Mike Penning MP on 22nd Nov. 2011 . Also this statement contradicts Ref. F as it acknowledges the need to transfer local knowledge.	H-Ref
I	The Government has run two consultations on these proposals and has studied carefully the responses we received.	This statement is incorrect, there has been one consultation which was in two parts, they were intrinsically linked “in the light of consultation on the proposals published on 16 December 2010 in the Maritime and Coastguard Agency consultation document “Protecting our Seas and Shores in the 21st Century”. These conclusions and the reasons behind them are set out in the consultation document, which identifies those specific changes from the original proposals on which the Government wishes to consult further.” No new objections were considered in the second consultation.	I-Ref
J	This clearly demonstrated by the retention of more centres than originally proposed and ensuring that all centres stay open for 24 hours a day throughout the week	The original proposals for the future of HMCG service were unanimously unacceptable to any of the main stakeholders in maritime safety. The only thing clear about the whole proposals regarding HMCG were that they were extremely poorly thought out and had little operational basis or consultation within the service.	J-Ref

Conclusion: Our meticulous effort in raising the issue of factual concerns, has so far been met with a mediocre, inaccurate reply. The reprieve given by the PM to closing HMCG centres until 2015 at least allows more time for the Government to look properly at the 10 fatal flaws in the current plan.

Written by Coastal Joe

The response to Dear Mr Cameron

16. July 2012 · 1 comment · Categories: Uncategorized

Coastguard SOS