PDA

View Full Version : So I suppose you want us to throw her back in?


EchoMike
22nd Jan 2009, 17:41
British Coastguard Crews Must Complete Readiness Forms Before Rescues

Thu, 22 Jan '09
"Hold On... Can't Go Yet... May I Borrow A Pen?"

http://www.aero-news.net/images/content/general/2009/MCA-logo-0109a1_tn.gif (http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=dfb72e5d-e476-43dc-b0c3-b44fcf95e128&#d)The following isn't an aviation story in the strictest sense... but if you plan on any recreation along the coast of England, make sure you notify the authorities well in advance if you expect to need rescue.
Britain's 400 affected coastguard units now face time-consuming paperwork before they're allowed to take their specially-equipped Land Rovers out on distress calls.
The Daily Mail reports the 'vehicle pre-journey risk assessment' forms include four questions about the nature of the mission; an explanation of the reason for the journey; details of any risks involved, including current and forecast weather; and planned steps to mitigate risks. A leader must then answer a yes/no question about whether the risk is acceptable.
As might be imagined, the 3,200 rescue workers affected are outraged at the latest in what's being called a string of health and safety rulings recently issued by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which also employs a fleet of search-and-rescue aircraft.
One coastguard commented, "When we were first told about this, we simply couldn't believe it. When we get a call asking us to go out and rescue someone, we need to go there without delay... do they expect us to get a full weather forecast before we go out? Do they really want us to find out what the traffic conditions will be?
"The impression we get is that the bosses are doing everything they can to make sure their hands are legally clean if there is any kind of problem."
This isn't the first recent case of red-tape-gone-wild. In November, the Department for Transport told coastguards they must start using torches for nighttime search and rescue, because flares might injure someone.
The Mail reports that in August, a three-man coastguard crew from Devon was disciplined because they rescued a 13-year-old girl 150 yards off shore using a boat that had not been passed by health and safety officials.

* * * *

I will therefore be sure to have all the appropriate forms correctly and fully filled out, stamped, notarized where required, filed in triplicate, lost, found, lost again, and securely locked in a file cabinet down in the basement before I accidentally crash my airplane in the UK . . .

Best Regards,

Echo Mike

Parapunter
22nd Jan 2009, 17:49
The problem with this story is The Daily Mail reports. That's just too much of a rarity.

Squeegee Longtail
22nd Jan 2009, 17:59
Sounds very typical of the MCA to me.

Reluctant737
22nd Jan 2009, 18:01
If this is true, it's absolutely disgusting. How about "We don't have the time to be filling in a bit of paper to cover some useless [email protected] ass" as a practical risk assessment.

Health and safety my ass... all a bunch of spineless tossers.

Loose rivets
23rd Jan 2009, 06:17
There was a bad accident at a crossroads in our quiet little Essex town. Both drivers were okay...ish. Both vehicles written off, one upside down on the footpath. Then came the paramedic.

Well, not quite, he only made it to the next crossroads. The woman he hit had to be cut out of her car and airlifted out.

The point of all this is the standard of driving of...what shall I call them? partially qualified drivers. I have to say that the middle aged paramedic looked sensible enough, as he was wheeled past me by two of his colleagues. Poor bloke...but poor lady that he hit.

I've seen our Lifeboat Land Rover belting down the road in a 30mph area...local bloke with good intent but nothing, nothing remotely like a police road-traffic drivers training behind him.

I don't know what kicked this barmy H&S form nonsense off, but maybe it was the result of some incident in the uk where poorly trained drivers were going too fast.

Everywhere our emergency services are becoming strained, but also the standards a being eroded by mind-bogglingly stupid management decisions.

When I needed help, the woman should have had to refer to a checklist, the first item stating...Bang head on wall until your fcuking brain works.


If you're really board, read link. Starts at the first of the longer paragraphs.

http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/297324-delicate-question-manners-part-ii-2.html#post3654185

gingernut
23rd Jan 2009, 06:57
I havn't read the Daily Mail since I left Timperley, (where they all read the Daily Mail), but I have had the good fortune to be plucked from the sea, and saved a night at sea on the board, by these splendid chaps.

And having spent many an hour on the South West coast, these chaps really are splendid, tirelesly putting up with, and where required, risking life and limb, for numpties like myself.

Next time you feel like moaning about the yoof of today, have a look at these boys train, off Newquay, in April.

Anyway, I don't know too much about the MCA. I guess the question we should ask, is, has their new system been demonstrated to save lives and reduce incidents, without the cost of delaying rescue.

Or is it something dreamt up by some boff in an Ivory Tower?

Happens all the time in the world of health.

Buster Hyman
23rd Jan 2009, 07:20
Some of the things we get trained in for driving is;

Never use the vehicle horn whilst driving with lights & sirens on. It has been successfully argued that a collision occured because the "driver" couldn't hear the Fire trucks siren over the blaring horn &...

Emergency vehicles have right of way with all other road users, except pedestrians on a pedestrian crossing!!! WTF?!?!:rolleyes:

west lakes
23rd Jan 2009, 09:54
This appeared in Rotorheads (and was closed)

So the Coastguards are being asked to complete a tick box form with 4 questions on it before they attend an incident.
So what, wr issue a 20 question tick box to our staff for on site use - mainly because we don't want them injured or hurt.

But extend it further, before say a rescue helicopter launches it will be pre-flighted, weather checked, checklists completed etc.
So where is the difference
Within law a checklist is a risk assesement BTW

Ah that's it in the aircraft case the crew are based with the aircraft, and will have had the time to do all that, monitor the wx and conditions.
In the vehicle case they may be volunteers, may have just come from their day job as say a teacher, they maybe hope that the vehicle is ready, may be going to a cliff edge with high winds forecast so it makes aboslute sense to take a few seconds to check before they do.

And before anyone starts about H&S madness, this is all based on a law that came onto statute in 1992, and is based on european laws that came out at the same time. The only part of it that shocks me is that it has taken some organisation since then to actually comply with it!!

mocoman
23rd Jan 2009, 09:58
Never mind using the horn Buster;

I witnessed an incident a few years ago where a London fire engine, with lights and siren on, T-boned a BMW at a junction.

The reason? The Beemer driver had his stereo so loud that he couldn't hear the sirens so when the traffic lights we were sat at turned to green he gunned his engine and drove straight into the path of the fire engine while the rest of us waiting at the lights watched in astonishment.

Captain Stable
23rd Jan 2009, 10:00
So many BMW's, so few fire engines or supplies of TNT... :bored:

ORAC
23rd Jan 2009, 10:12
The emergency services do not have right of way at junctions with traffic lights. The priority remains with the vehicles with the green light. One fire engine driver even got points on his own licence after a collision. (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Fire-engine-driver-told-to.3640371.jp)

Buster Hyman
23rd Jan 2009, 11:09
Never mind using the horn Buster;
Oh...if only I had a dollar....:}

airship
23rd Jan 2009, 13:04
Sounds like some (lawyers?) have put the wind up the souls at the MCA and they're just forwarding it all on...?! I mean, imagine the consequences in the event that the "rescued party" is worse-off for whatever reason after "the rescue"? (Their) lawyers might argue that it was because of equipment defects, improper training or worse.

But I have the solution:

Before "the party" is actually rescued, the "party in distress" will have to agree to the Lloyd’s Standard Form of Persons in Distress 2009 Agreement (http://www.lloyds.com/NR/rdonlyres/5B84549E-C44C-4A65-8AB8-1D1831667FE1/0/AgencyLOF2000.pdf) - No Cure, No Pay. IMHO, the original standard form could be modified to accommodate very easily, the keyword being "endeavour"...

I mean, if the "party in distress" prefers to hang about waiting for a (water-) taxi or equivalent, instead of an arbitration panel, they ought to be allowed to. Everyone else can then go home and let 'em get on with it.

One's only regret is that it's rarely lawyers who are the "party in distress". I can imagine the jokes along the lines of: "200 lawyers from a large NY firm were holding their annual get-together aboard a luxury gin-palace in the Chesapeake Bay, where details of bonus awards would be announced, when the vessel started to sink..." :E

mocoman
28th Jan 2009, 00:53
The priority remains with the vehicles with the green light

Agreed.

However, my muppet had his in-car entertainment SO LOUD that I could feel the bass from two lanes away.

Driving without due care and attention I believe?

:}