Coastguard 'elf and safety'!!

C2 RIBS · 03 November 2008, 18:08

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...h-instead.html

codprawn · 03 November 2008, 18:53

This WILL cost lives - I haven't heard of the coastguard killing many people with flares!!!

Nos4r2 · 03 November 2008, 19:06

Perhaps someone should do a health and safety assessment on the consequences of pissing the public off so much with jobsworth decisions. I suspect it's far more dangerous than flares...

Richard B · 03 November 2008, 19:10

I think this has come to the point where the management of organisations such at the Coastguard should realise that their modestly paid staff, and the volunteers, are there because they can do "dangerous" things legally and safely. Lets face it, if the RNLI had to plod around at displacement speed and in conditions of f6 and less because of some misplaced "health and safety" directive, then most of the volunteers would probably leave!

willk · 03 November 2008, 19:23

"Rescue teams have been told to use 'safer' alternatives such as torches and night vision goggles during land-based cliff and beach rescues. "

The decision only applies to land use. Does this put a different perspective on it?

Bigmuz7 · 03 November 2008, 19:25

Like the two pcso's who stood watching a child drown whilst following 'procedure', whilst most of the rest of us would have had our jackets off in a split second to do our best, its another blurring of the lines where simple effective measures & methods get pushed to the side in favour of unworkable and inefective, alternatives. When do these idiots come out from behind a desk I ask ?..

Nos4r2 · 03 November 2008, 20:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by willk

"Rescue teams have been told to use 'safer' alternatives such as torches and night vision goggles during land-based cliff and beach rescues. "

The decision only applies to land use. Does this put a different perspective on it?

Not really if you're on moorland.

willk · 03 November 2008, 21:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nos4r2

Not really if you're on moorland.

Well yes and no, moorland can burn spectacularly well after a few weeks of dry weather - ask any Grouse-fondler!

I've never heard of a land based rescue using magnesium flares, the report suggests it's uncommon. Water based Rescue will continue to use flares if required.

I think this is a storm in a teacup.

Bigmuz7 · 03 November 2008, 22:09

So the army will have to stop using them too then

followed by proper bullets in action, incase anyone gets hurt

Nos4r2 · 03 November 2008, 22:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by willk

Well yes and no, moorland can burn spectacularly well after a few weeks of dry weather

Hopefully the coastguard has enough common sense not to do that then...

willk · 04 November 2008, 11:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nos4r2

Hopefully the coastguard has enough common sense not to do that then...

One would hope not. But then, one might assume that an RNLI crew wouldn't lose a 3 million quid boat pulling an unmanned rib off rocks on Rathlin (as that would be a salvage operation, not a rescue).

codprawn · 04 November 2008, 13:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by willk

Well yes and no, moorland can burn spectacularly well after a few weeks of dry weather - ask any Grouse-fondler!

I've never heard of a land based rescue using magnesium flares, the report suggests it's uncommon. Water based Rescue will continue to use flares if required.

I think this is a storm in a teacup.

We used them when I was with the Brecon mountain rescue. And the army use them in the Beacons as well. Not a lot to burn up there and it's never exactly dry.............

willk · 04 November 2008, 19:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by codprawn

We used them when I was with the Brecon mountain rescue. And the army use them in the Beacons as well. Not a lot to burn up there and it's never exactly dry.............

Can't see Health & Safety wresting too much firepower from the Army! They're TRAINED to kill people

John Kennett · 06 November 2008, 09:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by C2 RIBS

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...h-instead.html

Well, anything based on a newspaper article as its only source probably doesn't give the full story.

I can't find anything on the MCA web site, but this article suggests that it's possible that there just may be more to it: http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/home...l/article.html

Has anyone got any more info on it?

John

havener · 06 November 2008, 14:16

John,

All Coast Rescue Teams are having their paraluminaires withdrawn by the end of the year. CG boats will retain their normal flare packs.

These lighting flares ARE used a lot - maybe not in Spring Place accountant's terms, but on a dark night they can light up large areas of beach, marsh, sea or coast as well as providing reassurance for a casualty that help is on the way.

If they're so dangerous, how come the sector managers are disposing of them by...er...firing them off?

Someone commented earlier along the lines of it doesn't matter as it only applies to land rescues - slightly incorrect, as land based rescue is what coast rescue teams do.

The rubbish about torches, night vision etc is just that - rubbish. There is more chance of me tap dancing naked on the moon that there is of Spring Place issuing night vision gear to CRTs.

Yet another decision from the padded rooms at Spring Palace, without reference to either experience, fact, need or talking to the people who do the job.

And as for helicopter lighting support, well, how is that more cost effective, and anyway, they can't even specify a helo that can switch its lights on without blowing all its fuses!