APPENDIX 2
AREA OPERATIONS OFFICERS MEETING ABOUT AUXILIARY
COASTGUARD AVAILABILITY
I have noticed over the years, that it is becoming
increasingly more difficult to get a good response from certain
teams. This is due to team members living in small coastal communities
having to work further a field which is reducing availability
throughout the working day. The problems of many coastal towns
becoming retirement havens are also beginning to have an effect.
At the moment we have to page two teams every
time we need a cliff team in order to ensure sufficient numbers.
Your suggestions regarding full time ACG's would
undoubtedly help, or we could increase the number of team members.
We could even look at the option of releasing ops team members
at local incidents in the future, providing we could facilitate
the necessary training.
Murray
As discussed a problem we have in the SE is
the increasing usage of coastal towns as "dormitory"
towns. In other words people may stay in coastal areas but they
work in London or other large towns.
It is particularly bad on the Essex coast. This
of course has a major effect on our complements, with one team
having only two available members needing to be supplemented by
the Sector Manager doing on call.
We have had enquiries from people who live outside
the "patch" but this of course has had a knock on effect
on the Service Standard.
Solutions:—Look very seriously at reducing
some teams to IRTS and where appropriate amalgamate 2 teams into
one. I appreciate the political ramifications of this.
Keith
In the more rural areas of Northwest England
and North Wales (North Wales, Cumbria and the southern Dumfries
and Galloway coast) availability is becoming an even greater issue,
as I am sure it is for all.
Likewise the majority of those who come from
small coastal communities invariably work outside the area of
their residence and availability and response times during the
working day are difficulty to maintain. This will increase when
WTD (working time directive) starts to impact on the so-called
"Day jobs".
There are, I believe, a number of solutions
that would resolve these issues such as:
(i) Change our response time criteria.
(ii) Employment of full time CGs for CRTs
(Coastguard rescue teams).
(iii) Employment of a limited number of full
time CGs supported by ACGs (where availability is difficult).
(iv) Increase the number of ACGs within each
team. (This was highlighted during recent discussions with Cumbria
Fire Service who recruit 40 retained fire-fighters to maintain
an available team of 12!).
The latter would be more cost effective in the
long run, however would have an impact on the number of training
hours issued to areas/regions for ACGs and the additional numbers
would have an impact on the sector manager workload.
Davy
The obvious answer to the question would we
have full time Auxiliaries is "yes".
I am not saying that every team should be full
time but there are certainly some "hotspots" where we
really struggle. The added benefit would be that these individuals
could be out on the road during their period of duty delivering
our AP and Education initiatives, in a similar way to the fire
brigade.
With regards to response times I think we are
placing the Aux's under unnecessary pressure to respond to an
incident. They have no specialised driver training and usually
respond in their own car. Is that fair or even safe?
Daytime availability is posing us a real problem.
The days when the local butcher, baker and candlestick maker joined
the team are gone. The majority of auxiliaries work outside their
guards, especially in rural areas. We are actively trying to recruit
housewives and retired persons to improve availability. Unfortunately
this is easier said than done!
Peter
We do not seem to have an excessive problem
down here with availability and call-out issues, but we have always
given priority to availability when recruiting. We are always
able to meet easily the response times for IRTs (initial response
teams) and back-up support throughout the area, and support from
adjacent teams is also easy to arrange as we proved at Boscastle.
I cannot see any merit in full-time rescue teams.
Our south western teams are busier that most (some respond to
100 plus calls per annum) but what would they do when not doing
their thing? What salary are we going to pay? My teams are staffed
by people, many of whom are earning more than me, so they are
not going to do it for peanuts. We would also lose the majority
of the people we have now if full-time work was the norm. My experience
of the east coast, when some of my teams did not get a single
call in a year, suggests it would be even harder to justify.
A central full-time team responding countywide
is also a no-go. Even here in a peninsular it does not work, as
the roads are so busy in the summer.
If it aint broke why fix it? We are more than
happy with the status quo.
CS
Availability—increasingly a problem, and
has lead to the general policy of paging two or three teams so
as to get the required turnout. We have to acknowledge that, people
are less likely to live and work in the same area; there employers
are less willing to allow them away from their work; folk are
less inclined to subject themselves to the rigorous training regime;
we are competing with other agencies, such as FB, for a finite
resource.
Response times—Need to realistic, particularly
in the more remote areas. I also think we have scored something
of an own goal in update of CG3 where, rather than referring to
having someone on scene, it talks about being able to carry out
a rescue. Do we need to have response times at all? We have teams
in some areas who only have a couple of shouts a year, but are
retained so as to maintain cover. Rather than released staff from
RCC being used for prevention, why not for them into full-time
response teams?
Nick
| 
