NationStates Jolt Archive

Seriously, the UK government is the lulz sometimes :p

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082653/Coastguard-banned-using-flares-safety-fears-told-use-torch-instead.html

Coastguards have been banned from using flares in rescue missions after they were ruled to be a risk to health and safety.

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency says the devices, which are used to illuminate large areas of land and sea during night-time searches, could cause 'considerable injury'.

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

All 400 Coastguard rescue teams now have until the end of the year to use up their cache of flares or hand them over to the Ministry of Defence for disposal.

Yesterday volunteers claimed the decision will put lives at risk because flares are essential for locating lost people and vessels in the dark.

One crewman said: 'This is the most stupid, ignorant thing I've heard of. Flares light up the entire sky and aid rescue missions - something that obviously can't be done with a hand-held torch.

'This is over-zealous bosses bowing to health and safety nonsense - but they don't realize it could put people at risk.'

A flare, also known as a fusee, can be shot into the air to heights of up to 700ft, illuminating vast areas of land or sea for up to two minutes at a time.

They have been used by the MCA since the First World War and deployed by Britain's 3,200 Coastguard volunteers in hundreds of rescue missions along the UK's 10,200 miles of coastline.

They require no legal licence to keep or fire, but the MCA - a government organisation which co-ordinates search and rescue missions - requires at least one volunteer in each crew to be certificated in their use.

But the MCA conducted a review earlier this year, which found no 'sound operational reason' for their continued use.

It said 'operational pyrotechnics' were outdated and rarely deployed because of modern alternatives.

These include infra-red cameras, floodlights and night-vision goggles which are operated by the Coastguard's 12 helicopters across the UK. But there are fears among rescue teams who do not have immediate access to the helicopters and say torches do not match the illuminating power of flares.

Crews learned about the ban last week when the MCA contacted all 400 regional branches.

Last night an MCA spokesman said he was unaware of any incidents in which coastguard personnel had been injured using flares. But he added: 'We have suggested withdrawing the flares after a consultation with coastguard teams showed they are not being used.

'They are capable of causing considerable injury, and for that reason alone using safer alternatives is beneficial.'

Flares will still be used by the RNLI and by the Coastguard's ten vessels which operate in conjunction with lifeboat crews.

I don't think the UK has much faith in its Coastguard. Apparently, they can't be trusted to use flares properly.

Honestly though, do you think this nanny state thing is going too far yet?

Ahhh!! That's a tad worrying.. You would expect flares to be pretty darn helpful in rescue operations. But nanny state loves doing these sorts of things. NZ isn't too far behind.

They are the most dangerous of trousers.

They are the most dangerous of trousers.

Teheh. Win.

What.

The.

Hell.

The Government gets stupider as time goes by. The appear to have sold their brains in order to help the country out of the current finanical crisis.

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

But the MCA conducted a review earlier this year, which found no 'sound operational reason' for their continued use.

It said 'operational pyrotechnics' were outdated and rarely deployed because of modern alternatives."

Dear retards running the UK,
Kill yourselves now so there are actualy intelligent and competent people runing the place.
-The Dictatorship of Zainzibar Land
P.S. Kill Bush too while you're at it

Honestly though, do you think this nanny state thing is going too far yet?


Not at all.

And remember, que early at the Police station if you want your meat cut before it gets cold.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3372215/Coastguards-banned-from-using-flares-over-health-and-safety-fears.html

The ban will last an initial 12 months, after which the MCA said it could reintroduce flares "if there is a call to".

So they're willing to change their mind if enough people die due to relatively poor rescue teams not having flares? That's just brilliant

Much as I hate to be serious doesn't using flares make using the more effective infra-red cameras, night vision goggles etc impossible because they will be blinded by the flare as a heat/light source? Is this just another instance of the Daily Mail frothing at the mouth over something that in reality is actually perfectly sensible?

All 400 Coastguard rescue teams now have until the end of the year to use up their cache of flares or hand them over to the Ministry of Defence for disposal.
You know what this means ... FLARE PARTY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enG9Mbs67Us) TONIGHT, WOOHOO!!

Is this just another instance of the Daily Mail frothing at the mouth over something that in reality is actually perfectly sensible?

How dare you Sir!!!!!

This si what happens when your country bans firearms

Much as I hate to be serious doesn't using flares make using the more effective infra-red cameras, night vision goggles etc impossible because they will be blinded by the flare as a heat/light source? Is this just another instance of the Daily Mail frothing at the mouth over something that in reality is actually perfectly sensible?

Modern night vision devices can handle things like flares with minimum whiteout. With my AN/PVS-14s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/PVS-14) I can look in the direction of a flare and only have a meter or two around the flare whited out.

Much as I hate to be serious doesn't using flares make using the more effective infra-red cameras, night vision goggles etc impossible because they will be blinded by the flare as a heat/light source? Is this just another instance of the Daily Mail frothing at the mouth over something that in reality is actually perfectly sensible?

The Daily Mail acting exactly like the Daily Mail always has? Perish the thought.
This si what happens when your country bans firearms
How many other countries that have banned firearms have banned flares?

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

But the MCA conducted a review earlier this year, which found no 'sound operational reason' for their continued use.

It said 'operational pyrotechnics' were outdated and rarely deployed because of modern alternatives."

Taa-daa!

Taa-daa!

Just because something is rarely used doesn't mean it's never used when an operational consideration comes into play.

For instance, commercial airliners carry large life rafts with Emergency Locator Transmitters with GPS tracking capability. However, each raft must also be fitted with a pyrotechnic flare (among other things).

In recent history, no one has used a pyrotechnic flare on board an airliner raft that's crashed in the ocean. Operationally, we shouldn't need to even as we can track their location from space. We still don't ban them - we actually still require them.

Flares don't kill people -- Ultimas do.

they been watching too many movies, where pople do use a flare to kill someone or a group

they been watching too many movies, where pople do use a flare to kill someone or a group

The Ohio Guard unit we're attached to has had several HMMWVs burn to the ground due to misuse of flares, but they're a special bunch.

Once again the Daily Mail distorts the truth about government policy, twisting, and obscuring important details to make a sensible policy about a non-issue look like, "The Worst Example of the Nanny-State/Political Correctness To Date! Muslims! Immigrants! Daily Mail Smash!"

And of course our foreign friends take the bait. I must advise Americans, please do not pay any heed to anything you read in the Daily Mail. As a British paper, it is by far one of the least reputable rags of paper.

The government isn't concerned with Coastguard abusing flares. The flares are simply being phased out with more modern methods.

And also, I find it quite humorous that somehow the issue of firearms has wormed it's way into the topic. It seems some Americans are so hostile about gun ownership, they feel they must champion the use of any device that even simply resembles a gun.

Greed and Death, firearms are not banned in the UK. You require licenses and an occupational/recreational reason why you need it, but you can get a firearm here if you want/need to.

They are the most dangerous of trousers.

For some reason I just imagined Tea'lc of Stargate SG-1 saying that, and it became even more lulzy.

How many other countries that have banned firearms have banned flares?

China, Russia, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Uganda, and several other military dictatorships. The UK my friend is on its way to rule by zombie thatcher. (just waiting for her to die so she can be resurrected)

You know.. just when I think I can't lose anymore faith in humanity, the go and do something that manages to lower it some more.

Something that can light up an area 2 miles wide is far more useful in many situations than something that only provides LOS.

This si what happens when your country bans firearms
What, they do their job properly and safely without resorting to guns? Aye, what a débâcle.

This is rather silly.

This is rather silly.
No, it isn't. Firing flares about on the beach or at cliffs when you could use something better and safer instead is retarded.

Ahhh, trust the British for a bit of comic relief. :D

yah, that's pretty stupid.

i can see that a helicopter with an infra-red camera > flares, but still... if people in reality don't hurt themselves with flares, then where's the problem? besides if you hurt yourself with a flare then you only have yourself to blame.

edit: but i am thinking of serious sea rescues, people in capsized boats, ships run aground, etc.
if we're talking somebody stuck on a cliff or something, when there are people about, then i can see flares being dangerous. but surely not that bad if they're reporting very few injuries in actuality

No, it isn't. Firing flares about on the beach or at cliffs when you could use something better and safer instead is retarded.

Note to self : don't skim read.

yah, that's pretty stupid.

i can see that a helicopter with an infra-red camera > flares, but still... if people in reality don't hurt themselves with flares, then where's the problem?

There are better technologies available? I mean, the police could go back to using muskets and swords, but there are truncheons and asps and guns so why would they?

There are better technologies available? I mean, the police could go back to using muskets and swords, but there are truncheons and asps and guns so why would they?
Cost.

EDIT:
That and it'd be awesome to duel a police officer in the middle of the street. EN GUARDE!:D

Cost.
Cost of using NV goggles - some batteries
Cost of flaregun - a few quid a time
EDIT:
That and it'd be awesome to duel a police officer in the middle of the street. EN GUARDE!:D
Garde.

Cost.

EDIT:
That and it'd be awesome to duel a police officer in the middle of the street. EN GUARDE!:D

Bring back the Mounted Yeomanry, that's what I say. We need more sabre-wielding light cavalry on our streets. It's the only way to counter Anti-Social behaviour.

Bring back the Mounted Yeomanry, that's what I say. We need more sabre-wielding light cavalry on our streets. It's the only way to counter Anti-Social behaviour.
Write into the Daily Mail. I, for one, see the Royal Hussars being brought back then made a new Conservative policy point.

Write into the Daily Mail. I, for one, see the Royal Hussars being brought back then made a new Conservative policy point.

Ha ha! You know what. I think I will. Perhaps I should write parallel letters to both the Daily Mail and Private Eye. Hopefully one or the other will print it.

Should the newly-reinstated Yeomanry and Hussars retain their traditional uniform, or should they become more "modernised" as the say?

Perhaps the Coast Guard could provide them with their left over flares, to signal for night-time "policing actions"?

Ha ha! You know what. I think I will. Perhaps I should write parallel letters to both the Daily Mail and Private Eye. Hopefully one or the other will print it.

Should the newly-reinstated Yeomanry and Hussars retain their traditional uniform, or should they become more "modernised" as the say?
Traditional uniforms, and they should carry flaming torches in lieu of flareguns.

Traditional uniforms, and they should carry flaming torches in lieu of flareguns.

Capital idea. I really can't believe those at the Home Office and the MoD haven't thought of this kind of policing scheme before.

Capital idea. I really can't believe those at the Home Office and the MoD haven't thought of this kind of policing scheme before.
Nannies don't like flaming torches.

Nannies don't like flaming torches.

Ah.

Our nation truly has declined to an embarrasing low...

No, it isn't. Firing flares about on the beach or at cliffs when you could use something better and safer instead is retarded.

... :confused:

I've always thought flares were fired up into the sky for illuminating the area and not about the beach or cliffs.

Who's the worse troll, Venezuela or the UK?



Russia,


wut? You can buy shotguns and revolvers at stores...



Plus, the government doesn't really do anything about the black market here, despite what they say.

China, Russia, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Uganda, and several other military dictatorships.

Source, source, source, source, source, several other sources.

Source, source, source, source, source, several other sources.

oh shi- I just noticed he had several African nations on there..




Africa dude, AFRICA.



It's the final resting place for surplus guns.

It's amazing how far the jolly old UK has fallen... Gone from being a superpower with an empire all around the world to a nation afraid of flares.

I can think of one advantage to flares. . . I mean if your a coast guard and you got onto this boat that you can see perfectly well right? (due to ur NVGs of awesomeness) what do you do when theres a problem that needs immediate attention (IE. Boats sinking get us the H*ll off right now!!!) Cause tossing you NVGs into the air is not going to be nearly as effective as launching a flare . . .

EDIT: *Flares don't kill people! People kill people!*

I can think of one advantage to flares. . . I mean if your a coast guard and you got onto this boat that you can see perfectly well right? (due to ur NVGs of awesomeness) what do you do when theres a problem that needs immediate attention (IE. Boats sinking get us the H*ll off right now!!!) Cause tossing you NVGs into the air is not going to be nearly as effective as launching a flare . . .

EDIT: *Flares don't kill people! People kill people!*

May I ask why you would launch the flare in the first place? How does that help the sinking boat?

Seriously, the UK government is the lulz sometimes :p

Only sometimes? :confused:

Honestly though, do you think this nanny state thing is going too far yet?

I have been saying it for awhile now but people don't seem to care how far down the toilet we go.

May I ask why you would launch the flare in the first place? How does that help the sinking boat?

so that the nice helicopter in the sky will come down and take you and any survivors off? (or potentially provide lift capabilities or even just drop a boat so you can survive a little longer.)

so that the nice helicopter in the sky will come down and take you and any survivors off? (or potentially provide lift capabilities or even just drop a boat so you can survive a little longer.)

You don't need a flare for that.

You don't need a flare for that.

true true, but it could be a useful backup device in case your radio fails or something. . . and now my arguments getting ridiculous lol.

Ban water. You can drown in it.
Ban oxygen. Without it, there will be many fewer fires.

*sigh*

Someday people will read the full article before posting; or maybe not.

An article of the gov telling the coastguard to use modern equipment in specific situations, because But the MCA conducted a review earlier this year, which found no 'sound operational reason' for their continued use.

Why are people going off on these tangents about the nanny state and gun control and all the rest?

Gov body does research finding that specific piece of equipment isn't useful anymore, tells coastguard to use different methods. Mountains out of molehills to say the least.

Who's the worse troll, Venezuela or the UK?

The UK, hands down.:D

The UK, hands down.:D

Hey! We're not all bad, us brits! :(

Hey! We're not all bad, us brits! :(

No, not bad, just comedic trolls.:D

No, not bad, just comedic trolls.:D

I don't know wether to shake your hand or throw a pie in your face. :)

I don't know wether to shake your hand or throw a pie in your face. :)

You can do both. As long as you don't use flares.

You can do both. As long as you don't use flares.

Oh don't worry, I wouldn't know where to get any anyway. :D

I'm reposting this because no doubt people will miss and or ignore this:

*sigh*

Someday people will read the full article before posting; or maybe not.

An article of the gov telling the coastguard to use modern equipment in specific situations, because

But the MCA conducted a review earlier this year, which found no 'sound operational reason' for their continued use.

Why are people going off on these tangents about the nanny state and gun control and all the rest?

Gov body does research finding that specific piece of equipment isn't useful anymore, tells coastguard to use different methods. Mountains out of molehills to say the least.

Oh don't worry, I wouldn't know where to get any anyway. :D

Yes, 'cos your government banned them.:tongue:

Yes, 'cos your government banned them.:tongue:

Exactly. :(

I can think of one advantage to flares. . . I mean if your a coast guard and you got onto this boat that you can see perfectly well right? (due to ur NVGs of awesomeness) what do you do when theres a problem that needs immediate attention (IE. Boats sinking get us the H*ll off right now!!!) Cause tossing you NVGs into the air is not going to be nearly as effective as launching a flare . . .

EDIT: *Flares don't kill people! People kill people!*
Yeah, we're not phasing the use of flares out in seaborne ops, just for stuff like land-based beach and cliff rescues. I wish people would actually read the Daily Mail articles instead of being incensed by their first 50 words like so many LMC morons.

Lmc?

Why the hell when I type it in capital letters does the last two letters drop down to lower case?

Lmc?

Why the hell when I type it in capital letters does the last two letters drop down to lower case?

Because Jolt wants to torture you.

Lmc?
Lower Middle Class.
Why the hell when I type it in capital letters does the last two letters drop down to lower case?
Because if you don't put any lower-case letters in a post, everything gets 'flattened'.

Lower Middle Class.

Hey, hey that's the term I use as well. I thought that was what you meant but I wasn't sure

Because if you don't put any lower-case letters in a post, everything gets 'flattened'.

Stupid forums.