NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/66600/

COASTGUARDS have been told to fill in a form before setting off on rescues.

Britain’s 400 lifesaving units must complete “vehicle pre-journey risk assessments”.

Bosses want the teams to describe the type of rescue and journey they are about to undertake.

The forms ask for the date and time, reasons for journey and any risks they might encounter.

Rescuers have to fill in “actions taken to mitigate risk”, before deciding if the risk is “acceptable”. One coastguard said: “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.

“But they are asking us to waste time in the office filling out this stupid form. Also, none of us really knows what we are realistically meant to fill in.

“I mean, how are we meant to know what risks there might be before we get there?

“And do they expect us to get a full weather forecast before we go out? It’s ridiculous. All we want to do is save lives.

“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.”

The form has been issued for use in land rescues involving Land Rovers.

It is the latest in a series of health and safety drives by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.

Britain’s 3,200 rescuers were banned from using flares at night as they could cause injury.

Nanny stateism at its finest. Now, I posted the flares being "too dangerous" a while back. Many of you defended it, saying that they're "rarely used" and such. Now, this I cannot see any defensible position to wait while a person is in dire need in order to fill out the appropriate paperwork.

Sadly, the nanny state thing is systemic, and will probably continue.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/66600/



Nanny stateism at its finest. Now, I posted the flares being "too dangerous" a while back. Many of you defended it, saying that they're "rarely used" and such. Now, this I cannot see any defensible position to wait while a person is in dire need in order to fill out the appropriate paperwork.

Sadly, the nanny state thing is systemic, and will probably continue.

As far as I'm aware, the Life Guards aren't a government organisation, therefore, not nanny statism. It is ridiculous, and over the top however, but it's just another example of people covering their asses.

As far as I'm aware, the Life Guards aren't a government organisation, therefore, not nanny statism. It is ridiculous, and over the top however, but it's just another example of people covering their asses.

Your coast guards are not federalized? It says Maritime and Coastguard Agency. In the US, the Coast Guard is a federal agency.

When did Anglo-Saxon liberty die?

As far as I'm aware, the Life Guards aren't a government organisation, therefore, not nanny statism. It is ridiculous, and over the top however, but it's just another example of people covering their asses.

Not http://www.islandgazette.net/photo/pictures/images7142004/Page-1B-Lifeguard-1.jpg


This http://www.welcometoalaska.com/week/l_Coast%20Guard.jpg


this seems to suggest the coast guard is with in the UK's government.

When did Anglo-Saxon liberty die?

Around the same time most of those who had to fight for that liberty did.

When did Anglo-Saxon liberty die?

When we elected the black guy.

When we elected the black guy.

But wasnt his father a British Citizen? lol

That's ridiculous. I mean...really?

when did anglo-saxon liberty die?1066?

when did anglo-saxon liberty die?Er...687 A.D.?

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/66600/



Nanny stateism at its finest. Now, I posted the flares being "too dangerous" a while back. Many of you defended it, saying that they're "rarely used" and such. Now, this I cannot see any defensible position to wait while a person is in dire need in order to fill out the appropriate paperwork.

Sadly, the nanny state thing is systemic, and will probably continue.

Bitching about nothing. They should be ashamed of themselves.

It requires information they SHOULD already have, and requires nothing more than some minimal pre-departure notification. This kind of preparation actually cuts risks and reduces linked injury and harm - not to mention reducing duplicated effort where multiple agencies are at work, and giving detailed preliminary information to assistant teams, should anything go wrong, or more help be required.

Properly filling out your 27B/6 is important. Otherwise, the terrorists win.

It requires information they SHOULD already have, and requires nothing more than some minimal pre-departure notification. This kind of preparation actually cuts risks and reduces linked injury and harm - not to mention reducing duplicated effort where multiple agencies are at work, and giving detailed preliminary information to assistant teams, should anything go wrong, or more help be required.

I wish I had a copy of this form, really I do.

But one thing is clear, it's not just "hey, we're going out, tell Squad B". They have to fill in time, date, and there's four questions - Reason for the journey, risks expected (including current weather and the forecast for the expected trip, traffic conditions, etc), actions taken to mitigate risk (i don't know... drive safely?), and whether or not these risks are acceptable for the trip.

Unless you half-assed your way through it as follows (which I would, but that's just me. Hell, could probably get a rubber stamp of this made):
1) Going to save someone's life
2) Weather, traffic, and other inherent risks in saving someone's life
3) We'll drive safely and be careful
4) Yes, the risk is acceptable

then it's probably going to take at least 5 minutes to fill out. If they take the time to fill it out, it's wasted time that could cause casualties, and if they half ass their way through it as above, it's pointless paperwork as no one's paying attention anyway.

When did Anglo-Saxon liberty die?

Try May 1997.

Before you can save a life you must fill out form 369C, signed in sections 2A, 3G, and on the dotted line here in triplicate or your rescue operation will be grounded.

Coastguards are a government agency. The wonderful RNLI are a charity and, as Kropotkin pointed out, a great example of anarcho-syndicalism.

Next comes live organ donations.

Your coast guards are not federalized? It says Maritime and Coastguard Agency. In the US, the Coast Guard is a federal agency.

It's complicated. There's a charity called the RNLI which does a lot of it on a volunteer basis, who generally work as being very local and close. HM coastguard are government backed and tend to have more expensive kit, helicopters and the like.

The MCA's job is to oversee both, make sure they work well together and set safety regs etc. I'd like a better source than the star, I hope they at least drop this quick.:(

I'd like a better source than the star, I hope they at least drop this quick.:(

Well I did a quick google and the only other one I found was the Daily Mail... I shall continue my search for a reliable source

The MCA's job is to oversee both, make sure they work well together and set safety regs etc. I'd like a better source than the star, I hope they at least drop this quick.:(

So, are you saying that this absurd requirement is put onto the private (volunteer) agency as well as the government one?

Fabulous.

Properly filling out your 27B/6 is important. Otherwise, the terrorists win.

Amen

So, are you saying that this absurd requirement is put onto the private (volunteer) agency as well as the government one?

Fabulous.


Possibly, the source doesn't say whether it's RNLI aswell or just HM coastguard

Nanny stateism at its finest. Now, I posted the flares being "too dangerous" a while back. Many of you defended it, saying that they're "rarely used" and such. Now, this I cannot see any defensible position to wait while a person is in dire need in order to fill out the appropriate paperwork.
Well, at 246 people per km^2 - compare that to 31 in US, almost 10 times more! - UK is quite overpopulated. Maybe this is intended to mitigate the issue.

Well, at 246 people per km^2 - compare that to 31 in US, almost 10 times more! - UK is quite overpopulated. Maybe this is intended to mitigate the issue.

The should just legalize firearms. Works for us.

The should just legalize firearms. Works for us.
Won't do in Britain... You'd also have to import half the Harlem and New Orleans. Which would be kinda contrary to the purpose of cutting down on population.

Won't do in Britain... You'd also have to import half the Harlem and New Orleans. Which would be kinda contrary to the purpose of cutting down on population.

The rise in population would be short lived, and we could just airlift the land masses to them to help minimize the extra strain if we had too.

OP: You should be ashamed of yourself! Befroe criticizing the government you must fill out Government Criticism Form AK-389.

And before Government Criticism Form AK-389 you must fill out Form Access Form T-37-HJ.

And before Form Access Form T-37-HJ you must fill out Recursive Form AJY-37.

And before Recursive Form AJY-37 you must fill out Recursive Form AJY-37.

And before Recursive Form AJY-37 you must...

OP: You should be ashamed of yourself! Befroe criticizing the government you must fill out Government Criticism Form AK-389.

And before Government Criticism Form AK-389 you must fill out Form Access Form T-37-HJ.

And before Form Access Form T-37-HJ you must fill out Recursive Form AJY-37.

And before Recursive Form AJY-37 you must fill out Recursive Form AJY-37.

And before Recursive Form AJY-37 you must...

I sense a pattern. :D

What's this Radar? Oh, it's the form to get the form to order more forms.

When bureaucracy become reason onto it own. Very sad indeed. They would have to like us to be a nanny state. Somewhere between Apathy and Hatred. Maybe hatred is too strong a word how severe dislike.

Britain's 3,200 rescuers were banned from using flares at night as they could cause injury.


Maybe they should ban flares altogether? It is amazing what you can get away with on Newspapers in the UK. I sit back and marvel.

"You there what are you looking that looks like pornography to me?"

"The Daily Star it is U.K daily newspaper."

"Oh. Carry on then."

Seriously, that is one profession in which time really is of the essence.

http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/titanic.gif_____http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/titanic.gif
http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/titanic.gif_____http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/dichter.gif_____http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/titanic.gif
http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/titanic.gif_____http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/titanic.gif

Who else pictures those in need bopping up and down in the waters while those who want to help them are taking a quiz?

Well, at 246 people per km^2 - compare that to 31 in US, almost 10 times more! - UK is quite overpopulated.

No, the US is under populated.

Won't do in Britain... You'd also have to import half the Harlem and New Orleans. Which would be kinda contrary to the purpose of cutting down on population.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

I wish I had a copy of this form, really I do.

But one thing is clear, it's not just "hey, we're going out, tell Squad B". They have to fill in time, date, and there's four questions - Reason for the journey, risks expected (including current weather and the forecast for the expected trip, traffic conditions, etc), actions taken to mitigate risk (i don't know... drive safely?), and whether or not these risks are acceptable for the trip.

Unless you half-assed your way through it as follows (which I would, but that's just me. Hell, could probably get a rubber stamp of this made):
1) Going to save someone's life
2) Weather, traffic, and other inherent risks in saving someone's life
3) We'll drive safely and be careful
4) Yes, the risk is acceptable

then it's probably going to take at least 5 minutes to fill out. If they take the time to fill it out, it's wasted time that could cause casualties, and if they half ass their way through it as above, it's pointless paperwork as no one's paying attention anyway.

It sounds like a fairly standard 'OSHA' type form.

Someone setting out on a rescue mission SHOULD already know the weather conditions, traffic conditions, etc. "Going to save someone's life" isn't a good answer... where? Why? If the circumstances are that the person has capsized in rough water which is rapaidly changing their position, the mitigation might be that you've called in ehlicopter support to help you pinpoint the location. Under some circumstances, it might NOT be worth the risk.

You're acting like coastguards are sitting right there, ready to go, 24/7. Like - all they have to do is say the word and they're in the water and on the way. Be realistic. One person is filling in this form while half the people are still wiping their asses or pulling their boots on.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

If you're attacking the axiom that the UK is overpopulated, and that population reduction is consequentially desirable, I wouldn't disagree with the poster. Living in the UK and all, the rate of urban, and, more nauseatingly, suburban, growth, has been appalling in the last decade, with rural areas consumed and villages assimilated into homogenous monolith of suburbia.

Someone setting out on a rescue mission SHOULD already know the weather conditions, traffic conditions, etc. "Going to save someone's life" isn't a good answer... where? Why? If the circumstances are that the person has capsized in rough water which is rapaidly changing their position, the mitigation might be that you've called in helicopter [sic] support to help you pinpoint the location. Under some circumstances, it might NOT be worth the risk.

Granted, and if it's not worth the risk, I have no problem with them spending 20 minutes filling out a form to say so.

You're acting like coastguards are sitting right there, ready to go, 24/7. Like - all they have to do is say the word and they're in the water and on the way. Be realistic. One person is filling in this form while half the people are still wiping their asses or pulling their boots on.

So this person that's filling out the form - does he put on his boots and wipe his ass before or after he fills it out?

Also, the team, even if prepared, apparently is not allowed to leave until filling out this form. Why can it not be filled out in absentia by an office clerk?

And as far as being ready to go, I guess we're spoiled then. When I toured the local fire department (that is on the border of the airport, and also does airport incident handling), they told us they had an alert to drive time of < 3 minutes.

If you're attacking the axiom that the UK is overpopulated...

I'm asking the OP what he thinks he's talking about. Seriously - did you even read the post I replied to?

Granted, and if it's not worth the risk, I have no problem with them spending 20 minutes filling out a form to say so.


And how would you know it was 'not worth the risk' if you didn't have any of the data?


So this person that's filling out the form - does he put on his boots and wipe his ass before or after he fills it out?


One would asusme that there is one person 'ready' pretty much at every point, even while everyone else is doing what they are doing.


Also, the team, even if prepared, apparently is not allowed to leave until filling out this form. Why can it not be filled out in absentia by an office clerk?


For the obvious reason that a person removed from the operation doesn't necessarily know what the team will be doing. Misinformation might well be worse than no information.

Personally - I would have no problems, however, with the recording of the form responses from voice - transcribed while the team are en route by your office lackey.


And as far as being ready to go, I guess we're spoiled then. When I toured the local fire department (that is on the border of the airport, and also does airport incident handling), they told us they had an alert to drive time of < 3 minutes.

My uncle was a fireman. I've spent a lot of time in firestations (and fire engines, actually... I'm so lucky). 3 minutes would be more than a bit optimistic for a lot of fire stations, but would still actually be plenty of time to record the few essential details that a form like this requires.

And how would you know it was 'not worth the risk' if you didn't have any of the data?

This is a catch-22. If they have the data, then the form is unnecessary and redundant, and if they don't have all the data, it will take time to gather it, time that could be better spent en route to the affected position.

One would assume[sic] that there is one person 'ready' pretty much at every point, even while everyone else is doing what they are doing.

With this new policy, one would absolutely have to be. But, the real question is, why aren't all?

For the obvious reason that a person removed from the operation doesn't necessarily know what the team will be doing. Misinformation might well be worse than no information.

See my comment below.

Personally - I would have no problems, however, with the recording of the form responses from voice - transcribed while the team are en route by your office lackey.

That's fine by me. We need to get them underway as soon as practical, and radioing in the form would be preferable to having to wait to fill it out before they leave.

My uncle was a fireman. I've spent a lot of time in firestations (and fire engines, actually... I'm so lucky). 3 minutes would be more than a bit optimistic for a lot of fire stations, but would still actually be plenty of time to record the few essential details that a form like this requires.

Aren't you lucky. I'll see if I can find any alert to drive times as far as averages go.

I'm asking the OP what he thinks he's talking about. Seriously - did you even read the post I replied to?

Honestly? No, sorry, apologies.

My uncle was a fireman. I've spent a lot of time in firestations (and fire engines, actually... I'm so lucky). 3 minutes would be more than a bit optimistic for a lot of fire stations, but would still actually be plenty of time to record the few essential details that a form like this requires.

Well, I looked up a bunch of data (via google - florida fire department response times) and found averages vary from 4-7 minutes from the time the call is placed until the fire department arrives on scene. There, apparently, is no statewide average taken. I couldn't find one anyway.

Honestly? No, sorry, apologies.

You're the lucky one - no apologies needed. ;)

This is a catch-22. If they have the data, then the form is unnecessary and redundant, and if they don't have all the data, it will take time to gather it, time that could be better spent en route to the affected position.


"Well, we need to take Highway... what bridge is out? Thud."

If they don't already know the road conditions en route, the weather conditions, etc then they shouldn't be heading out until they do.


With this new policy, one would absolutely have to be. But, the real question is, why aren't all?


Because people are badly designed, and often need to do things like shit.


That's fine by me. We need to get them underway as soon as practical, and radioing in the form would be preferable to having to wait to fill it out before they leave.


Actually, recording it before they elft would be better, and updating it en route would be a preferable addition to that.

I'm thinking... there's actually no reason why a lot of the important data can't be automated, if they maintain digital copies of the form...


Aren't you lucky.


Hells yeah! I love fire engines!

You're the lucky one - no apologies needed. ;)

Combined with your avatar, you've just stopped me sleeping for the next hour.:D

Well, I looked up a bunch of data (via google - florida fire department response times) and found averages vary from 4-7 minutes from the time the call is placed until the fire department arrives on scene. There, apparently, is no statewide average taken. I couldn't find one anyway.

Anecdotal response, but possibly relevent:

The city in which I was working last year had it's Fire Insurance Rate classification revised - and the rate was calculated based on a couple of factors - an assumption of a five-mile perimeter, and a thirty-five mph drive, giving a 7 minute basic response time.

It's rural Georgia, so I'm not sure how it applies

"Well, we need to take Highway... what bridge is out? Thud."

Well, in that case, we should probably fire them and hire someone competent who is abreast of what's going on, in which case we won't need a form.

If they don't already know the road conditions en route, the weather conditions, etc then they shouldn't be heading out until they do.

See above statement.

Because people are badly designed, and often need to do things like shit.

I wasn't aware the coast guard spent long hours in the bathroom. Perhaps they should see a doctor?

Actually, recording it before they elft would be better, and updating it en route would be a preferable addition to that.

As long as they could move and gather equipment and such as they're recording it and it doesn't slow them down or hinder them, that's fine. However, when we talk about filling out a physical form - as in pen and paper - they have to stop and dedicate themselves to that.

I'm thinking... there's actually no reason why a lot of the important data can't be automated, if they maintain digital copies of the form...

That just takes them from pen & paper to a computer, which will be just as time consuming.

Hells yeah! I love fire engines!

I was always more of a jet person.

Combined with your avatar, you've just stopped me sleeping for the next hour.:D

Only an hour? I'm losing my touch.

:D

Anecdotal response, but possibly relevent:

The city in which I was working last year had it's Fire Insurance Rate classification revised - and the rate was calculated based on a couple of factors - an assumption of a five-mile perimeter, and a thirty-five mph drive, giving a 7 minute basic response time.

It's rural Georgia, so I'm not sure how it applies

Only 35mph? We need to send those boys to driving school.

Also, do you mean 5 mile radius? Because, a 5 mile perimeter (circumference) would be a 0.8 mile radius.

Try May 1997.
Not really, no.

Well, in that case, we should probably fire them and hire someone competent who is abreast of what's going on, in which case we won't need a form.


You'd still need some record, for support. It's rare to only send one responder.


I wasn't aware the coast guard spent long hours in the bathroom. Perhaps they should see a doctor?


Wow, you change directions like a Sidewinder on Acid... we're back to the Coastguard again?

First Responder crews often aren't balanced on the edge of the seat, ready to drive.


As long as they could move and gather equipment and such as they're recording it and it doesn't slow them down or hinder them, that's fine. However, when we talk about filling out a physical form - as in pen and paper - they have to stop and dedicate themselves to that.


Which is okay - because they don't ALL have to be dedicated to that. Unless I missed something.


That just takes them from pen & paper to a computer, which will be just as time consuming.


Really? I type much more quickly than I could ever write. ANd, of course, I can't 'autofill' certain data when I do it by hand.


I was always more of a jet person.

When I lived in Lincolnshire, and was surrounded by RAF bases, it was cool. But there's always been a special place for fire engines. :)

Only 35mph? We need to send those boys to driving school.

Also, do you mean 5 mile radius? Because, a 5 mile perimeter (circumference) would be a 0.8 mile radius.

The perimeter is at five miles. So yeah. Or no. Or... umm... the delineation is a perimeter, AT a five mile radius. Yeah.

35 mph is the assumption. I assume it's a legal thing.

You'd still need some record, for support. It's rare to only send one responder.

I wouldn't know in this type of scenario. Is this form being passed to other departments or agencies or is it held in a CYA type scenario.

Wow, you change directions like a Sidewinder on Acid... we're back to the Coastguard again?

Well, the Coast Guard is what the article was originally about. I only referenced fire departments because I have no idea where I would even look for Coast Guard response times. I doubt it's even kept track of, as far out as they have to go sometimes.

However, in this case, this rule only applies to land-based vehicles. Helicopters and boats are excluded, and given that England really is a small island, a fire department comparison was the closest I could think of when it comes to a US comparison to someone who does land-based rescues.

First Responder crews often aren't balanced on the edge of the seat, ready to drive.

It still means time is being taken away from getting ready (if you assume they're all sitting around with their thumbs up their asses) for paperwork.

Which is okay - because they don't ALL have to be dedicated to that. Unless I missed something.

See above.

Really? I type much more quickly than I could ever write. ANd, of course, I can't 'autofill' certain data when I do it by hand.

True. I can't really argue that a computer wouldn't be a little faster, but still takes a dedicated person.

When I lived in Lincolnshire, and was surrounded by RAF bases, it was cool. But there's always been a special place for fire engines. :)

I understand.

I wouldn't know in this type of scenario. Is this form being passed to other departments or agencies or is it held in a CYA type scenario.


It sounds like CYA value is secondary, at best. It sounds more like the Incident stuff you have to do for FEMA - where every incident is theoretically 'controlled' by the lowest applicable level of local response. So - small fires are 'controlled' by the first responder crew, then controlled by the Chief when a second crew and police/ambulances arrive, then controlled by the next tier when the fire spreads and more resources are called in.

It's actually a really good model, even if it seems slightly counterintuitive.


It still means time is being taken away from getting ready (if you assume they're all sitting around with their thumbs up their asses) for paperwork.


If that time is small, and the advatage gained is great... is it worth it?


True. I can't really argue that a computer wouldn't be a little faster, but still takes a dedicated person.


For maybe a couple of minutes.

It sounds like CYA value is secondary, at best. It sounds more like the Incident stuff you have to do for FEMA - where every incident is theoretically 'controlled' by the lowest applicable level of local response. So - small fires are 'controlled' by the first responder crew, then controlled by the Chief when a second crew and police/ambulances arrive, then controlled by the next tier when the fire spreads and more resources are called in.

It's actually a really good model, even if it seems slightly counterintuitive.

I'm familiar with FEMA's model - I've worked with them before. However, in this case there's no indication that the form is called in to other agencies or anything, but that's it's simply held for CYA.

If that time is small, and the advatage gained is great... is it worth it?

If the advantage gained outweighs the time lost, then yes. However, neither the times online article nor the star article indicated that this form would be shared or used for anything outside of simply "being."

For maybe a couple of minutes.

A couple of minutes rarely sparing in a crisis.

I'm familiar with FEMA's model - I've worked with them before. However, in this case there's no indication that the form is called in to other agencies or anything, but that's it's simply held for CYA.


The 'mitigation' part, and the 'conditions' part... sound like the kind of data you poll for external operation.

Not having seen the forms in question - I'm having to go on how it sounds.


If the advantage gained outweighs the time lost, then yes. However, neither the times online article nor the star article indicated that this form would be shared or used for anything outside of simply "being."


Which certainly isn't a strong argument against something like inter-departmental facility, though... right?

Risk mitigation is productive, in general. I fail to see why it wouldn't be, in this case.


A couple of minutes rarely sparing in a crisis.

Not necessarily. People often confuse 'important' with 'urgent'. And waiting five minutes for the correct response carries potential for advantage over an instantaneous, but wrong, response.

The 'mitigation' part, and the 'conditions' part... sound like the kind of data you poll for external operation.

Not having seen the forms in question - I'm having to go on how it sounds.

I've looked online for the form, but my googlefu is weak.

Which certainly isn't a strong argument against something like inter-departmental facility, though... right?

Risk mitigation is productive, in general. I fail to see why it wouldn't be, in this case.

It depends if the mitigation actually mitigates risk, or just increases the risk more. And, as has already been stated, if they have the information, then filling out the form is a waste of valuable time, and if they don't keep abreast of the current information, then what are they (being the UK citizens) paying them for?

Not necessarily. People often confuse 'important' with 'urgent'. And waiting five minutes for the correct response carries potential for advantage over an instantaneous, but wrong, response.

I fail to see how filling out an extra form prior to responding increases the likelihood of getting the correct response. Since nobody is going to review them prior to responding (at least, as seems to be indicated), how does it actually increase the overall effectiveness of said response?

Since nobody is going to review them prior to responding (at least, as seems to be indicated), how does it actually increase the overall effectiveness of said response?

Leaping straight to this one...

...simply making it a requirement that the data is logged... makes it more likely that the CORRECT data will be available when a response is triggered.

Leaping straight to this one...

...simply making it a requirement that the data is logged... makes it more likely that the CORRECT data will be available when a response is triggered.

Could just as easily make it a checklist like pilots use, and they could walk and talk and gather simultaneously instead of having to sit down somewhere and waste time.

Could just as easily make it a checklist like pilots use, and they could walk and talk and gather simultaneously instead of having to sit down somewhere and waste time.

Possibly - if the data can be effectively recorded in check format.

I'm not sure how you'd have to map out the form such that windspeed and direction could be recorded in checks.

Possibly - if the data can be effectively recorded in check format.

I'm not sure how you'd have to map out the form such that windspeed and direction could be recorded in checks.

Since we're talking about land-based rescues only, I think it would be easy enough.

Situation - considered
WindSpeed - checked
Visibility - sufficient
Roads - passable
Terrain - considered
Safety Equipment - stowed
Call Wife - tell her you love her
Pep talk (to be done en route) - increase morale

With this new policy, one would absolutely have to be. But, the real question is, why aren't all?



Because people are badly designed, and often need to do things like shit.


More than that, you simply cannot keep people on constant alert for a whole shift. Doing so you are subjecting the person to a significant level of mental stress, which is exhausting, drains the attention and generally means that when an actual emergency happens they will not respond to the best of their abilities. Not to mention that after a while, even with the best of the intentions, people get tired, their mind's wander, they relax... it doesn't work.

However having a team on 'stand by' and a rotation person on "full alert" say monitoring the relative conditions for their response zone. Therefore, they have the information ready to check and record (having a paper copy rather than just saying "checked" will be vital if said response crew gets into trouble or require further equipment sent... save having to check it again). I supsect that the Daily Star is blowing a decent, if maybe poorly implemented, safety precaution out of all proportion. It seems to be a hobby of theirs... (well them and the Daily Mail, the only other paper I could find reporting the story).

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/66600/

Nanny stateism at its finest. Now, I posted the flares being "too dangerous" a while back. Many of you defended it, saying that they're "rarely used" and such. Now, this I cannot see any defensible position to wait while a person is in dire need in order to fill out the appropriate paperwork.

Sadly, the nanny state thing is systemic, and will probably continue.

Thus, Good Samaritan laws:
Did you save someone? Good for you!
Did you save someone properly according to accepted lifesaving techniques?
If yes, they can't sue. If no, get a lawyer.

Nanny stateism at its finest. You'd think that at its finest nanny stateism would help people to grow up as responsible autonomous adults, and not into neurotic paranoid wrecks. Nannies aren't what they used to, I guess..
Maybe it's time for nanite stateism and merge with the gray goo. ;)

Wow. That was a really uninformative article. They don't even give the name of who they are quoting, or the name of this form, or the people proposing it, or any other information that would allow you to check that they're not just making it up.