18th September 2018
Established 1872. Online since 1996.

Shetland Coastguard union attacks government for emergency tug removal

1 comment, , by , in News

An accident at sea during the winter is “inevitable” if the government pushes ahead with its decision to withdraw the emergency towing vessels (ETVs) from around the UK shoreline, according to the Shetland Coastguard branch of the PCS union.

Any savings from scrapping the tug contract would then be lost through damage to the environment and clean-up operations, members claimed in a response to government assertions on Friday that the Sullom Voe harbour tugs and oil field vessels would fill the gap left when the Northern Isles ETV is withdrawn at the end of this month. The government was replying to a critical report by MPs on the House of Commons transport select committee which called on ministers to think again.

The PCS said today: “With the more extreme winter weather approaching, if the withdrawal of the ETVs goes ahead as planned at the end of this month we believe a maritime accident, which could otherwise have been prevented by an ETV, is inevitable and that the proposed “savings” will be lost through the damage to our environment and subsequent clean-up.

“As operational Coastguard officers we work with ETVs, shipping and offshore installations every day of the year and with the benefit of this experience we do not believe the proposal to utilise offshore support vessels (AHTS) in lieu of ETVs will succeed; these vessels are either on contract to supply and patrol/protect a rig exclusion zone and cannot be released from that, or they are going to/from or in port where the crew are at rest and the vessel is unable to react in an emergency, unlike an ETV which is at standby 24/7.”

It added: “The dedicated ETVs on standby around the UK are purpose built AHTS vessels able to operate in deep sea and hostile weather conditions, they have a bollard pull (towage rating) of at least 152 tonnes. The tugs that operate at Sullom Voe are harbour tugs, not designed for deep sea/hostile weather operations, and have an bollard pull of 87 tonnes (MV Bonxie).”

The union also attacked the indication from the government that after the ETVs were scrapped coastguards would monitor tug availability and encourage early intervention by owners and insurers if ships get into difficulty.

“This is something we have always done, it is not a new concept. The current list from a broker details the nearest tug, other than the ETV, as being in Aberdeen – a significant distance and time delay from being in Shetland and Orkney waters, where the ETV operates.

“Yet again the government has chosen to completely ignore the professional opinion of serving Coastguards who work with the ETVs and the commercial towage industry on a regular basis. We would therefore question how this decision could be properly informed if they have not consulted those whose job it is to protect our coastline on a day-to-day basis.”

Tags:

One comment

  1. Paul Kelly

    I totally agree with this article. Speaking from experience, in bad weather from a certain direction, vessels cannot enter/leave Aberdeen Harbour until that weather abates. So your nearest available tug with appropriate bollard pull just won’t be there when you need it. Once again the MCA and DfT have excluded the experts – the Coastguard Officers with their vast local knowledge – from any decisions. First they remove radio direction finding at all Coastguard Stations (without any consultation) and totally out of sync with IMO regulaions; then they “modify” the radio Digital Selective Calling (DSC) equipment at all CG Stations much so that it keeps sending silly/stupid eroneous alarms every few seconds to CG stations nowhere near where the supposed alarm originates from, driving CG Officers barmy! Next MCA HQ want all CG Station Managers to reduce their workload – so they can make them all redundant! The MCA is not fit for purpose anymore – its sole purpose is now to run the CG service down, organised by managers with fancy new titles but lacking any experience to match. The new Chief executve is way out of his depth; the Chief Coastguard just makes it up as he goes along when he meets his staff. I could go on. Of all the CG staff that I personally know (and thats quite a few station’s worth), I’m not aware of any that have anything positive to say about the proposed CG station closures and restructuring. In fact most are just waiting to take redundancy as that don’t want to be in way involved with this fiasco.

    Reply

Your Comment

Please note, it is the policy of The Shetland Times to publish comments and letters from named individuals only. Both forename and surname are required.

Comments are moderated. Contributors must observe normal standards of decency and tolerance for the opinions of others.

The views expressed are those of contributors and not of The Shetland Times.

The Shetland Times reserves the right to decline or remove any contribution without notice or stating reason.

Comments are limited to 200 words but please email longer articles or letters to editorial@shetlandtimes.co.uk for consideration and include a daytime telephone number and your address. If emailing information in confidence please put "Not for publication" in both the subject line and at the top of the main message.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.