DOCSLIB.ORG

225 Final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
225 Final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 8.7.2014 SWD(2014) 225 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Better situational awareness by enhanced cooperation across maritime surveillance authorities: next steps within the Common Information Sharing Environment for the EU maritime domain {COM(2014) 451 final} {SWD(2014) 224 final} EN EN COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Better situational awareness by enhanced cooperation across maritime surveillance authorities: next steps within the Common Information Sharing Environment for the EU maritime domain Table of contents 1. Executive Summary Sheet ........................................................................................... 6 2. Introduction and scene setter........................................................................................ 9 3. Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties............................................ 12 3.1. Identification .............................................................................................................. 12 3.2. Impact assessment steering group.............................................................................. 12 3.3. Consultation and expertise ......................................................................................... 12 3.3.1. Public consultation..................................................................................................... 12 3.3.2. Other consultations.................................................................................................... 13 3.3.3. Dialogues and consultations with other Institutions, other Services and Member States .......................................................................................................................... 13 3.3.4. Consultancy studies.................................................................................................... 15 4. Problem definition...................................................................................................... 17 4.1. The problem............................................................................................................... 17 4.2. What is causing this problem? ................................................................................... 20 4.3. Who is affected by the problems and what are the consequences for them?............. 24 4.4. The baseline scenario ................................................................................................. 25 4.4.1. Evolution of the baseline scenario ............................................................................. 27 4.5. EU right to act, added value, proportionality and subsidiarity .................................. 29 4.5.1. The right to act – treaty basis ..................................................................................... 29 4.5.2. Added value of EU action.......................................................................................... 29 4.5.3. Subsidiarity and Proportionality................................................................................ 30 4.5.4. Coherence with existing policies and initiatives........................................................ 30 5. Objectives................................................................................................................... 32 2 5.1. General objectives...................................................................................................... 32 5.2. Specific objectives..................................................................................................... 34 6. Policy options............................................................................................................. 36 6.1. Selecting the policy options ....................................................................................... 36 6.2. Discarded options....................................................................................................... 36 6.3. Retained policy options.............................................................................................. 37 6.3.1. Option 1- No further EU action ................................................................................. 37 6.3.2. Option 2 -Voluntary measures ................................................................................... 38 6.3.3. Option 3 -Binding measures ...................................................................................... 40 6.3.4. Combination of policy options................................................................................... 41 7. Assessment of options................................................................................................ 41 7.1. Qualitative assessment of options.............................................................................. 42 7.1.1. Option 1 – No EU action (baseline scenario) ............................................................ 42 7.1.2. Option 2 – Voluntary measures ................................................................................. 43 7.1.3. Option 3 – Binding measures..................................................................................... 46 7.2. Quantitative assessment ............................................................................................. 47 7.2.1. Economic, social and environmental impacts of implementing the CISE project..... 47 7.2.2. Economic, social and environmental impacts of each Policy option......................... 49 7.3. Assessment of impacts on fundamental rights........................................................... 53 7.4. Assessment of Cost and administrative burden ......................................................... 53 7.4.1. Costs of the policy options......................................................................................... 53 7.4.2. Cost at EU level versus costs at Member States level ............................................... 55 8. comparing the options................................................................................................ 56 8.1. Effectiveness in obtaining the objectives................................................................... 56 8.2. Benefits ...................................................................................................................... 57 8.3. Cost ............................................................................................................................ 58 8.4. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 58 9. Monitoring and evaluation......................................................................................... 59 10. Annex 1: Summary of public consultation ................................................................ 61 11. Annex 2: Summary of the Member States survey ..................................................... 78 1.1 Cost of current maritime surveillance........................................................................ 78 1.2 Limitations to information sharing ............................................................................ 79 1.3 Benefits from CISE.................................................................................................... 80 1.4 Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 81 12. Annex 3: maritime surveillance authorities in EU Member States............................ 83 3 11. Annex 4: Connection with other EU policies related to eGovernment.................... 100 The Malmö Declaration....................................................................................................... 100 The Granada Declaration.................................................................................................... 100 Europe 2020 .......................................................................................................................... 100 Digital Agenda for Europe .................................................................................................. 101 European eGovernment Action Plan 2011-2015 ............................................................... 102 The ISA programme ............................................................................................................ 103 4 Table of Figures and Tables Table 1- Overview of the quantitative assessment (source: COWI study) 50 Table 2 - Cost of the policy options (source: Gartner study) 53 Table 3 - Comparison of the options 54 Figure 1- Limitations in access to information (source: Member States survey) 17 Figure 2 - Overview of data gap assessment (source: TAG work) 24 Figure 3 - European Interoperability Framework (source: Commission) 30 Figure 4- Benefits in terms of surveillance tasks (source: Member States survey) 32 Figure 5 - Central cost versus Member States cost (source: Gartner study) 53 5 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SHEET Impact assessment in support of a Communication on a Common information sharing environment for the EU maritime domain A. Need for action Why? What is the problem being addressed? The current information exchange between maritime surveillance authorities in the EU is suboptimal and leads to efficiency
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Annex List of National Operational Contact Points Responsible for the Receipt, Transmission and Processing of Urgent Reports On
    18-19.(CD) DIN-Annex 2 to SOPEP 08.28.14-CONTACT UPDATE 10.20.17 (unredacted) ANNEX LIST OF NATIONAL OPERATIONAL CONTACT POINTS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RECEIPT, TRANSMISSION AND PROCESSING OF URGENT REPORTS ON INCIDENTS INVOLVING HARMFUL SUBSTANCES, INCLUDING OIL FROM SHIPS TO COASTAL STATES 1 The following information is provided to enable compliance with Regulation 37 of MARPOL Annex I which, inter alia, requires that the Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (SOPEP) shall contain a list of authorities or persons to be contacted in the event of a pollution incident involving such substances. Requirements for oil pollution emergency plans and relevant oil pollution reporting procedures are contained in Articles 3 and 4 of the 1990 OPRC Convention. 2 This information is also provided to enable compliance with Regulation 17 of MARPOL Annex II which, inter alia, requires that the shipboard marine pollution emergency plans for oil and/or noxious liquid substances shall contain a list of authorities or persons to be contacted in the event of a pollution incident involving such substances. In this context, requirements for emergency plans and reporting for hazardous and noxious substances are also contained in Article 3 of the 2000 OPRC-HNS Protocol. 3 Resolution MEPC.54(32), as amended by resolution MEPC.86(44), on the SOPEP Guidelines and resolution MEPC.85(44), as amended by resolution MEPC.137(53), on the Guidelines for the development of Shipboard Marine Pollution Emergency Plans for Oil and/or Noxious Liquid Substances adopted by the IMO require that these shipboard pollution emergency plans should include, as an appendix, the list of agencies or officials of administrations responsible for receiving and processing reports.
    [Show full text]
  • D1.4 Registry of Mediterranean Practitioners
    Ref. Ares(2018)5063294 - 03/10/2018 Mediterranean practitioners’ network & capacity building for effective response to emerging security challenges MEDEA is a project that has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 - Research and Innovation Framework Programme H2020-SEC-21-GM-2016-2017, under grant agreement no 787111. Additional information about the project and the consortium can be found at www.medea-project.eu D1.4 Registry of Mediterranean Practitioners Contractual Delivery Date: 08/2018 Actual Delivery Date: 03/10/2018 Dissemination level: Public Version: 1.0 Abstract This deliverable lists the major International, Regional and National organizations, around the Management of Migration Flows and Asylum seekers, Border Management and Surveillance, Cross Border Crime and Terrorism and Natural Hazards and Natechs, containing profiling and contact information, as well as their particular area of expertise. The main scope and objectives of the Registry are defined in the current document. DISCLAIMER: This document contains material, which is the copyright of the MEDEA consortium members and the European Commission, and may not be reproduced or copied without permission, except as mandated by the European Commission grant agreement no. 787111 for reviewing and dissemination purposes. Copyright by the MEDEA consortium, 2018-2023. D1.4 Registry of Mediterranean Practitioners Document Control - Revision History Issue Date Comment Author / Institution 0.1 30/08/2018 Finalise Practitioners template EUC, DGAP Desktop research in 4 TCPs. Create excel 30/08/2018 KEMEA 0.2 registry 0.3 06/09/2018 Transfer Excel entries to Deliverable KEMEA 0.4 17/09/2018 Add inputs from partners KEMEA, EUC The information contained in this document is provided by the copyright holders "as is" and any express or implied warranties, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose are disclaimed.
    [Show full text]
  • Geotechnical Investigation, Irish Atlantic Margin
    Geotechnical Investigation, Irish Atlantic Margin Pre-survey Fisheries Assessment Woodside Energy (Ireland) Pty Ltd Assignment Number: A100636-S00 Document Number: A-100636-S00-REPT-002 Xodus Group The Auction House, 63A George St Edinburgh, UK, EH2 2JG T +44 (0)131 510 1010 E [email protected] www.xodusgroup.com Pre-survey Fisheries Assessment A100636-S00 Client: Woodside Energy (Ireland) Pty Ltd Document Type: Report Document Number: A-100636-S00-REPT-002 A02 18/03/2020 Re-issued for Use Sinbad JHM AW A01 17/03/2020 Issued for Use Sinbad JHM AW R01 28/01/2020 Issued for Review Sinbad JHM AW - Checked Approved Client Rev Date Description Issued By By By Approval Geotechnical Investigation, Irish Atlantic Margin – Pre-survey Fisheries Assessment Assignment Number: A100636-S00 Document Number: A-100636-S00-REPT-002 ii GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION, IRISH ATLANTIC MARGIN PRE-SURVEY FISHERY ASSESSMENT Prepared by: Eimear Stafford ________________________ Sinbad Offshore Support Limited Church Road, Killybegs Co. Donegal Dated: 18th March, 2020 1 List of Abbreviations ANIFPO - Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation CEFAS - Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science DCCAE - Dept of Communications, Climate action & Environment BIM - Bord Iascaigh Mhara EIS - Environmental Impact Statement EEZ - Exclusive Economic Zone FAO - Food & Agriculture Organisation of United Nations FEL - Frontier Exploration Licence FHC - Fishery Harbour Centre FLO - Fisheries Liaison Officer FMC - Fisheries monitoring centre FPO - Fish Producers
    [Show full text]
  • OMI Ref.: T2-OSS/2.6 SAR.8/Circ.1/Corr.2 22
    ORGANIZACIÓN MARÍTIMA INTERNACIONAL 4 ALBERT EMBANKMENT LONDON SE1 7SR S Teléfono: 020 7587 3152 Facsímil: 020 7587 3210 OMI Ref.: T2-OSS/2.6 SAR.8/Circ.1/Corr.2 22 marzo 2005 PLAN MUNDIAL DE BÚSQUEDA Y SALVAMENTO CON INFORMACIÓN SOBRE LA ACTUAL DISPONIBILIDAD DE SERVICIOS DE BÚSQUEDA Y SALVAMENTO Introducción 1 La presente circular contiene información sobre los servicios de búsqueda y salvamento (SAR) disponibles en la actualidad, basada en las respuestas remitidas en el formato de la circular COMSAR/Circ.27 por los Gobiernos Miembros cuya lista figura en el anexo 1. 2 Los datos recibidos de los Gobiernos Miembros en el formato de la nueva circular refundida SAR.2 y SAR.3 se recogen en el anexo 2, y la información sobre los servicios de consulta telemédica (TMAS) en el anexo 3*. 3 Se invita a los Gobiernos a que comprueben la información que figura en la presente circular, e informen a la Secretaría en el caso de que deseen introducir alguna enmienda, para que pueda incluirse en la próxima edición del Plan mundial de búsqueda y salvamento. La circular se distribuye en forma de hojas sueltas, se actualiza dos veces al año y puede consultarse en el sitio de la OMI en la Red. La paginación de los anexos 2 y 3 no corresponde a las circulares anteriores (SAR.8/Circ.1 y SAR.8/Circ.1/Corr.1), ya que la presente circular se limita a recoger la información facilitada por los países indicados en negrita en el anexo 1. 4 Se invita a los Gobiernos que aún no hayan respondido a la circular COMSAR/Circ.27 a que lo hagan lo antes posible.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Participants
    E SUB-COMMITTEE ON NAVIGATION, NCSR 6/INF.1 COMMUNICATIONS AND SEARCH AND 28 January 2019 RESCUE ENGLISH ONLY 6th session 16-25 January 2019 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Chair: Mr. R. Lakeman (Netherlands) Vice Chair: Mr. N. Clifford (New Zealand) ALGERIA Head of Delegation Lt. Col. Khirdine Benslim, Maritime Attaché of the Permanent Mission of Algeria to IMO, Embassy of Algeria, London ANGOLA Head of Delegation Representative Mrs. Rosa Sobrinho, Senior Official, Ministry of Transport, Alternate Permanent Representative of the Republic of Angola to IMO, Embassy of the Republic of Angola, London H:\NCSR\6\NCSR 6-INF-1.docx - 2 - ARGENTINA Head of Delegation H.E. Sr. Holger Federico Martinsen, Representante Permanente de la República Argentina ante la OMI, Argentine Permanent Representation to IMO Advisers Sr. Ricardo Morelli Rubio, Secretario de Embajada, Representación de la República Argentina ante la OMI Sr. Hugo Gabriel Cafaro, Prefecto Mayor, Asesor Técnico Permanente de la Representación de la República Argentina ante la OMI, Prefectura Naval Argentina Capitán de Navío Pablo Bonuccelli, Asesor Técnico de la Armada Argentina, Argentine Permanent Representation to IMO Mr. Sergio Gabriel Cernadas, Prefecto, DIOP Cdr. Adrián Marcelo Mónaco, Armada Argentina AUSTRALIA Head of Delegation Mr. Nicholas Lemon, Manager, Systems Safety Standards, Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) Advisers Mr. Matthew John McGregor, Alternate Permanent Representative of Australia to IMO, Australian High Commission, London Ms. Louise Proctor, Principal Adviser, NSID AZERBAIJAN Head of Delegation Alternate Mr. Bakhtiyar Mammadzada, Head, LRIT NC, State Maritime Administration of the Republic of Azerbaijan Advisers Mr. Ayaz Azimov, State Maritime Administration of Azerbaijan Ms. Mina Babayeva, Specialist of Long Range Identification and Tracking System, State Maritime Administration of the Republic of Azerbaijan Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • NETHERLANDS COASTGUARD (JRCC Den Helder) NEWSLETTER Nr
    NETHERLANDS COASTGUARD (JRCC Den Helder) NEWSLETTER nr. 41E (July 2007) COASTGUARD VHF AND MF/HF TRANSMIT AND RECEIVE LOCATIONS. WEST-TERSCHELLING 53.21'.26"N 005.12'.50"E SCHIERMONNIKOOG 53.28'.32"N 006.09'.19"E Receiving Station MF/HF 2187,5 kHz MF DSC VHF Tx/Rx 2182 kHz Emergency Frequency Aerial direction 345 + Other Coast Guard MF Frequencies Channel 16 and 70 DSC VHF Tx/Rx + Channel 23 for: Navigational warnings, Aerial direction 345 Weather forecasts and Radio Medical Service Channel 16 and 70 DSC + Channel 83 for: Navigational warnings, Weather forecasts and Radio Medical Service HUISDUINEN 52.57'.09"N 004.43'.18"E APPINGEDAM VHF Tx/Rx Waddenzee 53.20'.08"N 006.51'.33"E Aerial direction 000 Channel 16 and 70 DSC Transmitting Station MF/HF + Channel 23 for: Navigational warnings, 2187,5 kHz MF DSC Weather forecasts and Radio Medical Service 2182 kHz Emergency Frequency + Other Coast Guard MF Frequencies NORA VHF Tx/Rx 52.17'.35"N 004.28'.19"E Aerial direction 000 Receiving Station M/HF Channel 16 and 70 DSC 2187,5 kHz MF DSC 2182 kHz Emergency Frequency IJsselmeer + Channel 83 for: Navigational warnings, + Other Coast Guard MF Frequencies Weather forecasts and Radio Medical Service SCHEVENINGEN 52.05'.41"N 004.15'.27"E KORNWERDERZAND Transmitting Station MF/HF 53.04'.09"N 005.20'.18"E 2187,5 kHz MF DSC 2182 kHz Emergency Frequency VHF Tx/Rx 518 kHz Navtex Aerial direction 280 3673 kHz for MF Navigational warnings, Channel 16 and 70 DSC + Weather forecasts + Channel 23 for: Navigational warnings, + Other Coast Guard MF Frequencies
    [Show full text]
  • The Netherlands
    Military doctrine comprises fundamental principles which armed forces use to direct their actions. Over the past few years, the need for an integrated defence doctrine has increased. In its fi nal report in April 2002, for example, the advisory committee on the introduction of a joint high commander stated that joint operations were fast becoming the norm and that close, internal cooperation in such operations was so vital that an overarching doctrine was required. The Netherlands Defence Doctrine (NDD) serves as a ‘doctrinal basis’ from which various doctrine publications, for instance for the individual Services, will be drawn and developed. In order to meet this recognised need, it was proposed that doctrine be developed for all the main tasks of the Defence Ministry, using the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) doctrine as a basis. This NDD fi lls the gap between Service-specifi c doctrine and defence policy. Netherlands DefenceDoctrine The usual procedure is that Service doctrine is drawn from national Netherlands defence doctrine. The situation in the Netherlands has until now been different. There was no defence doctrine, but the Services had Defence nonetheless developed their own doctrine. Because of this situation, a signifi cant part of the contents of the NDD has been taken from the Doctrine existing doctrine publications of the various Services, underpinned by a strategic foundation from current policy documents from the Ministry of Defence. The distinction between the policy documents and the various doctrine publications lies particularly in the fact that the policy documents determine the ambitions and the capabilities of the armed forces and the doctrine publications provide guidance for the conduct of military operations.
    [Show full text]
  • SEAFARING GUT INSTINCT Tributes Paid by Galway Paddleboarders After Epic Rescue
    The 1964-2014 1964-2020 LEADINGSkipper JOURNAL OF THE IRISH & UK INDUSTRIES SEPTEMBER 2020 €3.50/£3.00 SEAFARING GUT INSTINCT Tributes Paid by Galway Paddleboarders after Epic Rescue. See pages 4-5 DIGITAL ISSUE www.theskipper.ie/subscribe/SUBSCRIBENOW Fisherman Patrick Oliver and his son Morgan return to Galway docks. (CREDIT: JOE O’SHAUGHNESSY, CONNACHT TRIBUNE) SEPTEMBER 2020 SEPTEMBER 2020 3 The The Skipper The Skipper News Skipper POWER lobster stocks as American Instead, the EU-US deal will SYSTEMS SERVING THE IRISH & UK lobster can potentially carry work to make live exports into the FISHING INDUSTRIES The tragedy of… a shell disease that European EU much more attractive, which lobster have little immunity will likely, as highlighted by to,” they said. “As tariffs are NIFA/NIFO, have a consequent reduced and imported volumes impact on the prices those fishing increase this is likely to become in Ireland get for their lobsters, EDITOR: Lia ní Aodha a more common occurrence.” with the knock-on implication that Mermaid Marine – one of the [email protected] American lobsters are usually their already difficult livelihoods world’s leading providers of Mob: 086 823 9608 olive green or greenish-brown are made more so. marine propulsion packages from and the underside of their Sadly for Irish fishermen, 11hp to 1600hp claws are orange-red. European with Golfgate raging on it is SALES: Sharon Boyle lobsters are blue to dark blue unlikely that the EU Trade [email protected] and the underside of their claws Commissioner is losing much Tel: 074 95 480 37 are generally a cream colour.
    [Show full text]
  • Maritime & Coastguard Agency Annual Report and Accounts
    2017-18 Maritime & Coastguard Agency Annual Report and Accounts HC 1387 Maritime & Coastguard Agency Annual Report and Accounts 2017-2018 Presented to the House of Commons pursuant to Section 7 of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 19 July 2018 HC 1387 The Department for Transport and the Maritime & Coastguard Agency have actively considered the needs of the blind and partially sighted people in accessing this document. The text will be made available in full on the Department’s website. The text may be freely downloaded and translated by individuals or organisations for conversion into other accessible formats. If you have other needs in this regard, please contact the Agency: Maritime & Coastguard Agency 105 Commercial Road Southampton SO15 1EG Telephone 0203 817 2000 Website www.gov.uk/mca Email enquiries [email protected] © Crown copyright 2018 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open- government-licence/version/3 Where we have identified any third-party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at Maritime & Coastguard Agency, Spring Place, 105 Commercial Road, Southampton SO15 1EG ISBN 978-1-5286-0259-4 CCS0318238988 07/18 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office PERFORMANCE REPORT .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Committee Report Is Available in PDF Format
    Canada’s Coastlines: The Longest Under-Defended Borders in the World Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence VOLUME 2 October 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX I ORDER OF REFERENCE................................................................. 1 APPENDIX II SUMMARY OF MARITIME SECURITY POLICIES OF 15 NATIONS ...................................................................................... 3 APPENDIX III MARITIME SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES OF PROVINCIAL AIRLINES LIMITED ..................................................................... 54 APPENDIX IV THE REGISTRATION AND LICENSING OF VESSELS IN CANADA ..................................................................................... 59 APPENDIX V FEDERAL STATUTES RELATING TO PORTS............................... 61 APPENDIX VI THE TOP 10 CANADIAN PORTS BY TONNAGE HANDLED...... 63 APPENDIX VII THE TOP 10 NON-NORTH AMERICAN PORTS FOR CANADA BY TONNAGE SHIPPED.................................................................... 64 APPENDIX VIII TOP 10 COMMODITIES SHIPPED FROM INTERNATIONAL PORTS TO CANADA’S TOP 10 PORTS ....................................... 65 APPENDIX IX CANADIAN COAST GUARD FLEET............................................ 72 APPENDIX X GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE ASSETS INVOLVED IN MARITIME SURVEILLANCE AND SEARCH AND RESCUE............................. 79 APPENDIX XI THE CUTTER RECOMMENDED BY JOHN DEWAR AND THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD OPTION................................ 95 i APPENDIX XII THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE 12, 24 NAUTICAL MILES ZONES AND
    [Show full text]
  • Irish Coast Guard
    IRISH COAST GUARD IRISH COAST GUARD SIKORSKY CHOPPERS ENHANCE COAST GUARD’S CAPABILITIES Taking a new fleet of Sikorsky S-92A helicopters re-allocated from CHC’s Coast Guard fleet in the UK, were on board and increasing the scope of its services being brought up to the full Irish specification, the final example entering service at Dublin Weston in January 2014. are just two of the main changes made by the Given that the S-61N was designed some 50 years ago and Irish Coast Guard over the last number of years. despite the fact that it carried a considerable amount of updated Guy Warner spends a day with the crew at the avionics, it is not surprising that the S-92A is a much more capable aircraft. Sligo Base to get a closer view of the operations. One of the Sligo-based captains, Ciaran Ferguson, has considerable experience of both types and as much as he liked ince I last reported on the Irish Coast Guard (IRCG) in the S-61, which he describes affectionately as ‘the DC-3 of 2011, there have been considerable changes not only to helicopters’, he is full of praise for its successor. the type of helicopter used but also to the scope of the A system check, carried out every 24 hours, is valid for 36 service provided. hours to cover a sudden call-out. In the cockpit a five-panel S Remaining the same are the provision of the aircraft, bases flatscreen multifunction display gives the two pilots a huge and crews by CHC Ireland (under a €500 million, 10-year amount of integrated information which serves to increase vastly contract, awarded in 2010) and also the vital role of the Coast their situational awareness.
    [Show full text]
  • COMSAR.1/Circ.50/Rev.3 13 January 2012 DISTRESS PRIORITY COMMUNICATIONS for Rccs from SHORE-TO-SHIP VIA INMARSAT 1 the Secretari
    E 4 ALBERT EMBANKMENT LONDON SE1 7SR Telephone: +44 (0)20 7735 7611 Fax: +44 (0)20 7587 3210 COMSAR.1/Circ.50/Rev.3 13 January 2012 DISTRESS PRIORITY COMMUNICATIONS FOR RCCs FROM SHORE-TO-SHIP VIA INMARSAT 1 The Secretariat in consultation with Inmarsat, has updated the information on Rescue Coordination Centres (RCCs) associated with Inmarsat Land Earth Stations (LESs). 2 Some RCCs have established arrangements whereby they are able to use the distress priority when sending certain messages from shore-to-ship via the Inmarsat network. The method of achieving this varies depending on the nature of the facilities available at both an LES and an RCC. Inmarsat believes that such arrangements can contribute significantly to the efficiency and effectiveness of search and rescue operations. 3 In order for an RCC to make use of the distress priority in the shore-to-ship direction, it is necessary for that RCC to establish a prior arrangement with the LES to set up the necessary traffic routeing arrangements. To enable this arrangement to be made, the RCC should contact the LES via the Operations Coordinator for that LES, whose details are contained in COMSAR.1/Circ.53/Rev.1 or a later revision of that circular. The LES will advise the RCC on the specific procedures to be used to make use of the distress priority in the shore-to-ship direction via that LES. To provide for priority access to the relevant LES an RCC may make arrangements such as: .1 two-stage voice dialling; or .2 installing a private leased line or some other system giving direct access to the LES network, where the required vessel number can be dialled and priority for space segment attached; or .3 other suitable arrangements similar to those outlined above.
    [Show full text]