M1, M2, M3 and M4 - Canadian Coast Guard

More documents

Recommendations

Info

A. OUTCOME: MINIMIZE LOSS OF LIFE AND INJURIESThe objective of the SAR System is to save 100% of Lives at Risk in Distress andPotential Distress.Lives at Risk, including Lives Saved and Lives Lost, are counted in Distress andPotential Distress incidents only. All other incidents are lives assisted only.This is defined as the Lives saved versus the lives at riskThe International definition of lives at risk, lives lost, and lives saved is slightly different tothat used in Canada. The International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue(IAMSAR) Manual, Volume I, paragraph 5.6.9 states:“ Lives lost before SAR system notification were not saveable; therefore, they are exludedfrom the life-saving effectiveness measure. Lives lost after notification reflect the potentialnumber of additional lives that may have been saved. Studies suggest that about onethird of the deaths that occur after SAR system notification happen soon thereafter beforehelp can arrive, or due to such serious injury or sickness that saving life was not possible.The remaining lives lost may be attributed to a less than optimal SAR system.”The Canadian system measures all lives lost, not just those lost after notification of theincident. We feel that lives lost, even before notification, indicate the effectiveness of theSAR system by demonstrating a level of prevention, as well as a level of response. Theestablished SAR Program level of service is 90%.Nationally, 97.33 % percent of lives at risk were saved in the year 2001 (Maritimeincidents only). The five year average is 97.31%.The five year trend for the SAR system effectiveness is as follows:CHART 3 – SAR SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS PER YEAR (MARITIME SAR INCIDENTS)12
B. OUTCOME: NUMBER AND SEVERITY OF MARITIME SARINCIDENTS.This will be measured by the number of incidents and the distribution between M1, M2,M3, and M4 type incidents over five (5) years.CHART 4 – NUMBER AND SEVERITY OF MARITIME SAR INCIDENTS.Note: Refer to note in CHART 2 – FIVE YEAR TREND – re: GMDSS implementation in 1999.13
Page 1: Canadian Coast GuardSafety and Envi
Page 4 and 5: CHART 14(A) - 2001 SAR TASKING PROF
Page 7 and 8: SUMMARY OF SAR INCIDENTS - 2001 - C
Page 11 and 12: 2001 MARITIME INCIDENTS BY MONTHCHA
Page 13: PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTThe purpose
Page 17 and 18: CHART 7 - NUMBER OF CCGA VESSELS180
Page 19 and 20: CHART 11- NUMBER OF BOATSHOWS ATTEN
Page 21 and 22: VESSELS ASSISTED - TYPES & CAUSES O
Page 23 and 24: TABLE 3A - TYPES OF MARITIME INCIDE
Page 25 and 26: SAR TASKING PROFILEIn 2001, 9076 ta
Page 27 and 28: SAR REGIONS, JRCCS/MRSCS AND REGION
Page 29 and 30: CHART - 15A QUEBEC / GULF OF THE ST
Page 31 and 32: CHART 15C - WEST COAST / PACIFIC29
Page 33 and 34: Region Rank SARAreaSAR Area Descrip
Page 35 and 36: HALIFAX SRRJRCC Halifax, MRSC Québ
Page 37 and 38: TRENTON SRRJRCC Trenton and MRSC Qu
Page 39 and 40: VICTORIA SRRJRCC VictoriaThe object
Page 41 and 42: MRSC ST. JOHNSMaritime Incidents (M
Page 43 and 44: JRCC HALIFAX*Excluding MRSC Québec
Page 45 and 46: MRSC QUÉBECMaritime Incidents (M1
Page 47 and 48: CENTRAL & ARCTIC REGION - JRCC TREN
Page 49 and 50: JRCC VICTORIAMaritime Incidents (M1
Page 51 and 52: CANADIAN COAST GUARD SAR RESOURCEST
Page 53 and 54: GLOSSARY OF TERMSADRIFTAERONAUTICAL
Page 55: PRIMARY CGRESOURCESJRCCRESPONSESAR

M1, M2, M3 and M4 - Canadian Coast Guard

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?