"Doug Dotson" wrote

Why is it that USCG "monitored" frequencies are not reliable at these
distances, but ham frequencies are pretty reliable. 4125 is just a bit
above
the 80m ham band. I can talk to Australia, Africa, Europe and Asia
fairly reliably.

I think the bottom line is that for whatever reason, the USCG and USCGA do
not do a very good job of monitoring the frequencies that they claim to.
Hams are always on the air somewhere, getting a ham license is the best
insurance for one's safety.

Doug, k3qt
s/v Callista

Doug, I don't agree that there is any pattern or history of that situation,
but your last comment was certainly well said. As to the "I have, so
therefore" extrapolation of long distance HF comms, that really doesn't
correlate to the daily long distance messaging traffic we work all over the
Western hemisphere for USCG HF communcations. At any given moment, there are
reasons which it is preaching to the choir to tell you about, but for the
group's sake - those are atmosperic interferences, ionispheric absorbsion,
solar ejections, flares, etc that make long distance propagation really
good, or really poor. Some Hams are certainly more adept at doing this, and
can often make better work of a given situation with equipment that may be
specifically set up for that. But that's "when they can". Tthe missions that
our transmitters and receivers work are much broader, and relied upon 24/7
in all forms of weather, so there are some compromises when compared to
special purpose propagation techniques and equipment that others may
possess. The transmitting station in my home for instance, has better long
range capabilities than any single transmitting site of the USCG. But that
is because we made this setup for a very specific purpose to assist in long
range air to ground communications. In spite of this, I have to secure for
thunderstorms, as you understand I'm sure. So would I rather have one super
setup, or 50 good transmitters and receive antennas spread all over the
country and available with the click of a mouse? I'll tell you, it's a lot
more risky running a SAR case from my single station than with a team in the
master ComSta with all those assets available as backup.

The USCG investment in HF communications is staggering, and so is the cost
to maintain it. One of the primary purposes we do this is to assist the
maritime community! As one sarcastic poster pointed out in a snide post
earlier, satcom has replaced almost all comms, but the truth is not everyone
will ever be able to afford that. So we try to maintain HF service in the
best manner possible to serve the whole maritime community.

Yes we could be better, but I doubt that many in this group are qualified
to understand how. If you know how, then by all means please tell us, as I
asked you before, it is important to hear feedback and we ask for it all the
time.

73

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach VA