On Saturday 15 May 2004 2:38 am in rec.boats.electronics Jack Painter wrote:


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.

Maybe you were referring to my comments, maybe not.
A fully compliant satcom system such as F77 is expensive, but not
beyond the means of larger cruisers. Smaller and less expensive
systems are available, right down to handhelds costing little more
than a mobile phone. All of these are easier to use and more
dependable than HF radios. As a minimum all vessels, however small,
should at least carry an L-band EPIRB if they venture out of VHF range.

40 years of HF experience tells me that the unpredictable vagiaries
of HF are not the best thing to struggle with in an emergency.
Technology has moved on and modern satellite based communications
are both reliable and simple to use.

In my opinion, for what it is worth, continued support for HF is
only serving to perpetuate a false sense of security and is
costing lives.

--
My real address is crn (at) netunix (dot) com
WARNING all messages containing attachments or html will be silently
deleted. Send only plain text.

Jack Painter wrote:
Also, the USCG HC-130's do not monitor
marine band SSB either, although both the ANG and all USCG a/c are capable
of any HF comms that a distressed vessel needed to communicate with.

The USAF HC 130s do monitor VHF ch 16 more than you might think. If they are
doing exercises off the coast and dropping PJs or flares they often listen to
be sure nobody mistakes it for a distress situation. That led to a miraculous
rescue in the late 70s off Pt Reyes CA. A 129th ARS HC 130 on a training flight
(call sign King 81) picked up a desperate very short VHF mayday call from the
fishing vessel Last One that had literally broken apart in heavy seas rounding
Pt Reyes. It was getting dark and chances of finding the crew (no life raft, no
life jackets, no EPIRB everything happened too quick) was appraoching zero as
the sun set. The Herc found the crew in the water and dropped a pair of rafts
way upwind connected by a long line. The crew managed to grab the line as the
rafts drifted downwind on either side of them. In 54 degree water they would
have soon been dead not for the vigilance and skill of the ANG plane crew. The
HC 130 then dropped flares from fairly high up many miles upwind (it was
screaming NW wind) and the flares drifted right over the rafts at low altitude
allowing a USCG helo to locate and lift the survivors long after nightfall. The
aircraft commander was Ted Shindler, a real pro in my book.

I have 47 years as a licensed ham on HF and above. Also 20 years in US Navy
communications and I agree it is unrealistic to think 2182 or 4125 would
work for long haul communications from mid-Pacific. There are too many
variables such as time of day, where in the 11 year sunspot cycle, etc. Yes,
there are times when the 80 meter ham band covers thousands of miles, such
as at night in the winter. But for long haul reliable communications 14 Mhz
is much more reliable, such as the 14.300 MHz maritime mobile net. During
the Alaska earthquake in the early 60s, the 80 meter ham band was the only
thing open for many hours to the lower 48. I put in 76 hours without sleep
operating from SE Washington state. But eventually during that period 14 and
21 MHz ham bands became the reliable paths for emergency and health/welfare
message traffic. A basic understanding of daily, seasonal, etc., cycles of
HF propagation is required to intelligently use it. When I was on Diego
Garcia Island, BIOT, VQ9DM, in 79-80, running 2000 watts PEP SSB, and CW, I
never once made a contact on the 3.5 or 7 MHz ham bands. However, 14 Mhz and
usually 21 MHz were open to the US for hours daily.
Don't blame the CG for lack of success, it is where you are, when and how
good your radio systems is that determines what frequencies will work, if at
all. A frequency range may be open where you are, and completely dead where
the CG station is located and vice versa. The more we become dependent on
satellite based systems, the less expertise we have on HF.
I took a tour of a CG Air Station the weekend and the helicopters have some
kind of HF scanning system to automatically select the frequency to use to
talk to a CAMS. I wish the pilot had been knowledgeable about how it works,
but they got the system from the US Customs Service.
I suggest some searching on the web for information on Maximum Useable
frequency and Optimum Useable Frequency (use 2 MHz lower) would be
enlightening to those without HF long haul experience.
73 Doug K7ABX

"Doug Dotson" wrote in message
...
That's an unreasonable expectation to assume the USCG would hear a small
boat between Midway and Japan on HF, which is far from our area of
responsibilty. You're on your own out in waters like that, and 2182 or
4125
are for 20-200 mile coverage. Higher frequencies as you used to call
someone
nearer to your locaton, are certainly better for long haul comms.

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 wrote
I took a tour of a CG Air Station the weekend and the helicopters have
some
kind of HF scanning system to automatically select the frequency to use to
talk to a CAMS. I wish the pilot had been knowledgeable about how it
works,
but they got the system from the US Customs Service.

That system is called COTHEN (Customs Over The Horizon Enforcement Network),
a cellular-concept of HF communications. It uses multiple transmit and
receive locations with ALE (Automatic Link Establishment) among other
technologies. This will completely replace the old guarded frequencies for
all air to ground communications. All CG aircraft are now ALE equipped, or
soon will be.

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, Va

My main beef is that when I needed to talk to the CG and VHF was
marginal, I asked if I could contact them on SSB. They said NO!

Doug, k3qt
s/v Callista

"Doug" wrote in message
k.net...
I have 47 years as a licensed ham on HF and above. Also 20 years in US
Navy
communications and I agree it is unrealistic to think 2182 or 4125 would
work for long haul communications from mid-Pacific. There are too many
variables such as time of day, where in the 11 year sunspot cycle, etc.
Yes,
there are times when the 80 meter ham band covers thousands of miles, such
as at night in the winter. But for long haul reliable communications 14
Mhz
is much more reliable, such as the 14.300 MHz maritime mobile net. During
the Alaska earthquake in the early 60s, the 80 meter ham band was the only
thing open for many hours to the lower 48. I put in 76 hours without sleep
operating from SE Washington state. But eventually during that period 14
and
21 MHz ham bands became the reliable paths for emergency and
health/welfare
message traffic. A basic understanding of daily, seasonal, etc., cycles of
HF propagation is required to intelligently use it. When I was on Diego
Garcia Island, BIOT, VQ9DM, in 79-80, running 2000 watts PEP SSB, and CW,
I
never once made a contact on the 3.5 or 7 MHz ham bands. However, 14 Mhz
and
usually 21 MHz were open to the US for hours daily.
Don't blame the CG for lack of success, it is where you are, when and how
good your radio systems is that determines what frequencies will work, if
at
all. A frequency range may be open where you are, and completely dead
where
the CG station is located and vice versa. The more we become dependent on
satellite based systems, the less expertise we have on HF.
I took a tour of a CG Air Station the weekend and the helicopters have
some
kind of HF scanning system to automatically select the frequency to use to
talk to a CAMS. I wish the pilot had been knowledgeable about how it
works,
but they got the system from the US Customs Service.
I suggest some searching on the web for information on Maximum Useable
frequency and Optimum Useable Frequency (use 2 MHz lower) would be
enlightening to those without HF long haul experience.
73 Doug K7ABX

"Doug Dotson" wrote in message
...
That's an unreasonable expectation to assume the USCG would hear a
small
boat between Midway and Japan on HF, which is far from our area of
responsibilty. You're on your own out in waters like that, and 2182 or
4125
are for 20-200 mile coverage. Higher frequencies as you used to call
someone
nearer to your locaton, are certainly better for long haul comms.

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

In article ,
"Doug Dotson" wrote:

That's an unreasonable expectation to assume the USCG would hear a small
boat between Midway and Japan on HF, which is far from our area of
responsibilty. You're on your own out in waters like that, and 2182 or
4125
are for 20-200 mile coverage. Higher frequencies as you used to call
someone
nearer to your locaton, are certainly better for long haul comms.

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



Just a followup for the group on the above quesations. I had a chat
with the USCG District 17 (Alaska) Admiral, while I was traveling on
vacation. We chatted about the state of the USCG's Radio Systems, and
the lack of congressional funding to impliment the Basic GMDSS Coast
Stations for the US Coasts. Our congress has yet to fund the BASIC
implimentation of GMDSS that was MANDITORY for US Flagged Vessels
back in 1999. He told me he could get funding for as many Armed
Preditor Survalience Craft as he could wanted, but very little for
the Radio System. Not even very much for basic maintainience.
Those of us in the North Pacific know that USCG Kodiak maintains
a very excelent Station that was origanlly a Navy Communications
Operation. This is the lifeline for all North Pacific Mariners,
and they do an excelent job. USCG Hawii is also very good for those
folks out in the mid Pacific. The Regional MF/HF Staions at Ketchikan,
Yakatat, and Cold Bay, are plagued with very old equipment that is ALWAYS
breaking down, and spares are very limited. Consequently the Listening
Watch from these stations is not what it should be, due to the lack
of operational status. I suspect that the same is true for most of the
West Coast Regional USCG Stations. What is needed is for the public
(that's us Maritime Radio Users) to kick some congressional butts, and
get the USCG Radio Systems GMDSS UPGRADE FUNDED, and PROCURRED. Once
that happens things will improve, but if it doesn't, nothing is going to
get better, and most things will get worse.

Bruce in alaska who enjoyed his vacation to the Real World,
but fells a lot safer back in the bush
--
add a 2 before @

Bruce in alaska who enjoyed his vacation to the Real World, but fells
a lot safer back in the bush

I talked to a charter company from Alasks a year ago at the Annapolis boat show
to try and find out why anybody who wanted to charter would want to do it in
Alaska.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

In article ,
(SAIL LOCO) wrote:

Bruce in alaska who enjoyed his vacation to the Real World, but
fells
a lot safer back in the bush

I talked to a charter company from Alasks a year ago at the Annapolis boat
show
to try and find out why anybody who wanted to charter would want to do it in
Alaska.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

They do it for the scenery, and the ocassional Grumpy Old ******* with
cool stories, that they find while crusing out in the bush country.....


Bruce in alaska one of the Grumpies, sometimes.......
--
add a 2 before @

Part of what's great about chartering in the Carib. is the 78 deg. beautiful
water you can jump into.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

You need to broaden your horizons Mike. The Carib is a very
small sliver of the world. But then again both Carib and Alaska
beat the hell out of Baltimore

Doug
s/v Callista

"SAIL LOCO" wrote in message
...
Part of what's great about chartering in the Carib. is the 78 deg.
beautiful
water you can jump into.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"