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 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

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.

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"