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