|
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 01:04:36 -0500, "Jack Painter"
wrote: In the interest of safe boating, I encourage anyone who is contemplating coastal cruising to contact their local USCG Group well in advance of the trip, and ask them for the estimated area of VHF and 2182 khz coverage along the route that they plan to take. An EPIRB is an important safety device in any cruising vessels inventory, but it cannot replace vital voice communications. ================================== Jack, does the USCG respond to "radio checks" on HF frequencies, and if so, what frequencies would you recommend? |
Radio checks on VHF are certainly discouraged. Asking for one
generally attracts a fairly nasty canned response. One has to wonder how the CG helps the average boater determine the operability of their VHF rig. Doug, k3qt s/v Callista "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 01:04:36 -0500, "Jack Painter" wrote: In the interest of safe boating, I encourage anyone who is contemplating coastal cruising to contact their local USCG Group well in advance of the trip, and ask them for the estimated area of VHF and 2182 khz coverage along the route that they plan to take. An EPIRB is an important safety device in any cruising vessels inventory, but it cannot replace vital voice communications. ================================== Jack, does the USCG respond to "radio checks" on HF frequencies, and if so, what frequencies would you recommend? |
"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote Thank You! A great and sensible answer! And I agree that the squelch doesn't work all that well on SSB. Doug, k3qt s/v Callista "Me" wrote in message ... In article , "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote: I don't know the actual answer to this, but it seems to me that the CG has clustered its monitoring stations for HF/MF along the coasts. What is the rationale behind this? It pretty much limits comms to groundwave in the covered areas. It would seems that a few stations spread out around the country would vastly expand coverage via skywave. Is it because the CG is limited in it's jusisdiction and can't establish stations inland? One of the advantages of using the ham bands is that station are stread out all over the world. At any given time day or night some station either via groundwave or skywave is going to be listening. Doug, k3qt s/v Callista It is because the USCG only deals with "Certain" Comms capability, so any skywave comms which depend on what the E and F layers are doing and what the GeoMagnetic Index is at the moment, aren't figured in. That is also why MF was basically given up as a Maritime Comms System when the switch to SSB from AM happened, by the USCG. Oh, the "Official Line" is that they have a 24/7 Watch on 2812 Khz, but in the REAL World, and not Jack's Universe, Most of those MF Receivers have the volume turn down, because the Operators can't deal with the white noise, when trying to hear something on one of the HF Receivers. Been that way for MANY years, even if Jack doesn't acknowledge it. Some of the best FCC Maritime Monitoring that was ever done was from the old Grand Island, Nebraska, Station....... Me Are you still interested in answers to your questions, or would you two just rather continue your back-slapping stories? Your replies to each other sound pretty cozy, and I don't want to barge in between your barstools while the two of you solve the world's problems. For the rest of the group still following G here is my universe: 1. "Squelch" is NEVER adjusted on any USCG guard receiver, VHF, MF, or HF. This applies equally to every Boat Station, Group, Sector, Activity, Communication Station and Communication Area Master Station. Anyone not drunk will also understand the following: 2. Volume is NEVER turned down, as was foolishly suggested above. Lets be serious for a moment. During critical SAR comms, volume will be turned UP on affected systems, this will have the same effect as turning others "down". That is not a long term condition, and SSB receivers are in a separate area from the VHF consoles anyway. This is something some of you could observe if you asked for a tour of a Group watchstanding system. 3. Boat Stations do NOT have SSB capability, their AOR is always within VHF range. 4. Some small patrol boats DO have SSB capability, namely all new 47' MLBs's which systematically replace the aging 41' patrol boats. Some 41's also have SSB. All aircraft have VHF/MF/HF systems. 5. Most Groups (or "Sectors" as they are transitioning to) and Activities have multiple towers (called "High Sites" ). Location of these high-sites normally allows significant overlap of the adjoining Group/Sector's AOR. 6. There are still areas of the Coastal-Continental United States that have small gaps in VHF coverage. Maine and Florida used to be the last ones on the East coast reporting this problem (there may be others we are not aware of). USCG AUX in Florida remedied that state's problem with volunteer funded, erected and maintained towers and repeater systems in the thousand islands area of SW Florida. 7. Rescue-21 when fully implemented, will maintain full VHF coverage in all areas, and between 20-40 miles seaward. The first Group to have this system completed is adjacent to me, on the Eastern Shore of Virginia. Even with Rescue-21 up and running there, that Group NOW has full MF-DSC-GMDSS capability on 2187.5 khz and of course monitors 2182 khz (the IMO-regulated adjoining voice channel to 2mhz-DSC) on a 24/7 basis, just as all USCG Groups do. 8. Each of a Group's several high-sites now has their own set of VHF receivers and transmitters. Group watchstanders monitor a guard receiver speaker from EACH high site, all playing "white noise" all the time. 9. The SSB/MF/HF systems of every GroupSector/Activity serves many other purposes than just guarding 2182 khz, which is required by International treaty for declared Sea Area A-2 (the range between VHF and HF shore coverage of guard frequencies). IMO regulations are beyond the scope of this discussion, but I will be happy to try to elaborate some that relate to ship to shore communications later. 9. Automatic Direction Finding equipment with display on computer-screen charts is selectable from all or individual high-sites. 10. Digital recording devices capture 100% of all incoming traffic to USCG Group receivers. 11. Auto-alarms received on 2182 khz (that are NOT during the testing-periods allowed) occur up to several times a week. In no case that I can remember, has the pleasure boat, fishing vessel or commercial ship that sounded them ever "cancelled" with apologies. Callouts and urgent marine information broadcasts across wide areas result. 12. Auto-alarms received on VHF-DSC Ch-70 (156.525 mhz) with no acknowledgement or cancellation occur at least weekly. Testing of VHF-DSC auto-alarms is illegal, so I guess it's no surprise that most don't acknowledge. I have heard a commercial fishing captain call us to say "the darn thing just went off". He was DF'd and hunted-down before he acknowledged this. It cost him nothing to apologize yet cost the Coast Guard an hour of SAR-callouts, boat-team launch, preparation for aircraft launch, etc. 13. Valid MAYDAY calls for USCG SAR-response are received on 2182 khz as the first communication used on average of once every two weeks or so along the Eastern seaboard. 14. HF is the ONLY 24hr skywave-reliable SSB system in use. MF is only for short range (20-200 miles), and only intended as a bridge between VHF line of sight and HF skywave. This doesn't stop us from completing hours of SAR-case communications exclusively on 2182 khz as long as it remains successful. Hope this clears some of the fog spreading from various barstool-scuttlebutt. Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia |
"Wayne.B" wrote On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 01:04:36 -0500, "Jack Painter" wrote: In the interest of safe boating, I encourage anyone who is contemplating coastal cruising to contact their local USCG Group well in advance of the trip, and ask them for the estimated area of VHF and 2182 khz coverage along the route that they plan to take. An EPIRB is an important safety device in any cruising vessels inventory, but it cannot replace vital voice communications. ================================== Jack, does the USCG respond to "radio checks" on HF frequencies, and if so, what frequencies would you recommend? Hi Wayne, USCG always responds to radio checks. And as Doug offered though, on VHF it is indeed strongly discouraged, and that becomes your "radio check". Channel 9 is allocated for both calling/hailing and as an alternate distress frequency (ship-to-ship only) in most areas now. This was done to alleviate the congestion in busy areas on Ch-16. It is also part of an experiment to move ALL calling/hailing from Ch-16 to Ch-9, leaving Ch-16 for urgency and distress only. Ch-9 is where ship to ship or ship to shore radio checks should take place. Radio operating procedures for VHF-marine do state that no "any station" type radio checks should ever be made. I paraphrased that so you would understand that calling the "USCG" is just like making an any-station call. We don't know if you are in distress, an urgency, safety issue, which Coast Guard unit is requested, etc. All of the above are valid reasons for just sayng "USCG", but doing that for a radio check in congested areas is NOT. Now if you called a SPECIFIC Coast Guard Group or Station, asking to switch to their wkg frequency for radio check, they should accomodate you in a courteous fashion, unless something else urgent is going on with their unit. On HF: Since HF duplex calling channels are no longer guarded (Jan-1-2005), and instead the associated simplex voice channels for 4,6,8, and 12 meg DSC-GMDSS are, I am not sure if that makes them the place for a radio check with USCG. It hasn't happened to me yet and I have not seen guidance on this. As I understand, a VESSEL USING CALLSIGN could make a HF radio check call to any particular ship or coastal-station (never any-station, same as above) on 4125, 6215, 8291 or 12290 which are now guarded by CAMSLANT and CAMSPAC and KODIAK. A USCG operator will answer any non-distress HF call on a case-available basis. I didn't tell you to do this, but I would answer you. The PURPOSE of guarding 4125, 6215, 8291 and 12290 is to be READY for distress traffic voice calls on the associated channel for most of the DSC-GMDSS channels. These newly guarded channels (US is the first nation to do so btw) are ALSO allocated for "Calling". We'll have to see how that part works out. [0322z sidebar: USCG Group St Pete loud and clear in Virginia Beach, VA on 2182, shifting to 2670 khz for offshore marine information broadcast] ;-) Maybe I can get back to you with a more definitive HF-answer later Wayne, sorry it's just too new a procedure to be sure yet. Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia |
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:30:01 -0500, "Jack Painter"
wrote: Maybe I can get back to you with a more definitive HF-answer later Wayne, sorry it's just too new a procedure to be sure yet. ====================================== Thanks. I'm getting ready to have a new Icom M-802 installed and will surely be interested in a few brief tests without violating any written or un-written rules in that respect. I know that Bermuda Harbor Radio routinely responds to radio check requests prior to the start of the Newport-Bermuda sailing race but I don't recall which frequency is recommended. |
"Jack Painter" wrote in message news:Zo%Gd.18134$B95.16615@lakeread02... "Wayne.B" wrote On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 01:04:36 -0500, "Jack Painter" wrote: In the interest of safe boating, I encourage anyone who is contemplating coastal cruising to contact their local USCG Group well in advance of the trip, and ask them for the estimated area of VHF and 2182 khz coverage along the route that they plan to take. An EPIRB is an important safety device in any cruising vessels inventory, but it cannot replace vital voice communications. ================================== Jack, does the USCG respond to "radio checks" on HF frequencies, and if so, what frequencies would you recommend? Hi Wayne, USCG always responds to radio checks. No they don't. And as Doug offered though, on VHF it is indeed strongly discouraged, and that becomes your "radio check". So being chewed out by the CG is their form of a response to a request for a radio check? Isn't that sweet. That certainly encourages folks to check to see if their rig is working. Channel 9 is allocated for both calling/hailing and as an alternate distress frequency (ship-to-ship only) in most areas now. This was done to alleviate the congestion in busy areas on Ch-16. It is also part of an experiment to move ALL calling/hailing from Ch-16 to Ch-9, leaving Ch-16 for urgency and distress only. Ch-9 is where ship to ship or ship to shore radio checks should take place. That's good. Ch9 is where radio check should be made. Radio operating procedures for VHF-marine do state that no "any station" type radio checks should ever be made. You just said that Ch9 is now intended for that purpose! I paraphrased that so you would understand that calling the "USCG" is just like making an any-station call. How does that make sense? We don't know if you are in distress, an urgency, safety issue, which Coast Guard unit is requested, etc. Perhaps listening to the caller to understand what the nature of the call is. All of the above are valid reasons for just sayng "USCG", I've never heard one say USCG unless they are trying to contact the USCG. but doing that for a radio check in congested areas is NOT. I've never heard anyone ask for a radio check from the USCG. Usually they are asking for a response from anyone that can hear them. Now if you called a SPECIFIC Coast Guard Group or Station, asking to switch to their wkg frequency for radio check, they should accomodate you in a courteous fashion, unless something else urgent is going on with their unit. Fair enough. On HF: Since HF duplex calling channels are no longer guarded (Jan-1-2005), and instead the associated simplex voice channels for 4,6,8, and 12 meg DSC-GMDSS are, I am not sure if that makes them the place for a radio check with USCG. It hasn't happened to me yet and I have not seen guidance on this. So, if I am heading offshore, how do I find out if the USCG can copy me? As I understand, a VESSEL USING CALLSIGN could make a HF radio check call to any particular ship or coastal-station (never any-station, same as above) on 4125, 6215, 8291 or 12290 which are now guarded by CAMSLANT and CAMSPAC and KODIAK. A USCG operator will answer any non-distress HF call on a case-available basis. I didn't tell you to do this, but I would answer you. So if I am trying to check my gear as I am heading offshore, the USCG will answer if they feel like it? The PURPOSE of guarding 4125, 6215, 8291 and 12290 is to be READY for distress traffic voice calls on the associated channel for most of the DSC-GMDSS channels. Even though no mechanism is in place for a vessel to establish that their equipment is capable of said comms. These newly guarded channels (US is the first nation to do so btw) are ALSO allocated for "Calling". We'll have to see how that part works out. [0322z sidebar: USCG Group St Pete loud and clear in Virginia Beach, VA on 2182, shifting to 2670 khz for offshore marine information broadcast] ;-) Maybe I can get back to you with a more definitive HF-answer later Wayne, sorry it's just too new a procedure to be sure yet. Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia |
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:45:23 -0500, "Jack Painter"
wrote: 4. Some small patrol boats DO have SSB capability, namely all new 47' MLBs's which systematically replace the aging 41' patrol boats. Some 41's also have SSB. All aircraft have VHF/MF/HF systems. Don' tyou mean they are replacing the 44' MLBs? Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC J36 Gjo/a "Be careful. The toe you stepped on yesterday may be connected to the ass you have to kiss today." --Former mayor Ciancia |
"Rodney Myrvaagnes" wrote On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:45:23 -0500, "Jack Painter" wrote: 4. Some small patrol boats DO have SSB capability, namely all new 47' MLBs's which systematically replace the aging 41' patrol boats. Some 41's also have SSB. All aircraft have VHF/MF/HF systems. Don' tyou mean they are replacing the 44' MLBs? Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC J36 Gjo/a Those also, yes. Most if not all 44's should already be retired by now, and there were a lot less of them to begin with (100?). Stations with heavy-surf requirements had to have a 44, those without that requirement, and that was a larger number, got various smaller units, 36' & 41' etc. Many of them are still around. Washington State, notorious for the surf-school and the worst bar-crossings in the continent, still has a variety of older surf boats for training. But the new 47 is the mainstay of the med-range surf-boat and general purpose patrol boat. SAFE boats are the new aluminum cabintops with orange protective rigid-hulls, generally at 25' with some customs units at 21,23 and 27'. These two new designs were tested at ISC Portsmouth, VA all summer of '04. Exciting equipment. http://www.oceantech.com/whatsnew.htm Jack |
Man, you must have alot of spare time on your hands :)
So how does the USCG support skywave comms for stations not near the coast? Doug, k3qt s/v Callista "Jack Painter" wrote in message news:8L_Gd.18132$B95.563@lakeread02... "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote Thank You! A great and sensible answer! And I agree that the squelch doesn't work all that well on SSB. Doug, k3qt s/v Callista "Me" wrote in message ... In article , "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote: I don't know the actual answer to this, but it seems to me that the CG has clustered its monitoring stations for HF/MF along the coasts. What is the rationale behind this? It pretty much limits comms to groundwave in the covered areas. It would seems that a few stations spread out around the country would vastly expand coverage via skywave. Is it because the CG is limited in it's jusisdiction and can't establish stations inland? One of the advantages of using the ham bands is that station are stread out all over the world. At any given time day or night some station either via groundwave or skywave is going to be listening. Doug, k3qt s/v Callista It is because the USCG only deals with "Certain" Comms capability, so any skywave comms which depend on what the E and F layers are doing and what the GeoMagnetic Index is at the moment, aren't figured in. That is also why MF was basically given up as a Maritime Comms System when the switch to SSB from AM happened, by the USCG. Oh, the "Official Line" is that they have a 24/7 Watch on 2812 Khz, but in the REAL World, and not Jack's Universe, Most of those MF Receivers have the volume turn down, because the Operators can't deal with the white noise, when trying to hear something on one of the HF Receivers. Been that way for MANY years, even if Jack doesn't acknowledge it. Some of the best FCC Maritime Monitoring that was ever done was from the old Grand Island, Nebraska, Station....... Me Are you still interested in answers to your questions, or would you two just rather continue your back-slapping stories? Your replies to each other sound pretty cozy, and I don't want to barge in between your barstools while the two of you solve the world's problems. For the rest of the group still following G here is my universe: 1. "Squelch" is NEVER adjusted on any USCG guard receiver, VHF, MF, or HF. This applies equally to every Boat Station, Group, Sector, Activity, Communication Station and Communication Area Master Station. Anyone not drunk will also understand the following: 2. Volume is NEVER turned down, as was foolishly suggested above. Lets be serious for a moment. During critical SAR comms, volume will be turned UP on affected systems, this will have the same effect as turning others "down". That is not a long term condition, and SSB receivers are in a separate area from the VHF consoles anyway. This is something some of you could observe if you asked for a tour of a Group watchstanding system. 3. Boat Stations do NOT have SSB capability, their AOR is always within VHF range. 4. Some small patrol boats DO have SSB capability, namely all new 47' MLBs's which systematically replace the aging 41' patrol boats. Some 41's also have SSB. All aircraft have VHF/MF/HF systems. 5. Most Groups (or "Sectors" as they are transitioning to) and Activities have multiple towers (called "High Sites" ). Location of these high-sites normally allows significant overlap of the adjoining Group/Sector's AOR. 6. There are still areas of the Coastal-Continental United States that have small gaps in VHF coverage. Maine and Florida used to be the last ones on the East coast reporting this problem (there may be others we are not aware of). USCG AUX in Florida remedied that state's problem with volunteer funded, erected and maintained towers and repeater systems in the thousand islands area of SW Florida. 7. Rescue-21 when fully implemented, will maintain full VHF coverage in all areas, and between 20-40 miles seaward. The first Group to have this system completed is adjacent to me, on the Eastern Shore of Virginia. Even with Rescue-21 up and running there, that Group NOW has full MF-DSC-GMDSS capability on 2187.5 khz and of course monitors 2182 khz (the IMO-regulated adjoining voice channel to 2mhz-DSC) on a 24/7 basis, just as all USCG Groups do. 8. Each of a Group's several high-sites now has their own set of VHF receivers and transmitters. Group watchstanders monitor a guard receiver speaker from EACH high site, all playing "white noise" all the time. 9. The SSB/MF/HF systems of every GroupSector/Activity serves many other purposes than just guarding 2182 khz, which is required by International treaty for declared Sea Area A-2 (the range between VHF and HF shore coverage of guard frequencies). IMO regulations are beyond the scope of this discussion, but I will be happy to try to elaborate some that relate to ship to shore communications later. 9. Automatic Direction Finding equipment with display on computer-screen charts is selectable from all or individual high-sites. 10. Digital recording devices capture 100% of all incoming traffic to USCG Group receivers. 11. Auto-alarms received on 2182 khz (that are NOT during the testing-periods allowed) occur up to several times a week. In no case that I can remember, has the pleasure boat, fishing vessel or commercial ship that sounded them ever "cancelled" with apologies. Callouts and urgent marine information broadcasts across wide areas result. 12. Auto-alarms received on VHF-DSC Ch-70 (156.525 mhz) with no acknowledgement or cancellation occur at least weekly. Testing of VHF-DSC auto-alarms is illegal, so I guess it's no surprise that most don't acknowledge. I have heard a commercial fishing captain call us to say "the darn thing just went off". He was DF'd and hunted-down before he acknowledged this. It cost him nothing to apologize yet cost the Coast Guard an hour of SAR-callouts, boat-team launch, preparation for aircraft launch, etc. 13. Valid MAYDAY calls for USCG SAR-response are received on 2182 khz as the first communication used on average of once every two weeks or so along the Eastern seaboard. 14. HF is the ONLY 24hr skywave-reliable SSB system in use. MF is only for short range (20-200 miles), and only intended as a bridge between VHF line of sight and HF skywave. This doesn't stop us from completing hours of SAR-case communications exclusively on 2182 khz as long as it remains successful. Hope this clears some of the fog spreading from various barstool-scuttlebutt. Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia |
"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote So being chewed out by the CG is their form of a response to a request for a radio check? Isn't that sweet. That certainly encourages folks to check to see if their rig is working. Doug, Unfortunately that's correct. Although the boating public often disagrees, it is not the USCG's responsibility to provide a means of testing their radio equipment. A reasonable person will understand that the boater is responsible and normally capable of making such equipment checks without interfering with a life-saving and homeland security service. This includes following the regulated use of marine radios, which prohibit making calls to a non-specific ("Any Station") unit or vessel for routine traffic, radio checks, etc. In local VHF use, there are few exceptions to this. One example could be in winter/heavy-wx, etc (imagine a condition when few pleasure or commercial activities might be active) and there are no other observed vessels or monitoring coastal stations available for a radio check prior to departing. We would all agree a vessel's communications equipment should be tested by any means available before such activity! Channel 9 is allocated for both calling/hailing and as an alternate distress frequency (ship-to-ship only) in most areas now. This was done to alleviate the congestion in busy areas on Ch-16. It is also part of an experiment to move ALL calling/hailing from Ch-16 to Ch-9, leaving Ch-16 for urgency and distress only. Ch-9 is where ship to ship or ship to shore radio checks should take place. That's good. Ch9 is where radio check should be made. Radio operating procedures for VHF-marine do state that no "any station" type radio checks should ever be made. You just said that Ch9 is now intended for that purpose! Indeed. That doesn't provide an excuse to ignore proper marine radio operating procedures, in which routine calls to unspecific stations are not permitted. This is not Amateur Radio! we do not "CQ" to chat or see how far anyone might hear us over the VHF or HF marine bands. If that activity is going to happen, and certainly it does, it should never be over the distress/hailing channel (16). I said the Coast Guard always answers radio checks. Let me be more specific. Over the years the policy on answering radio checks has changed at least a couple of times. It is current policy to discourage any vessel from using channel 16 to make radio checks. They should however be answered, and the sometimes inconsistent results are simply unfortunate. I've never heard anyone ask for a radio check from the USCG. Usually they are asking for a response from anyone that can hear them. See "This is not amateur radio!" above. Now if you called a SPECIFIC Coast Guard Group or Station, asking to switch to their wkg frequency for radio check, they should accomodate you in a courteous fashion, unless something else urgent is going on with their unit. Fair enough. I understand a boater ( I am one too btw) wants to know that the ones who would be called to help them should be able to hear them. It's also ignorant of the fact that it must be policy to discourage calling the Coast Guard anytime this emotional desire gets triggered (getting underway, tinkering with radio system, bored, etc). There are other more practical ways to test a radio when it is appropriate to do so, which do not interfere with life-saving and homeland security communications of the USCG. On HF: Since HF duplex calling channels are no longer guarded (Jan-1-2005), and instead the associated simplex voice channels for 4,6,8, and 12 meg DSC-GMDSS are, I am not sure if that makes them the place for a radio check with USCG. It hasn't happened to me yet and I have not seen guidance on this. So, if I am heading offshore, how do I find out if the USCG can copy me? As above, this is not a question that any indivdual vessel operator has a right to verify with the USCG directly. They can of course check their systems with any specific station (no "Any Station" calls) and if the USCG is able to answer, they might. USCG is not a marine telephone operator, and it would be purely the disgression of a watchstander, based on other priorities and guided by local command and service-policies, to respond to a radio check made specifically to his unit or station. I hope you find this helpful. Best regards, Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia |
Man, you must have alot of spare time on your hands :) That's a given, since as you know, my activities for the USCG are 100% volunteer! I specialized in communication areas that I felt needed improvement, and additionally support other duties that are encouraged at the national and all local levels. These include vessel safety patrols, marine safety inspections, and harbor security. Of course I "tow the company line" there! The USCG and the citizens we serve deserve no less. So how does the USCG support skywave comms for stations not near the coast? By virtue of hundreds and in some cases thousands of miles distance (North/South and East/West) between multiple antennas (of varying design frequency, gain, direction and launch angle) at each of several antenna sites. You asked an interesting question about antenna locations earlier. It is my belief that the site locations were neither arbitrary nor at the expense of reliable communications for the defined area of operations of the USCG. Nobody will argue that government does practically anything in the most efficient manner possible. But most will agree that critical services are provided in the most reliable fashion, nonetheless subject to the availability of funds provided. Doug, k3qt s/v Callista 73, Jack "Jack Painter" wrote in message news:8L_Gd.18132$B95.563@lakeread02... "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote Thank You! A great and sensible answer! And I agree that the squelch doesn't work all that well on SSB. Doug, k3qt s/v Callista "Me" wrote in message ... In article , "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote: I don't know the actual answer to this, but it seems to me that the CG has clustered its monitoring stations for HF/MF along the coasts. What is the rationale behind this? It pretty much limits comms to groundwave in the covered areas. It would seems that a few stations spread out around the country would vastly expand coverage via skywave. Is it because the CG is limited in it's jusisdiction and can't establish stations inland? One of the advantages of using the ham bands is that station are stread out all over the world. At any given time day or night some station either via groundwave or skywave is going to be listening. Doug, k3qt s/v Callista It is because the USCG only deals with "Certain" Comms capability, so any skywave comms which depend on what the E and F layers are doing and what the GeoMagnetic Index is at the moment, aren't figured in. That is also why MF was basically given up as a Maritime Comms System when the switch to SSB from AM happened, by the USCG. Oh, the "Official Line" is that they have a 24/7 Watch on 2812 Khz, but in the REAL World, and not Jack's Universe, Most of those MF Receivers have the volume turn down, because the Operators can't deal with the white noise, when trying to hear something on one of the HF Receivers. Been that way for MANY years, even if Jack doesn't acknowledge it. Some of the best FCC Maritime Monitoring that was ever done was from the old Grand Island, Nebraska, Station....... Me Are you still interested in answers to your questions, or would you two just rather continue your back-slapping stories? Your replies to each other sound pretty cozy, and I don't want to barge in between your barstools while the two of you solve the world's problems. For the rest of the group still following G here is my universe: 1. "Squelch" is NEVER adjusted on any USCG guard receiver, VHF, MF, or HF. This applies equally to every Boat Station, Group, Sector, Activity, Communication Station and Communication Area Master Station. Anyone not drunk will also understand the following: 2. Volume is NEVER turned down, as was foolishly suggested above. Lets be serious for a moment. During critical SAR comms, volume will be turned UP on affected systems, this will have the same effect as turning others "down". That is not a long term condition, and SSB receivers are in a separate area from the VHF consoles anyway. This is something some of you could observe if you asked for a tour of a Group watchstanding system. 3. Boat Stations do NOT have SSB capability, their AOR is always within VHF range. 4. Some small patrol boats DO have SSB capability, namely all new 47' MLBs's which systematically replace the aging 41' patrol boats. Some 41's also have SSB. All aircraft have VHF/MF/HF systems. 5. Most Groups (or "Sectors" as they are transitioning to) and Activities have multiple towers (called "High Sites" ). Location of these high-sites normally allows significant overlap of the adjoining Group/Sector's AOR. 6. There are still areas of the Coastal-Continental United States that have small gaps in VHF coverage. Maine and Florida used to be the last ones on the East coast reporting this problem (there may be others we are not aware of). USCG AUX in Florida remedied that state's problem with volunteer funded, erected and maintained towers and repeater systems in the thousand islands area of SW Florida. 7. Rescue-21 when fully implemented, will maintain full VHF coverage in all areas, and between 20-40 miles seaward. The first Group to have this system completed is adjacent to me, on the Eastern Shore of Virginia. Even with Rescue-21 up and running there, that Group NOW has full MF-DSC-GMDSS capability on 2187.5 khz and of course monitors 2182 khz (the IMO-regulated adjoining voice channel to 2mhz-DSC) on a 24/7 basis, just as all USCG Groups do. 8. Each of a Group's several high-sites now has their own set of VHF receivers and transmitters. Group watchstanders monitor a guard receiver speaker from EACH high site, all playing "white noise" all the time. 9. The SSB/MF/HF systems of every GroupSector/Activity serves many other purposes than just guarding 2182 khz, which is required by International treaty for declared Sea Area A-2 (the range between VHF and HF shore coverage of guard frequencies). IMO regulations are beyond the scope of this discussion, but I will be happy to try to elaborate some that relate to ship to shore communications later. 9. Automatic Direction Finding equipment with display on computer-screen charts is selectable from all or individual high-sites. 10. Digital recording devices capture 100% of all incoming traffic to USCG Group receivers. 11. Auto-alarms received on 2182 khz (that are NOT during the testing-periods allowed) occur up to several times a week. In no case that I can remember, has the pleasure boat, fishing vessel or commercial ship that sounded them ever "cancelled" with apologies. Callouts and urgent marine information broadcasts across wide areas result. 12. Auto-alarms received on VHF-DSC Ch-70 (156.525 mhz) with no acknowledgement or cancellation occur at least weekly. Testing of VHF-DSC auto-alarms is illegal, so I guess it's no surprise that most don't acknowledge. I have heard a commercial fishing captain call us to say "the darn thing just went off". He was DF'd and hunted-down before he acknowledged this. It cost him nothing to apologize yet cost the Coast Guard an hour of SAR-callouts, boat-team launch, preparation for aircraft launch, etc. 13. Valid MAYDAY calls for USCG SAR-response are received on 2182 khz as the first communication used on average of once every two weeks or so along the Eastern seaboard. 14. HF is the ONLY 24hr skywave-reliable SSB system in use. MF is only for short range (20-200 miles), and only intended as a bridge between VHF line of sight and HF skywave. This doesn't stop us from completing hours of SAR-case communications exclusively on 2182 khz as long as it remains successful. Hope this clears some of the fog spreading from various barstool-scuttlebutt. Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia |
In article ,
"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote: Thank You! A great and sensible answer! And I agree that the squelch doesn't work all that well on SSB. Doug, k3qt s/v Callista Just another note, basically ALL the SSB Squelch Systems around today, are copies of, or Reverse Engineered versions, of the SEA Variable Sylobic Rate Squelch design, that was first first introduced in the Marine Radio MF/HF Radios in the Northern N550. This system was a Dick Stephens design and was incororated into all of his radio designs subsequent to that intorduction, as either builtin, or as an optional addon board. Bruce in alaska who was there, when all this happened...... -- add a 2 before @ |
In article 8L_Gd.18132$B95.563@lakeread02,
"Jack Painter" frothed out his ass: Are you still interested in answers to your questions, or would you two just rather continue your back-slapping stories? Your replies to each other sound pretty cozy, and I don't want to barge in between your barstools while the two of you solve the world's problems. For the rest of the group still following G here is my universe: 1. "Squelch" is NEVER adjusted on any USCG guard receiver, VHF, MF, or HF. This applies equally to every Boat Station, Group, Sector, Activity, Communication Station and Communication Area Master Station. Anyone not drunk will also understand the following: I don't know where your Universe is, or what Dimension it is in, Jack, but do you REALLY expect us ALL to believe that EACH VHF Receiver on ALL USCG RADIO's don't have an "Adjusted Squelch" and that white noise is eminating from all the speakers????? This is just SO MUCH BULL****, that even the most imcompitant Mooorooon knows it is CRAP. I have been in a number of CommSta's around in the REAL UNIVERSE, and I can STATE Catagorically that this is JUST NOT THE CASE. 2. Volume is NEVER turned down, as was foolishly suggested above. Lets be serious for a moment. During critical SAR comms, volume will be turned UP on affected systems, this will have the same effect as turning others "down". That is not a long term condition, and SSB receivers are in a separate area from the VHF consoles anyway. This is something some of you could observe if you asked for a tour of a Group watchstanding system. Yes Jack, volumes ARE turned down in CommSta's in the REAL Universe. It happens quite often. Speakers are also MUTED, for specific situations, so that other speakers can be copied better. Any reports, otherwise are just not creditable. 3. Boat Stations do NOT have SSB capability, their AOR is always within VHF range. 4. Some small patrol boats DO have SSB capability, namely all new 47' MLBs's which systematically replace the aging 41' patrol boats. Some 41's also have SSB. All aircraft have VHF/MF/HF systems. 5. Most Groups (or "Sectors" as they are transitioning to) and Activities have multiple towers (called "High Sites" ). Location of these high-sites normally allows significant overlap of the adjoining Group/Sector's AOR. and most CommSta's don't have the MF/HF Receivers right there in the room either. Most of that equipment is remoted out at the Antenna Farms, and is brought in on Phonelines, or other longhaul communications links. The reason for that is if the receivers were actually in the Consoles at the CommSta, they would be STONED Deaf because of all the computer, and network noise that is zipping around in there. Some of us actually have designed systems for USCG CommSta's, Jack....... 6. There are still areas of the Coastal-Continental United States that have small gaps in VHF coverage. Maine and Florida used to be the last ones on the East coast reporting this problem (there may be others we are not aware of). USCG AUX in Florida remedied that state's problem with volunteer funded, erected and maintained towers and repeater systems in the thousand islands area of SW Florida. Even if it has slipped you mind, Jack..... Alaska IS in the North American Continental United States!!!! 7. Rescue-21 when fully implemented, will maintain full VHF coverage in all areas, and between 20-40 miles seaward. The first Group to have this system completed is adjacent to me, on the Eastern Shore of Virginia. Even with Rescue-21 up and running there, that Group NOW has full MF-DSC-GMDSS capability on 2187.5 khz and of course monitors 2182 khz (the IMO-regulated adjoining voice channel to 2mhz-DSC) on a 24/7 basis, just as all USCG Groups do. 8. Each of a Group's several high-sites now has their own set of VHF receivers and transmitters. Group watchstanders monitor a guard receiver speaker from EACH high site, all playing "white noise" all the time. 9. The SSB/MF/HF systems of every GroupSector/Activity serves many other purposes than just guarding 2182 khz, which is required by International treaty for declared Sea Area A-2 (the range between VHF and HF shore coverage of guard frequencies). IMO regulations are beyond the scope of this discussion, but I will be happy to try to elaborate some that relate to ship to shore communications later. 9. Automatic Direction Finding equipment with display on computer-screen charts is selectable from all or individual high-sites. 10. Digital recording devices capture 100% of all incoming traffic to USCG Group receivers. 11. Auto-alarms received on 2182 khz (that are NOT during the testing-periods allowed) occur up to several times a week. In no case that I can remember, has the pleasure boat, fishing vessel or commercial ship that sounded them ever "cancelled" with apologies. Callouts and urgent marine information broadcasts across wide areas result. When was the last time you actually SAW a TG-502 connected to a SSB Radio on a noncommecial Vessel??? You do know what a TG-502 is, right Jack???? 12. Auto-alarms received on VHF-DSC Ch-70 (156.525 mhz) with no acknowledgement or cancellation occur at least weekly. Testing of VHF-DSC auto-alarms is illegal, so I guess it's no surprise that most don't acknowledge. I have heard a commercial fishing captain call us to say "the darn thing just went off". He was DF'd and hunted-down before he acknowledged this. It cost him nothing to apologize yet cost the Coast Guard an hour of SAR-callouts, boat-team launch, preparation for aircraft launch, etc. Better go back and get your TERMINOLOGY Staight Jack..... AutoAlarms went out with Morse Code, and 500Khz.... DSC Distress Signals are not refered to as AUTOALARMS..... 13. Valid MAYDAY calls for USCG SAR-response are received on 2182 khz as the first communication used on average of once every two weeks or so along the Eastern seaboard. 14. HF is the ONLY 24hr skywave-reliable SSB system in use. MF is only for short range (20-200 miles), and only intended as a bridge between VHF line of sight and HF skywave. This doesn't stop us from completing hours of SAR-case communications exclusively on 2182 khz as long as it remains successful. Hope this clears some of the fog spreading from various barstool-scuttlebutt. Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia Me who actually does live in the REAL Universe........ |
In article ,
"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote: I've never heard anyone ask for a radio check from the USCG. Usually they are asking for a response from anyone that can hear them. Actually, it is REQUIRED during a SOLAS Inspection that a "Radio Check" be preformed with the nearest USCG Station, and that it be "Logged" in the Radio Station Log of the Vessel, for each piece of Gear aboard. Also SOLAS Required vessels are also REQUIRED to Log one complete Communication every 24 hours, while navigating. Bruce in alaska who actually does SOLAS Inpsections on occasion..... -- add a 2 before @ |
|
wrote I'd still say try regular maritime ssb freqs first, especially if you don't hold a ham license. I've got to agree with Jack here. HOwever I'd want anything in my favor I could get were I sailing blue water, and ham radio is another tool in my kit. Richard Webb, amateur radio callsign nf5b active on the Maritime Mobile service network, 14.300 mhz REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email I forget where I found this list. Ham Maritime Nets: All Times UTC (as of Sept. 2004) 0100 3.935 Gulf Coast Hurricane Net - Daily 0100 21.407 Pacific-Indian Ocean Net - Daily 0200 14.303 Cal-Hawaii net Daily 0200 14.313/300 Pacific Seafarers Net - Daily 0200 7.290 Hawaii PM Net M - F 0220 14.315 Traveler's Net 0330 14.040 Cruising Club M/M CW Net 0400 14.115 Canadian DDD Net 0400 14.075 PAC CW Traffic Net M-W-F 0400 14.314 Pacific Maritime Mobile Net 0500 21.200 VK / NZ African Net 0500 14.280 USA\Australia Traffic Net 0530 14.303 Swedish Maritime Net 0530 14.314 Pacific Maritime Net 0630 14.180 Pitcairn Net 0630 14.320 South African Maritime Net 0700 14.265 Pacific Island Net 0700 14.310 Guam Area Net 0715 3.820 Bay of Islands Net 0800 7.280 Australia Traffic Net 0800 14.315 Pacific Inter Island Net 0900 14.300 Mediterranean M.M. Net 0900 7.080 Canary Island Net ?? 1000 14.330 Pacific Gunkholers Net 1000 14.300 German Maritime Mobile Net 1030 3.815 Caribbean Weather Net 1030 14.265 Barbados Cruising Net 1100 3.750 Marine Weather Net 1100 7.230/40 Caribbean M\M Net 1100 14.283 Friendly Connection 1130 14.320 South African M/M Net 1130 21.325 South African Round Table 1200 14.040 Maritime Mobile CW Net 1200 14.332 Young Ladies Emergency Net 1200 14.320 Southeast Asia Net 1245 7.268 East Coast Waterway Net 1400 7.292 Florida Coast Net 1400 3.963 Sonisa Net 1500 7.193 Alaska Net 1545 14.340 Marquises Net 1600 7.238.5 Baja California Maritime Net 1600 14.300 Maritime Mobile Service Network (summer) 1630 7.285 Serape Net Sunday 1630 21.350 Pitcairn Net Friday 1630 14.340 Californian Hawaiian Net M - F 1700 7.240 Bajco M/M Net M - F 1700 14.287 USPS-CPS Net Saturday 1700 14.300 Maritime Mobile Service Network (winter) 1700 14.329 Skippers' Net Daily 1730 14.292 Alaska Net M - F 1730 14.115 Canadian DDD Net M - F 1800 14.285 Kaffee-Kiatch JN_NE M-W-Sat 1800 14.303 U-K Maritime Net Daily 1800 7.076 South Pacific Cruising Net 1800 7.197 South Pacific Sailing Net 1830 14.340 Manana M/M Net Warm Up M-Sat 1900 14.340 Manana M/M Net M-Sat 1900 7.255 West Pacific Net Daily 1900 7.285 Shamru Net 1900 21.390 Halo Net 1900 14.329 Bay of Islands Net 1900 3.855 Friendly Net 1900 3.990 Northwest Maritime Net 2000 7.060 VK Maritime Net 2030 14.303 Swedish Maritime Net 2100 14.315 Tony's Net 2100 21.390 North South America's Net 2130 14.318 Daytime Pacific Net 2130 14.290 East Coast Waterway Net 2200 21.350 Pitcairn Net Tues 2200 21.414 Pacific Maritime Net M - F 2230 3.185 Caribbean Weather Net Daily 2230 21.404 15-Meter Pacific Maritime Net M - F 2310 14.285 Cal-South Pacific Net - Mondays 2330 21.325 South-Atlantic Roundtable - Daily 2400 14.320 SEA marine Mobile Net- Daily Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia |
"Bruce in Alaska" wrote in message ... In article , "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote: I've never heard anyone ask for a radio check from the USCG. Usually they are asking for a response from anyone that can hear them. Actually, it is REQUIRED during a SOLAS Inspection that a "Radio Check" be preformed with the nearest USCG Station, and that it be "Logged" in the Radio Station Log of the Vessel, for each piece of Gear aboard. Also SOLAS Required vessels are also REQUIRED to Log one complete Communication every 24 hours, while navigating. Bruce in alaska who actually does SOLAS Inpsections on occasion..... -- add a 2 before @ I don't recall right now where I read it a couple years ago, either in an FCC or CG Publication, where they said it was illegal to contact the Coast Guard on VHF FM for routine radio checks, with the exception being a licensed commercial radio technician testing a ship's radio and he was to indicate in the initial call or after the first response from the CG that he was a radio technician performing a check or adjustment. The local CG Group in Portland, OR seems to vary their responses depending upon who is on watch, time of year (boating season or not), time of day, etc. Sometimes I hear repeated calls for a CG radio check go unanswered, other times they answer immediately and move to channel 22A, and other times when they respond directing a move to a recreational boat channel for radio tests as channel 16 is a calling and distress channel. I have visited the Group station several times and often there is only one person on watch, covering 4 remote marine VHF FM radio sites along the Columbia River, plus HF SSB, local marine police and fire boat channels. There is usually a rash of "10-4 good buddy" or "anybody got a copy?" calls after Christmas presents are hooked up or at the start of the seasonal recreational boating season. Common sense would indicate a single CG operator may not be relied upon to answer all calls for "radio checks", as he may be coordinating an actual distress with helicopters, police, CG and/or fire boats on scene, plus divers in the water on a frequency other than the local channel 16 coverage. 73 Doug K7ABX |
Jack Painter wrote:
snip This includes following the regulated use of marine radios, which prohibit making calls to a non-specific ("Any Station") unit or vessel for routine traffic, radio checks, etc. In local VHF use, there are few exceptions to this. One example could be in winter/heavy-wx, etc (imagine a condition when few pleasure or commercial activities might be active) and there are no other observed vessels or monitoring coastal stations available for a radio check prior to departing. We would all agree a vessel's communications equipment should be tested by any means available before such activity! Hello again Jack, It is the Federal Communications Commission, and not the US Coast Guard, that promulgates and enforces rules regarding communication by radio. (The FCC has delegated some inspection functions to the Coast Guard.) The FCC rules and regulations are available at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...7cfr80_03.html for anyone who is interested. While lengthy, they are quite readable. Regarding your assertion that "making calls to a non-specific vessel or unit" for radio checks is prohibited, it would be useful to consider Section 80.89: Stations must not: snip (d) When using telephony, transmit signals or communications not addressed to a particular station or stations. This provision does not apply to the transmission of distress, alarm, urgency, or safety signals or messages, or to test transmissions. snip To some of us, it does matter that your advice and legal opinions often bear dubious relation to reality. Regards, Chuck |
"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in message ... I suspect that military and USCG nets are formal nets. Ham nets are typically volunteer and are "open" nets. There is no roster of participants. If you listen to the Coast Guard net which is on just prior to MMSN on Saturday (or Sunday?) it is operated pretty much the same way. The same thing with InterCon. Since amateur radio is a volunteer organization, the nets have to be run differently than "closed" membership-based nets. Doug, k3qt s/v Callista "Jack Painter" wrote in message news:GLOGd.18100$B95.15692@lakeread02... "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote You clearly have no concept of how a net is operated or maintained. Sure Doug, that's right. It's hard to figure out play-time if I confuse it with the military and USCG Nets. Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia "Jack Painter" wrote in message news:pbFGd.17550$B95.16031@lakeread02... "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote Jack, you sound like a company guy towing the company line. It certainly doesn't beg the advice of Doug, that some sleepy (or worse) night-owl in Missouri is much more likely to answer than the USCG, that's just pure BS. Doug, I accept that as a compliment, considering the very honorable organizations that I represent. The principles of safe boating and emergency communications that I speak of were first learned as a very young boater, and they have not changed in almost forty years. New and better equipment, and millions of more boats on the water is all that has changed. It would seem that you are not a ham or at least don;t listen to the ham bands much. When an emergency is declared on the ham bands the speed at which action is taken is staggering. That sleepy guy in Missouri (not sure why Missouri is your example) wakes up pretty quick. No offense to Missouri~ just a place to name. I am not a Ham. When I can spare a receiver, it is often on 14.300 MMSN. I followed various amateur hurricane emergency nets in Florida during the hurricanes this summer. 100% of the traffic was a waste of bandwidth with stations checking in from their homes with no traffic (This is still not quite as ridiculous as someone checking in to the MMSN with no traffic from their BOAT). Then there were the unfounded rumours passed about damage (all the while telephone service remained). Of course the only place they were ever needed in Florida was as backups at the EOC's and various shelters for local repeater work. But few hams roll up their sleeves and actually go to work in this intended fashion, instead opting to let everyone in the HF-hemishpere know that "I'm here at home if you need me". "Oh yea thanks for telling us", the real workers think. I do agree that CG channels should be tried first in an emergency but not to rely on them 100%. Regards Gary Even when a CG operator tells you not to bother. Most likely you raised a Station, and they do not have HF capability. In that case, what he told you was correct, and the operator is trained to work the vessel if at all possible, not let a vessel pick some other form of communication before vitals are passed. Groups monitor 2182, and if one doesn't answer a Mayday at night, your equipment is broke. The whole story is just so rife with near impossibilities for Groups on both sides to miss you on VHF, and for you never to even try 2182, it just chalks up to a bad night for you. I think you have somehow convinced yourself that your emergency and lack of good comms and procedures for raising the CG that night are all the CG's fault. It's clear in any case you're still mad about it. But I don't see that as helpful to educating boaters about the procedures and capabilities of USCG safety and distress communications. I had some bad experiences with USCG assistance on the Great Lakes some twenty five years ago. I had friends who did too. But Station Erie was 100 miles between Groups Cleveland or Buffalo, and all permission had to come from Groups before they could make coffee. Friends thought we could help each other faster than the CG could get back to us with a decision on what they might or might not do for us. But that is not the USCG of today, on the Great Lakes, or any other place that I am aware of. Yet saving lives and educating boaters still remain the primary purpose of the service, in spite of scores of other duties now additionally imposed on this smallest of services. Best regards, Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia Although it has been a few years since I was on the 14.300 MMSN, the Pacific maritime nets, the Southeast Asia marine nets, the Pacific Weather Net, as VQ9DM from Diego Garcia Island, Chagos Islands, British Indian Ocean Territory, I know that the "no traffic" calls are valuable when a blue water vessel is overdue and radio logs are searched for last known contact. Weather, piracy, etc., are a fact of life in the western Pacific and Indian Oceans. I found a regular checkin being a "no show" quite often to be the first sign of a problem, sometimes as simple as they overslept, but quite often much more serious. Also weather reports from blue water hams were valuable to many third world weather services and the US Navy as well. By the way, the ham net controls often have no boating connection at all, such as 9N1MM (now a silent key) being a regular control station from a mission in Nepal. They do the job because they are geographically located where most ships can hear them and out a sense of public service. I know of hams who are also military members, passing on the word for a "no show on net" vessel to local maritime patrol aircraft to check out last known positions and route of travel on a not to interfere basis with the military flight mission.. The ham fraternity sticks together on these HF nets and the practice goes beyond message traffic. 73 Doug K7ABX |
"chuck" wrote in message ... Jack Painter wrote: snip This includes following the regulated use of marine radios, which prohibit making calls to a non-specific ("Any Station") unit or vessel for routine traffic, radio checks, etc. In local VHF use, there are few exceptions to this. One example could be in winter/heavy-wx, etc (imagine a condition when few pleasure or commercial activities might be active) and there are no other observed vessels or monitoring coastal stations available for a radio check prior to departing. We would all agree a vessel's communications equipment should be tested by any means available before such activity! Hello again Jack, It is the Federal Communications Commission, and not the US Coast Guard, that promulgates and enforces rules regarding communication by radio. (The FCC has delegated some inspection functions to the Coast Guard.) Hello again Chuck. I never implied otherwise. The FCC rules and regulations are available at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...7cfr80_03.html for anyone who is interested. While lengthy, they are quite readable. Regarding your assertion that "making calls to a non-specific vessel or unit" for radio checks is prohibited, it would be useful to consider Section 80.89: Stations must not: snip (d) When using telephony, transmit signals or communications not addressed to a particular station or stations. This provision does not apply to the transmission of distress, alarm, urgency, or safety signals or messages, or to test transmissions. snip To some of us, it does matter that your advice and legal opinions often bear dubious relation to reality. Regards, Chuck Test transmissions means "Test-1,2,3,3,2,1,Test Out". That's a legal opinion, and since it did not come from a lawyer, it's worth what you paid for it, nothing. Then again, you might pay a lot someday for ignoring it, and that would be unfortunate. Just so everyone's clear on the meaning of "advice and a legal opinions", these do not constitute "legal advice". I am simply attempting to clear up some of the many misconceptions of how the USCG monitors and responds to pleasure boaters on VHF and SSB radios. I have operated and fraternized with the boating community for my entire life, and it has only been in the last several years that I was ever entirely sure how some of the procedures I explained in this thread really operated. Of course procedures and equipments can change on a frequent basis, but forty years of anecdotal stories do not add up to actual qualification on the equipment and watchstanding positions. It is easier to be empathetic with distressed parties if you have already heard a lot of the typical difficulties a boater can get into, and know from experience how stressful an emergency on the water really is. Best regards, Jack |
Test-1,2,3,3,2,1-Test Out (followed by Station ID)
================ This is the only kind of radio check you can make without addressing a specific vessel or station. Jack |
"Doug" wrote in message link.net... "Bruce in Alaska" wrote in message ... In article , "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote: I've never heard anyone ask for a radio check from the USCG. Usually they are asking for a response from anyone that can hear them. Actually, it is REQUIRED during a SOLAS Inspection that a "Radio Check" be preformed with the nearest USCG Station, and that it be "Logged" in the Radio Station Log of the Vessel, for each piece of Gear aboard. Also SOLAS Required vessels are also REQUIRED to Log one complete Communication every 24 hours, while navigating. Bruce in alaska who actually does SOLAS Inpsections on occasion..... -- add a 2 before @ I don't recall right now where I read it a couple years ago, either in an FCC or CG Publication, where they said it was illegal to contact the Coast Guard on VHF FM for routine radio checks, with the exception being a licensed commercial radio technician testing a ship's radio and he was to indicate in the initial call or after the first response from the CG that he was a radio technician performing a check or adjustment. The local CG Group in Portland, OR seems to vary their responses depending upon who is on watch, time of year (boating season or not), time of day, etc. Sometimes I hear repeated calls for a CG radio check go unanswered, other times they answer immediately and move to channel 22A, and other times when they respond directing a move to a recreational boat channel for radio tests as channel 16 is a calling and distress channel. I have visited the Group station several times and often there is only one person on watch, covering 4 remote marine VHF FM radio sites along the Columbia River, plus HF SSB, local marine police and fire boat channels. There is usually a rash of "10-4 good buddy" or "anybody got a copy?" calls after Christmas presents are hooked up or at the start of the seasonal recreational boating season. Common sense would indicate a single CG operator may not be relied upon to answer all calls for "radio checks", as he may be coordinating an actual distress with helicopters, police, CG and/or fire boats on scene, plus divers in the water on a frequency other than the local channel 16 coverage. 73 Doug K7ABX The USCG radio operators in this area do not appear to be all that well trained. They stick to boiler-plate dialog such that it takes 5 minutes to communicate 30 seconds worth of information. In terms of efficiency, hams have them beat hands down. Doug, k3qt s/v CAllista |
"Doug" wrote in message link.net... "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in message ... I suspect that military and USCG nets are formal nets. Ham nets are typically volunteer and are "open" nets. There is no roster of participants. If you listen to the Coast Guard net which is on just prior to MMSN on Saturday (or Sunday?) it is operated pretty much the same way. The same thing with InterCon. Since amateur radio is a volunteer organization, the nets have to be run differently than "closed" membership-based nets. Doug, k3qt s/v Callista "Jack Painter" wrote in message news:GLOGd.18100$B95.15692@lakeread02... "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote You clearly have no concept of how a net is operated or maintained. Sure Doug, that's right. It's hard to figure out play-time if I confuse it with the military and USCG Nets. Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia "Jack Painter" wrote in message news:pbFGd.17550$B95.16031@lakeread02... "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote Jack, you sound like a company guy towing the company line. It certainly doesn't beg the advice of Doug, that some sleepy (or worse) night-owl in Missouri is much more likely to answer than the USCG, that's just pure BS. Doug, I accept that as a compliment, considering the very honorable organizations that I represent. The principles of safe boating and emergency communications that I speak of were first learned as a very young boater, and they have not changed in almost forty years. New and better equipment, and millions of more boats on the water is all that has changed. It would seem that you are not a ham or at least don;t listen to the ham bands much. When an emergency is declared on the ham bands the speed at which action is taken is staggering. That sleepy guy in Missouri (not sure why Missouri is your example) wakes up pretty quick. No offense to Missouri~ just a place to name. I am not a Ham. When I can spare a receiver, it is often on 14.300 MMSN. I followed various amateur hurricane emergency nets in Florida during the hurricanes this summer. 100% of the traffic was a waste of bandwidth with stations checking in from their homes with no traffic (This is still not quite as ridiculous as someone checking in to the MMSN with no traffic from their BOAT). Then there were the unfounded rumours passed about damage (all the while telephone service remained). Of course the only place they were ever needed in Florida was as backups at the EOC's and various shelters for local repeater work. But few hams roll up their sleeves and actually go to work in this intended fashion, instead opting to let everyone in the HF-hemishpere know that "I'm here at home if you need me". "Oh yea thanks for telling us", the real workers think. I do agree that CG channels should be tried first in an emergency but not to rely on them 100%. Regards Gary Even when a CG operator tells you not to bother. Most likely you raised a Station, and they do not have HF capability. In that case, what he told you was correct, and the operator is trained to work the vessel if at all possible, not let a vessel pick some other form of communication before vitals are passed. Groups monitor 2182, and if one doesn't answer a Mayday at night, your equipment is broke. The whole story is just so rife with near impossibilities for Groups on both sides to miss you on VHF, and for you never to even try 2182, it just chalks up to a bad night for you. I think you have somehow convinced yourself that your emergency and lack of good comms and procedures for raising the CG that night are all the CG's fault. It's clear in any case you're still mad about it. But I don't see that as helpful to educating boaters about the procedures and capabilities of USCG safety and distress communications. I had some bad experiences with USCG assistance on the Great Lakes some twenty five years ago. I had friends who did too. But Station Erie was 100 miles between Groups Cleveland or Buffalo, and all permission had to come from Groups before they could make coffee. Friends thought we could help each other faster than the CG could get back to us with a decision on what they might or might not do for us. But that is not the USCG of today, on the Great Lakes, or any other place that I am aware of. Yet saving lives and educating boaters still remain the primary purpose of the service, in spite of scores of other duties now additionally imposed on this smallest of services. Best regards, Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia Although it has been a few years since I was on the 14.300 MMSN, the Pacific maritime nets, the Southeast Asia marine nets, the Pacific Weather Net, as VQ9DM from Diego Garcia Island, Chagos Islands, British Indian Ocean Territory, I know that the "no traffic" calls are valuable when a blue water vessel is overdue and radio logs are searched for last known contact. Weather, piracy, etc., are a fact of life in the western Pacific and Indian Oceans. I found a regular checkin being a "no show" quite often to be the first sign of a problem, sometimes as simple as they overslept, but quite often much more serious. Also weather reports from blue water hams were valuable to many third world weather services and the US Navy as well. By the way, the ham net controls often have no boating connection at all, such as 9N1MM (now a silent key) being a regular control station from a mission in Nepal. They do the job because they are geographically located where most ships can hear them and out a sense of public service. I know of hams who are also military members, passing on the word for a "no show on net" vessel to local maritime patrol aircraft to check out last known positions and route of travel on a not to interfere basis with the military flight mission.. The ham fraternity sticks together on these HF nets and the practice goes beyond message traffic. 73 Doug K7ABX Well said Doug. Jack, inasmuch as he is not a ham, doesn't really have a dog in this fight. He clearly lacks knowledge of how the ham community works and very clearly has some sort of bias against the MMSN and other related nets. Doug, k3qt s/v Callista |
"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in message ... "Doug" wrote in message link.net... "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in message ... I suspect that military and USCG nets are formal nets. Ham nets are typically volunteer and are "open" nets. There is no roster of participants. If you listen to the Coast Guard net which is on just prior to MMSN on Saturday (or Sunday?) it is operated pretty much the same way. The same thing with InterCon. Since amateur radio is a volunteer organization, the nets have to be run differently than "closed" membership-based nets. Doug, k3qt s/v Callista "Jack Painter" wrote in message news:GLOGd.18100$B95.15692@lakeread02... "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote You clearly have no concept of how a net is operated or maintained. Sure Doug, that's right. It's hard to figure out play-time if I confuse it with the military and USCG Nets. Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia "Jack Painter" wrote in message news:pbFGd.17550$B95.16031@lakeread02... "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote Jack, you sound like a company guy towing the company line. It certainly doesn't beg the advice of Doug, that some sleepy (or worse) night-owl in Missouri is much more likely to answer than the USCG, that's just pure BS. Doug, I accept that as a compliment, considering the very honorable organizations that I represent. The principles of safe boating and emergency communications that I speak of were first learned as a very young boater, and they have not changed in almost forty years. New and better equipment, and millions of more boats on the water is all that has changed. It would seem that you are not a ham or at least don;t listen to the ham bands much. When an emergency is declared on the ham bands the speed at which action is taken is staggering. That sleepy guy in Missouri (not sure why Missouri is your example) wakes up pretty quick. No offense to Missouri~ just a place to name. I am not a Ham. When I can spare a receiver, it is often on 14.300 MMSN. I followed various amateur hurricane emergency nets in Florida during the hurricanes this summer. 100% of the traffic was a waste of bandwidth with stations checking in from their homes with no traffic (This is still not quite as ridiculous as someone checking in to the MMSN with no traffic from their BOAT). Then there were the unfounded rumours passed about damage (all the while telephone service remained). Of course the only place they were ever needed in Florida was as backups at the EOC's and various shelters for local repeater work. But few hams roll up their sleeves and actually go to work in this intended fashion, instead opting to let everyone in the HF-hemishpere know that "I'm here at home if you need me". "Oh yea thanks for telling us", the real workers think. I do agree that CG channels should be tried first in an emergency but not to rely on them 100%. Regards Gary Even when a CG operator tells you not to bother. Most likely you raised a Station, and they do not have HF capability. In that case, what he told you was correct, and the operator is trained to work the vessel if at all possible, not let a vessel pick some other form of communication before vitals are passed. Groups monitor 2182, and if one doesn't answer a Mayday at night, your equipment is broke. The whole story is just so rife with near impossibilities for Groups on both sides to miss you on VHF, and for you never to even try 2182, it just chalks up to a bad night for you. I think you have somehow convinced yourself that your emergency and lack of good comms and procedures for raising the CG that night are all the CG's fault. It's clear in any case you're still mad about it. But I don't see that as helpful to educating boaters about the procedures and capabilities of USCG safety and distress communications. I had some bad experiences with USCG assistance on the Great Lakes some twenty five years ago. I had friends who did too. But Station Erie was 100 miles between Groups Cleveland or Buffalo, and all permission had to come from Groups before they could make coffee. Friends thought we could help each other faster than the CG could get back to us with a decision on what they might or might not do for us. But that is not the USCG of today, on the Great Lakes, or any other place that I am aware of. Yet saving lives and educating boaters still remain the primary purpose of the service, in spite of scores of other duties now additionally imposed on this smallest of services. Best regards, Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia Although it has been a few years since I was on the 14.300 MMSN, the Pacific maritime nets, the Southeast Asia marine nets, the Pacific Weather Net, as VQ9DM from Diego Garcia Island, Chagos Islands, British Indian Ocean Territory, I know that the "no traffic" calls are valuable when a blue water vessel is overdue and radio logs are searched for last known contact. Weather, piracy, etc., are a fact of life in the western Pacific and Indian Oceans. I found a regular checkin being a "no show" quite often to be the first sign of a problem, sometimes as simple as they overslept, but quite often much more serious. Also weather reports from blue water hams were valuable to many third world weather services and the US Navy as well. By the way, the ham net controls often have no boating connection at all, such as 9N1MM (now a silent key) being a regular control station from a mission in Nepal. They do the job because they are geographically located where most ships can hear them and out a sense of public service. I know of hams who are also military members, passing on the word for a "no show on net" vessel to local maritime patrol aircraft to check out last known positions and route of travel on a not to interfere basis with the military flight mission.. The ham fraternity sticks together on these HF nets and the practice goes beyond message traffic. 73 Doug K7ABX Well said Doug. Jack, inasmuch as he is not a ham, doesn't really have a dog in this fight. He clearly lacks knowledge of how the ham community works and very clearly has some sort of bias against the MMSN and other related nets. Doug, k3qt s/v Callista Doug (of Calista), why would you say such a thing? You just slandered me and I expect an apology through the group, after you read back through the times that I highly praised the MMSN and the workers in that net. When you start inventing crap like that just because you tire of being corrected for your consistently inaccurate statements about the Coast Guard, your reputation goes to zero in the eyes of honorable men. You sir, give a bad name to hams, by lying on their behalf while you try to defend some of the indefensible statements you have made about the CG and their radio operations in particular. When you resorted to slander, you stepped over the line, and that had better stop right now. Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia |
"Jack Painter" wrote in message news:mImHd.18721$B95.15277@lakeread02... "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in message ... "Doug" wrote in message link.net... "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in message ... I suspect that military and USCG nets are formal nets. Ham nets are typically volunteer and are "open" nets. There is no roster of participants. If you listen to the Coast Guard net which is on just prior to MMSN on Saturday (or Sunday?) it is operated pretty much the same way. The same thing with InterCon. Since amateur radio is a volunteer organization, the nets have to be run differently than "closed" membership-based nets. Doug, k3qt s/v Callista "Jack Painter" wrote in message news:GLOGd.18100$B95.15692@lakeread02... "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote You clearly have no concept of how a net is operated or maintained. Sure Doug, that's right. It's hard to figure out play-time if I confuse it with the military and USCG Nets. Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia "Jack Painter" wrote in message news:pbFGd.17550$B95.16031@lakeread02... "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote Jack, you sound like a company guy towing the company line. It certainly doesn't beg the advice of Doug, that some sleepy (or worse) night-owl in Missouri is much more likely to answer than the USCG, that's just pure BS. Doug, I accept that as a compliment, considering the very honorable organizations that I represent. The principles of safe boating and emergency communications that I speak of were first learned as a very young boater, and they have not changed in almost forty years. New and better equipment, and millions of more boats on the water is all that has changed. It would seem that you are not a ham or at least don;t listen to the ham bands much. When an emergency is declared on the ham bands the speed at which action is taken is staggering. That sleepy guy in Missouri (not sure why Missouri is your example) wakes up pretty quick. No offense to Missouri~ just a place to name. I am not a Ham. When I can spare a receiver, it is often on 14.300 MMSN. I followed various amateur hurricane emergency nets in Florida during the hurricanes this summer. 100% of the traffic was a waste of bandwidth with stations checking in from their homes with no traffic (This is still not quite as ridiculous as someone checking in to the MMSN with no traffic from their BOAT). Then there were the unfounded rumours passed about damage (all the while telephone service remained). Of course the only place they were ever needed in Florida was as backups at the EOC's and various shelters for local repeater work. But few hams roll up their sleeves and actually go to work in this intended fashion, instead opting to let everyone in the HF-hemishpere know that "I'm here at home if you need me". "Oh yea thanks for telling us", the real workers think. I do agree that CG channels should be tried first in an emergency but not to rely on them 100%. Regards Gary Even when a CG operator tells you not to bother. Most likely you raised a Station, and they do not have HF capability. In that case, what he told you was correct, and the operator is trained to work the vessel if at all possible, not let a vessel pick some other form of communication before vitals are passed. Groups monitor 2182, and if one doesn't answer a Mayday at night, your equipment is broke. The whole story is just so rife with near impossibilities for Groups on both sides to miss you on VHF, and for you never to even try 2182, it just chalks up to a bad night for you. I think you have somehow convinced yourself that your emergency and lack of good comms and procedures for raising the CG that night are all the CG's fault. It's clear in any case you're still mad about it. But I don't see that as helpful to educating boaters about the procedures and capabilities of USCG safety and distress communications. I had some bad experiences with USCG assistance on the Great Lakes some twenty five years ago. I had friends who did too. But Station Erie was 100 miles between Groups Cleveland or Buffalo, and all permission had to come from Groups before they could make coffee. Friends thought we could help each other faster than the CG could get back to us with a decision on what they might or might not do for us. But that is not the USCG of today, on the Great Lakes, or any other place that I am aware of. Yet saving lives and educating boaters still remain the primary purpose of the service, in spite of scores of other duties now additionally imposed on this smallest of services. Best regards, Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia Although it has been a few years since I was on the 14.300 MMSN, the Pacific maritime nets, the Southeast Asia marine nets, the Pacific Weather Net, as VQ9DM from Diego Garcia Island, Chagos Islands, British Indian Ocean Territory, I know that the "no traffic" calls are valuable when a blue water vessel is overdue and radio logs are searched for last known contact. Weather, piracy, etc., are a fact of life in the western Pacific and Indian Oceans. I found a regular checkin being a "no show" quite often to be the first sign of a problem, sometimes as simple as they overslept, but quite often much more serious. Also weather reports from blue water hams were valuable to many third world weather services and the US Navy as well. By the way, the ham net controls often have no boating connection at all, such as 9N1MM (now a silent key) being a regular control station from a mission in Nepal. They do the job because they are geographically located where most ships can hear them and out a sense of public service. I know of hams who are also military members, passing on the word for a "no show on net" vessel to local maritime patrol aircraft to check out last known positions and route of travel on a not to interfere basis with the military flight mission.. The ham fraternity sticks together on these HF nets and the practice goes beyond message traffic. 73 Doug K7ABX Well said Doug. Jack, inasmuch as he is not a ham, doesn't really have a dog in this fight. He clearly lacks knowledge of how the ham community works and very clearly has some sort of bias against the MMSN and other related nets. Doug, k3qt s/v Callista Doug (of Calista), why would you say such a thing? It is my experience of operating in this area for 10 years. You just slandered me and I expect an apology through the group, What are your damages as a result of this "slander"? after you read back through the times that I highly praised the MMSN and the workers in that net. When you start inventing crap like that just because you tire of being corrected for your consistently inaccurate statements about the Coast Guard, your reputation goes to zero in the eyes of honorable men. So your implication is that just because you say good things about MMSN ("playing-around" was I believe your complement), I should automatically say good things about the CG operators. I don't see how that follows. You sir, give a bad name to hams, by lying on their behalf while you try to defend some of the indefensible statements you have made about the CG and their radio operations in particular. When you resorted to slander, you stepped over the line, and that had better stop right now. When did I lie on someone's else's behalf? I think you have gone around the bend. You also need to learn the definition of slander, Last I knew the definition isn't "something that Jack disagrees with". I think you better calm down before your head explodes. Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia |
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:13:40 -0500, "Jack Painter"
wrote: Of course the only place they were ever needed in Florida was as backups at the EOC's and various shelters for local repeater work. But few hams roll up their sleeves and actually go to work in this intended fashion, instead opting to let everyone in the HF-hemishpere know that "I'm here at home if you need me". "Oh yea thanks for telling us", the real workers think. those of us hams who were on duty in NYC after 9/11 did, actually, roll up our sleeves and go to work in the affected area and i am also a CG radio operator. --------------------------- to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com" and enter 'wf3h' in the field |
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:45:23 -0500, "Jack Painter"
wrote: For the rest of the group still following G here is my universe: 1. "Squelch" is NEVER adjusted on any USCG guard receiver, VHF, MF, or HF. This applies equally to every Boat Station, Group, Sector, Activity, Communication Station and Communication Area Master Station. Anyone not drunk will also understand the following: i dont understand this, since operation of the squelch is part of the training for CG radio operator on VHF i routinely check it to ensure it's not too high. --------------------------- to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com" and enter 'wf3h' in the field |
In article .net,
"Doug" wrote: "Bruce in Alaska" wrote in message ... In article , "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote: I've never heard anyone ask for a radio check from the USCG. Usually they are asking for a response from anyone that can hear them. Actually, it is REQUIRED during a SOLAS Inspection that a "Radio Check" be preformed with the nearest USCG Station, and that it be "Logged" in the Radio Station Log of the Vessel, for each piece of Gear aboard. Also SOLAS Required vessels are also REQUIRED to Log one complete Communication every 24 hours, while navigating. Bruce in alaska who actually does SOLAS Inpsections on occasion..... -- add a 2 before @ I don't recall right now where I read it a couple years ago, either in an FCC or CG Publication, where they said it was illegal to contact the Coast Guard on VHF FM for routine radio checks, with the exception being a licensed commercial radio technician testing a ship's radio and he was to indicate in the initial call or after the first response from the CG that he was a radio technician performing a check or adjustment. The local CG Group in Portland, OR seems to vary their responses depending upon who is on watch, time of year (boating season or not), time of day, etc. Sometimes I hear repeated calls for a CG radio check go unanswered, other times they answer immediately and move to channel 22A, and other times when they respond directing a move to a recreational boat channel for radio tests as channel 16 is a calling and distress channel. I have visited the Group station several times and often there is only one person on watch, covering 4 remote marine VHF FM radio sites along the Columbia River, plus HF SSB, local marine police and fire boat channels. There is usually a rash of "10-4 good buddy" or "anybody got a copy?" calls after Christmas presents are hooked up or at the start of the seasonal recreational boating season. Common sense would indicate a single CG operator may not be relied upon to answer all calls for "radio checks", as he may be coordinating an actual distress with helicopters, police, CG and/or fire boats on scene, plus divers in the water on a frequency other than the local channel 16 coverage. 73 Doug K7ABX Back a few yers there was a Big Infight between the FCC and USCG concerning this very issue. The FCC rules REQUIRRED a Logged Radio Check for each piece of equipment, during a SOLAS Inspection, and the USCG wanted to get out of doing them, because they said their operators were to busy. Since the SOLAS Requirement was an International Requirement, the USCG had to backdown, and all District Communications Officers were informed that these would be the ONLY Radio Checks that their CommSta's would conduct. At the time I was the FCC Field Inspector for Southeastern Alaska and was the liason to District 17, and had many discussions with the Commander for District Communications, about this and other issues of mutual interests. this issue never was a problem here in District 17, but some of the other districts had issues with the policy. Puget Sound was one of those places, and it took the Region X FCC Director a while to get the Admiral to come around. It was ALWAYS very hard to get the USCG to answer up on 2182 Khz for these checks, even after setting up the check via the VHF Check, and most of the Southeast Alaska, and Puget Sound, Checks were done with Canadian Coast Guard, as these guys ALWAYS Kept their 24/7 Watches on 2182 Khz, ALWAYS. The Canadians have always been better at comm's that our own USCG, and their Wx Transmissions are used thruought the North Pacific extensivly. Bruce in alaska -- add a 2 before @ |
"Bruce in Alaska" wrote Back a few yers there was a Big Infight between the FCC and USCG concerning this very issue. The FCC rules REQUIRRED a Logged Radio Check for each piece of equipment, during a SOLAS Inspection, and the USCG wanted to get out of doing them, because they said their operators were to busy. Since the SOLAS Requirement was an International Requirement, the USCG had to backdown, and all District Communications Officers were informed that these would be the ONLY Radio Checks that their CommSta's would conduct. At the time I was the FCC Field Inspector for Southeastern Alaska and was the liason to District 17, and had many discussions with the Commander for District Communications, about this and other issues of mutual interests. this issue never was a problem here in District 17, but some of the other districts had issues with the policy. Puget Sound was one of those places, and it took the Region X FCC Director a while to get the Admiral to come around. It was ALWAYS very hard to get the USCG to answer up on 2182 Khz for these checks, even after setting up the check via the VHF Check, and most of the Southeast Alaska, and Puget Sound, Checks were done with Canadian Coast Guard, as these guys ALWAYS Kept their 24/7 Watches on 2182 Khz, ALWAYS. The Canadians have always been better at comm's that our own USCG, and their Wx Transmissions are used thruought the North Pacific extensivly. Bruce in alaska -- add a 2 before @ Bruce, the ten Canadian stations that I can copy in the Newfoundland/Nova Scotia area do a pretty good job as well. They require all shipping to contact their VTC's on 2182 and other 2kc freqs, and so the equipment has probably been modernized to maintain such traffic. There is so much overlap on US/Canadian wx in the NE that if one station goes a little long, the next one is on top of it. Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia |
"Bob" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:45:23 -0500, "Jack Painter" wrote: For the rest of the group still following G here is my universe: 1. "Squelch" is NEVER adjusted on any USCG guard receiver, VHF, MF, or HF. This applies equally to every Boat Station, Group, Sector, Activity, Communication Station and Communication Area Master Station. Anyone not drunk will also understand the following: i dont understand this, since operation of the squelch is part of the training for CG radio operator on VHF i routinely check it to ensure it's not too high. That sounds a lot like a river-station/inland waters, and your boats probably often resort to cellphones to check in, because the Station can't cover parts of the AOR, huh? That is often the case on inland waterways, and on big rivers such as the Mississippi, it is practically all cell-phone comms between any unit and the Stations. White-noise is guard-noise, and adjusting the squelch means ensuring it remains "open". If your station is authorized to do otherwise, I stand corrected about this including all boat stations. Under the control of LANT, guard receivers make noise 24/7. Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia |
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:43:39 -0500, "Jack Painter"
wrote: "Bob" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:45:23 -0500, "Jack Painter" wrote: For the rest of the group still following G here is my universe: 1. "Squelch" is NEVER adjusted on any USCG guard receiver, VHF, MF, or HF. This applies equally to every Boat Station, Group, Sector, Activity, Communication Station and Communication Area Master Station. Anyone not drunk will also understand the following: i dont understand this, since operation of the squelch is part of the training for CG radio operator on VHF i routinely check it to ensure it's not too high. That sounds a lot like a river-station/inland waters, it's station sandy hook, at the mouth of NY harbor. and your boats probably often resort to cellphones to check in, now THAT i can't discuss for obvious reasons. White-noise is guard-noise, and adjusting the squelch means ensuring it remains "open". If your station is authorized to do otherwise, I stand corrected about this including all boat stations. Under the control of LANT, guard receivers make noise 24/7. there is actually a textbook watchstanders are trained with, and this states how to adjust the squelch. basically the process is to open it, turn it just until the noise stops, then back it off a bit. --------------------------- to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com" and enter 'wf3h' in the field |
"Bob" wrote "Jack Painter" "Bob" wrote in message "Jack Painter" wrote: 1. "Squelch" is NEVER adjusted on any USCG guard receiver, VHF, MF, or HF. This applies equally to every Boat Station, Group, Sector, Activity, Communication Station and Communication Area Master Station. Anyone not drunk will also understand the following: i dont understand this, since operation of the squelch is part of the training for CG radio operator on VHF i routinely check it to ensure it's not too high. That sounds a lot like a river-station/inland waters, it's station sandy hook, at the mouth of NY harbor. White-noise is guard-noise I stand corrected about this including all boat stations. Under the control of LANT, guard receivers make noise 24/7. there is actually a textbook watchstanders are trained with, and this states how to adjust the squelch. basically the process is to open it, turn it just until the noise stops, then back it off a bit. Neither the COMDTINST M2399 Radiotelephone Handbook (referenced) in M16120 series Communications Watchstander Qualification Guide nor COMDTINST M2300 Telecommunications Manual direct squelch as the Station Watchstander Guide ( in COMDTINST M16120, section CWS-02-01) indeed does. I just looked it up, you are of course correct about Stations setting squelch. In that watchstander guide, it states in part: [Groups stand a 24-hour guard on channel-16 and are directly responsible for all SAR cases in their AOR.] [Watchstanders at Stations normally stand a day watch, and Stations usually do not make initial contact with the caller unless the Group is busy or cannot hear caller's transmission. Their normal responsibility is to maintain direct communication with their own assets. ] These are major distinctions between the responsibilities of a Group/Sector/Activity and a Station, and the responsibility for communications is the primary difference as this discussion involves. Except for the need to train with their small boat assets, Stations would not often be involved in CG Radiotelephone Communications at all, and are not intended to communicate with the public, except in cases where the Group is busy or unable. Your mileage might vary but that is the design of the Station-Group relationship, and it does work that way in LANTAREA. Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia |
"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote Well said Doug. Jack, inasmuch as he is not a ham, doesn't really have a dog in this fight. He clearly lacks knowledge of how the ham community works and very clearly has some sort of bias against the MMSN and other related nets. Doug, k3qt s/v Callista Doug (of Calista), why would you say such a thing? It is my experience of operating in this area for 10 years. You just slandered me and I expect an apology through the group, What are your damages as a result of this "slander"? after you read back through the times that I highly praised the MMSN and the workers in that net. When you start inventing crap like that just because you tire of being corrected for your consistently inaccurate statements about the Coast Guard, your reputation goes to zero in the eyes of honorable men. So your implication is that just because you say good things about MMSN ("playing-around" was I believe your complement), I should automatically say good things about the CG operators. I don't see how that follows. You sir, give a bad name to hams, by lying on their behalf while you try to defend some of the indefensible statements you have made about the CG and their radio operations in particular. When you resorted to slander, you stepped over the line, and that had better stop right now. When did I lie on someone's else's behalf? I think you have gone around the bend. You also need to learn the definition of slander, Last I knew the definition isn't "something that Jack disagrees with". I think you better calm down before your head explodes. Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia Doug Dotson you are a liar, and that's much worse than your head full of misinformation about maritime communications that you portray yourself an expert on. Someday, you could change your attitude, admit you can be wrong about things, and act like a man when it happens. But failing that proper behavior (as others do here occasionally, eg: Chuck's post last night where he thinks he sets the newsgroup straight about radio checks being allowed, flouts a URL which he is barely familiar with, and then quotes a line about exemption of transmission test from the any-station rules. Then, just for me he impugns that " To some of us, it does matter that your advice and legal opinions often bear dubious relation to reality." Nice. He was nonetheless dead wrong about the rules of making radio checks, and yet when I point this out in a polite manner, he never acknowledges or apologizes, just hides. What a man! You however, don't even have the decency to hide. You just author slanderous and untruthful fabrications in order to disguise your self pity of being mistaken about something. You dishonestly accused me of expressing a contempt for the Maritime Mobile Service Net, and the archive record here shows my praise not only for the good and honorable service MMSN provides to the maritime community, but also to the dedication of the Net Controllers and operators such as Richard Webb who I thanked for his good service there, and who was participating in this thread. Before that, you asserted I had no idea how a HAM Net, or any Net operates. A playful barb with no specific reference was all that resulted. I do after all, have the honor of controlling Nets with dozens of USCG Rescue Aircraft, Cutters, and other services. But that nasty behavior is just typical of Doug Dotson, and we all have to let your inner-child assert itself for the sanity of the newsgroup. But your accusations about my alleged BIAS against the MMSN were both false and malicious, and attempted to damage my reputation among the marine community who certainly appreciate the work of the MMSN, as do I. There are certainly damages possible when your mouth is running (or your fingers are typing) Doug, and that ranges from insulting people who wish you no harm, to bringing discredit to a service such as the United States Coast Guard and Maritime Mobile Service Net, whose work is not in competition, but in service, safety, and goodwill toward the marine community. What you bring to that table is contempt for USCG radio operators, their knowledge, commitment and abilities, a very broad misunderstanding of the basic rules of marine radiotelephony, and then repeatedly compare HAMS as a much better alternative at every task. We have many examples of those bitter tirades from you Doug, and you should ask yourself if even once, that attitude (never mind for now how misplaced and inaccurate many of your statements were), if that attitude furthered the goals of either the MMSN or the USCG? Both of which services may your very life and those of your passenger rely on someday, incidentally. Perhaps that's your definition of "collateral damage", to hurt individuals and the services whose mission of lifesaving somehow has components that offend you? Well forgive us, for not doing all things the way YOUR plan of things looks. Consider that constructive suggestions, or even pointing out clear variations from generally accepted procedures, would go so much farther than just your bitterness, which as I see it, is all you have offered this entire discussion from the beginning. I'll bet you are SO fun to cruise with! (that's a joke Doug!) Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia |
"Jack Painter" wrote in message news:FAIHd.19368$B95.14638@lakeread02... "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote Well said Doug. Jack, inasmuch as he is not a ham, doesn't really have a dog in this fight. He clearly lacks knowledge of how the ham community works and very clearly has some sort of bias against the MMSN and other related nets. Doug, k3qt s/v Callista Doug (of Calista), why would you say such a thing? It is my experience of operating in this area for 10 years. You just slandered me and I expect an apology through the group, What are your damages as a result of this "slander"? after you read back through the times that I highly praised the MMSN and the workers in that net. When you start inventing crap like that just because you tire of being corrected for your consistently inaccurate statements about the Coast Guard, your reputation goes to zero in the eyes of honorable men. So your implication is that just because you say good things about MMSN ("playing-around" was I believe your complement), I should automatically say good things about the CG operators. I don't see how that follows. You sir, give a bad name to hams, by lying on their behalf while you try to defend some of the indefensible statements you have made about the CG and their radio operations in particular. When you resorted to slander, you stepped over the line, and that had better stop right now. When did I lie on someone's else's behalf? I think you have gone around the bend. You also need to learn the definition of slander, Last I knew the definition isn't "something that Jack disagrees with". I think you better calm down before your head explodes. Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia Doug Dotson you are a liar, and that's much worse than your head full of misinformation about maritime communications that you portray yourself an expert on. Someday, you could change your attitude, admit you can be wrong about things, and act like a man when it happens. But failing that proper behavior (as others do here occasionally, eg: Chuck's post last night where he thinks he sets the newsgroup straight about radio checks being allowed, flouts a URL which he is barely familiar with, and then quotes a line about exemption of transmission test from the any-station rules. Then, just for me he impugns that " To some of us, it does matter that your advice and legal opinions often bear dubious relation to reality." Nice. He was nonetheless dead wrong about the rules of making radio checks, and yet when I point this out in a polite manner, he never acknowledges or apologizes, just hides. What a man! You however, don't even have the decency to hide. You just author slanderous and untruthful fabrications in order to disguise your self pity of being mistaken about something. You dishonestly accused me of expressing a contempt for the Maritime Mobile Service Net, and the archive record here shows my praise not only for the good and honorable service MMSN provides to the maritime community, but also to the dedication of the Net Controllers and operators such as Richard Webb who I thanked for his good service there, and who was participating in this thread. Before that, you asserted I had no idea how a HAM Net, or any Net operates. A playful barb with no specific reference was all that resulted. I do after all, have the honor of controlling Nets with dozens of USCG Rescue Aircraft, Cutters, and other services. But that nasty behavior is just typical of Doug Dotson, and we all have to let your inner-child assert itself for the sanity of the newsgroup. But your accusations about my alleged BIAS against the MMSN were both false and malicious, and attempted to damage my reputation among the marine community who certainly appreciate the work of the MMSN, as do I. There are certainly damages possible when your mouth is running (or your fingers are typing) Doug, and that ranges from insulting people who wish you no harm, to bringing discredit to a service such as the United States Coast Guard and Maritime Mobile Service Net, whose work is not in competition, but in service, safety, and goodwill toward the marine community. What you bring to that table is contempt for USCG radio operators, their knowledge, commitment and abilities, a very broad misunderstanding of the basic rules of marine radiotelephony, and then repeatedly compare HAMS as a much better alternative at every task. We have many examples of those bitter tirades from you Doug, and you should ask yourself if even once, that attitude (never mind for now how misplaced and inaccurate many of your statements were), if that attitude furthered the goals of either the MMSN or the USCG? Both of which services may your very life and those of your passenger rely on someday, incidentally. Perhaps that's your definition of "collateral damage", to hurt individuals and the services whose mission of lifesaving somehow has components that offend you? Well forgive us, for not doing all things the way YOUR plan of things looks. Consider that constructive suggestions, or even pointing out clear variations from generally accepted procedures, would go so much farther than just your bitterness, which as I see it, is all you have offered this entire discussion from the beginning. I'll bet you are SO fun to cruise with! (that's a joke Doug!) Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia I think you need to calm down and get a life. So long. Doug |
In article FAIHd.19368$B95.14638@lakeread02,
"Jack Painter" wrote: Doug Dotson you are a liar, .......... snipped because I figured the bandwidth could be better used elsewhere.... Geeez Loiuzzzze Jack, Are you Muslim or what? Martyrdom is a Muslim thing, and we have enough of those crazy's running around the world already...... Chill out Dude, or get back on your Med's......the world isn't going to end, just because you nailed yourself to the USCG Cross, and can't find a nailpuller...... some folks might just get the impression that your wrapped a little tight these days.......they don't give Purple Hearts for stroking out in a UseNet NewsGroup, Jack....... Doug, better that we let Jack cool down, as we wouldn't want him to have a stroke, or anything......the USCG EasteCoast Comms need HIM to make everything works right, and only HE knows how the system is put together, and where the prints are....... Me who really liked "Bruce in alaska's" post on FCC/USCG stuff |
"Me" wrote in message ... In article FAIHd.19368$B95.14638@lakeread02, "Jack Painter" wrote: Doug Dotson you are a liar, .......... snipped because I figured the bandwidth could be better used elsewhere.... Geeez Loiuzzzze Jack, Are you Muslim or what? Martyrdom is a Muslim thing, and we have enough of those crazy's running around the world already...... Chill out Dude, or get back on your Med's......the world isn't going to end, just because you nailed yourself to the USCG Cross, and can't find a nailpuller...... some folks might just get the impression that your wrapped a little tight these days.......they don't give Purple Hearts for stroking out in a UseNet NewsGroup, Jack....... Doug, better that we let Jack cool down, as we wouldn't want him to have a stroke, or anything......the USCG EasteCoast Comms need HIM to make everything works right, and only HE knows how the system is put together, and where the prints are....... That's for sure. Me who really liked "Bruce in alaska's" post on FCC/USCG stuff |
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:04:32 GMT, Me wrote:
BUT tell us all, "HOW MANY YEARS BEHIND IS THE USCG IN GMDSS COVERAGE for ALL US WATERS??????????????????", and compare this with the Wester Europeon's ?????????????? Me well dont forget the CG budget was starved for years. we have one of the oldest CG fleets in the world and it's only now being upgraded. comms is part of that. yes, CG comms are, to put it mildly, antique. of course, there's always *CG on your cell phone :) --------------------------- to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com" and enter 'wf3h' in the field |
"Jack Painter" wrote in
news:7ZAGd.17529$B95.3688@lakeread02: Two recent cases involved commercial fishing vessels hailing the USCG on 2182 when they HAD satellite phones on board! Apparently, these professionals wanted the USCG to answer, not their wives or friends at the bar. Best regards, Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia Hmm....not long ago I was monitoring 14.300 Mhz Maritime Mobile Net when a Nicaraguan captain called in in distress. One of his crew had stuck a 7" knife in another one of his crew and he had tried all the marine freqs on his radio to get someone...anyone...to help him. No-go with all that fancy equipment we buy them. He was about 200 miles from Nicaragua. His radio worked great because I could hear him plain as day on Lionheart's Icom M802/AT-130 on the insulated backstay in Charleston, SC, which isn't much of an antenna in intense noise from a corroded marina electric system. The ham responded, immediately. An American ham contacted someone in the State Department who acted as liason with Nicaraguan Air Force to start things going ashore. A Canadian ham contacted the USCG bureaucrats and acted as relay station for the boat to get all the usual form-filler-outer data to them. I listened for over 2 hours while pouring over a DC wiring nightmare in our boat. Not ONCE did USCG come on 14.300 Mhz to talk to this fishing boat, directly, or did any other government bureaucracy in any country. Why? CG tried to get him to go to one of the marine HF SSB freqs, but he ended up back on 20 meters after hearing nothing in reply to his calls there on the same radio. Any CG can commandeer 14.300 for emergencies. Are their frequency dials stuck? Anyway, I talked to one of the guys I know on the net the next day in email and he said Nicaraguan Air Force got a doctor on a boat and met them offshore to treat the victim while Nicaraguan Police bound and gagged the perp. The guy lost a lot of blood but survived the attack to fish again. Damned good thing HAM RADIO was monitoring 14.300 that day.......(c; AR |
"Jack Painter" wrote in
news:pbFGd.17550$B95.16031@lakeread02: I am not a Ham. When I can spare a receiver, it is often on 14.300 MMSN. I followed various amateur hurricane emergency nets in Florida during the hurricanes this summer. 100% of the traffic was a waste of bandwidth with stations checking in from their homes with no traffic (This is still not quite as ridiculous as someone checking in to the MMSN with no traffic from their BOAT). Then there were the unfounded rumours passed about damage (all the while telephone service remained). Of course the only place they were ever needed in Florida was as backups at the EOC's and various shelters for local repeater work. But few hams roll up their sleeves and actually go to work in this intended fashion, instead opting to let everyone in the HF-hemishpere know that "I'm here at home if you need me". "Oh yea thanks for telling us", the real workers think. You missed the point of the net, entirely. The net is a SERVICE net. Traffic is passed or phone patches can be connected between ham boaters and home. Ham radio is a HOBBY. No bandwidth has ever been "wasted". Stations check into the net with no traffic TO LET NET CONTROL KNOW THEY ARE THERE, ON FREQ, AND AVAILABLE TO RECEIVE TRAFFIC.....unlike you Coasties who noone ever knows whether they are listening, HAVE PROPAGATION TO LISTEN, or not! You boys have some fun with CG's wonderful communicators where you live. Call 'em by their official call letters some day. See if they recognize the call. Ours have no idea what CG Group Charleston's callsign is on HF or VHF. Don't seem to be any RADIOMEN left. Now, let me polish this ax off a little more.... I'm sure you've gotten a little flack from the Charleston "Morning Dew" debacle. Remember the complete idiot with 3 boys aboard crashing into the UNLIGHTED Charleston Jetties? Need I post the tape of the boys screaming for help? Oh, I forgot, his "Radio Procedures" weren't "correct". IF THOSE BOYS HAD SCREAMED FOR HELP ON ANY CHARLESTON SC HAM RADIO REPEATER FREQUENCY.....THEY'D STILL BE ALIVE TODAY!! If I had heard them, I'd have got the Goddamned BASE COMMANDER out of his rack! |
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 01:59:01 GMT, Larry W4CSC wrote:
The ham responded, immediately. An American ham contacted someone in the State Department who acted as liason with Nicaraguan Air Force to start things going ashore. A Canadian ham contacted the USCG bureaucrats and acted as relay station for the boat to get all the usual form-filler-outer data to them. you miss the point. there is a reason we ask the questions we do. being both a ham who's handled distress calls, and a CG radio operator at station sandy hook, the hostility to both camps is unwarranted. I listened for over 2 hours while pouring over a DC wiring nightmare in our boat. Not ONCE did USCG come on 14.300 Mhz to talk to this fishing boat, directly, or did any other government bureaucracy in any country. Why? CG tried to get him to go to one of the marine HF SSB freqs, but he ended up back on 20 meters after hearing nothing in reply to his calls there on the same radio. Any CG can commandeer 14.300 for emergencies. Are their frequency dials stuck? i've heard the CG on 14.3 many times. the CG handles many, many more distress calls than ham radio does. and the difference is the CG is the ones to go get the folks. --------------------------- to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com" and enter 'wf3h' in the field |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:31 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com