Hello Jack,

There do seem to be a variety of perceptions of USCG
monitoring activities on 2182 and elsewhere. Perhaps you
could direct us to a website or online document that details
distress calls received by the CG on various frequencies.

Of course, calls never intercepted are not likely to be
reported in such a study since the unsuccessful caller kind
of self-destructs. I do believe all boaters would benefit
from objective data on the issue.

Many thanks!

Chuck

Jack Painter wrote:
"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote


All I can say is that in the only situation where I have ever had to

resort

to
calling for help, there was no answer on 2182. I was eventually able to
acheive very poor contact with CG on VHF. I asked if there was an HF freq
that I could contact them on for more reliable comms. The answer was
NO. They could not help me via HF. I was about to try to contact a ham
to relay a message to CG when another boat closer to shore was able
to provide a relay. I would have contacted MMSN but it was 4am and
the net was not on the air. In short, the CG was not there only time I

felt

I needed help. I will NEVER, EVER rely on the CG via Marine SSB as a
reliable means of assistance. I can contact a ham anywhere, anytime and
help is then just a phone call away. If that doesn't work (which is
doubtful)
then the EPIRB is the solution.


Well Doug, much as a Mr. James Herbert had to reply concerning the
definition of radio-horizon earlier, I'm sorry I did not consider your
anecdotal evidence about one single bad experience, in which case we could
neither affirm nor indict the equipment performance of your transmitter nor
any receiving station at that single point in time. You have chosen to not
consider the evidence and opinion that I expressed concerning performance of
nineteen USCG Groups, ten Canadian Coast Guard Radio Stations, and Bermuda
Radio, which I studied specifically for such reasons. This research covered
an area from the Canadian Maritimes to Puerto Rico and back inside the Gulf
of Mexico. This would equate to roughly two-thirds of the maritime AOR of
the coastal-continental United States and her neighbors, and for a period of
six months (summer to winter).

I am an accountant and federal contract auditor by profession, and this
study will include sampling and review of complaints of missed calls and
other communications issues. Your experience was first noted by the way,
when we had this discussion some time ago. As I recall, this one event was
too long ago to be considered relevant for current study, as aggravating and
potentially dangerous as I'm sure it was to you.

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.

Best regards,

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, VA

"Doug Dotson" wrote

There are always plenty of hams listening at any time of day. Much
more reliable than trying to contact the CG.

=================================================
This is the worst advise I have ever heard from an otherwise knowledgeable
person.
It is inaccurate, dangerous, and reflects only the personal opinion of a Ham
operator who is spreading misinformation about the USCG, safe boating
procedures and the priority of emergency communications at sea. Mariners
should understand and follow only approved USCG procedures for emergency
communications at sea. The great work of the Maritime Mobile Service Network
in assisting mariners via long range HF communications is NEVER to be given
priority over contact with USCG units for safety of life at sea. MMSN is a
wonderful tool for boaters who are also licensed Ham operators, and its many
operators would help ANY vessel they are able to assist. But MMSN should
only be used in an emergency as an ALTERNATE to primary USCG communications
for safety of life at sea.

See http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/marcomms/cgcomms/call.htm for detailed
information.

Drill up from that URL to find details of other maritime communications
information.

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, VA
=================================================
Chuck that should also answer your question from this thread.

Hello Jack,

Interesting that the link you provided doesn't even list
2182 kHz as among the Coast Guard's monitored frequencies!

Elsewhere, the CG gives the approximate range of their 2182
communications as 100 miles.

If I were pressed for advice, I would urge a vessel in
distress to use whatever communication channels were
available. Statistically, I think it might be easier for a
vessel on the high seas to reach a ham than to reach a USCG
monitoring station. You are welcome to disagree, of course,
but to carry this further, it would be appropriate for you
to show where this is wrong. Assertions to the effect that
one MUST do this or that are not likely to appeal to
boaters. Your work with the USCG is not influencing your
opinions here, I hope.

Regards,

Chuck

Jack Painter wrote:
"Doug Dotson" wrote


There are always plenty of hams listening at any time of day. Much

more reliable than trying to contact the CG.


=================================================
This is the worst advise I have ever heard from an otherwise knowledgeable
person.
It is inaccurate, dangerous, and reflects only the personal opinion of a Ham
operator who is spreading misinformation about the USCG, safe boating
procedures and the priority of emergency communications at sea. Mariners
should understand and follow only approved USCG procedures for emergency
communications at sea. The great work of the Maritime Mobile Service Network
in assisting mariners via long range HF communications is NEVER to be given
priority over contact with USCG units for safety of life at sea. MMSN is a
wonderful tool for boaters who are also licensed Ham operators, and its many
operators would help ANY vessel they are able to assist. But MMSN should
only be used in an emergency as an ALTERNATE to primary USCG communications
for safety of life at sea.

See http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/marcomms/cgcomms/call.htm for detailed
information.

Drill up from that URL to find details of other maritime communications
information.

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, VA
=================================================
Chuck that should also answer your question from this thread.

Jack,
We all know what you say is the professional "buzz" from the CG and
probably what is written in the manuals that you read. But it is not
total reality.

There are many many stories of not being able to raise the CG on
"proper" channels.

I have been told by CG people directly that raising them on some of
those channels is not always doable. They just don't always monitor
for various reasons.

I do agree that CG channels should be tried first in an emergency but
not to rely on them 100%.

Regards
Gary

"Gary Schafer" wrote


Jack,
We all know what you say is the professional "buzz" from the CG and
probably what is written in the manuals that you read. But it is not
total reality.

There are many many stories of not being able to raise the CG on
"proper" channels.

I have been told by CG people directly that raising them on some of
those channels is not always doable. They just don't always monitor
for various reasons.

Hi Gary, there are only three places in the United States where that
statement could have reliably come from, and I happen to work at one of
them. And it is unequivably wrong and should never have been said by the
USCG that "They just don't always monitor for various reasons." They are
ALWAYS monitored. Whether an inexperienced sailor or someone using the best
HF equipment possible could attain an instant response on a given frequency
from a given point at sea is another matter entirely. 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.

I do agree that CG channels should be tried first in an emergency but
not to rely on them 100%.

Regards
Gary

[Preaching to the choir here for yourself and many, but for the record:]

Safe boating in general, and that includes offshore cruising, fishing,
commercial activities, etc, all have to abide by various local, state,
federal and international laws concerning most operations afloat and/or any
vessel using a radio transmitting device for distress, or aid of others in
distress. The reckless and cavalier attitudes that some have about "using
what we think works" is filled with traps and deadly consequences that
should never be expressed as procedures to follow in an emergency. Should
operators know as much as possible about all forms of safety procedures? Of
course. But a MINIMUM is actually required of those that VOLUNTARILY take
safe boating courses, and that is what MOST operators learn. To pollute
these standards with anecdotal stories and opinions is not helpful in any
case, and would give boaters the impression quite the opposite from real
life that some seem to think they have a handle on. In my experience, people
who give such advice clearly do not know what they are talking about, having
acquired more knowledge at yacht club bar stools than from licensed and
experienced mariners.

Since the advent of DSC/GMDSS in SAT, HF and VHF, the United States has not
declared a Sea Area A-2, and we may not ever. That would cover coastal use
of 2182 khz under international treaty. It was the shift of commercial
operators to satellite communications that reduced the once high-volume of
traffic on 2182 khz to mostly fishing vessels and coastal cruisers in our
waters today. But in that respect, it is still required by US law, just as
VHF-marine Channel 16 (156.800 mhz) for any vessel in operation with the
radio on, to be listening to Ch-16 at all such times, and if so equipped and
under SOLAS rules, to monitor 2182 khz at the top and bottom of every hour
for a minimum of a five minute period each. That was ALWAYS the plan of
emergency communications on an international basis, and remains so today. No
Coast Guard here or anywhere in the world ever assumed they could be the
hear-all know-all of emergency communications. Safe operation at sea always
required the COOPERATIVE EFFORT OF ALL. That means knowing the rules,
following the rules, and assisting any vessel in distress if physically
possible and not endangering the life and safety of your own vessel. Every
boat operator from the smallest outboard to the largest tanker is
responsible for these rules, whether they choose to learn them from
USCG-approved boating safety courses, licensed maritime training facilities,
or barstools. I try to keep the latter source of information out of the
discussion, but there are some real hard heads everywhere, this forum is no
exception.

It might interest some to know, that there are dozens of
Amateur-radio-operated "Maritime Nets". These provide great assistance and
communication links for that somewhat rare (to the boating community) cadre
of licensed amateur radio operators afloat. For passing long range
communications of a personal nature, nothing beats these services, similar
in quality and capability to anything available commercially. But no
US-operated commercial or private organization has anywhere near the
resources or abilities of the USCG Communications systems. A large portion
of these systems are dedicated to safety of life at sea for all vessels,
regardless of nationality.

Blue-water sailors who are *responsible* operators (and it is easy to
provide almost daily examples of those who are not) will of course use
whatever means of communication they desire. In more cases than I can
understand, this includes only an EPIRB or only a SSB radio, but far too
often not both. 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

"Me" wrote
"Jack Painter" wrote:

=================================================
This is the worst advise I have ever heard from an otherwise
knowledgeable
person.
It is inaccurate, dangerous, and reflects only the personal opinion of a
Ham
operator who is spreading misinformation about the USCG, safe boating
procedures and the priority of emergency communications at sea. Mariners
should understand and follow only approved USCG procedures for emergency
communications at sea. The great work of the Maritime Mobile Service
Network
in assisting mariners via long range HF communications is NEVER to be
given
priority over contact with USCG units for safety of life at sea. MMSN is
a
wonderful tool for boaters who are also licensed Ham operators, and its
many
operators would help ANY vessel they are able to assist. But MMSN should
only be used in an emergency as an ALTERNATE to primary USCG
communications
for safety of life at sea.

See http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/marcomms/cgcomms/call.htm for detailed
information.

Drill up from that URL to find details of other maritime communications
information.

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, VA
=================================================
Chuck that should also answer your question from this thread.



This is some of the WORST ADVICE from one who SHOULD know better.
Jack, why don't you climb down off your USCG/Aux Cross, and chill
out a bit. Out there on the Right Coast, where every local town has a
USCG Contigent, there may be a case for 2182 Khz being a bit usefull,
but up here in Alaska, where the Watch Receivers are streached out to
MORE than 500 Miles apart, 2182 hasn't EVER been a real usefull frequency
EVER. This is due to it's daytime average range in the 150 to 200 Miles,
area. Now this doesn't even include the MORE Than Likely possibility
that the Remote Site HF Radios, are broke and the techs can't get there
to fix them, because of weather, and, or lack of SPARES for that OLD
CRAP.
In the REAL World, no one uses MF for Emergency Comm's, and haven't for
MANY YEARS. The Commercial Boys use 4125 Khz and talk to Kodiak, Frisco,
or Honolulu, when things get tough. If CommSta Kodiak is not available
due to propagation, then there are PLENTY of Limited Coast Stations
that are, and they LINE the Coast from Seattle to Dutch Harbor. The USCG
does the best they can with the money that Congress gives them, 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

Dear You, maybe you paid attention only to the latter part of the thread, or
think anyone describing "US coastal-continental waters" (a quote from the
thread, which is the only subject of our 2182 khz portion of this
discussion) somehow includes ALASKA. It does not. You don't live in
US-coastal-continental waters you old sea horse. Accordingly, your tirade is
misdirected, and not applicable to anything we have been talking about. But
it's so nice to hear from you!

Sea Area A-1 for VHF-DSC-GMDSS (Ch-70) is way behind schedule, no argument
there.

Current excuses provided a

1. General Dynamic's subcontractor was late achieving software performance
and approval.

2. Environmental Activist and personal property-owner objections to
acquisition of rights for new tower locations have prevented infrastructure
completion.

3. Allocation of resources to Homeland Security missions given higher
priorities.

On the HF-DSC-GMDSS and SAT-DSC-GMDSS side, compliance was achieved long
ago.

Best regards,

Jack Painter,
Virginia Beach, Virginia

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.

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.

I do agree that CG channels should be tried first in an emergency but
not to rely on them 100%.

Even when a CG operator tells you not to bother.

Regards
Gary

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

"Gary Schafer" wrote in message
...


Jack,
We all know what you say is the professional "buzz" from the CG and
probably what is written in the manuals that you read. But it is not
total reality.

There are many many stories of not being able to raise the CG on
"proper" channels.

I have been told by CG people directly that raising them on some of
those channels is not always doable. They just don't always monitor
for various reasons.

I do agree that CG channels should be tried first in an emergency but
not to rely on them 100%.

Regards
Gary

Lines: 45
Message-ID:
X-Complaints-To:
X-Abuse-Info: Please forward a copy of all headers for proper handling
X-Trace: bhmkggakljkaanefdbdpiflmbcekedmfhojhikkbagflhcbohm ipkoappjcogajhmodoldmkocifcjbkfmdbfonbaafghhohldmd inceohajibbjakngmmneimggmmdklhlchicpeenlknijgbdfop ccldmphppi
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 18:37:26 EST
Organization: BellSouth Internet Group
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:37:26 GMT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.boats.electronics:58334


On 2005-01-15 dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom said:
There are always plenty of hams listening at any time of day. Much
more reliable than trying to contact the CG.
2182 isn't considered a good emergency frequency these days and
isn't relied upon. EPIRBs have pretty much made it obsolete.
Matter of fact, the CG doesn't even reliably monitor it.
so I've heard from folks in the know, and this includes folks
whose business it is to work with vessels at sea.
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.
I check into the MMSN on a regular basis. Maybe I'll hear you
there.
I'm net control operator Fridays at 12:00 P.M. eastern time and do
some relief for other operators when I'm available.
I'll try to get down to the boat and check in then.
Btw even after hours if you can be heard in NEw Orleans La on 14
megahertz about any hour day or night my rig sits monitoring 14.3
if I'm not on another net somewhere. I think same is true of
other net regulars. IF you're in need give it a try. IF the
band's open you'll be heard by someone who is aware of what to do
to render assistance to you.
If I can hear kd4bz in Eight Mile, AL with a 59 then I should have
no trouble getting into New Orleans.
I think you're confusing kd5bz Dick in Mississippi with Clyde kg4bvr
in eight mile Al. BOth have good stations. At the moment the back of
my beam favors the caribbean as my rotor's nonfunctional, but that's
all coming down because I'll be moving soon. I'll still be covering
my mmsn shifts which are regularly scheduled from ke5coa in NEw
Orleans and you should hear that station. IT's got a g5rv antenna
about 8 stories in the air. THe station is at University hospital.




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

--

Doug Dotson 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.

Coastguard stations around the world are generally blessed with
serious antenna farms and excellent professional receivers. They
are therefore well equiped to hear you if there is a signal to be
heard.

Always try the official stations first, they are the professionals
and have the training and experience required as well as usefull
stuff like direct links to rescue facilities.

HF communications are, however, subject to atmospheric influence so
it is possible that there may be no direct signal path. In most cases
another vessel or aircraft will respond and be able to relay your
distress call. Once you have exhausted all of the "official" channels
it is certainly worth giving the Ham frequencies a try, the operators
are in different locations and a good signal path may well exist
to someone who can help.

It is important to note that you should not be reliant on HF which
is being rapidly replaced by more reliable satellite services.


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