"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

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:13:40 -0500, "Jack Painter"
wrote:

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.

Jack,

I hate to pick on you again but you are totally wrong about the
"uselessness" of hams checking in with no traffic.

I generally despise most nets that operate on the ham bands. But ones
like the mmsn serve a real purpose. They do not get called upon often
for "real" service but all those check ins serve to keep the interest
in members and practice the skills a little.

Without any of those "no traffic" check ins those nets would not
exist.
Not only that no one would even know that they existed.

As far as guys checking in from their boat with no traffic that again
reinforces the operation of the net. It is also a good way for that
boater to know that he can contact the net when needed. It provides
him with a little training in communication skills also.
Does anyone get that kind of training or acknowledgement from the
Coast Guard? I think not. Practice is what makes this thing work.

73
Gary K4FMX

"Gary Schafer" wrote
"Jack Painter"
wrote:

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).

Jack,

I hate to pick on you again but you are totally wrong about the
"uselessness" of hams checking in with no traffic.

I generally despise most nets that operate on the ham bands. But ones
like the mmsn serve a real purpose. They do not get called upon often
for "real" service but all those check ins serve to keep the interest
in members and practice the skills a little.

Without any of those "no traffic" check ins those nets would not
exist.
Not only that no one would even know that they existed.

As far as guys checking in from their boat with no traffic that again
reinforces the operation of the net. It is also a good way for that
boater to know that he can contact the net when needed. It provides
him with a little training in communication skills also.
Does anyone get that kind of training or acknowledgement from the
Coast Guard? I think not. Practice is what makes this thing work.

73
Gary K4FMX

Hi Gary, that's all right. I was talking about an MMSN member checking in
with the net from the dock. If that's training, so be it. I don't know if
there are ever missed calls because of that chatter, but it seems possible
there would be. Training with check-in chatter could be accomplished
off-net, much like the Sunday afternoon training already goes off-frequency
for a short broadcast of interest to users of the net. Many Hams are
admittedly very skilled with break-in techniques that keep the MMSN full of
non-stop chatter with few breaks for service, so to speak. Just my
observation from over a decade of listening to it!

Jack

You clearly have no concept of how a net is operated or maintained.

"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

Hi Gary, that's all right. I was talking about an MMSN member checking in
with the net from the dock. If that's training, so be it.

I do it all the time. It IS good training and it serves to allow me to
determine
if my equipment is working. It also lets the net know that I am listening
and am available if someone has traffic for someone in my area. Or if
someone needs me to make a phone call on their behalf. This is how
a net operates.

I don't know if
there are ever missed calls because of that chatter, but it seems possible
there would be.

Net procedures take care of that. Although you are obviouly not aware
of it, there are pretty strict rules as to how the net operates. It may seem
informal, especially if there is not much traffic, but if a station does
check in
(or break in) with traffic or an emergency. Procedures change pretty quick.

Training with check-in chatter could be accomplished
off-net, much like the Sunday afternoon training already goes
off-frequency
for a short broadcast of interest to users of the net.

The check-in chatter IS the net. Although to a trained operator if is far
from chatter. I'm interested in understanding how you feel a net should
operate if not to call for emergency traffic and checkins?

Many Hams are
admittedly very skilled with break-in techniques that keep the MMSN full
of
non-stop chatter with few breaks for service, so to speak. Just my
observation from over a decade of listening to it!

You clearly haven't known what exactly you are listening to. What exactly
is a "break for service"?

Jack

I don't think you understood the essence of my question.

"Chris Newport" wrote in message
...
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.

"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

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

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

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