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