Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Webb wrote: IF I were at sea (and I am a ham) I'd still want more than one band capability, especially were I at sea on a boat. One of the distinct advantages of ham radio over most services is its ability to choose the right band for prevailing radio conditions and the path one wants to work. Being that the ability to summon assistance when needed on freqs such as 2182 is limited these days I'd want multiband capability for my hf marine gear when away from land. Richard Webb, amateur radio callsign nf5b active on the Maritime Mobile service network, 14.300 mhz Hi Richard, bravo for your volunteer work for the MMSN. As far as bandwidth for prevailing conditions, there are quite sufficient bandwidths available in the Maritime Mobile Service. Below is a little paraphrased version of the new guard frequencies. Duplex is now history for all hailing and distress work with the USCG. Effective January 1, 2005 new guarded calling and distress freq- uencies for the USCG long range communication stations will now be Simplex (single channel call and receive). These "new" guard freq- uencies have always been the voice-associated distress for follow up to DSC/GMDSS alert system. Now, instead of waiting for a DSC alert to start listening to the associated voice channel for a particular DSC frequency, the following associated voice frequencies will be guarded. Appropriate day/night monitoring will still apply to the 'new' guard frequencies. 2182 24 HRS Guarded only by USCG Groups NMN NMF NMG NMC NOJ 4125 2300-1100Z 2300-1100Z 24 HRS 6215 24 HRS 24 HRS 24 HRS 8291 24 HRS 24 HRS 12290 1100-2300Z 24 HRS 16420 is available by request, and in response to 16meg DSC Effective Jan 01, 2005, the formerly guarded channels (below) will be used for working frequencies only after initial contact is made via simplex on the the guarded channels above. ITU SHIP SHORE Sched (UTC) NMN NMN/NMF/NMG 424 4134 4426 n/a n/a n/a n/a 601 6200 6501 n/a n/a n/a n/a 816 8240 8764 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1205 12242 13089 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1625 16432 17314 n/a n/a n/a n/a See http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/marcomms/cgcomms/call.htm for details concerning long range HF communications with USCG units. Jack Painter "Oceana Radio" USCGAUX Virginia Beach, Virginia |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Jack Painter" wrote in message news:WeKFd.16260$B95.1392@lakeread02... . As far as bandwidth for prevailing conditions, there are quite sufficient bandwidths available in the Maritime Mobile Service. Below is a little paraphrased version of the new guard frequencies. Duplex is now history for all hailing and distress work with the USCG. What does bandwidth have to do with this. The bandwidth of an SSB signal is the same regardless of the frequency/band used. Doug, k3qt s/v CAllista |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote "Jack Painter" wrote in message news:WeKFd.16260$B95.1392@lakeread02... . As far as bandwidth for prevailing conditions, there are quite sufficient bandwidths available in the Maritime Mobile Service. Below is a little paraphrased version of the new guard frequencies. Duplex is now history for all hailing and distress work with the USCG. What does bandwidth have to do with this. The bandwidth of an SSB signal is the same regardless of the frequency/band used. Doug, k3qt s/v CAllista Doug, It was a little Freudian slip, sorry. I was describing the more than sufficient "bands" that are available, and the context of the message surely was clear to that. I note that you nonetheless repeated pretty much the same information of my message in your answer. I'm sure glad you cleared that up before everyone thought bandwidth meant bands! G As to the comments you actually added, such as 2182 khz not being reliable or used any longer, 2182 khz is most certainly used as a distress and hailing frequency to raise the USCG, where it is monitored from every USCG Group, even in places like the Mississippi River where it has completely fallen out of use due to cell phones, which are never out of coverage in that area. Using equipment with considerably longer range capabilities than USCG Groups have at their disposal, I have never heard a call go unanswered in over six months of dedicated guard on that frequency. Many MAYDAY calls were answered by several USCG Groups at once. While I would hope we can continue to improve the quality of equipment available for this work, it is in no means incapable of doing the job that is expected of it. It is not likely, in my opinion, that satellite phone links or vessel and personal EPIRB's will ever completely replace HF emergency communications. If these newer and more capable equipments do render the average yachtsman or mariner less familiar with his HF equipment and capabilities (due to infrequent usage) then that is an issue that can be addressed in boating safety and professional standards courses. It would be too bad to see such capable means of communication lost to just an aging part of the hobby field, do you agree? Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Jack Painter" wrote in message news:MX_Fd.16551$B95.2258@lakeread02... "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote "Jack Painter" wrote in message news:WeKFd.16260$B95.1392@lakeread02... . As far as bandwidth for prevailing conditions, there are quite sufficient bandwidths available in the Maritime Mobile Service. Below is a little paraphrased version of the new guard frequencies. Duplex is now history for all hailing and distress work with the USCG. What does bandwidth have to do with this. The bandwidth of an SSB signal is the same regardless of the frequency/band used. Doug, k3qt s/v CAllista Doug, It was a little Freudian slip, sorry. I was describing the more than sufficient "bands" that are available, and the context of the message surely was clear to that. I note that you nonetheless repeated pretty much the same information of my message in your answer. I'm sure glad you cleared that up before everyone thought bandwidth meant bands! G In all fairness, I looked up "bandwidth: at www.dictionary.com. To my surprise, the first definition was what you seemed to be saying. That is, the difference between the upper and lower freqs of the band. I have never heard this defintion. The only definition I have even know is that stated in references like the Handbook. As to the comments you actually added, such as 2182 khz not being reliable or used any longer, 2182 khz is most certainly used as a distress and hailing frequency to raise the USCG, where it is monitored from every USCG Group, even in places like the Mississippi River where it has completely fallen out of use due to cell phones, which are never out of coverage in that area. Using equipment with considerably longer range capabilities than USCG Groups have at their disposal, I have never heard a call go unanswered in over six months of dedicated guard on that frequency. Many MAYDAY calls were answered by several USCG Groups at once. While I would hope we can continue to improve the quality of equipment available for this work, it is in no means incapable of doing the job that is expected of it. It is not likely, in my opinion, that satellite phone links or vessel and personal EPIRB's will ever completely replace HF emergency communications. If these newer and more capable equipments do render the average yachtsman or mariner less familiar with his HF equipment and capabilities (due to infrequent usage) then that is an issue that can be addressed in boating safety and professional standards courses. It would be too bad to see such capable means of communication lost to just an aging part of the hobby field, do you agree? The means of communications is not the issue. 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. Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
You know Jack, you could just end this discussion by saying that perhaps
the CG operator at the time was wrong. If the CG now provides reliable monitoring then that is great for the next time I feel I need them. More below. "Jack Painter" wrote in message news:Un2Gd.17274$B95.422@lakeread02... "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 are not listening. The CG told me that there was no way I could contact them on SSB. I never got the chance to use either my transmitting equipment or test their receiving equipment. 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 say again. THE CG TOLD ME I COULD NOT CONTACT THEM ON SSB! THEY DID NOT SUPPORT SUCH COMMS! It had nothing to do with equipment, propagation, or any other technical capability. It had to do with their pollicy as it was announced to me. 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. It was just under 2 years ago. 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. Agreed. Best regards, Jack Painter Virginia Beach, VA Doug s/v CAllista |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
wrapping ssb antenna on kevlar backstay | Electronics | |||
SSB Antenna theory | Electronics | |||
Notes on short SSB antennas, for Larry | Cruising | |||
Notes on short SSB antennas, for Larry | Electronics | |||
How to use a simple SWR meter and what it means to your VHF | Electronics |