"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 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

"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

"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

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

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

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 01:04:36 -0500, "Jack Painter"
wrote:
In the interest of safe boating, I encourage anyone who is contemplating
coastal cruising to contact their local USCG Group well in advance of the
trip, and ask them for the estimated area of VHF and 2182 khz coverage along
the route that they plan to take. An EPIRB is an important safety device in
any cruising vessels inventory, but it cannot replace vital voice
communications.

==================================

Jack, does the USCG respond to "radio checks" on HF frequencies, and
if so, what frequencies would you recommend?

Radio checks on VHF are certainly discouraged. Asking for one
generally attracts a fairly nasty canned response. One has to wonder
how the CG helps the average boater determine the operability
of their VHF rig.

Doug, k3qt
s/v Callista

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 01:04:36 -0500, "Jack Painter"
wrote:
In the interest of safe boating, I encourage anyone who is contemplating
coastal cruising to contact their local USCG Group well in advance of the
trip, and ask them for the estimated area of VHF and 2182 khz coverage
along
the route that they plan to take. An EPIRB is an important safety device
in
any cruising vessels inventory, but it cannot replace vital voice
communications.

==================================

Jack, does the USCG respond to "radio checks" on HF frequencies, and
if so, what frequencies would you recommend?

"Wayne.B" wrote

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 01:04:36 -0500, "Jack Painter"
wrote:
In the interest of safe boating, I encourage anyone who is contemplating
coastal cruising to contact their local USCG Group well in advance of the
trip, and ask them for the estimated area of VHF and 2182 khz coverage
along
the route that they plan to take. An EPIRB is an important safety device
in
any cruising vessels inventory, but it cannot replace vital voice
communications.

==================================

Jack, does the USCG respond to "radio checks" on HF frequencies, and
if so, what frequencies would you recommend?

Hi Wayne,

USCG always responds to radio checks. And as Doug offered though, on VHF it
is indeed strongly discouraged, and that becomes your "radio check". Channel
9 is allocated for both calling/hailing and as an alternate distress
frequency (ship-to-ship only) in most areas now. This was done to alleviate
the congestion in busy areas on Ch-16. It is also part of an experiment to
move ALL calling/hailing from Ch-16 to Ch-9, leaving Ch-16 for urgency and
distress only. Ch-9 is where ship to ship or ship to shore radio checks
should take place. Radio operating procedures for VHF-marine do state that
no "any station" type radio checks should ever be made. I paraphrased that
so you would understand that calling the "USCG" is just like making an
any-station call. We don't know if you are in distress, an urgency, safety
issue, which Coast Guard unit is requested, etc. All of the above are valid
reasons for just sayng "USCG", but doing that for a radio check in congested
areas is NOT. Now if you called a SPECIFIC Coast Guard Group or Station,
asking to switch to their wkg frequency for radio check, they should
accomodate you in a courteous fashion, unless something else urgent is going
on with their unit.

On HF: Since HF duplex calling channels are no longer guarded (Jan-1-2005),
and instead the associated simplex voice channels for 4,6,8, and 12 meg
DSC-GMDSS are, I am not sure if that makes them the place for a radio check
with USCG. It hasn't happened to me yet and I have not seen guidance on
this.

As I understand, a VESSEL USING CALLSIGN could make a HF radio check call to
any particular ship or coastal-station (never any-station, same as above) on
4125, 6215, 8291 or 12290 which are now guarded by CAMSLANT and CAMSPAC and
KODIAK. A USCG operator will answer any non-distress HF call on a
case-available basis. I didn't tell you to do this, but I would answer you.

The PURPOSE of guarding 4125, 6215, 8291 and 12290 is to be READY for
distress traffic voice calls on the associated channel for most of the
DSC-GMDSS channels. These newly guarded channels (US is the first nation to
do so btw) are ALSO allocated for "Calling". We'll have to see how that part
works out.

[0322z sidebar: USCG Group St Pete loud and clear in Virginia Beach, VA on
2182, shifting to 2670 khz for offshore marine information broadcast] ;-)

Maybe I can get back to you with a more definitive HF-answer later Wayne,
sorry it's just too new a procedure to be sure yet.

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, Virginia

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:30:01 -0500, "Jack Painter"
wrote:

Maybe I can get back to you with a more definitive HF-answer later Wayne,
sorry it's just too new a procedure to be sure yet.

======================================

Thanks. I'm getting ready to have a new Icom M-802 installed and will
surely be interested in a few brief tests without violating any
written or un-written rules in that respect. I know that Bermuda
Harbor Radio routinely responds to radio check requests prior to the
start of the Newport-Bermuda sailing race but I don't recall which
frequency is recommended.