"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.

Wayne.B wrote in
:

I'm getting ready to have a new Icom M-802

Wayne, just for information.......

That crappy PC board connector they expect you to leave out in the weather
on the AT-130 antenna tuner and the crappy CB coax pigtail SO-239 connector
CAN be eliminated at the tuner.....

The control cable pigtail is soldered to some U-shaped wire loops inside
the tuner where the book shows a screw-terminal connection. NOTE WHICH
WIRES GO TO WHICH LOOPS. Unsolder the pigtail from the loops and pull it
out of the tuner's stuffing tubes. Throw it overboard before it cripples
your HF. Cut the plastic plug off the control cable before trying to feed
it through the boat to the tuner. Makes installation MUCH neater and
easier! Run the cable through the now-empty stuffing tube and solder the
appropriate wires directly to the PC board loops you took the crappy
pigtail out of. You do NOT have to remove the PC board to accomplish this.
Just remove the cover off the tuner.

The coax is another matter......

You'd have to remove the whole tuner PC ass'y to replace the coax soldered
to the board. No fun at sea...So.... I cut the coax plug off the tuner's
RG-58 pigtail and pulled the coax back through the stuffing tube inside the
tuner. I cut the coax to a convenient length and put a new cable-mounted
SO-239 connector INSIDE the tuner, where it won't get drown in salt water.
Feed the unconnectored coax through the stuffing tube and put a PL-259
connector on it INSIDE the tuner. Use a piece of shrink tubing to seal the
coax connections and insulate the grounded connectors from touching
anything inside the tuner. Tywrap the connectors to the control cable
right where it comes in from the stuffing tube to secure it from moving
around.

ALL antenna tuner connections are now SEALED inside the environment of the
sealed tuner.....NOT LAYING OUT ON THE DECK OR IN SOME WATER-SOAKED
COMPARTMENT RUSTING AWAY!

M802 is a great radio....

Turn it on and press MODE + TX + 2 together to open its transmitter to FULL
coverage, including 150W on all the ham bands. Do it again to put it back
to marine-only transmit. (I'm afraid to leave it open when I'm not on the
boat for fear my captain will be out-of-band transmitting, probably on BBC
World Service...(c

MAKE SURE THE M802 TRANSCEIVER IS NOT WHERE ANY WATER CAN GET ON IT! The
fan sucks sea air into the chassis to corrode everything inside and destroy
it....part of Icom's Planned Obsolescense System, I think. Stupid
design.... I have the transceiver mounted behind the nav panel high up in
the boat above the flooding and the control panel is on the end of the
extra cable mounted in the mahogany panel right by it. Sorry we can't get
rid of the cheap crap connector on the RADIO end of the control cable.
They don't even give you EXTRA PINS for the plug in case you bend
one....how awful. Putting that plug on is the worst part of the job.

If the antenna tuner fails to tune....Unplug and plug that little white
plug into the radio several times and it will...(c;

Connecting M802 to your NMEA system needs to be done through an opto-
isolator. How stupid....a GROUNDED BNC connector, UNBALANCED, for NMEA
data to tell DSC where you are. My optoisolator is in a little box stuck
to the front of the radio....Stupid, Icom...Stupid!

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 03:44:09 GMT, Larry W4CSC wrote:

That crappy PC board connector they expect you to leave out in the weather
on the AT-130 antenna tuner and the crappy CB coax pigtail SO-239 connector
CAN be eliminated at the tuner.....

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

Mine will be installed in a reasonably dry location inside the
flybridge console so hopefully I'll be able to duck some of those
issues.

Wayne.B wrote in
:

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 03:44:09 GMT, Larry W4CSC wrote:

That crappy PC board connector they expect you to leave out in the
weather on the AT-130 antenna tuner and the crappy CB coax pigtail
SO-239 connector CAN be eliminated at the tuner.....

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

Mine will be installed in a reasonably dry location inside the
flybridge console so hopefully I'll be able to duck some of those
issues.



Keep in mind the antenna actually begins at the high voltage connector on
the tuner and the unshielded wire to the actual antenna is also part of the
transmit antenna. RF inside a console full of electronics has dire
consequences as it induces big RF signals into every power cable,
unshielded NMEA stupid cable and those idiotic open connections. It can
scramble almost all the plastic-cased electronics, destroying them if it
gets strong enough.

The tuner is quite sealed, after you get rid of the cheap connectors
hanging out of it. Ours is as clean as the day I installed it on top of
the aft cabin house directly aft of the mizzenmast. Its connecting wire to
the 55' long backstay antenna is about 8" long for this reason. It still
causes the stupid, unshielded propane detector in the galley to go crazy by
inducing RF into its control wires back to the electric gas valve in the
stern. It beeps like crazy when transmitting on HF.

Oh, please don't let anyone use coax with the shield grounded between the
tuner and the antenna (whip I'd guess). Don't let them "neatly" tywrap it
to anything metal, running it through a grounded stuffing tube to go
outside, either. All this shunt capacitance to ground makes tuning tough
on the tuner and bleeds off your transmitted signal to the rigging, instead
of out on the air. I see so many tywrapped to the grounded part of rigging
on its way up to some elevated insulator, "to protect the passengers". How
silly, the RF is very strong in that insulated wire going up there.

I've never seen anyone killed by 150W from these little transmitters.
1.5KW from a ham rig is another matter...(c;