wrote in message
.. .

On 2005-01-14 dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom said:
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.
The ability to choose bands depending upon conditions is not
distinct to ham radio. Marine SSB supports quite a few different
bands for the exact same reason. Bands are in the 2, 4, 6, 8, 12,
16, 18, 22, and 28 Mhz regions. All modern Marine SSB rigs support
all of these.
WAs aware of all of those, but I've heard plenty of horror stories, in
fact some of those horror stories' participants come up on mmsn sans
ham licenses to get help.

There are always plenty of hams listening at any time of day. Much
more reliable than trying to contact the CG.

2182 isn't considered a good emergency frequency these days and
isn't relied upon. EPIRBs have pretty much made it obsolete. Matter
of fact, the CG doesn't even reliably monitor it.
so I've heard fro m folks in the know, and this includes folks whose
business it is to work with vessels at sea.
I've herad the stories about the radios sitting with the volume
control clear down on 2182 etc. And the mishaps with gmdss. wEre I
cruising I wouldn't put all my eggs in the maritime ssb basket since I
have a ham license. THe life I save might be my own g.

Smart move!

I check into the MMSN on a regular basis. Maybe I'll hear you
there.
I'm net control operator Fridays at 12:00 P.M. eastern time and do
some relief for other operators when I'm available.

I'll try to get down to the boat and check in then.

Btw even after hours if you can be heard in NEw Orleans La on 14
megahertz about any hour day or night my rig sits monitoring 14.3 if
I'm not on another net somewhere. I think same is true of other net
regulars. IF you're in need give it a try. IF the band's open you'll
be ehard by someone who is aware of what to do to render assistance to
you.

If I can hear kd4bz in Eight Mile, AL with a 59 then I should have
no trouble getting into New Orleans.



Richard Webb, amateur radio callsign nf5b
active on the Maritime Mobile service network, 14.300 mhz
REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email

--

"Doug Dotson" wrote

There are always plenty of hams listening at any time of day. Much
more reliable than trying to contact the CG.

=================================================
This is the worst advise I have ever heard from an otherwise knowledgeable
person.
It is inaccurate, dangerous, and reflects only the personal opinion of a Ham
operator who is spreading misinformation about the USCG, safe boating
procedures and the priority of emergency communications at sea. Mariners
should understand and follow only approved USCG procedures for emergency
communications at sea. The great work of the Maritime Mobile Service Network
in assisting mariners via long range HF communications is NEVER to be given
priority over contact with USCG units for safety of life at sea. MMSN is a
wonderful tool for boaters who are also licensed Ham operators, and its many
operators would help ANY vessel they are able to assist. But MMSN should
only be used in an emergency as an ALTERNATE to primary USCG communications
for safety of life at sea.

See http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/marcomms/cgcomms/call.htm for detailed
information.

Drill up from that URL to find details of other maritime communications
information.

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, VA
=================================================
Chuck that should also answer your question from this thread.

Hello Jack,

Interesting that the link you provided doesn't even list
2182 kHz as among the Coast Guard's monitored frequencies!

Elsewhere, the CG gives the approximate range of their 2182
communications as 100 miles.

If I were pressed for advice, I would urge a vessel in
distress to use whatever communication channels were
available. Statistically, I think it might be easier for a
vessel on the high seas to reach a ham than to reach a USCG
monitoring station. You are welcome to disagree, of course,
but to carry this further, it would be appropriate for you
to show where this is wrong. Assertions to the effect that
one MUST do this or that are not likely to appeal to
boaters. Your work with the USCG is not influencing your
opinions here, I hope.

Regards,

Chuck

Jack Painter wrote:
"Doug Dotson" wrote


There are always plenty of hams listening at any time of day. Much

more reliable than trying to contact the CG.


=================================================
This is the worst advise I have ever heard from an otherwise knowledgeable
person.
It is inaccurate, dangerous, and reflects only the personal opinion of a Ham
operator who is spreading misinformation about the USCG, safe boating
procedures and the priority of emergency communications at sea. Mariners
should understand and follow only approved USCG procedures for emergency
communications at sea. The great work of the Maritime Mobile Service Network
in assisting mariners via long range HF communications is NEVER to be given
priority over contact with USCG units for safety of life at sea. MMSN is a
wonderful tool for boaters who are also licensed Ham operators, and its many
operators would help ANY vessel they are able to assist. But MMSN should
only be used in an emergency as an ALTERNATE to primary USCG communications
for safety of life at sea.

See http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/marcomms/cgcomms/call.htm for detailed
information.

Drill up from that URL to find details of other maritime communications
information.

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, VA
=================================================
Chuck that should also answer your question from this thread.

Jack,
We all know what you say is the professional "buzz" from the CG and
probably what is written in the manuals that you read. But it is not
total reality.

There are many many stories of not being able to raise the CG on
"proper" channels.

I have been told by CG people directly that raising them on some of
those channels is not always doable. They just don't always monitor
for various reasons.

I do agree that CG channels should be tried first in an emergency but
not to rely on them 100%.

Regards
Gary

"Gary Schafer" wrote


Jack,
We all know what you say is the professional "buzz" from the CG and
probably what is written in the manuals that you read. But it is not
total reality.

There are many many stories of not being able to raise the CG on
"proper" channels.

I have been told by CG people directly that raising them on some of
those channels is not always doable. They just don't always monitor
for various reasons.

Hi Gary, there are only three places in the United States where that
statement could have reliably come from, and I happen to work at one of
them. And it is unequivably wrong and should never have been said by the
USCG that "They just don't always monitor for various reasons." They are
ALWAYS monitored. Whether an inexperienced sailor or someone using the best
HF equipment possible could attain an instant response on a given frequency
from a given point at sea is another matter entirely. 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.

I do agree that CG channels should be tried first in an emergency but
not to rely on them 100%.

Regards
Gary

[Preaching to the choir here for yourself and many, but for the record:]

Safe boating in general, and that includes offshore cruising, fishing,
commercial activities, etc, all have to abide by various local, state,
federal and international laws concerning most operations afloat and/or any
vessel using a radio transmitting device for distress, or aid of others in
distress. The reckless and cavalier attitudes that some have about "using
what we think works" is filled with traps and deadly consequences that
should never be expressed as procedures to follow in an emergency. Should
operators know as much as possible about all forms of safety procedures? Of
course. But a MINIMUM is actually required of those that VOLUNTARILY take
safe boating courses, and that is what MOST operators learn. To pollute
these standards with anecdotal stories and opinions is not helpful in any
case, and would give boaters the impression quite the opposite from real
life that some seem to think they have a handle on. In my experience, people
who give such advice clearly do not know what they are talking about, having
acquired more knowledge at yacht club bar stools than from licensed and
experienced mariners.

Since the advent of DSC/GMDSS in SAT, HF and VHF, the United States has not
declared a Sea Area A-2, and we may not ever. That would cover coastal use
of 2182 khz under international treaty. It was the shift of commercial
operators to satellite communications that reduced the once high-volume of
traffic on 2182 khz to mostly fishing vessels and coastal cruisers in our
waters today. But in that respect, it is still required by US law, just as
VHF-marine Channel 16 (156.800 mhz) for any vessel in operation with the
radio on, to be listening to Ch-16 at all such times, and if so equipped and
under SOLAS rules, to monitor 2182 khz at the top and bottom of every hour
for a minimum of a five minute period each. That was ALWAYS the plan of
emergency communications on an international basis, and remains so today. No
Coast Guard here or anywhere in the world ever assumed they could be the
hear-all know-all of emergency communications. Safe operation at sea always
required the COOPERATIVE EFFORT OF ALL. That means knowing the rules,
following the rules, and assisting any vessel in distress if physically
possible and not endangering the life and safety of your own vessel. Every
boat operator from the smallest outboard to the largest tanker is
responsible for these rules, whether they choose to learn them from
USCG-approved boating safety courses, licensed maritime training facilities,
or barstools. I try to keep the latter source of information out of the
discussion, but there are some real hard heads everywhere, this forum is no
exception.

It might interest some to know, that there are dozens of
Amateur-radio-operated "Maritime Nets". These provide great assistance and
communication links for that somewhat rare (to the boating community) cadre
of licensed amateur radio operators afloat. For passing long range
communications of a personal nature, nothing beats these services, similar
in quality and capability to anything available commercially. But no
US-operated commercial or private organization has anywhere near the
resources or abilities of the USCG Communications systems. A large portion
of these systems are dedicated to safety of life at sea for all vessels,
regardless of nationality.

Blue-water sailors who are *responsible* operators (and it is easy to
provide almost daily examples of those who are not) will of course use
whatever means of communication they desire. In more cases than I can
understand, this includes only an EPIRB or only a SSB radio, but far too
often not both. Two recent cases involved commercial fishing vessels hailing
the USCG on 2182 when they HAD satellite phones on board! Apparently, these
professionals wanted the USCG to answer, not their wives or friends at the
bar.

Best regards,

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, Virginia

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.

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.

I do agree that CG channels should be tried first in an emergency but
not to rely on them 100%.

Even when a CG operator tells you not to bother.

Regards
Gary

"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

"Jack Painter" wrote in
news:7ZAGd.17529$B95.3688@lakeread02:

Two recent cases involved commercial fishing vessels hailing
the USCG on 2182 when they HAD satellite phones on board! Apparently,
these professionals wanted the USCG to answer, not their wives or
friends at the bar.

Best regards,

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, Virginia




Hmm....not long ago I was monitoring 14.300 Mhz Maritime Mobile Net when a
Nicaraguan captain called in in distress. One of his crew had stuck a 7"
knife in another one of his crew and he had tried all the marine freqs on
his radio to get someone...anyone...to help him. No-go with all that fancy
equipment we buy them. He was about 200 miles from Nicaragua. His radio
worked great because I could hear him plain as day on Lionheart's Icom
M802/AT-130 on the insulated backstay in Charleston, SC, which isn't much
of an antenna in intense noise from a corroded marina electric system.

The ham responded, immediately. An American ham contacted someone in the
State Department who acted as liason with Nicaraguan Air Force to start
things going ashore. A Canadian ham contacted the USCG bureaucrats and
acted as relay station for the boat to get all the usual form-filler-outer
data to them.

I listened for over 2 hours while pouring over a DC wiring nightmare in our
boat. Not ONCE did USCG come on 14.300 Mhz to talk to this fishing boat,
directly, or did any other government bureaucracy in any country. Why? CG
tried to get him to go to one of the marine HF SSB freqs, but he ended up
back on 20 meters after hearing nothing in reply to his calls there on the
same radio. Any CG can commandeer 14.300 for emergencies. Are their
frequency dials stuck?

Anyway, I talked to one of the guys I know on the net the next day in email
and he said Nicaraguan Air Force got a doctor on a boat and met them
offshore to treat the victim while Nicaraguan Police bound and gagged the
perp. The guy lost a lot of blood but survived the attack to fish again.

Damned good thing HAM RADIO was monitoring 14.300 that day.......(c;

AR

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 01:59:01 GMT, Larry W4CSC wrote:

The ham responded, immediately. An American ham contacted someone in the
State Department who acted as liason with Nicaraguan Air Force to start
things going ashore. A Canadian ham contacted the USCG bureaucrats and
acted as relay station for the boat to get all the usual form-filler-outer
data to them.

you miss the point. there is a reason we ask the questions we do.
being both a ham who's handled distress calls, and a CG radio operator
at station sandy hook, the hostility to both camps is unwarranted.


I listened for over 2 hours while pouring over a DC wiring nightmare in our
boat. Not ONCE did USCG come on 14.300 Mhz to talk to this fishing boat,
directly, or did any other government bureaucracy in any country. Why? CG
tried to get him to go to one of the marine HF SSB freqs, but he ended up
back on 20 meters after hearing nothing in reply to his calls there on the
same radio. Any CG can commandeer 14.300 for emergencies. Are their
frequency dials stuck?

i've heard the CG on 14.3 many times.

the CG handles many, many more distress calls than ham radio does. and
the difference is the CG is the ones to go get the folks.

---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field

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

"Gary Schafer" wrote in message
...


Jack,
We all know what you say is the professional "buzz" from the CG and
probably what is written in the manuals that you read. But it is not
total reality.

There are many many stories of not being able to raise the CG on
"proper" channels.

I have been told by CG people directly that raising them on some of
those channels is not always doable. They just don't always monitor
for various reasons.

I do agree that CG channels should be tried first in an emergency but
not to rely on them 100%.

Regards
Gary