"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

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:13:40 -0500, "Jack Painter"
wrote:

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.

Jack,

I hate to pick on you again but you are totally wrong about the
"uselessness" of hams checking in with no traffic.

I generally despise most nets that operate on the ham bands. But ones
like the mmsn serve a real purpose. They do not get called upon often
for "real" service but all those check ins serve to keep the interest
in members and practice the skills a little.

Without any of those "no traffic" check ins those nets would not
exist.
Not only that no one would even know that they existed.

As far as guys checking in from their boat with no traffic that again
reinforces the operation of the net. It is also a good way for that
boater to know that he can contact the net when needed. It provides
him with a little training in communication skills also.
Does anyone get that kind of training or acknowledgement from the
Coast Guard? I think not. Practice is what makes this thing work.

73
Gary K4FMX

"Gary Schafer" wrote
"Jack Painter"
wrote:

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).

Jack,

I hate to pick on you again but you are totally wrong about the
"uselessness" of hams checking in with no traffic.

I generally despise most nets that operate on the ham bands. But ones
like the mmsn serve a real purpose. They do not get called upon often
for "real" service but all those check ins serve to keep the interest
in members and practice the skills a little.

Without any of those "no traffic" check ins those nets would not
exist.
Not only that no one would even know that they existed.

As far as guys checking in from their boat with no traffic that again
reinforces the operation of the net. It is also a good way for that
boater to know that he can contact the net when needed. It provides
him with a little training in communication skills also.
Does anyone get that kind of training or acknowledgement from the
Coast Guard? I think not. Practice is what makes this thing work.

73
Gary K4FMX

Hi Gary, that's all right. I was talking about an MMSN member checking in
with the net from the dock. If that's training, so be it. I don't know if
there are ever missed calls because of that chatter, but it seems possible
there would be. Training with check-in chatter could be accomplished
off-net, much like the Sunday afternoon training already goes off-frequency
for a short broadcast of interest to users of the net. Many Hams are
admittedly very skilled with break-in techniques that keep the MMSN full of
non-stop chatter with few breaks for service, so to speak. Just my
observation from over a decade of listening to it!

Jack

Hi Gary, that's all right. I was talking about an MMSN member checking in
with the net from the dock. If that's training, so be it.

I do it all the time. It IS good training and it serves to allow me to
determine
if my equipment is working. It also lets the net know that I am listening
and am available if someone has traffic for someone in my area. Or if
someone needs me to make a phone call on their behalf. This is how
a net operates.

I don't know if
there are ever missed calls because of that chatter, but it seems possible
there would be.

Net procedures take care of that. Although you are obviouly not aware
of it, there are pretty strict rules as to how the net operates. It may seem
informal, especially if there is not much traffic, but if a station does
check in
(or break in) with traffic or an emergency. Procedures change pretty quick.

Training with check-in chatter could be accomplished
off-net, much like the Sunday afternoon training already goes
off-frequency
for a short broadcast of interest to users of the net.

The check-in chatter IS the net. Although to a trained operator if is far
from chatter. I'm interested in understanding how you feel a net should
operate if not to call for emergency traffic and checkins?

Many Hams are
admittedly very skilled with break-in techniques that keep the MMSN full
of
non-stop chatter with few breaks for service, so to speak. Just my
observation from over a decade of listening to it!

You clearly haven't known what exactly you are listening to. What exactly
is a "break for service"?

Jack

"Jack Painter" wrote in
news:uAGGd.17853$B95.5757@lakeread02:

Hi Gary, that's all right. I was talking about an MMSN member checking
in with the net from the dock. If that's training, so be it. I don't
know if there are ever missed calls because of that chatter, but it
seems possible there would be. Training with check-in chatter could be
accomplished off-net, much like the Sunday afternoon training already
goes off-frequency for a short broadcast of interest to users of the
net. Many Hams are admittedly very skilled with break-in techniques
that keep the MMSN full of non-stop chatter with few breaks for
service, so to speak. Just my observation from over a decade of
listening to it!

Jack



So, tell us how DO you know what area you can hear on your HF net? Noone
transmits for fear of raising your ire. Can you hear Florida today?
Galveston? 100 miles out? 200? 500?

What magic on that dead HF frequency tells you the sun has exploded, again,
and communications is useless? Surely you're not depending on WWV's
propagation forecast, are you?

If we observe the two quiet periods for emergency traffic calls, wouldn't
it be better for everyone involved if you knew what boats/ships are also
your ears and eyes on the frequency, expanding your pitiful little
receiving antenna cross section by several thousand miles? "CG Net this is
WDB-6254, "Lionheart" at 32 24N, 75 12W checkin, no traffic monitoring 802
for next 2 hours." Aha! I can hear a 150W insulated backstay offshore of
Charleston on Channel 802 at this time. HE, on the other hand, will HELP
me monitor the frequency, relaying to areas I cannot hear because of
propagation, any calls that get no answers from me.

What harm have I done to Coast Guard Communications?

They USED to do it on CW, you know! It's how I learned the code when I was
10 in 1956.....(c;

This is precisely why hams "waste bandwidth", as you say.....see?

"Larry W4CSC" wrote

So, tell us how DO you know what area you can hear on your HF net? Noone
transmits for fear of raising your ire. Can you hear Florida today?
Galveston? 100 miles out? 200? 500?

What magic on that dead HF frequency tells you the sun has exploded,
again,
and communications is useless? Surely you're not depending on WWV's
propagation forecast, are you?

If we observe the two quiet periods for emergency traffic calls, wouldn't
it be better for everyone involved if you knew what boats/ships are also
your ears and eyes on the frequency, expanding your pitiful little
receiving antenna cross section by several thousand miles? "CG Net this
is
WDB-6254, "Lionheart" at 32 24N, 75 12W checkin, no traffic monitoring 802
for next 2 hours." Aha! I can hear a 150W insulated backstay offshore of
Charleston on Channel 802 at this time. HE, on the other hand, will HELP
me monitor the frequency, relaying to areas I cannot hear because of
propagation, any calls that get no answers from me.

What harm have I done to Coast Guard Communications?

They USED to do it on CW, you know! It's how I learned the code when I
was
10 in 1956.....(c;

This is precisely why hams "waste bandwidth", as you say.....see?

When I operate from my station, I use every resource available to me, and it
is everything you would expect a radio operator to do. When operating from
the net control of a vast resource of hundreds of antennas and transmitters
and receivers across thousands of miles, supplemented with satellites, there
is no such concern about "will I be able to hear San Juan"? I only have
three antennas and I can get the job done pretty well too from Newfoundland
to South America, day or night. I carefully chose the antennas to do the
job, and 99% of the time I can do it on 125 watts.

You're confusing radio hobbyists who like to chat with each other and feel
accomplishment in their hobby and equipment by reinforcing that they can
talk to the same stations in the same places over, and over and over, with
the reason that ships are at sea, which is not a hobby. Professional
mariners, which make up the overwhelming majority of all high seas
travelers, have no such time or reason to chat on amateur nets or on
official frequencies reserved for hailing and distress.

The real blue water sailors of a hobbyist ilk, have options in a
communication suite that leaves about zero chance that an emergency call
would not be heard and relayed to appropriate authorities. Amateur maritime
mobile service nets make up one small and nonetheless important part of that
but only where pleasure craft or third-world fishing vessels are concerned.

The USCG just finished supervising the rescue of four people far from
Bermuda who set of an EPIRB. Until the good Samaritan vessel directed to the
scene by the Coast Guard arrived tonight, the USCG C-130 had already found
them, and supplied comfort, communications, food, water and blankets, along
with the assuredness that surface rescue was on the way. One EPIRB did that
for them. Where communications came into play was with the USCG's ability to
contact all area vessels and vector the appropriate ones to the scene. I had
no problem hearing every word that was passed to and from the C-130 and if a
major solar flare had happened, they could have changed altitude, changed
frequencies, and as a last resort, used other more expensive forms of
communication. What you allude to is totally unnecessary and serves only the
brotherhood of clubs who need social interaction to remain a coherent
organization. That's not contested or misunderstood by me, but I think you
believe they do this for reasons which modern communicators would find
frivolous. Or fun. Take your pick.

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, Virginia

Larry W4CSC wrote:

If we observe the two quiet periods for emergency traffic calls, wouldn't
it be better for everyone involved if you knew what boats/ships are also
your ears and eyes on the frequency, expanding your pitiful little
receiving antenna cross section by several thousand miles? "CG Net this is
WDB-6254, "Lionheart" at 32 24N, 75 12W checkin, no traffic monitoring 802
for next 2 hours." Aha! I can hear a 150W insulated backstay offshore of
Charleston on Channel 802 at this time. HE, on the other hand, will HELP
me monitor the frequency, relaying to areas I cannot hear because of
propagation, any calls that get no answers from me.

Larry, So what kind of license do you have to make that call on HF?

Neither you or "your captain" have a license according to the FCC. Tell
us all about your First Class Phone and your GROL and your GMDSS
Operator and Maintainer licenses again.

Bwahahahahahahaha ... old fraud.

Rick

Gary Schafer wrote in
:

As far as guys checking in from their boat with no traffic that again
reinforces the operation of the net. It is also a good way for that
boater to know that he can contact the net when needed. It provides
him with a little training in communication skills also.
Does anyone get that kind of training or acknowledgement from the
Coast Guard? I think not. Practice is what makes this thing work.

73
Gary K4FMX


Noone knows whether they can contact a CG comm center or not. Noone is
allowed to "bother" them with "no traffic" just to see if the propagation
is available or if the radios on both ends are working at the moment.

1) Boaters checking in to MMSN with no traffic, every one of them, with
this simple contact have:

2) Checked equipment to make sure it's working properly...

3) Checked propagation at the time they are monitoring to see if the
ionosphere is still operational...

4) Helped the hams monitoring the net to check propagation between THEIR
station and a maritime area they had not heard from today, just in case
their services are needed during this net time...

5) Inadvertently said, "Thank you, guys" from the boaters the doggedly
loyal ham retirees on shore are trying to serve. All they ask is for a
little check-in "thanks".

Any boater-ham should always check-in for these purposes if no other. You
have no way of knowing until it's too late if the damned CG can hear you or
not and if anyone is REALLY listening out there. "Waste of Bandwidth" my
ass.....