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

"Jack Painter" wrote in message
news:jxhMd.80413$Tf5.67754@lakeread03...

"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


I would like to throw out a challenge to all the real ham operators, CG and
CG Auxiliary personnel finger pointing at each other here. Hams, join the
Auxiliary, take their AuxCom course, have your security background checked
and licenses verified, then complete the CG Radio Watchstander qualification
at the local CG unit and contribute your communications skills and
background to assisting the Coast Guard. There are CG Auxiliary nets on
VHF-FM also. Also, write your Congress members, asking they make funding and
implementation of Rescue 21 and GMDSS a priority for the Coast Guard. The
problem is congressional guys, not some dunderhead in uniform dragging his
feet on upgrading the system. Similarly, I challenge the CG and CG
Auxiliary non-ham members here to get a real ham license, General Class or
higher, then take some ARES ENCOMM course and become an active participant
in a traffic net or emergency net. Your might even enjoy chatting on CG ham
nets or Auxiliary ham nets (yes, they exist!). They are fraternal in nature.
Aren't we all trying to provide communications channels for boaters at sea?
If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem! I have
been a ham for only 48 years, and have only 9 years (broken service in the
Auxiliary) as a communicator, aircraft owner and pilot flying sundown and
SAR missions, flotilla commander, etc. I also have 20 years active in the US
Navy communications field. CG, CG Auxiliary, Navy,
NavyMarineCorpsCoastGuard MARS, and ham radio should compliment each other
and not be competitive. Each has its strengths and weaknesses.
Regarding CG HF equipment, in 84-86, when I was stationed on Adak Island, AK
in the Aleutians, us Navy guys were very envious of the modern, remotely
tuned HF Collins equipment that CG Kodiak controlled there. It was a far cry
from the R-390A's, etc we had for HF reception. I can not speak for the CG,
but the Navy has since roughly 1980 used a commercially available unit
called a "chip sounder" which sends a pulse burst straight up from a shore
based antenna, takes measurements on the return echo such as signal +
noise/noise and time delay, then the frequency is stepped up and another
pulse stream sent out, measurements made, etc. This results in a spectrum
plot of that stations propagation, ionosphere layer height, maximum useable
frequency, etc, from which optimum useable frequency for long haul
communications is calculated. It is the military way of avoiding the "no
traffic checkins" to determine who can hear whom. I think the ham radio
method is much cheaper, but was thankful to the taxpayers for giving us this
fancy equipment to use.
Back in the days of mandatory commercial Morse operators aboard commercial
high seas vessels, finding a non-ham radio officer was a rarity. These guys
stood their required watches professionally, and enjoyed their avocation as
ham hobbyist also. Why are we arguing here? The old time real radio
operators enjoyed the best of both worlds.
73
Doug, K7ABX; CG Auxiliary, Assistant District Staff Officer-Communications
(South), 13th District

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

In article ,
Jetcap wrote:

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

ANY US citizen can apply for and receive, a Restricted Radio Operator
Permit (lifetime), that allows them to operate an Aircraft or Marine HF
Transceiver installed abaord any US Flagged Vessel or Aircraft in
noncommerical service, as well as commercial service on Uninspected
Vessels. These are not numbered, so they don't show up in the FCC's
Database of Licensed Persons.


Bruce in alaska
--
add a 2 before @