|
top-fed SSB backstay antenna??
Over the holidays I killed some time looking through a few back issues of
Cruising World. In the April 1986 issue a boat-based ham operator said he used a top-fed backstay antenna with excellent results AND he had no in-hull ground plane. He said he connected the shield from his feed wire to the mast-side of the backstay and this allowed the mast and all the standing rigging to act as a ground plane. He didn't say anything about using stand-offs between the feed wire and the mast. I would think you would get a lot of signal loss over that much length if you didn't use stand-offs? If a person could put up with the appearance and make sure the whole set-up didn't get torn down by sails/running rigging, would this really give good performance? I don't recall reading about this type of set-up so I guess its not too common on recreational boats but maybe it could be worth considering in some situations? |
That's a slightly different animal. It is acts essentually like a dipole
which is a balanced antenna. Balanced antennas do not need a ground plane. Standoffs are not needed because the mast is part of the ground side of the antenna which is what the shield on the coax is. I experimentd with a real dipole by stretching it between the masthead and the radar arch. It was fed in the middle with a balun. Worked well, but keeping the feedline out of harms way proved to be a problem. If the antenna in question was fed with coax, a balun would be desirable. Doug, k3qt s/v Callista "Gordon Wedman" wrote in message news:6wAEd.61994$nN6.13173@edtnps84... Over the holidays I killed some time looking through a few back issues of Cruising World. In the April 1986 issue a boat-based ham operator said he used a top-fed backstay antenna with excellent results AND he had no in-hull ground plane. He said he connected the shield from his feed wire to the mast-side of the backstay and this allowed the mast and all the standing rigging to act as a ground plane. He didn't say anything about using stand-offs between the feed wire and the mast. I would think you would get a lot of signal loss over that much length if you didn't use stand-offs? If a person could put up with the appearance and make sure the whole set-up didn't get torn down by sails/running rigging, would this really give good performance? I don't recall reading about this type of set-up so I guess its not too common on recreational boats but maybe it could be worth considering in some situations? |
Thanks Doug
So it would work well as an antenna for marine SSB? If so I'm a bit surprised more people don't use this instead of trying to achieve that elusive ground plane in the hull. Sounds like you could just run the feed wire inside the mast if you don't need standoffs and the whole installation would be pretty slick. "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in message ... That's a slightly different animal. It is acts essentually like a dipole which is a balanced antenna. Balanced antennas do not need a ground plane. Standoffs are not needed because the mast is part of the ground side of the antenna which is what the shield on the coax is. I experimentd with a real dipole by stretching it between the masthead and the radar arch. It was fed in the middle with a balun. Worked well, but keeping the feedline out of harms way proved to be a problem. If the antenna in question was fed with coax, a balun would be desirable. Doug, k3qt s/v Callista "Gordon Wedman" wrote in message news:6wAEd.61994$nN6.13173@edtnps84... Over the holidays I killed some time looking through a few back issues of Cruising World. In the April 1986 issue a boat-based ham operator said he used a top-fed backstay antenna with excellent results AND he had no in-hull ground plane. He said he connected the shield from his feed wire to the mast-side of the backstay and this allowed the mast and all the standing rigging to act as a ground plane. He didn't say anything about using stand-offs between the feed wire and the mast. I would think you would get a lot of signal loss over that much length if you didn't use stand-offs? If a person could put up with the appearance and make sure the whole set-up didn't get torn down by sails/running rigging, would this really give good performance? I don't recall reading about this type of set-up so I guess its not too common on recreational boats but maybe it could be worth considering in some situations? |
Well, the tuners that come with marine sidebands (AT-140 etc) are
designed for end-fed long wires. Also, dipole lengths are specific to the band one is working. Multiband operation would require some sort of traps in both the backstay (sort of easy) and also matching traps in the mast (really hard!). So in short, you can eliminate the ground plane, but you also inherit less flexability. You also need to get an antenna tuner that can tune a dipole. There has been some discussion about tuning the entire rig (W4CCC) but I have no experience in that area. Larry (W4CCC) also seems to have vanished from this forum. I hope it was not a result of RF burns or that someone pointed out there is no record of his ham licence in the FCC database :) The elusive groundplane in the hull is a myth. Run foil from the tuner and radio to a thruhull and you are done. Make sure the thruhull is not part of a bonding system, it must be isolated. I wrapped the foil around a cockpit scupper seacock and secured it with a hose clamp. I get excellent signal reports and had no problems doing email from The Bahamas to dozens of land station inside the US and Canada. Let me know if you want to arrange for a QSO to check out my signal. Doug, k3qt s/v Callista "Gordon Wedman" wrote in message news:xhDEd.91279$KO5.69231@clgrps13... Thanks Doug So it would work well as an antenna for marine SSB? If so I'm a bit surprised more people don't use this instead of trying to achieve that elusive ground plane in the hull. Sounds like you could just run the feed wire inside the mast if you don't need standoffs and the whole installation would be pretty slick. "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in message ... That's a slightly different animal. It is acts essentually like a dipole which is a balanced antenna. Balanced antennas do not need a ground plane. Standoffs are not needed because the mast is part of the ground side of the antenna which is what the shield on the coax is. I experimentd with a real dipole by stretching it between the masthead and the radar arch. It was fed in the middle with a balun. Worked well, but keeping the feedline out of harms way proved to be a problem. If the antenna in question was fed with coax, a balun would be desirable. Doug, k3qt s/v Callista "Gordon Wedman" wrote in message news:6wAEd.61994$nN6.13173@edtnps84... Over the holidays I killed some time looking through a few back issues of Cruising World. In the April 1986 issue a boat-based ham operator said he used a top-fed backstay antenna with excellent results AND he had no in-hull ground plane. He said he connected the shield from his feed wire to the mast-side of the backstay and this allowed the mast and all the standing rigging to act as a ground plane. He didn't say anything about using stand-offs between the feed wire and the mast. I would think you would get a lot of signal loss over that much length if you didn't use stand-offs? If a person could put up with the appearance and make sure the whole set-up didn't get torn down by sails/running rigging, would this really give good performance? I don't recall reading about this type of set-up so I guess its not too common on recreational boats but maybe it could be worth considering in some situations? |
Oh, and I forgot. I don't use an insulated backstay. I have a 23' whip
mounted on the transome. Doug, k3qt s/v Callista "Gordon Wedman" wrote in message news:xhDEd.91279$KO5.69231@clgrps13... Thanks Doug So it would work well as an antenna for marine SSB? If so I'm a bit surprised more people don't use this instead of trying to achieve that elusive ground plane in the hull. Sounds like you could just run the feed wire inside the mast if you don't need standoffs and the whole installation would be pretty slick. "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in message ... That's a slightly different animal. It is acts essentually like a dipole which is a balanced antenna. Balanced antennas do not need a ground plane. Standoffs are not needed because the mast is part of the ground side of the antenna which is what the shield on the coax is. I experimentd with a real dipole by stretching it between the masthead and the radar arch. It was fed in the middle with a balun. Worked well, but keeping the feedline out of harms way proved to be a problem. If the antenna in question was fed with coax, a balun would be desirable. Doug, k3qt s/v Callista "Gordon Wedman" wrote in message news:6wAEd.61994$nN6.13173@edtnps84... Over the holidays I killed some time looking through a few back issues of Cruising World. In the April 1986 issue a boat-based ham operator said he used a top-fed backstay antenna with excellent results AND he had no in-hull ground plane. He said he connected the shield from his feed wire to the mast-side of the backstay and this allowed the mast and all the standing rigging to act as a ground plane. He didn't say anything about using stand-offs between the feed wire and the mast. I would think you would get a lot of signal loss over that much length if you didn't use stand-offs? If a person could put up with the appearance and make sure the whole set-up didn't get torn down by sails/running rigging, would this really give good performance? I don't recall reading about this type of set-up so I guess its not too common on recreational boats but maybe it could be worth considering in some situations? |
Hello Gordon,
The 20th edition of the ARRL Antenna Handbook has some information on a 40 meter, masthead half-sloper as you described. You might find that interesting. As Doug mentioned, this is basically a single-band antenna, except that it would probably work ok on odd harmonic frequencies. And it would very definitely radiate on other frequencies in an emergency, provided you used an appropriate tuner. Good luck! Chuck Gordon Wedman wrote: Over the holidays I killed some time looking through a few back issues of Cruising World. In the April 1986 issue a boat-based ham operator said he used a top-fed backstay antenna with excellent results AND he had no in-hull ground plane. He said he connected the shield from his feed wire to the mast-side of the backstay and this allowed the mast and all the standing rigging to act as a ground plane. He didn't say anything about using stand-offs between the feed wire and the mast. I would think you would get a lot of signal loss over that much length if you didn't use stand-offs? If a person could put up with the appearance and make sure the whole set-up didn't get torn down by sails/running rigging, would this really give good performance? I don't recall reading about this type of set-up so I guess its not too common on recreational boats but maybe it could be worth considering in some situations? |
Hi Chuck
I kind of suspected that it would only work well over a limited frequency range and that the typical antenna tuners would not help. Thanks to Doug and yourself for confirming this. I'm not planning on installing one as I have a conventional backstay arrangement but I was just wondering if anyone actually used this kind of setup as I'd not seen it discussed. I guess if you are a Ham and tend to work only one band this might be a good arrangement for your boat. "chuck" wrote in message ... Hello Gordon, The 20th edition of the ARRL Antenna Handbook has some information on a 40 meter, masthead half-sloper as you described. You might find that interesting. As Doug mentioned, this is basically a single-band antenna, except that it would probably work ok on odd harmonic frequencies. And it would very definitely radiate on other frequencies in an emergency, provided you used an appropriate tuner. Good luck! Chuck Gordon Wedman wrote: Over the holidays I killed some time looking through a few back issues of Cruising World. In the April 1986 issue a boat-based ham operator said he used a top-fed backstay antenna with excellent results AND he had no in-hull ground plane. He said he connected the shield from his feed wire to the mast-side of the backstay and this allowed the mast and all the standing rigging to act as a ground plane. He didn't say anything about using stand-offs between the feed wire and the mast. I would think you would get a lot of signal loss over that much length if you didn't use stand-offs? If a person could put up with the appearance and make sure the whole set-up didn't get torn down by sails/running rigging, would this really give good performance? I don't recall reading about this type of set-up so I guess its not too common on recreational boats but maybe it could be worth considering in some situations? |
Actually, as a ham I tend to work many bands. Probably more thatn a typical
marine SSB operator might. So, a single band antenna on a boat is probably too limiting in many cases. Doug, k3qt s/v CAllista "Gordon Wedman" wrote in message news:dNxFd.99492$KO5.42998@clgrps13... Hi Chuck I kind of suspected that it would only work well over a limited frequency range and that the typical antenna tuners would not help. Thanks to Doug and yourself for confirming this. I'm not planning on installing one as I have a conventional backstay arrangement but I was just wondering if anyone actually used this kind of setup as I'd not seen it discussed. I guess if you are a Ham and tend to work only one band this might be a good arrangement for your boat. "chuck" wrote in message ... Hello Gordon, The 20th edition of the ARRL Antenna Handbook has some information on a 40 meter, masthead half-sloper as you described. You might find that interesting. As Doug mentioned, this is basically a single-band antenna, except that it would probably work ok on odd harmonic frequencies. And it would very definitely radiate on other frequencies in an emergency, provided you used an appropriate tuner. Good luck! Chuck Gordon Wedman wrote: Over the holidays I killed some time looking through a few back issues of Cruising World. In the April 1986 issue a boat-based ham operator said he used a top-fed backstay antenna with excellent results AND he had no in-hull ground plane. He said he connected the shield from his feed wire to the mast-side of the backstay and this allowed the mast and all the standing rigging to act as a ground plane. He didn't say anything about using stand-offs between the feed wire and the mast. I would think you would get a lot of signal loss over that much length if you didn't use stand-offs? If a person could put up with the appearance and make sure the whole set-up didn't get torn down by sails/running rigging, would this really give good performance? I don't recall reading about this type of set-up so I guess its not too common on recreational boats but maybe it could be worth considering in some situations? |
Gordon Wedman wrote:
Hi Chuck I kind of suspected that it would only work well over a limited frequency range and that the typical antenna tuners would not help. Thanks to Doug and yourself for confirming this. I'm not planning on installing one as I have a conventional backstay arrangement but I was just wondering if anyone actually used this kind of setup as I'd not seen it discussed. I guess if you are a Ham and tend to work only one band this might be a good arrangement for your boat. "chuck" wrote in message ... Hello Gordon, The 20th edition of the ARRL Antenna Handbook has some information on a 40 meter, masthead half-sloper as you described. You might find that interesting. As Doug mentioned, this is basically a single-band antenna, except that it would probably work ok on odd harmonic frequencies. And it would very definitely radiate on other frequencies in an emergency, provided you used an appropriate tuner. Good luck! Chuck Gordon Wedman wrote: Over the holidays I killed some time looking through a few back issues of Cruising World. In the April 1986 issue a boat-based ham operator said he used a top-fed backstay antenna with excellent results AND he had no in-hull ground plane. He said he connected the shield from his feed wire to the mast-side of the backstay and this allowed the mast and all the standing rigging to act as a ground plane. He didn't say anything about using stand-offs between the feed wire and the mast. I would think you would get a lot of signal loss over that much length if you didn't use stand-offs? If a person could put up with the appearance and make sure the whole set-up didn't get torn down by sails/running rigging, would this really give good performance? I don't recall reading about this type of set-up so I guess its not too common on recreational boats but maybe it could be worth considering in some situations I think it's a great idea. If you tune to some "off" freqs, you could try orienting the AE different ways by turning the boat. You may be surprised to find directivity nodes here and there at certain freqs. I have often wondered why I don't get a ham set, or even a decent receiver, so I can fool around with some weird AE Ideas. How about a loop using the fore and back stays, insulated at the top, a balanced twinax feed and connected from fore peak to transom by an insulated bilge wire on spacers away from the bottom of the hull? Alternatively, my mind says "Why not feed at the centre of the bilge lead, or even off centre, and maybe not bother insulating the stays at the top?" The shrouds would not be connected to anything at the chain plates. I suspect directivity trials could yield a neat plot showing odd peaks and strange directivity. Some of those nodes may be surprising and even useful. Loops are particularly quiet on Rx. Ever try one for Tx? Has anybody actually done any of this wierd stuff? It seems to me that some software should be able to predict all this. Anybody know? Terry K |
|
"Terry Spragg" wrote Has anybody actually done any of this wierd stuff? It seems to me that some software should be able to predict all this. Anybody know? Terry K http://www.eznec.com/ There is a free demo-version available here. Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia |
Richard Webb wrote: 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. Being that the ability to summon assistance when needed on freqs such as 2182 is limited these days I'd want multiband capability for my hf marine gear when away from land. Richard Webb, amateur radio callsign nf5b active on the Maritime Mobile service network, 14.300 mhz Hi Richard, bravo for your volunteer work for the MMSN. 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. Effective January 1, 2005 new guarded calling and distress freq- uencies for the USCG long range communication stations will now be Simplex (single channel call and receive). These "new" guard freq- uencies have always been the voice-associated distress for follow up to DSC/GMDSS alert system. Now, instead of waiting for a DSC alert to start listening to the associated voice channel for a particular DSC frequency, the following associated voice frequencies will be guarded. Appropriate day/night monitoring will still apply to the 'new' guard frequencies. 2182 24 HRS Guarded only by USCG Groups NMN NMF NMG NMC NOJ 4125 2300-1100Z 2300-1100Z 24 HRS 6215 24 HRS 24 HRS 24 HRS 8291 24 HRS 24 HRS 12290 1100-2300Z 24 HRS 16420 is available by request, and in response to 16meg DSC Effective Jan 01, 2005, the formerly guarded channels (below) will be used for working frequencies only after initial contact is made via simplex on the the guarded channels above. ITU SHIP SHORE Sched (UTC) NMN NMN/NMF/NMG 424 4134 4426 n/a n/a n/a n/a 601 6200 6501 n/a n/a n/a n/a 816 8240 8764 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1205 12242 13089 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1625 16432 17314 n/a n/a n/a n/a See http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/marcomms/cgcomms/call.htm for details concerning long range HF communications with USCG units. Jack Painter "Oceana Radio" USCGAUX Virginia Beach, Virginia |
wrote in message ... On 2005-01-13 dNxFd.99492$KO5.42998@clgrps13 said: Thanks to Doug and yourself for confirming this. I'm not planning on installing one as I have a conventional backstay arrangement but I was just wondering if anyone actually used this kind of setup as I'd not seen it discussed. I guess if you are a Ham and tend to work only one band this might be a good arrangement for your boat. 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. Being that the ability to summon assistance when needed on freqs such as 2182 is limited these days I'd want multiband capability for my hf marine gear when away from land. 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. 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 I check into the MMSN on a regular basis. Maybe I'll hear you there. Doug, k3qt s/v Callista -- |
"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 |
|
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 -- |
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 |
"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 |
"Me" wrote "Jack Painter" wrote: ================================================= 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. This is some of the WORST ADVICE from one who SHOULD know better. Jack, why don't you climb down off your USCG/Aux Cross, and chill out a bit. Out there on the Right Coast, where every local town has a USCG Contigent, there may be a case for 2182 Khz being a bit usefull, but up here in Alaska, where the Watch Receivers are streached out to MORE than 500 Miles apart, 2182 hasn't EVER been a real usefull frequency EVER. This is due to it's daytime average range in the 150 to 200 Miles, area. Now this doesn't even include the MORE Than Likely possibility that the Remote Site HF Radios, are broke and the techs can't get there to fix them, because of weather, and, or lack of SPARES for that OLD CRAP. In the REAL World, no one uses MF for Emergency Comm's, and haven't for MANY YEARS. The Commercial Boys use 4125 Khz and talk to Kodiak, Frisco, or Honolulu, when things get tough. If CommSta Kodiak is not available due to propagation, then there are PLENTY of Limited Coast Stations that are, and they LINE the Coast from Seattle to Dutch Harbor. The USCG does the best they can with the money that Congress gives them, BUT tell us all, "HOW MANY YEARS BEHIND IS THE USCG IN GMDSS COVERAGE for ALL US WATERS??????????????????", and compare this with the Wester Europeon's ?????????????? Me Dear You, maybe you paid attention only to the latter part of the thread, or think anyone describing "US coastal-continental waters" (a quote from the thread, which is the only subject of our 2182 khz portion of this discussion) somehow includes ALASKA. It does not. You don't live in US-coastal-continental waters you old sea horse. Accordingly, your tirade is misdirected, and not applicable to anything we have been talking about. But it's so nice to hear from you! Sea Area A-1 for VHF-DSC-GMDSS (Ch-70) is way behind schedule, no argument there. Current excuses provided a 1. General Dynamic's subcontractor was late achieving software performance and approval. 2. Environmental Activist and personal property-owner objections to acquisition of rights for new tower locations have prevented infrastructure completion. 3. Allocation of resources to Homeland Security missions given higher priorities. On the HF-DSC-GMDSS and SAT-DSC-GMDSS side, compliance was achieved long ago. 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 |
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 |
|
Doug Dotson wrote:
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. Coastguard stations around the world are generally blessed with serious antenna farms and excellent professional receivers. They are therefore well equiped to hear you if there is a signal to be heard. Always try the official stations first, they are the professionals and have the training and experience required as well as usefull stuff like direct links to rescue facilities. HF communications are, however, subject to atmospheric influence so it is possible that there may be no direct signal path. In most cases another vessel or aircraft will respond and be able to relay your distress call. Once you have exhausted all of the "official" channels it is certainly worth giving the Ham frequencies a try, the operators are in different locations and a good signal path may well exist to someone who can help. It is important to note that you should not be reliant on HF which is being rapidly replaced by more reliable satellite services. -- My real address is crn (at) netunix (dot) com WARNING all messages containing attachments or html will be silently deleted. Send only plain text. |
"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 |
You clearly have no concept of how a net is operated or maintained.
"Jack Painter" wrote in message news:pbFGd.17550$B95.16031@lakeread02... "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 |
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 |
I don't think you understood the essence of my question.
"Chris Newport" wrote in message ... Doug Dotson wrote: 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. Coastguard stations around the world are generally blessed with serious antenna farms and excellent professional receivers. They are therefore well equiped to hear you if there is a signal to be heard. Always try the official stations first, they are the professionals and have the training and experience required as well as usefull stuff like direct links to rescue facilities. HF communications are, however, subject to atmospheric influence so it is possible that there may be no direct signal path. In most cases another vessel or aircraft will respond and be able to relay your distress call. Once you have exhausted all of the "official" channels it is certainly worth giving the Ham frequencies a try, the operators are in different locations and a good signal path may well exist to someone who can help. It is important to note that you should not be reliant on HF which is being rapidly replaced by more reliable satellite services. -- My real address is crn (at) netunix (dot) com WARNING all messages containing attachments or html will be silently deleted. Send only plain text. |
"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote You clearly have no concept of how a net is operated or maintained. Sure Doug, that's right. It's hard to figure out play-time if I confuse it with the military and USCG Nets. Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia "Jack Painter" wrote in message news:pbFGd.17550$B95.16031@lakeread02... "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 |
I suspect that military and USCG nets are formal nets. Ham nets
are typically volunteer and are "open" nets. There is no roster of participants. If you listen to the Coast Guard net which is on just prior to MMSN on Saturday (or Sunday?) it is operated pretty much the same way. The same thing with InterCon. Since amateur radio is a volunteer organization, the nets have to be run differently than "closed" membership-based nets. Doug, k3qt s/v Callista "Jack Painter" wrote in message news:GLOGd.18100$B95.15692@lakeread02... "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote You clearly have no concept of how a net is operated or maintained. Sure Doug, that's right. It's hard to figure out play-time if I confuse it with the military and USCG Nets. Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia "Jack Painter" wrote in message news:pbFGd.17550$B95.16031@lakeread02... "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 |
In article ,
"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote: 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 It is because the USCG only deals with "Certain" Comms capability, so any skywave comms which depend on what the E and F layers are doing and what the GeoMagnetic Index is at the moment, aren't figured in. That is also why MF was basically given up as a Maritime Comms System when the switch to SSB from AM happened, by the USCG. Oh, the "Official Line" is that they have a 24/7 Watch on 2812 Khz, but in the REAL World, and not Jack's Universe, Most of those MF Receivers have the volume turn down, because the Operators can't deal with the white noise, when trying to hear something on one of the HF Receivers. Been that way for MANY years, even if Jack doesn't acknowledge it. Some of the best FCC Maritime Monitoring that was ever done was from the old Grand Island, Nebraska, Station....... Me |
Thank You! A great and sensible answer! And I agree that the squelch
doesn't work all that well on SSB. Doug, k3qt s/v Callista "Me" wrote in message ... In article , "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote: 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 It is because the USCG only deals with "Certain" Comms capability, so any skywave comms which depend on what the E and F layers are doing and what the GeoMagnetic Index is at the moment, aren't figured in. That is also why MF was basically given up as a Maritime Comms System when the switch to SSB from AM happened, by the USCG. Oh, the "Official Line" is that they have a 24/7 Watch on 2812 Khz, but in the REAL World, and not Jack's Universe, Most of those MF Receivers have the volume turn down, because the Operators can't deal with the white noise, when trying to hear something on one of the HF Receivers. Been that way for MANY years, even if Jack doesn't acknowledge it. Some of the best FCC Maritime Monitoring that was ever done was from the old Grand Island, Nebraska, Station....... Me |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com