"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 08:06:01 -0400, "Gerald"

I don't agree with the code argument, though there needs to be some
form of rite of passage to prevent the airwaves from becoming like
1976 CB radio.

I don't belive that will be a real issue. CB was a passing FAD. I don't
see the 70's type of activity on CB anymore. Aside from the truckers legit
use of the service and the ever-present LIDS (they exist in HAM land too),
it seems pretty quiet most of the time. No-code has been the law of the
land for VHF/UHF for years --- no CB crap problem there.

Want another potentially usefull communications option? If you do much
offshore work, you should consider getting a hand held Aviation VHF radio
with a AA battery pack to put in your "ditch bag". Legal to own? yes.
Legal to operate? Not with out an appropriate license.

Technically, not legal to operate, period.... but in distress. you
will surely get away with it. Anybody that expects to rely on that
sort of emergency com equipment should stay on shore.

Rely on it? No. Available as a back up? why not?


But, if you just
stepped up from your boat into your life raft, it might be nice to talk
with
commercial airline pilots overhead while the rescue people figure out who
the unregistred EPIRB you activated belongs to. --- ILLEGAL ??? COME
ARREST
ME --- PLEASE ---- NOW!!!!

I'm not betting that you'll actually talk to an airplane with that
screwy set-up... as for reliability, I've never seen an aviation unit
I'd trust around water/humidity...

I'm not sure what you mean by "screwy" setup. Aren't airliners are supposed
to monitor 121.5? Most probably actually do. I have a Yaesu VXA-100
aviation transceiver in a waterproof bag in my ditch bag. It's there if I
need it. Once I'm in the liferaft, it's a little late to wish I had it.
FedEx doesn't deliver 150 miles offshore. Oh well, each to therir own...

Then there is that damn USCG Master License test. You need to know inland
river rules when you only operate in the atlantic coast.
You need to know that to get an OUPV.... because most of us expect to
pass through some form of inland water to enter COLREGS water.

I have neen boating up and down the coast of the US / and bahamas for 40
years. Never had any use for the inland river rules. They apply to the
Mississippi, Ohio... rivers --- not the ICW or rivers along the US East
Coast.

This
seems to be some reference to one's inability to communicate via radio
without knowing code.... I can talk and I can type.

No, it is a reference to people decideing what they think they should learn
to get a license --- and a geneal desire to dumb things down.

Bear in mind that the USCG hasn't used any Morse radiotelegraphy
services in over 10 years...

I will try to keep that in mind... thanks. Although, RACONS all still use
it. As do aeronautical VORs and NDBs --- but you knew that. So it's not all
that DEAD after all, is it?

You need to know
how many bolts on a 6 inch fire hose coupling when you only operate a 50
foot motor vessel.

Only if you seek a master's rating.... if one has no interest in
carrying more than 6 people for hire, why would one bother?

Merit badge. What if the 7th person shows up? Because I can. Why not? Is
learning more than you think you need to know a bad thing?

If one only wants to communicate via voice or digital, why would one learn
to
use code?

If you are only going to operate store bought radio equipment, why bother to
learn the electronics? If you are just going to hook a store bought marine
vertical or hook up to a back stay, why learn about antennas? If you are
only going to use WinLink2000 and participate in the Waterway Nets, why
bother with all that silly satellite knowledge? Why should any license test
cover material that you say you don't need to know? That's an interesting
proposition --- let the applicant pick the questions they feel they should
be asked.

They actually expect you to know how to navigate with a
chart, dividers, parallel ruler and a pencil --- how archaic is that?

They know that an understanding of TVMDC, tides, winds, and the
likelihood that equipment can fail is important.

I'm not disagreeing with you there, but a backup gps or two is a lot cheaper
than a set of current charts. I'll bet you a buck that within the next 5-10
years, we will be having the same discussion about the TVMDC stuff as we are
about CW. Just out of curiosity, couldn't we use your argument above to
justify a resurgence in Celestial navigation? What if all the equipment
fails and my charts blew away? Could happen!!!!!!! Sorry, I'm losing it
here ... the HVAC guys should be done any minute now and I can get back to
my real life.

CW is not the *basis*
for any electrical/electronic knowledge.... in the present day, it is
a poor language for communication.

So just what does that mean? A poor language for communication? It's not
really a language, it is a mode. It may not be "state of the art". It may
not be as widely used as cell phones. It may not be as popular as internet,
but it is very efficient and very effective. I will grant you that it is
not a very popular mode of communications. No if you want poor
communication, just listen to any politician answer almost any question
during an interview.

Your argument should be that learning crystals and
tubes is necessary to understanding solid state technology... Not,
learning pig-latin make you part of the Ham Club....

Not at all. In fact I don't think I have argued that CW should be kept. My
only objection to its removal is because it seems to be driven by people who
don't want to learn it for one personal reason or another. The "good for
ham radio" line is usually a bucnh of nice sounding crap.

_ ___c
\ _| \_
__\_| oooo \_____
~~~~|______________/ ~~~~~
~~~ ~~~~~~
~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~
~~~~ }((((o ~~~~~~ }{{{{o ~~~~~~~

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Southport, NC.

Passed through there and in/out the inlet many a time.