top-fed SSB backstay antenna??

[chuck]

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

 

[Gary Schafer]

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

 

[Me]

=================================================
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

 

[Jack Painter]

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

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

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

Hi Gary, there are only three places in the United States where that
statement could have reliably come from, and I happen to work at one of
them. And it is unequivably wrong and should never have been said by the
USCG that "They just don't always monitor for various reasons." They are
ALWAYS monitored. Whether an inexperienced sailor or someone using the best
HF equipment possible could attain an instant response on a given frequency
from a given point at sea is another matter entirely. It certainly doesn't
beg the advice of Doug, that some sleepy (or worse) night-owl in Missouri is
much more likely to answer than the USCG, that's just pure BS.

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

Regards
Gary

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, Virginia

 

[Jack Painter]

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 are:

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

 

[Doug Dotson]

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.

Even when a CG operator tells you not to bother.

 

[Doug Dotson]

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

 

[Chris Newport]

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.

 

[Jack Painter]

Jack, you sound like a company guy towing the company line.

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.

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

 

[Gary Schafer]

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

 

[Jack Painter]

wrote:

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

 

[Doug Dotson]

You clearly have no concept of how a net is operated or maintained.

 

[Doug Dotson]

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 Painter]

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

 

[Doug Dotson]

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

 

[Me]

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

 

[Doug Dotson]

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

 

[Doug Dotson]

Radio checks on VHF are certainly discouraged. Asking for one
generally attracts a fairly nasty canned response. One has to wonder
how the CG helps the average boater determine the operability
of their VHF rig.

Doug, k3qt
s/v Callista

 

[Jack Painter]

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

Are you still interested in answers to your questions, or would you two just
rather continue your back-slapping stories? Your replies to each other sound
pretty cozy, and I don't want to barge in between your barstools while the
two of you solve the world's problems.

For the rest of the group still following <G> here is my universe:

1. "Squelch" is NEVER adjusted on any USCG guard receiver, VHF, MF, or HF.
This applies equally to every Boat Station, Group, Sector, Activity,
Communication Station and Communication Area Master Station. Anyone not
drunk will also understand the following:

2. Volume is NEVER turned down, as was foolishly suggested above. Lets be
serious for a moment. During critical SAR comms, volume will be turned UP on
affected systems, this will have the same effect as turning others "down".
That is not a long term condition, and SSB receivers are in a separate area
from the VHF consoles anyway. This is something some of you could observe if
you asked for a tour of a Group watchstanding system.

3. Boat Stations do NOT have SSB capability, their AOR is always within VHF
range.

4. Some small patrol boats DO have SSB capability, namely all new 47' MLBs's
which systematically replace the aging 41' patrol boats. Some 41's also have
SSB. All aircraft have VHF/MF/HF systems.

5. Most Groups (or "Sectors" as they are transitioning to) and Activities
have multiple towers (called "High Sites" ). Location of these high-sites
normally allows significant overlap of the adjoining Group/Sector's AOR.

6. There are still areas of the Coastal-Continental United States that have
small gaps in VHF coverage. Maine and Florida used to be the last ones on
the East coast reporting this problem (there may be others we are not aware
of). USCG AUX in Florida remedied that state's problem with volunteer
funded, erected and maintained towers and repeater systems in the thousand
islands area of SW Florida.

7. Rescue-21 when fully implemented, will maintain full VHF coverage in all
areas, and between 20-40 miles seaward. The first Group to have this system
completed is adjacent to me, on the Eastern Shore of Virginia. Even with
Rescue-21 up and running there, that Group NOW has full MF-DSC-GMDSS
capability on 2187.5 khz and of course monitors 2182 khz (the IMO-regulated
adjoining voice channel to 2mhz-DSC) on a 24/7 basis, just as all USCG
Groups do.

8. Each of a Group's several high-sites now has their own set of VHF
receivers and transmitters. Group watchstanders monitor a guard receiver
speaker from EACH high site, all playing "white noise" all the time.

9. The SSB/MF/HF systems of every GroupSector/Activity serves many other
purposes than just guarding 2182 khz, which is required by International
treaty for declared Sea Area A-2 (the range between VHF and HF shore
coverage of guard frequencies). IMO regulations are beyond the scope of this
discussion, but I will be happy to try to elaborate some that relate to ship
to shore communications later.

9. Automatic Direction Finding equipment with display on computer-screen
charts is selectable from all or individual high-sites.

10. Digital recording devices capture 100% of all incoming traffic to USCG
Group receivers.

11. Auto-alarms received on 2182 khz (that are NOT during the
testing-periods allowed) occur up to several times a week. In no case that I
can remember, has the pleasure boat, fishing vessel or commercial ship that
sounded them ever "cancelled" with apologies. Callouts and urgent marine
information broadcasts across wide areas result.

12. Auto-alarms received on VHF-DSC Ch-70 (156.525 mhz) with no
acknowledgement or cancellation occur at least weekly. Testing of VHF-DSC
auto-alarms is illegal, so I guess it's no surprise that most don't
acknowledge. I have heard a commercial fishing captain call us to say "the
darn thing just went off". He was DF'd and hunted-down before he
acknowledged this. It cost him nothing to apologize yet cost the Coast Guard
an hour of SAR-callouts, boat-team launch, preparation for aircraft launch,
etc.

13. Valid MAYDAY calls for USCG SAR-response are received on 2182 khz as the
first communication used on average of once every two weeks or so along the
Eastern seaboard.

14. HF is the ONLY 24hr skywave-reliable SSB system in use. MF is only for
short range (20-200 miles), and only intended as a bridge between VHF line
of sight and HF skywave. This doesn't stop us from completing hours of
SAR-case communications exclusively on 2182 khz as long as it remains
successful.

Hope this clears some of the fog spreading from various
barstool-scuttlebutt.

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, Virginia

 

[Jack Painter]

==================================

Jack, does the USCG respond to "radio checks" on HF frequencies, and
if so, what frequencies would you recommend?

Hi Wayne,

USCG always responds to radio checks. And as Doug offered though, on VHF it
is indeed strongly discouraged, and that becomes your "radio check". Channel
9 is allocated for both calling/hailing and as an alternate distress
frequency (ship-to-ship only) in most areas now. This was done to alleviate
the congestion in busy areas on Ch-16. It is also part of an experiment to
move ALL calling/hailing from Ch-16 to Ch-9, leaving Ch-16 for urgency and
distress only. Ch-9 is where ship to ship or ship to shore radio checks
should take place. Radio operating procedures for VHF-marine do state that
no "any station" type radio checks should ever be made. I paraphrased that
so you would understand that calling the "USCG" is just like making an
any-station call. We don't know if you are in distress, an urgency, safety
issue, which Coast Guard unit is requested, etc. All of the above are valid
reasons for just sayng "USCG", but doing that for a radio check in congested
areas is NOT. Now if you called a SPECIFIC Coast Guard Group or Station,
asking to switch to their wkg frequency for radio check, they should
accomodate you in a courteous fashion, unless something else urgent is going
on with their unit.

On HF: Since HF duplex calling channels are no longer guarded (Jan-1-2005),
and instead the associated simplex voice channels for 4,6,8, and 12 meg
DSC-GMDSS are, I am not sure if that makes them the place for a radio check
with USCG. It hasn't happened to me yet and I have not seen guidance on
this.

As I understand, a VESSEL USING CALLSIGN could make a HF radio check call to
any particular ship or coastal-station (never any-station, same as above) on
4125, 6215, 8291 or 12290 which are now guarded by CAMSLANT and CAMSPAC and
KODIAK. A USCG operator will answer any non-distress HF call on a
case-available basis. I didn't tell you to do this, but I would answer you.

The PURPOSE of guarding 4125, 6215, 8291 and 12290 is to be READY for
distress traffic voice calls on the associated channel for most of the
DSC-GMDSS channels. These newly guarded channels (US is the first nation to
do so btw) are ALSO allocated for "Calling". We'll have to see how that part
works out.

[0322z sidebar: USCG Group St Pete loud and clear in Virginia Beach, VA on
2182, shifting to 2670 khz for offshore marine information broadcast] ;-)

Maybe I can get back to you with a more definitive HF-answer later Wayne,
sorry it's just too new a procedure to be sure yet.

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, Virginia