Re: T&T: Fw: [AGLCA-2006:1732] Great Lakes HSCG Live Fire Training
Western Lake Erie has had a firing range for some time, and it is not intrusive. Regular VHF broadcasts, warning buoys, patrols, posted notices, and chart indications clearly indicate it's presence.
You indicate
Notification will be published in advance of exercizes (it was not clear how
that notification will work they said they would use VHF, but many boats
cannot even hear the VHF while underway, and tend to desregard USCG
annoucements anyway)"
Let's try to keep these people off the water............. Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Stehle ewstehle@fuse.net
Sent: Nov 3, 2006 7:14 AM
To: Trawlers & Trawlering trawlers-and-trawlering@lists.samurai.com
Cc: Bob Kunath bobkunath@att.net
Subject: T&T: Fw: [AGLCA-2006:1732] Great Lakes HSCG Live Fire Training
Thought this might be of interest.
Ted Stehle
Cruising & News Editor
Waterway Guide
www.waterwayguide.com
tstehle@waterwayguide.com
As a followup to the posts a few weeks ago, the USCG is planning to establish
safety zones on the Great Lakes for small arms live fire training. We
attended a public hearing last night in Waukegan, IL, here's a summary of
their presentations:
- There will be 34 zones in the Great Lakes, including 14 in Lake Michigan.
Comment was that so many sites are required to be near all USCG
stations - Zone sizes vary widely, average about 75 square miles
- Zones will are planned about 5 miles from shore, in at least 30 feet
water, away from shipping lanes and water intakes. - USCG small boats will be equipped with 7.62 mm machiine guns, requiring
live practice - Zones will be closed and used mainly in off-season (around April and
October), several days per year, 4-6 hours per session. Special events, such
as yacht club races across the lake and through zones will be avoided.
Notification will be published in advance of exercizes (it was not clear how
that notification will work they said they would use VHF, but many boats
cannot even hear the VHF while underway, and tend to desregard USCG
annoucements anyway). - Two boats will participate in each session: One to practice fire, the
(with radar) to watch for traffic. Sessions may be at night. - Environmental impact from lead bullets into the water expected to be
minimal.
In conversation with some of the officers, I noted that there are two zones
each in the path of both the Badger and Lake Express ferries. Their response
was that they would keep lookout and suspend firing as the ferries pass.
Their comment was that the range of the guns was 4000 yards, well within the
effective visible and radar range of the lookout boats.
When asked why Graet Lakes guardsmen need to be tranied in machine guns, the
answer given by Captain Bruce Jones (Sector Commander of all 24 stations in
Lake Michigan) was that "all guardsmen everywhere need to be trained to handle
a stiuation anywhere." He recalled the Katrina emergency where properly
trained personnel from the Great Lakes were sent to New Orleans to assist in
that emergency.
For more information, here's the USCG info site on this issue:
http://www.uscgd9safetyzones.com
Comments may be submitted at this site until November 13:
http://dms.dot.gov Document Number: 25767
Bob Kunath
Waterway Guide Cruising Editor, Lake Michigan
Bob & Carol Kunath
Sans Souci
Pacific Seacraft 38T
bobkunath@att.net
Tel: 847 540 8175
cell: 847 921 8175
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"AGLCA 2006" group.
To post to this group, send email to AGLCA-2006@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
AGLCA-2006-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/AGLCA-2006
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/trawlers-and-trawlering
To unsubscribe send email to
trawlers-and-trawlering-request@lists.samurai.com with the word
UNSUBSCRIBE and nothing else in the subject or body of the message.
Trawlers & Trawlering and T&T are trademarks of Water World
Productions. Unauthorized use is prohibited.
(SNIP) Zones will are planned about 5 miles from shore, in at least 30 feet
water, away from shipping lanes and water intakes.
Look at the bright side--this should keep the enviro-Nazis busy since they
were so upset about lead shotgun ammo the vendors had to come out with steel
shot.
Regards....
Phil Rosch
Old Harbor Consulting
M/V "Curmudgeon" MT44 TC
Currently lying Bond Creek, NC
Look at the bright side--this should keep the enviro-Nazis busy
I, for one, would really appreciate it if people would stop using the
term "eviro-Nazi." It both offends the environmentalists among us
(there are a few) and trivializes Nazism.
Thanks you,
Steve
Steve Dubnoff
1966 Willard Pilothouse
www.mvnereid.com
sdubnoff@circlesys.com
It gives Nazis a bad name also.
From: Steven Dubnoff sdubnoff@circlesys.com
To: trawlerphil@earthlink.net
CC: trawlers-and-trawlering@lists.samurai.com
Subject: T&T: Let's please stop name-calling
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 11:31:50 -0800
Look at the bright side--this should keep the enviro-Nazis busy
I, for one, would really appreciate it if people would stop using the
term "eviro-Nazi." It both offends the environmentalists among us
(there are a few) and trivializes Nazism.
Thanks you,
Steve
Steve Dubnoff
1966 Willard Pilothouse
www.mvnereid.com
sdubnoff@circlesys.com
http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/trawlers-and-trawlering
To unsubscribe send email to
trawlers-and-trawlering-request@lists.samurai.com with the word
UNSUBSCRIBE and nothing else in the subject or body of the message.
Trawlers & Trawlering and T&T are trademarks of Water World
Productions. Unauthorized use is prohibited.
Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
<<...many boats cannot even hear the VHF while underway, and tend to
desregard USCG annoucements anyway)">>
Has anyone else noticed that the Coast Guard VHF radio announcements are
poorly formatted and usually unintelligible as well? I have 4 specific
suggestions for improvement.
-
Instead of repeating the "This is United States Coast Guard group
Charleston" part three times (twice at the beginning and once at the end of
the message), reduce this staytement to twice. -
Use the time saved to repeat the "heart" of the message a second time.
After all, this is what the CG supposedly wants us to hear. Perhaps this
repitition would help the poor radio reader have a chance to understand what
he/she is saying and to say it in a way that we can understand over the
radio static and engine noise. -
Give the radio operators a few minutes instruction in diction and
speaking more slowly before letting them get behind the mic of a radio with
several hundred watts of power that will blanket the airwaves for 50-100
miles around. It sounds to me like radio operator is the job of choice for
newbys in the Guard. That's fine, but a tiny bit of training would go a
long way here. -
When the "heart " of the message is "For marine safety broadcast, tune
to channel 22 alpha", give the listeners a clue as to what the announcement
will be about, and what area it applies to. Then we'd know whether to
change over and listen, or ignore the message as we often do now. When the
message is about changes in the buoy in the port of Savanah, And I'm
passsing through on the ICW 15 miles away from Savanah, I can safely choose
to not listen.
I'd like to hear other cruisers' views on this issue. If we can come to
some consensus on it, perhaps we could present our ideas to the appropriate
authority in the Coast Guard in a constructive manner.
Mark Richter, m/v Winnie the Pooh, Ortona, FL
presently tied up in Stuart, FL waiting out the gale
Bound for home on Monday after 7 months and 4900 miles to Canada and back.
I have often thought EXACTLY the same things. I spend most of my time
in the PNW. I don't usually have trouble picking up the transmission
clearly, but, especially up in SE Alaska, the hurried and often careless
diction, and the repetition of useless parts and frequent lack of info
on the "heart" seem pretty silly and ineffective to me.
Richard Cook
New Moon (Bounty 257)
Mark Richter wrote:
<<...many boats cannot even hear the VHF while underway, and tend to
desregard USCG annoucements anyway)">>
Has anyone else noticed that the Coast Guard VHF radio announcements are
poorly formatted and usually unintelligible as well? I have 4 specific
suggestions for improvement.
-
Instead of repeating the "This is United States Coast Guard group
Charleston" part three times (twice at the beginning and once at the end of
the message), reduce this staytement to twice. -
Use the time saved to repeat the "heart" of the message a second time.
After all, this is what the CG supposedly wants us to hear. Perhaps this
repitition would help the poor radio reader have a chance to understand what
he/she is saying and to say it in a way that we can understand over the
radio static and engine noise. -
Give the radio operators a few minutes instruction in diction and
speaking more slowly before letting them get behind the mic of a radio with
several hundred watts of power that will blanket the airwaves for 50-100
miles around. It sounds to me like radio operator is the job of choice for
newbys in the Guard. That's fine, but a tiny bit of training would go a
long way here. -
When the "heart " of the message is "For marine safety broadcast, tune
to channel 22 alpha", give the listeners a clue as to what the announcement
will be about, and what area it applies to. Then we'd know whether to
change over and listen, or ignore the message as we often do now. When the
message is about changes in the buoy in the port of Savanah, And I'm
passsing through on the ICW 15 miles away from Savanah, I can safely choose
to not listen.
I'd like to hear other cruisers' views on this issue. If we can come to
some consensus on it, perhaps we could present our ideas to the appropriate
authority in the Coast Guard in a constructive manner.
Mark, you have a good point, but there is no readily available solution to
the problem. Over the past few years, the Coast Guard has steadily
consolidated various stations and groups into Sectors which are larger in
size. The result has been that the radio operators now broadcast their
Broadcast Notices to Mariners and Marine Weather from several high-sites
simultaneously. This results in often unintelligible radio transmissions as
one or more broadcasts cancel each other out. In most areas of the country,
the local CG sector has been advised by the public of the unintelligibility
of their broadcasts, but has elected to press on anyway, preferring to rely
on promised performance improvements through "Rescue 21", which won't be
coming, since the money to acquire new high-sites and taller towers has
already been spent.
Not all Sectors broadcast their identity three times at the beginning of
each message. This is typically done by a newbie who does not know better.
You'll find that as the radio operators at Sectors gain experience, they
quickly abandon that ancient practice. Do note however that only OS-rated
CG members, standing radio watch at Sectors (formerly Groups) have training
in diction and voice technique. The junior-most member who gets stuck with
radio watchstanding at local Stations, has no school-provided training and
is only given on-the-job training by local Station personnel, many of whom
dutifully pass along their flawed techniques to new people.
As for identifying what messages will be broadcast in advance, typically
they broadcast an entire array of different types of broadcasts; from Aids
to Navigation changes/problems, to Marine Events Announcements, to Search
and Rescue information, to other types. It might take 10 minutes or so to
identify all the types of broadcasts they are about to make. So I don't see
that happening.
Bob Peterson
"Lopaka Nane"
47' Lien Hwa CPMY
San Francisco
Judy and I frequently discussed the poor quality of the USCG broadcasts
during our recent cruise. From Florida to Maine, the overall quality
left a lot to be desired, although some areas were much better or worse
than others.
For starters, I agree with Mark's comments.
Main issues that we see:
(1) Poor diction. Sometimes it was so bad, we couldn't understand what
the speaker was saying. We think the CG should look into the
text-to-speech software that NOAA is now using for its weather
broadcasts. Rather than having an inexperienced person trying to read
something for the first time, just feed the same file as text to the
software that creates the synthetic speech.
(2) Stepping on other CG broadcasts. The range of the CG radios is so
great that stations 200 miles apart were stepping on each other's
broadcasts.
(3) Background noise. Frequently we could hear other voices talking in
the background, or a radio playing, etc. This is pure and simple a lack
of discipline in the broadcast area!
(4) Inconsistent responses to request for radio checks from one CG AOR
to another. One area will gladly respond to a radio check on channel 16;
the next will chew out the requester. Come on, folks, it's all the CG -
why isn't there one policy?
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>Mozilla Thunderbird<><><><><><><><><><><><>
Bob McLeran and Judy Young Manatee Cove Marina
M/V Sanderling Patrick Air Force Base
Hampton 35 Trawler Melbourne, Florida
On 11/4/2006 10:21 AM, Mark Richter wrote:
<<...many boats cannot even hear the VHF while underway, and tend to
desregard USCG annoucements anyway)">>
Has anyone else noticed that the Coast Guard VHF radio announcements are
poorly formatted and usually unintelligible as well? I have 4 specific
suggestions for improvement.
-----Original Message-----
(4) Inconsistent responses to request for radio checks from one CG AOR
to another. One area will gladly respond to a radio check on channel 16;
the next will chew out the requester. Come on, folks, it's all the CG -
why isn't there one policy?
It always amazes me to see that not only do many boaters not know the rules
concerning radio checks, but as Bob points out above, many Coasties don't know
them either.
The restrictions governing radio check procedures are in the FCC regulations in
47CFR80.101(b) (see: http://tinyurl.com/yyua24).
As can be seen on that page, radio checks are not legal on Channel 16 except for
the limited exceptions specified. Radio checks are supposed to be done on
working frequencies (e.g., 68, 69, 71, 72) and not on 16.
As Bob noted in his recent trip up and back down the east coast, many Coasties
will jump on someone requesting a radio check on channel 16 and tell them radio
checks are not done on 16, while the Coastie in the next station up the route is
happily replying to radio check requests. It would be nice if they got their act
together.
Form my own part, I will only request radio checks on working frequencies, and
will not respond to radio check calls on Channel 16. There is enough traffic on
16 already without adding to the din. If the din on 16 gets too high, people
start turning off their radios, and that leaves fewer boats monitoring 16 for
distress traffic.
Kevin Redden
www.BoatMoves.com
The Canadian Coast Guard is more than happy to do radio checks on
channel 22A and seems to encourage them there. I, for one, think it
prudent to check things once a season. I sure don't want to find
that the radio won't punch through when I really need it.
Best,
Steve
Steve Dubnoff
1966 Willard Pilothouse
www.mvnereid.com
sdubnoff@circlesys.com
(unfortunately) i don't know about other districts but USCG radio procedure
and quality in south is a mess, especially Miami.
-
They do not try to prevent Radio checks on 16... on sundays, it's nearly
non stop and goes like this...
radio check radio check anyone
read you loud and clear.
no ID, no location... totally useless, the vessel responding could be 100ft
away... -
broadcasted information is given out as fast as possible (even on 22A) and
usually impossible to understand, especially postions of vessels requiring
assistance or position of UFOs. they spit out the lat/lon like nobody
cares... -
broadcast quality and diction is the worst of any broadcast on VHF... Joe
Sunday in his 18footer sounds better and his easier to understand...
I hate to criticize the men and women who serve in the USCG but i wish
they'd improve their VHF procedures.
pascal
miami, fl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Richter" richter-pooh@rocketmail.com
To: "Trawlers & Trawlering" trawlers-and-trawlering@lists.samurai.com
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 10:21 AM
Subject: T&T: USCG Radio Procedure
<<...many boats cannot even hear the VHF while underway, and tend to
desregard USCG annoucements anyway)">>
Has anyone else noticed that the Coast Guard VHF radio announcements are
poorly formatted and usually unintelligible as well? I have 4 specific
suggestions for improvement.
-
Instead of repeating the "This is United States Coast Guard group
Charleston" part three times (twice at the beginning and once at the end
of
the message), reduce this staytement to twice. -
Use the time saved to repeat the "heart" of the message a second time.
After all, this is what the CG supposedly wants us to hear. Perhaps this
repitition would help the poor radio reader have a chance to understand
what
he/she is saying and to say it in a way that we can understand over the
radio static and engine noise. -
Give the radio operators a few minutes instruction in diction and
speaking more slowly before letting them get behind the mic of a radio
with
several hundred watts of power that will blanket the airwaves for 50-100
miles around. It sounds to me like radio operator is the job of choice
for
newbys in the Guard. That's fine, but a tiny bit of training would go a
long way here. -
When the "heart " of the message is "For marine safety broadcast, tune
to channel 22 alpha", give the listeners a clue as to what the
announcement
will be about, and what area it applies to. Then we'd know whether to
change over and listen, or ignore the message as we often do now. When
the
message is about changes in the buoy in the port of Savanah, And I'm
passsing through on the ICW 15 miles away from Savanah, I can safely
choose
to not listen.
I'd like to hear other cruisers' views on this issue. If we can come to
some consensus on it, perhaps we could present our ideas to the
appropriate
authority in the Coast Guard in a constructive manner.
Mark Richter, m/v Winnie the Pooh, Ortona, FL
presently tied up in Stuart, FL waiting out the gale
Bound for home on Monday after 7 months and 4900 miles to Canada and back.
http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/trawlers-and-trawlering
To unsubscribe send email to
trawlers-and-trawlering-request@lists.samurai.com with the word
UNSUBSCRIBE and nothing else in the subject or body of the message.
Trawlers & Trawlering and T&T are trademarks of Water World
Productions. Unauthorized use is prohibited.
Pascal, it's unclear to me how the Coast Guard could "prevent Radio checks".
It is a long-established method for inexperienced radio operators to
identify themselves to one another, but it is not "preventable" by the Coast
Guard. In your hypothetical radio exchange of information: "radio check,
radio check, anyone", "read you loud and clear" there is no obviously
involvement with the Coast Guard participating in any way!
Bob Peterson
"Lopaka Nane"
47' Lien Hwa CPMY
San Francisco
-----Original Message-----
From: trawlers-and-trawlering-bounces@lists.samurai.com
[mailto:trawlers-and-trawlering-bounces@lists.samurai.com] On Behalf Of
Pascal Gademer
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 3:19 PM
To: Trawlers & Trawlering
Subject: Re: T&T: USCG Radio Procedure
(unfortunately) i don't know about other districts but USCG radio procedure
and quality in south is a mess, especially Miami.
-
They do not try to prevent Radio checks on 16... on sundays, it's nearly
non stop and goes like this...
radio check radio check anyone
read you loud and clear.
no ID, no location... totally useless, the vessel responding could be 100ft
away... -
broadcasted information is given out as fast as possible (even on 22A) and
usually impossible to understand, especially postions of vessels requiring
assistance or position of UFOs. they spit out the lat/lon like nobody
cares... -
broadcast quality and diction is the worst of any broadcast on VHF... Joe
Sunday in his 18footer sounds better and his easier to understand...
I hate to criticize the men and women who serve in the USCG but i wish
they'd improve their VHF procedures.
pascal
miami, fl
In my experience, they (USCG) discourage (cannot prevent as Bob wrote)
radio checks on VHF 16 by telling anyone who tries that radio checks are
inappropriate for channel 16 (or words to that effect) - period. The
word soon gets out to those boaters traveling through the AOR from
another area and for the next couple of hours you won't hear any
attempts on VHF 16; those boaters who frequent the AOR already know and
don't try!
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>Mozilla Thunderbird<><><><><><><><><><><><>
Bob McLeran and Judy Young Manatee Cove Marina
M/V Sanderling Patrick Air Force Base
Hampton 35 Trawler Melbourne, Florida
On 11/4/2006 7:53 PM, Bob Peterson wrote:
Pascal, it's unclear to me how the Coast Guard could "prevent Radio checks".
It is a long-established method for inexperienced radio operators to
identify themselves to one another, but it is not "preventable" by the Coast
Guard. In your hypothetical radio exchange of information: "radio check,
radio check, anyone", "read you loud and clear" there is no obviously
involvement with the Coast Guard participating in any way!
i'm pretty sure that if the USCG, when feasible, would advise these
inexperienced boaters that radio checks should not be conducted on 16,
eventually people woudl get the message.
i heard that some stations do just that, and it works. Not diong anything
about isnt the solution...
Pascal
miami, fl
70 hatteras 53my
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Peterson" bob@peterson.org
To: "'Pascal Gademer'" pascal@pam-trading.com; "'Trawlers & Trawlering'"
trawlers-and-trawlering@lists.samurai.com
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 7:53 PM
Subject: RE: T&T: USCG Radio Procedure
Pascal, it's unclear to me how the Coast Guard could "prevent Radio
checks".
It is a long-established method for inexperienced radio operators to
identify themselves to one another, but it is not "preventable" by the
Coast
Guard. In your hypothetical radio exchange of information: "radio check,
radio check, anyone", "read you loud and clear" there is no obviously
involvement with the Coast Guard participating in any way!
Bob Peterson
"Lopaka Nane"
47' Lien Hwa CPMY
San Francisco
-----Original Message-----
From: trawlers-and-trawlering-bounces@lists.samurai.com
[mailto:trawlers-and-trawlering-bounces@lists.samurai.com] On Behalf Of
Pascal Gademer
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 3:19 PM
To: Trawlers & Trawlering
Subject: Re: T&T: USCG Radio Procedure
(unfortunately) i don't know about other districts but USCG radio
procedure
and quality in south is a mess, especially Miami.
-
They do not try to prevent Radio checks on 16... on sundays, it's
nearly
non stop and goes like this...
radio check radio check anyone
read you loud and clear.
no ID, no location... totally useless, the vessel responding could be
100ft
away... -
broadcasted information is given out as fast as possible (even on 22A)
and
usually impossible to understand, especially postions of vessels requiring
assistance or position of UFOs. they spit out the lat/lon like nobody
cares... -
broadcast quality and diction is the worst of any broadcast on VHF...
Joe
Sunday in his 18footer sounds better and his easier to understand...
I hate to criticize the men and women who serve in the USCG but i wish
they'd improve their VHF procedures.
pascal
miami, fl
If the CG responds, isn't that pretty much a radio check? They heard you, you heard them?
-----Original Message-----
From: pascal@pam-trading.com
To: trawlers-and-trawlering@lists.samurai.com
Sent: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: T&T: USCG Radio Procedure
i'm pretty sure that if the USCG, when feasible, would advise these
inexperienced boaters that radio checks should not be conducted on 16,
eventually people woudl get the message.
i heard that some stations do just that, and it works. Not diong anything
about isnt the solution...
Pascal
miami, fl
70 hatteras 53my
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Peterson" bob@peterson.org
To: "'Pascal Gademer'" pascal@pam-trading.com; "'Trawlers & Trawlering'"
trawlers-and-trawlering@lists.samurai.com
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 7:53 PM
Subject: RE: T&T: USCG Radio Procedure
Pascal, it's unclear to me how the Coast Guard could "prevent Radio
checks".
It is a long-established method for inexperienced radio operators to
identify themselves to one another, but it is not "preventable" by the
Coast
Guard. In your hypothetical radio exchange of information: "radio check,
radio check, anyone", "read you loud and clear" there is no obviously
involvement with the Coast Guard participating in any way!
Bob Peterson
"Lopaka Nane"
47' Lien Hwa CPMY
San Francisco
-----Original Message-----
From: trawlers-and-trawlering-bounces@lists.samurai.com
[mailto:trawlers-and-trawlering-bounces@lists.samurai.com] On Behalf Of
Pascal Gademer
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 3:19 PM
To: Trawlers & Trawlering
Subject: Re: T&T: USCG Radio Procedure
(unfortunately) i don't know about other districts but USCG radio
procedure
and quality in south is a mess, especially Miami.
-
They do not try to prevent Radio checks on 16... on sundays, it's
nearly
non stop and goes like this...
radio check radio check anyone
read you loud and clear.
no ID, no location... totally useless, the vessel responding could be
100ft
away... -
broadcasted information is given out as fast as possible (even on 22A)
and
usually impossible to understand, especially postions of vessels requiring
assistance or position of UFOs. they spit out the lat/lon like nobody
cares... -
broadcast quality and diction is the worst of any broadcast on VHF...
Joe
Sunday in his 18footer sounds better and his easier to understand...
I hate to criticize the men and women who serve in the USCG but i wish
they'd improve their VHF procedures.
pascal
miami, fl
http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/trawlers-and-trawlering
To unsubscribe send email to
trawlers-and-trawlering-request@lists.samurai.com with the word
UNSUBSCRIBE and nothing else in the subject or body of the message.
Trawlers & Trawlering and T&T are trademarks of Water World
Productions. Unauthorized use is prohibited.
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
The idea behind a radio check is to establish the range, strength, and
clarity of your transmission. To do this, you want to speak to a vessel at
the limits of your line-of-sight range. When someone says they here you
"loud and clear" as opposed to "weak and garbled," then you know that you
can communicate to the theoretical limit of your range.
Communication with some USCG facilities can give you an exaggerated
impression of the range of your signal because some of their towers can be
250' in the air. In emergencies, the CG can use amplifiers which greatly
increase their signal strength and overwhelm competing signals.
So it is best if you can reach another pleasure boat at a know distance from
your vessel. If you can reach them, it is probable that you can reach that
you can reach the CG - especially if the rating on the other end is
adequately trained to switch to the appropriate antenna.
Ron Rogers
----- Original Message -----
From: loraxt10@aol.com
| If the CG responds, isn't that pretty much a radio check? They heard you,
you heard them?
Unfortunately, Pascal; it doesn't work that way. There are more and more
untrained, inexperienced boaters demonstrating their total unfamiliarity
with radio procedures every day. I have, as I'm sure others have, overheard
clueless types calling the Coast Guard and the Pilot Boat and damn near
everyone else they can think of, begging for a radio check. Someone has
trained them that radio checks on Ch.16 are normal, legal and expected and
they seem genuinely baffled when someone answers them with "Loud and
Illegal" or words to that effect. Some of them attempt to inject some humor
into their ignorant behavior by replying to the Coast Guard's "radio checks
are not permitted on Channel 16" with "Oh, I see then I'm loud and clear,
thanks".
A month or two ago I personally overheard a particularly clueless type
monopolize Channel 16 for nearly 20 minutes, calling everyone and anyone
asking for a radio check. It was eventually disclosed by someone else that
the goof-off had either his radio's Squelch control advanced to full and/or
he had his volume turned completely down! So the fact that he could not
hear the Coast Guard and others who were attempting to ignore him by not
answering, proved only that he was intent on getting a radio check from
someone and would NOT stop until he got one.
Bob Peterson
"Lopaka Nane"
47' Lien Hwa CPMY
San Francisco
-----Original Message-----
From: trawlers-and-trawlering-bounces@lists.samurai.com
[mailto:trawlers-and-trawlering-bounces@lists.samurai.com] On Behalf Of
Pascal Gademer
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 6:41 PM
To: 'Trawlers & Trawlering'
Subject: Re: T&T: USCG Radio Procedure
i'm pretty sure that if the USCG, when feasible, would advise these
inexperienced boaters that radio checks should not be conducted on 16,
eventually people woudl get the message.
i heard that some stations do just that, and it works. Not diong anything
about isnt the solution...
Pascal
miami, fl
70 hatteras 53my
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Peterson" bob@peterson.org
To: "'Pascal Gademer'" pascal@pam-trading.com; "'Trawlers & Trawlering'"
trawlers-and-trawlering@lists.samurai.com
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 7:53 PM
Subject: RE: T&T: USCG Radio Procedure
Pascal, it's unclear to me how the Coast Guard could "prevent Radio
checks".
It is a long-established method for inexperienced radio operators to
identify themselves to one another, but it is not "preventable" by the
Coast
Guard. In your hypothetical radio exchange of information: "radio check,
radio check, anyone", "read you loud and clear" there is no obviously
involvement with the Coast Guard participating in any way!
Bob Peterson
"Lopaka Nane"
47' Lien Hwa CPMY
San Francisco
Ron, quite correct. In fact, to prove the point in my USCGAux Boating
safety classes, I would often unscrew the rubber duckie antenna from the
handheld VHF radio I was using for the class, and then call the Coast Guard
asking for a radio check sticking a ballpoint pen into the radio's BNC
antenna connector. Most of the students' mouths dropped open when they
heard the local Coast Guard group respond with a "Loud and clear". In
explanation to their questions, I pointed out that by the time a signal is
received and routed through dozens of CG microwave and hard-wired links from
the mountaintop high-site to the CG station, their audio had been through so
many audio processors it was heard "loud and clear" at the CG station. So
not only is the practice of requesting radio checks from the Coast Guard on
Channel 16 illegal (per FCC regulations) it does not yield accurate checks.
Just so everyone knows, the Coast Guard does NOT use amplifiers on their
transmitters. But most of their mountaintop high-sites are several thousand
feet high, not just the 250' that Ron mentions. As Ron hints, the best
practice, if you really have some reason to believe that your radio no
longer works, even though it did only minutes or hours ago, is the switch
over to 68 or 72 or some other local chit-chat channel and listen until you
hear someone and at the end of his conversation, request a radio check from
him. If he fails to provide his location you can ask for it and thus get an
accurate estimate of your maximum range.
Bob Peterson
"Lopaka Nane"
47' Lien Hwa CPMY
San Francisco
-----Original Message-----
From: trawlers-and-trawlering-bounces@lists.samurai.com
[mailto:trawlers-and-trawlering-bounces@lists.samurai.com] On Behalf Of Ron
Rogers
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 8:05 PM
To: pascal@pam-trading.com; trawlers-and-trawlering@lists.samurai.com;
loraxt10@aol.com
Subject: Re: T&T: USCG Radio Procedure
The idea behind a radio check is to establish the range, strength, and
clarity of your transmission. To do this, you want to speak to a vessel at
the limits of your line-of-sight range. When someone says they here you
"loud and clear" as opposed to "weak and garbled," then you know that you
can communicate to the theoretical limit of your range.
Communication with some USCG facilities can give you an exaggerated
impression of the range of your signal because some of their towers can be
250' in the air. In emergencies, the CG can use amplifiers which greatly
increase their signal strength and overwhelm competing signals.
So it is best if you can reach another pleasure boat at a know distance from
your vessel. If you can reach them, it is probable that you can reach that
you can reach the CG - especially if the rating on the other end is
adequately trained to switch to the appropriate antenna.
Ron Rogers
----- Original Message -----
From: loraxt10@aol.com
| If the CG responds, isn't that pretty much a radio check? They heard you,
you heard them?
http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/trawlers-and-trawlering
To unsubscribe send email to
trawlers-and-trawlering-request@lists.samurai.com with the word
UNSUBSCRIBE and nothing else in the subject or body of the message.
Trawlers & Trawlering and T&T are trademarks of Water World
Productions. Unauthorized use is prohibited.
Funny, (or not) if you bug the CG about radio stuff, they'll tell you it's
not their problem and to call the FCC. I couldn't believe this one time...
somebody had a microphone keyed up permanently in or near my marina, making
communications impossible for a few miles. This went on about two weeks and
I finally called the USCG Galveston on the phone to tell them about it.
Their response: "Well we can't hear it". I suggested that since they were in
Galveston, they couldn't and maybe they'd want to send a boat to investigate
if they didn't want to take my word for it". They told me it wasn't their
problem and to call the FCC. And by the way, they had no idea who to tell me
to call. Pissed me off enough that I literally looked up the FCC's main
office and started there. Worked my way down to a local guy finally, who
best as I could tell came out with some triangulation equipment and found
the boat and finally shut the radio off after about three weeks of this
business.
Keith
Pardon my driving, I'm reloading.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Redden" kfredden@verizon.net
It always amazes me to see that not only do many boaters not know the
rules
concerning radio checks, but as Bob points out above, many Coasties don't
know
them either.
The restrictions governing radio check procedures are in the FCC
regulations in
47CFR80.101(b) (see: http://tinyurl.com/yyua24).
I usually just wait for someone to ask for a radio check and reply to them,
giving my position and how their signal is. When they respond with a "thank
you" I know mine is working as well.
Keith
A day without sunshine is like, well, night.
----- Original Message -----
From: loraxt10@aol.com
If the CG responds, isn't that pretty much a radio check? They heard you,
you heard them?
If I recall correctly, I read somewhere that both the US and Canada are now
requiring (or re-instated) licencing requirements on transmitters for the
simple reason to teach people how to properly use them.
Rob
Somewhere in snowy land locked Alberta
At 11:58 PM 11/4/2006 -0800, you wrote:
Unfortunately, Pascal; it doesn't work that way. There are more and more
untrained, inexperienced boaters demonstrating their total unfamiliarity
with radio procedures every day. I
Back when I was employed by a very large national Canadian police service
and when someone actually cared for proper radio proceedure a police
vehicle came into the headquarters area from an outlying detachment. The
operator made some sort of proceedural mistake on the radio and was
immediately chastized by the CO of the division. This was possible as
proceedure called for every car to identify itself before transmitting and
the Brass all had certain cars that everyone knew were assigned to them.
Anyway, the member did something very wrong, ie probably swore over the air
and failed to ID itself, and immediately there was a transmission that went
like this "3Delta2, car transmitting last statement identify itself
immediately" There was a long pause and the miscreat came back on the air
and said "What, do you think I'm F'g crazy?"
I don't think they ever did identify who it was.
One other time a member took a car into the city to go shopping with his
wife (he tied this into a trip to the crime lab to drop off exhibits) and
along the way the radio mike dropped between the seats and jammed open. So
for 40 minutes while they traversed our radio area we were treated to
hearing them discuss all sorts of family things. I guess it could have been
worse, they could have been bitching about a member.
Rob
Sunday, November 5, 2006, 7:37:57 AM, Rob wrote:
RZ> If I recall correctly, I read somewhere that both the US and Canada are now
RZ> requiring (or re-instated) licencing requirements on transmitters for the
RZ> simple reason to teach people how to properly use them.
RZ> Rob
RZ> Somewhere in snowy land locked Alberta
Canada has always required Operator Certificates for marine radio. Canadian Power Squadrons now does the exams, and issues the certificates, on behalf of Industry Canada (the Canadian equivalent tof FCC).
Canadians do not require station licences (the permit for installing a radio on a boat) while operating in Canada, but we do require a station licence when travelling ot forgien lands, such as the USA.
--
Peter Bennett, VE7CEI Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lien Hwa 28 (AKA Polaris 30) "Sea Spray"
GPS and NMEA info: http://vancouver-webpages.com/peter
Vancouver Power Squadron: http://vancouver.powersquadron.ca
There are many differences between the Right Coast and the Left Coast. {;^))
On the East Coast we only have high seaside terrain in Maine (I think.) So
the highest coastal towers we have had are 250 feet. Whether the new system
can provide higher towers is unknown to me. Near the coast here in North
Carolina we do have 1800 foot TV towers. It would be interesting to know
whether the CG could benefit from being tenants on such a tower. Of course,
all remote towers have line signal boosters to maintain signal strength
and often use telephone lines to get the signal to Sector Headquarters and
some Stations.
However, the CG does utilize a high wattage, relay transmitter on the
Chesapeake Bay Bridge. There are two ways that you can tell that they are
using it. First there is an initial squeal to wake up the remote amplifier.
Second, It blanks out all transmissions as far South as Oxford by
observation. It may reach further. They also use that antenna without the
amp. If Station Annapolis (for example) cannot achieve "seelonce MAYDAY"
Sector Baltimore will blast it out to shut everybody up. Whether this
capability exists anywhere else - I just don't know. But there must be some
high traffic areas where they keep this capability in reserve. As DSC gains
wider acceptance, this capability will become less important.
Ron Rogers
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Peterson" bob@peterson.org
|
| Just so everyone knows, the Coast Guard does NOT use amplifiers on their
| transmitters. But most of their mountaintop high-sites are several
thousand
| feet high, not just the 250' that Ron mentions. As Ron hints, the best
| practice, if you really have some reason to believe that your radio no
| longer works, even though it did only minutes or hours ago, is the switch
| over to 68 or 72 or some other local chit-chat channel and listen until
you
| hear someone and at the end of his conversation, request a radio check
from
| him. If he fails to provide his location you can ask for it and thus get
an
| accurate estimate of your maximum range.
In the Annapolis area, the CG requested that the FCC locate a transmitter
whose signal was so good that it made commo impossible. They found it in two
days using FCC RDF vans. It was a trawler hooked to dock AC with a 10db
antenna. The poor guy had installed a new radio and hung the mike proximate
to a cabinet door and left the VHF on. The door opened and squeezed the mike
on.
He did not receive a fine although the FCC complimented him on his
installation. I learned all this because my buddy had a commercial ADF and
we called to give the FCC a bearing. They were surprised that he had nailed
the azimuth and told us the story. Thank heavens there were no MAYDAYS
Sunday evening and all day Monday. The CG responded along with the FCC
because the vessel was in a slip 3 miles from Station Annapolis.
Ron Rogers
Please do not call the US Coast Guard to perform radio checks. These should
be done on a working channel.
The Communications Watch Standers normally monitor many high sites at the
same time. He or she may be working an incident on a high site that you
cannot hear from your location. He or she may also be working with Coast
Guard or other emergency assets on a frequency that you can not hear on your
VHF. He or she may be monitoring other types of communications equipment.
Coast Guard Communications Watch Standers have many tasks to perform and
they do not include checking your radio.
Captain Todd Mains
Scappoose, OR
Yes Keith, that occasionally happens. As I've tried to stress on this
thread, Coast Guard Stations have little to no training in radio operation.
Watchstanders at Coast Guard Sectors do. Clearly you got a hold of someone
behind the power curve when it came to these matters. What they should have
done is either take the initiative to call the FCC themselves, or refer the
matter (and you) to the local CG Sector, who would be intimately familiar
with working with the FCC on such issues.
Technically, they were correct: stuck mic's and improperly operated marine
radios fall within the jurisdiction of the FCC, not the Coast Guard.
However, due to the nature of the beast, it is the CG that usually becomes
aware of these violations and all CG Sectors have a close working
relationship with the local FCC office, although as explained, some CG
Stations don't. In the example you cite, clearly that CG station could not
be expected to pursue a stuck mic that they couldn't hear.
Bob Peterson
"Lopaka Nane"
47' Lien Hwa CPMY
San Francisco
-----Original Message-----
From: trawlers-and-trawlering-bounces@lists.samurai.com
[mailto:trawlers-and-trawlering-bounces@lists.samurai.com] On Behalf Of
Keith
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 3:28 AM
To: Trawlers & Trawlering List
Subject: Re: T&T: Radio Checks (was: USCG Radio Procedure)
Funny, (or not) if you bug the CG about radio stuff, they'll tell you it's
not their problem and to call the FCC. I couldn't believe this one time...
somebody had a microphone keyed up permanently in or near my marina, making
communications impossible for a few miles. This went on about two weeks and
I finally called the USCG Galveston on the phone to tell them about it.
Their response: "Well we can't hear it". I suggested that since they were in
Galveston, they couldn't and maybe they'd want to send a boat to investigate
if they didn't want to take my word for it". They told me it wasn't their
problem and to call the FCC. And by the way, they had no idea who to tell me
to call. Pissed me off enough that I literally looked up the FCC's main
office and started there. Worked my way down to a local guy finally, who
best as I could tell came out with some triangulation equipment and found
the boat and finally shut the radio off after about three weeks of this
business.
Keith
That's fine, as long as you realize that you too are violating the FCC Rules
and Regs, and an overzealous FCC rep could fine you for aiding and abetting
the radio-check requester's misguided actions. Yes, it has happened!
Bob Peterson
"Lopaka Nane"
47' Lien Hwa CPMY
San Francisco
-----Original Message-----
From: trawlers-and-trawlering-bounces@lists.samurai.com
[mailto:trawlers-and-trawlering-bounces@lists.samurai.com] On Behalf Of
Keith
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 3:38 AM
To: trawlers-and-trawlering@lists.samurai.com
Subject: Re: T&T: USCG Radio Procedure
I usually just wait for someone to ask for a radio check and reply to them,
giving my position and how their signal is. When they respond with a "thank
you" I know mine is working as well.
Keith
Rob, wish that were the case; alas, that is not correct. First off, it
would not be the Coast Guard implementing such policy, they have no
jurisdiction over marine radio licensing, the FCC (in the US) does. It is
correct that those who operate HF marine radios or who transit into other
countries DO need to have an Operator Permit or License, but the average Joe
Boater who doesn't venture across international borders, nor operate
advanced equipment, does not need a license or permit.
Bob Peterson
"Lopaka Nane"
47' Lien Hwa CPMY
San Francisco
-----Original Message-----
From: trawlers-and-trawlering-bounces+bob=peterson.org@lists.samurai.com
[mailto:trawlers-and-trawlering-bounces+bob=peterson.org@lists.samurai.com]
On Behalf Of Rob Zanussi
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 7:38 AM
To: trawlers-and-trawlering@lists.samurai.com
Subject: Re: T&T: USCG Radio Procedure
If I recall correctly, I read somewhere that both the US and Canada are now
requiring (or re-instated) licencing requirements on transmitters for the
simple reason to teach people how to properly use them.
Rob
Somewhere in snowy land locked Alberta
To be clearer, those who boat across international borders or possess HF or
other advanced comm gear, need a Station License, not just the Operator
Permit required of all marine radio operators.
Bob Peterson
"Lopaka Nane"
47' Lien Hwa CPMY
San Francisco
-----Original Message-----
From: trawlers-and-trawlering-bounces@lists.samurai.com
[mailto:trawlers-and-trawlering-bounces@lists.samurai.com] On Behalf Of Bob
Peterson
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 10:23 AM
To: 'Rob Zanussi'; trawlers-and-trawlering@lists.samurai.com
Subject: Re: T&T: USCG Radio Procedure
Rob, wish that were the case; alas, that is not correct. First off, it
would not be the Coast Guard implementing such policy, they have no
jurisdiction over marine radio licensing, the FCC (in the US) does. It is
correct that those who operate HF marine radios or who transit into other
countries DO need to have an Operator Permit or License, but the average Joe
Boater who doesn't venture across international borders, nor operate
advanced equipment, does not need a license or permit.
Bob Peterson
"Lopaka Nane"
47' Lien Hwa CPMY
San Francisco
-----Original Message-----
From: trawlers-and-trawlering-bounces+bob=peterson.org@lists.samurai.com
[mailto:trawlers-and-trawlering-bounces+bob=peterson.org@lists.samurai.com]
On Behalf Of Rob Zanussi
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 7:38 AM
To: trawlers-and-trawlering@lists.samurai.com
Subject: Re: T&T: USCG Radio Procedure
If I recall correctly, I read somewhere that both the US and Canada are now
requiring (or re-instated) licencing requirements on transmitters for the
simple reason to teach people how to properly use them.
Rob
Somewhere in snowy land locked Alberta