Hi Jack,

I guess I am confused. The link you show below are the exact channels
that I am talking about. At the top of the page they say that they are
monitored and part way down they say that they are NOT monitored.



This is the quote from about the middle of the page you gave the link
for:
"Note that except for the digital selective calling channels listed at
the bottom of this page, the frequency channels described here are
generally not Global Maritime Distress & Safety System (GMDSS)
distress and safety channels. The Coast Guard does NOT monitor GMDSS
radiotelephone or radiotelex channels."


There was probably a misunderstanding about those being monitored then,
GMDSS are no, except 2182 which is guarded by Groups.. These are guarded:
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/marcomms/...uency/call.htm

These are the channels that I am saying you cannot get an answer on.
Are we talking about the same thing here?

Thanks
Gary


On Mon, 10 May 2004 20:38:27 -0400, "Jack Painter"
wrote:


"Gary Schafer" wrote in message
.. .
Hi Jack,


Hello Gary,

I see that in the frequency list that it says: "The Coast Guard does
NOT monitor GMDSS radiotelephone or radiotelex channels."

Right, and this is more or less standard worldwide, if a DSC emergency call
is received then the related voice channel would have callouts made on it.
We do this for any emergency received, regardless of how far away it might
be.

I have heard several people say that they have never been able to
raise the Coast guard on any of those frequencies. Even though they
elude to the fact that they monitor them at the top of the page.

There was probably a misunderstanding about those being monitored then,
GMDSS are no, except 2182 which is guarded by Groups.. These are guarded:
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/marcomms/...uency/call.htm

Awhile back I saw something on the Coast guard site that said "you may
need to make repeated calls for lengthy time" in order to raise them.

Are you saying that these channels are monitored?

Not sure if you were talking about the scheduled-guarded freqs I just
referenced, so please let me know. While we have many transmitters at each
of the remote sites (Boston, Virginia Beach (called Portsmouth out of
tradition), Miami, and New Orleans, sometimes all available transmitters
could be busy covering SCN, Air to Ground, HFDX, e-mails and other Cutter
traffic, etc. So a (hopefully) short wait is almost assured at any given
moment. Even before the USCG and USCG Auxiliary joined the Department of
Homeland Security, we were tasked with supporting Customs, Immigration,
Border Patrol, Agriculture, and security. Those support missions are now
ten-fold of what they once were, and the traditional law enforcements of
Fisheries, treaties, commercial saftey and pleasure boat safety are growing
every year as well. S it is a challenging and exciting time to be serving
and I hope your future experiences are all supportive and satisfactory. And
as Doug alluded to jokingly, no a report of an incident won't fix things,
but it helps, and the lack of effort to improve the system never got us
anywhere!

Best regards,

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach

Thanks
Gary


On Mon, 10 May 2004 18:35:20 -0400, "Jack Painter"
wrote:

"Doug Dotson" wrote in message
...
Hummm. Last time needed help and was out of VHF range I was
never able to raise any USCG station on marine SSB. When I did
finally get within range of a VHF CG station (very poor signal). I
asked
if I could switch to an SSB frequency for better communications. I was
told that USCG no longer monitored Marine SSB, so it was poor
VHF or nothing. A few comments below.

Doug
s/v Callista

Doug,

I'm sorry to hear about your bad experience with USCG communications. HF
propagation is, as you know better than most, is never a sure thing,
especially from long distance, low power, solar activity and other
interference. But we do the very best possible 24/7 to maintain the best
HF
coverage of any agency in the world from the USCG communication stations.

When the T/V Bow Mariner exploded and sank, they put out one Mayday on
2182
USB.
Four USCG Groups from Newport RI to Charleston SC answered it almost
simulataneously. It has been and continues to be monitored at every USCG
Group. CAMSLANT CHEASPEAKE (Virginia), where I work, monitors several
listed
SSB maritime band guard frequencies and will assist any mariner on them
(We
do not monitor 2182, Groups do that). CAMSPAC PT REYES in California does
the same for Pacific traffic. If you made a call on one of those guarded
frequencies, and you believe your radio worked, and it was not answered,
you
should make a report to the USCG about it. If a mariner cannot obtain
good
copy from one of the many guarded SSB maritime channels, I sure don't
know
why the odds would be better on a circuit they are not authorized to use
_except in an emergency_, as they would not know the times guarded,
direction or location antennas pointed, etc. If you are authorized to
modify
a radio, I'm sure you would try that route, but it is not legal advice to
give to the general boating public, including commercial craft to modify
or
illegally operate SSB radios. Tracking down abuse from commercial
fishermen
is easier than some might think, and when they operate on government
curcuits they are prosecuted.

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/marcomms/default.htm has all the information
about maritime SSB guard frequencies and other means of communications
for
emergencies at sea.

As to why the license which is good for ten years to life, depending on
class and type, could cost $150, that's not something we can do anything
about, unless you think your Congressman would lobby the FCC to change
it.

Hope this was some help,

73's

Jack Painter
USCG Auxiliary
Virginia Beach, Va


"Jack Painter" wrote in message
news:gkDnc.34930$pJ1.10709@lakeread02...
Hi Doug,

Yes I'm aware that a licensed Amateur Radio operator can build and
modify
equipment with the proper class license.

I beleive any license class is acceptable.

We rely on your expertise and
abilities in communication emergencies. I am the Emergency Readiness
Coordinator for the USCG Auxiliary Division 5, Port of Hampton Roads,
Va,
and we utilize all available agencies and volunteers in an emergency.
What
is bad practice though, is to encourage anyone to modify
communications
equipment which as you know, is permitted only under very limited
circumstances and could not therefore be acceptable for general use
in
emergency communications. If you can't do it legally, can't test it,
can't
tune it, and can't practice with it, you shouldn't have been
encouraged
to
consider such equipment as part of your planning for emergencies.

There are several ham rigs on the market now that are type accepted for
marine SSB use. The mods are legal and operating them on the marine
SSB frequencies is legal. The SGC SG-2000 was the first one to be
granted type acceptance, but I'm pretty sure that several others are
now accepted.

Responsible sailors can easily get a license for SSB marine
operations

So can irresponsible sailors. If they want to encourage sailors to get
the license, why charge $150 for it?

and
learn how to contact the USCG and other monitoring agencies,
including
commercial and volunteer watchstanders on authorized SSB marine
bands. I
work in this field for USCG HF communications, and we are happy to
provide
assistance to boaters in this matter.

Well as I said earlier, the only time I was in an emergency situation,
I
got
absolutely nowhere with marine SSB.

Best regards,

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, Va


"Doug Dotson" wrote in message
...
Fortunately, ham radio is not under the same rules as marine
SSB when it comes to modifications. Type accepted marine gear
cannot
be modified but ham gear can. I can build my own rig if I want to
and I am not violating any law unless have emmisions that are in
violation to those specified (freq, spurious radiation, harmonics,
etc).
In other words, I can't violate the law unless I transmit.
If you look closer at the rules, all rules are suspended in an
emergency.
So transmitting on a modified rig is not illegal in an emergency.

As far as having a cheap rig on board, that is a personal choice. I
have
cruised with many that don't have an SSB.

Doug (That is my real name)
s/v Callista

"Jack Painter" wrote in message
news:fgCnc.34527$pJ1.28623@lakeread02...
Gee, how do you really feel about it? Nice language. Those of us
whose
parents were married don't talk that way. And we don't hide
behind
phony
internet ID's.

Anyone thinking about unauthorized mods to a SSB radio can write
me
and
I
will be glad to find a local representative in your area where
you
can
have
the law explained to you in person.

"master" try to teach his only mate, a totally inexperienced
girl,
how
to
raise the mainsail while he headed them out into 10' rollers
in a
25kt
NE

That's poor judgement, and good sailors have no problem
understanding
this.

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, VA

"santacruz" wrote in message
...
I'm not normally rude to ****heads like you - but you're not
answering
his question. You must be another ****ing Bush Republican.

It is perfectly legal to modify ham radios so they can transmit
on
marine SSB freq's in an emergency.

Go ask your Mother - she'll confirm this.

BTW - 25 knots and 10 ft seas in a 38' boat is just exciting
sailing.
We get that frequently between Long Beach and Catalina - and
it's
great fast sailing.




On Sun, 9 May 2004 01:13:45 -0400, "Jack Painter"

wrote:

"Eric" wrote in message
. com...
I am looking for an inexpensive tranceiver for my sailboat.I
am
rapidly running out of money and need a cheap reliable rig.I
have
just
insulated my backstay(37 feet).aAny ideas? Thanks,Eric.

Eric,

Your somewhat typical request elcited somewhat typical replies
so
far.

Maybe it's helpful to you to get an answer to that question,
but
I
think
you're attitude is likely to cost someone's life, probably
your
own.
If
you
really think getting a "cheap reliable rig" as you are now
"rapidly
running
out of money" is the acceptable order of things before an
offshore
excursion, you are an accident waiting to happen. Well meaning
but
improper
advice from the group comes complete with telling you it's
easy
to
break
the
law, and encouraging you to do so. These legal eagles really
believe
that
so
long as you later have an emergency (assured in your case
Eric),
you
didn't
break any law. They are wrong, as are your priorities. Instead
of
compounding your mistakes with their bad advice, your whole
sailing
experience would be more enjoyable and safer if you would
learn
some
simple
safe boating practices. Then you would be more likely to
prevent
the
need
for cheap radios you are not licensed or trained to use, as
well
as
understand the fallacy of advice to believe in illegal
operation
as
a
saving
grace to other inadequacies.

I recommend you take some seamanship, communications and other
safe
boating
courses offered by the United States Power Squadrons and
United
States
Coast
Guard Auxiliary via your nearest marina or boating center.
Then
you
could
be
safely enjoying the water and able to help others do the same
instead
of
learning to break the law and operating recklessly from a
vessel
and
crew
of
uncertain capabilities. Like the 38' sloop we saw today -
watching
her
"master" try to teach his only mate, a totally inexperienced
girl,
how
to
raise the mainsail while he headed them out into 10' rollers
in a
25kt
NE
under small craft warnings this morning. I wonder if he was
confident
that
his illegally modifed "cheap" SSB radio could have raised us.
It
would
fit
the bill.

Sincerely,

Jack Painter
USCG Auxiliary
Virginia Beach, Va

There are several ham rigs on the market now that are type accepted for
marine SSB use.

Gawdamit Doug, you gotta learn to think like a bureaucrat, specifically a CG
bureaucrat. Those are not "ham rigs that are type accepted" as normal folks
might think! They are "Marine Radios" that hams are allowed use on amateur
bands!! (c:

Gary,

Only the frequencies listed at the bottom of the page are DSC-GMDSS
frequencies, and they are not guarded for voice _unless_ a DSC distress is
received first.. So of course they are guarded by DSC equipment and messages
will be replied to with DSC only when reply is requested. Since the U.S does
not officially have a Sea Area A2 yet, 2187.5 and the accompanying 2182
voice are not the best choice for DSC distress calls. That was however the
only one the Bow Mariner chose to make it's DSC distress and subsequent
voice call on.

The frequencies with guard-times and station listings on that page are
guarded for voice, radiotelex etc as individually listed.

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/marcomms/...uency/call.htm

Jack

"Gary Schafer" wrote in message
...

This is the quote from about the middle of the page you gave the link
for:
"Note that except for the digital selective calling channels listed at
the bottom of this page, the frequency channels described here are
generally not Global Maritime Distress & Safety System (GMDSS)
distress and safety channels. The Coast Guard does NOT monitor GMDSS
radiotelephone or radiotelex channels."

Hi Jack,

I am still confused. At the top of the page on your link it says:
"HF Distress and Safety Watchkeeping Schedule - last updated 17 Feb
2004
HF RADIOTELEPHONE (SINGLE SIDEBAND) - Contact and Long Range
Liaison"

Aren't they implying that these frequencies are monitored at all times
as listed?

So are you saying that if I were to call the coast guard on voice on
6200 or 8240 from the East coast, that I would immediately get a
reply?

These are the frequencies that people have told me that they can not
raise the coast guard on after many many calls.

Thanks
Gary


On Tue, 11 May 2004 12:12:08 -0400, "Jack Painter"
wrote:

Gary,

Only the frequencies listed at the bottom of the page are DSC-GMDSS
frequencies, and they are not guarded for voice _unless_ a DSC distress is
received first.. So of course they are guarded by DSC equipment and messages
will be replied to with DSC only when reply is requested. Since the U.S does
not officially have a Sea Area A2 yet, 2187.5 and the accompanying 2182
voice are not the best choice for DSC distress calls. That was however the
only one the Bow Mariner chose to make it's DSC distress and subsequent
voice call on.

The frequencies with guard-times and station listings on that page are
guarded for voice, radiotelex etc as individually listed.

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/marcomms/...uency/call.htm

Jack

"Gary Schafer" wrote in message
.. .

This is the quote from about the middle of the page you gave the link
for:
"Note that except for the digital selective calling channels listed at
the bottom of this page, the frequency channels described here are
generally not Global Maritime Distress & Safety System (GMDSS)
distress and safety channels. The Coast Guard does NOT monitor GMDSS
radiotelephone or radiotelex channels."

Gary,

Only the frequencies listed at the bottom of the page are DSC-GMDSS
frequencies, and they are not guarded for voice _unless_ a DSC distress is
received first.. So of course they are guarded by DSC equipment and messages
will be replied to with DSC only when reply is requested. Since the U.S does
not officially have a Sea Area A2 yet, 2187.5 and the accompanying 2182
voice are not the best choice for DSC distress calls. That was however the
only one the Bow Mariner chose to make it's DSC distress and subsequent
voice call on.

The frequencies with guard-times and station listings on that page are
guarded for voice, radiotelex etc as individually listed.

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/marcomms/...uency/call.htm

Jack

"Gary Schafer" wrote in message
...
Hi Jack,

I am still confused. At the top of the page on your link it says:
"HF Distress and Safety Watchkeeping Schedule - last updated 17 Feb
2004
HF RADIOTELEPHONE (SINGLE SIDEBAND) - Contact and Long Range
Liaison"

Aren't they implying that these frequencies are monitored at all times
as listed?

So are you saying that if I were to call the coast guard on voice on
6200 or 8240 from the East coast, that I would immediately get a
reply?

These are the frequencies that people have told me that they can not
raise the coast guard on after many many calls.

Thanks
Gary


On Tue, 11 May 2004 12:12:08 -0400, "Jack Painter"
wrote:

Gary,

Only the frequencies listed at the bottom of the page are DSC-GMDSS
frequencies, and they are not guarded for voice _unless_ a DSC distress
is
received first.. So of course they are guarded by DSC equipment and
messages
will be replied to with DSC only when reply is requested. Since the U.S
does
not officially have a Sea Area A2 yet, 2187.5 and the accompanying 2182
voice are not the best choice for DSC distress calls. That was however
the
only one the Bow Mariner chose to make it's DSC distress and subsequent
voice call on.

The frequencies with guard-times and station listings on that page are
guarded for voice, radiotelex etc as individually listed.

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/marcomms/...uency/call.htm

Jack

"Gary Schafer" wrote in message
.. .

This is the quote from about the middle of the page you gave the link
for:
"Note that except for the digital selective calling channels listed at
the bottom of this page, the frequency channels described here are
generally not Global Maritime Distress & Safety System (GMDSS)
distress and safety channels. The Coast Guard does NOT monitor GMDSS
radiotelephone or radiotelex channels."

Fraid not. Different things entirely.

"Vito" wrote in message
...
There are several ham rigs on the market now that are type accepted for
marine SSB use.

Gawdamit Doug, you gotta learn to think like a bureaucrat, specifically a
CG
bureaucrat. Those are not "ham rigs that are type accepted" as normal
folks
might think! They are "Marine Radios" that hams are allowed use on amateur
bands!! (c:

We used a Yeasu FT 840 with an SGC tuner for several years. Simple clip to
open up the marine freqs. We used it with a KAM+ for email as well.
Mike
SV Slacker

Doug, let's drop the semantics. Something you plan for in case it happens in
the future is imaginary, it is not real and it does not exist, no matter how
well you pretend it is. Of course we plan for emergencies, but when you
advise the general public to commit an act on the presumption that something
will happen in the future to make it legal, you're too far out on a limb for
me.

Jack

"Doug Dotson" wrote in message
...
Doug, we never disagreed on that at all. My comments were about the an
act
that involved presumption of a future, non-existent emergency.

You have really lost me now. I prefer to base my plans on a future
possability of a very real emergency.

I am very glad I am a ham. The safety it affords me is far greater than
any provided by the CG or CGA with regard to contacting someone to
dispatch help. Once the CG is contacted then their assistence is some
of the best in the world. Close to shore, the towing services are
excellent.
In my case, I sent an email via Winlink to a station in Dallas, that
message
was forwarded to my friend in Baltimore who called Vessel Assist. 30
minutes later I was contacted on VHF that they were in-transit, 15 or 30
minutes later they were there. That's hard to beat.

Best,

Jack

"Jack Painter" wrote in
news:8gVnc.35334$pJ1.926@lakeread02:

I see that in the frequency list that it says: "The Coast Guard does
NOT monitor GMDSS radiotelephone or radiotelex channels."

Right, and this is more or less standard worldwide, if a DSC emergency
call is received then the related voice channel would have callouts
made on it. We do this for any emergency received, regardless of how
far away it might be.

If you have GMDSS implemented on your boat, and you see an emergency in
range of your locals not being responded to, I will call CG on VHF and bump
them in the head to get their attention.

If someone listening to the distress calls from "Morning Dew" go
unresponded-to here in Charleston, and had raised hell to kick that
watchstander's ass at CG Group Charleston, 3 boys and a daddy wouldn't have
died on the jetties from daddy's stupidity and two families might not have
been grieving, today. If we have to monitor FOR them to save sailors'
lives, then so be it.


I have heard several people say that they have never been able to
raise the Coast guard on any of those frequencies. Even though they
elude to the fact that they monitor them at the top of the page.

There was probably a misunderstanding about those being monitored
then, GMDSS are no, except 2182 which is guarded by Groups.. These are
guarded: http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/marcomms/...uency/call.htm

In order to monitor GMDSS, then CG first has to INSTALL GMDSS in all
stations, as required by international law. Equipment at CG stations is
archaeic. At Charleston, we spent a fortune on a new gate, gatehouse and
liquor store, not on silly electronics equipment to save lives. Our
priorities are all screwed up.


Awhile back I saw something on the Coast guard site that said "you
may need to make repeated calls for lengthy time" in order to raise
them.

Are you saying that these channels are monitored?

Not sure if you were talking about the scheduled-guarded freqs I just
referenced, so please let me know. While we have many transmitters at
each of the remote sites (Boston, Virginia Beach (called Portsmouth
out of tradition), Miami, and New Orleans, sometimes all available
transmitters could be busy covering SCN, Air to Ground, HFDX, e-mails
and other Cutter traffic, etc. So a (hopefully) short wait is almost
assured at any given moment. Even before the USCG and USCG Auxiliary
joined the Department of Homeland Security, we were tasked with
supporting Customs, Immigration, Border Patrol, Agriculture, and
security. Those support missions are now ten-fold of what they once
were, and the traditional law enforcements of Fisheries, treaties,
commercial saftey and pleasure boat safety are growing every year as
well. S it is a challenging and exciting time to be serving and I hope
your future experiences are all supportive and satisfactory. And as
Doug alluded to jokingly, no a report of an incident won't fix things,
but it helps, and the lack of effort to improve the system never got
us anywhere!


Again, we need to spend money on EQUIPMENT to do the assigned tasks, not
pretty fences, gatehouses and military fluff to impress the brass. If we
spent as much money on the radios as we do painting stones and raising
flowers and erecting new bureaucracies, we'd have the finest equipment in
the world!

Larry W4CSC

Gary Schafer wrote in
:

Hi Jack,

I am still confused. At the top of the page on your link it says:
"HF Distress and Safety Watchkeeping Schedule - last updated 17 Feb
2004
HF RADIOTELEPHONE (SINGLE SIDEBAND) - Contact and Long Range
Liaison"

Aren't they implying that these frequencies are monitored at all times
as listed?

So are you saying that if I were to call the coast guard on voice on
6200 or 8240 from the East coast, that I would immediately get a
reply?

These are the frequencies that people have told me that they can not
raise the coast guard on after many many calls.

Thanks
Gary


Gary, what people don't understand is that the shore stations have MANY
receivers, all monitoring like it says, BUT, there are a limited number of
TRANSMITTERS available for the operators to reply with. I used to work for
a CG contractor traveling around for EIL Instruments repairing and
calibrating test equipment. I watched the operations at a few major
stations, like New Orleans, while I was there. Sometimes the demand for
transmitters exceeded CG's ability to provide them. So, calls were being
HEARD, but had to go unanswered due to lack of equipment. This problem has
been going on at CG stations for many years. Money needed to buy more gear
is diverted to buy new gates, bureaucracies and pretty stuff for the brass.

Larry W4CSC