That's OK, it's nice and peacefull out here on my limb without you
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. HEY! There's
no beer out here.

Doug
s/v Callista

"Jack Painter" wrote in message
news:Xiioc.35883$pJ1.2100@lakeread02...
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

With all this talk about inability to raise USCG on HF SSB let me relate my
experiences in two high seas emergencies. I was aboard a commercial tuna boat
fishing between Midway Island and Japan. In the first incident a boat nearby
had a crewman whose hand got caught in machinery and was severely mangled. Too
far for helo medivac so what was needed was emergency medical advice and
clearance to put the injured guy ashore at Midway, several days away. No answer
to calls to USCG on 2182, 4125 etc. Although I am not a ham, I broke into a net
on 20 meters and was answered by a guy named Danny in New Guinea. He
immediately phone patched through to an emergency room doctor in the US who
gave hours of guidance on how to treat the hand and save it. He also contacted
the CG who got the Navy to give clearance for a Midway landing. The next
incident was a very very weak mayday I heard on some 8 MHz marine channel. The
distressed vessel could not hear me nor was it heard by anyone else. It was a
fishing vessel about 200 miles from Hawaii and it had suffered a major engine
room fire. It was taking on water and had no power for pumps. I got the vessel
name and position thank goodness. All calls to USCG went unanswered. In
desperation I finally tuned up on 11179 USB and called a Mayday Relay. I was
anwered by a Marine Corps C 130 air refueling tanker call sign QB 0x? which was
flying off southern Calif. The radio op on the plane was really sharp and in no
time had relayed all the info to the USCG. The boat was saved, no lives lost.
The lesson? Use all your resources, know HF aircraft freqs, etc. Know ham
bands. Hams are generally very helpful in a true emergency. 5696 USB is a USCG
aircraft channel. Its a good one to have in your freq list. Listen to it, there
is almost always some traffic on it if you listen for 15 or 20 min. BTW, all
the calls were made on an "illegal" Drake TR 7 modified to operate anywhere
between 1.5 and 30 MHz. Our "legal" SSB was crystal controlled controlled and
had only official ITU marine channels.

"BOEING377" without a name, wrote

With all this talk about inability to raise USCG on HF SSB let me relate
my
experiences in two high seas emergencies. I was aboard a commercial tuna
boat
fishing between Midway Island and Japan. In the first incident a boat
nearby
had a crewman whose hand got caught in machinery and was severely mangled.
Too
far for helo medivac so what was needed was emergency medical advice and
clearance to put the injured guy ashore at Midway, several days away. No
answer
to calls to USCG on 2182, 4125 etc.

That's an unreasonable expectation to assume the USCG would hear a small
boat between Midway and Japan on HF, which is far from our area of
responsibilty. You're on your own out in waters like that, and 2182 or 4125
are for 20-200 mile coverage. Higher frequencies as you used to call someone
nearer to your locaton, are certainly better for long haul comms.

Although I am not a ham, I broke into a net
on 20 meters and was answered by a guy named Danny in New Guinea. He
immediately phone patched through to an emergency room doctor in the US
who
gave hours of guidance on how to treat the hand and save it

Thanks for the heads up that there are no Hospitals on the island of New
Guinea!

The lesson? Use all your resources, know HF aircraft freqs, etc. Know
ham
bands. Hams are generally very helpful in a true emergency. 5696 USB is a
USCG
aircraft channel. Its a good one to have in your freq list. Listen to it,
there
is almost always some traffic on it if you listen for 15 or 20 min. BTW,
all
the calls were made on an "illegal" Drake TR 7 modified to operate
anywhere
between 1.5 and 30 MHz. Our "legal" SSB was crystal controlled controlled
and
had only official ITU marine channels.

The lesson should be how unreliable HF voice communication is from a small
boat in the middle of nowhere. There were certainly better options available
to a commercial fishing vessel, or anyone who chooses to be a thousand miles
from civilization.

Other legal choices for boaters with only HF voice would be:

http://www.mmsn.org/ Maritime Mobile Net (14.300 mhz)

and from that group:
Other Maritime Nets

Baja California Net
7.238 MHz - Daily at 1600UTC
California to Caribbean
14.285 MHz. - Mondays at 2300 UTC
California to South Pacific
14.285 MHz. - Mondays at 2310 UTC
Caribbean Maritime Mobile Net
7.241 MHz. - Daily at 1100 UTC
Caribbean Net
7.158 MHz. - Daily at 0000 UTC
Chubasco Net
7.294 MHz. - Daily at 1530 UTC
Confusion Net
14.305 MHz. - Monday thru Friday at 1900 UTC
DDD Net-Pacific for Canada
14.115 MHz. - Daily at 0400 UTC
14.115 MHz. - Daily at 1730 UTC
Mariana Net
14.340 MHz. - Monday thru Saturday at 1900 UTC
Mariana-Guam
14.310 MHz. - Daily at 0700 UTC
Maritime Emergency Net
14.310 MHz. - Daily at 0400
14.303mhz. - Daily at 1800 UTC
Mississauga Maritime Net
14.122.5 MHz. - Daily at 1245 UTC
Waterway Radio & Cruising Club Net
7.268 MHz. - Daily at 07:45 ET
West Coast Admirals Maritime Mobile Net
7.190 MHz. - Daily at 2230

Caribbean Maritime Mobile Net

http://www.mayaparadise.com/mmfreq1.htm

The TransAtlantic Net: Held daily at 1300 GMT on 21.400. Net controller is
8P6QM - Trudi, assisted by G4FTO - Rudi and VE3AGS - George and others.
Weather on the half hour, and third party traffic where legal.

The U.K. MM Net: Held twice a day at 0800 and 1800 GMT on 14.303 +/- QRM.
Morning Net controller is G4FRN - Bill and in the evening you will find
G4YZH - Bruce, G0IAD - Tony or G4FTO - Rudi and others

The Pacific Maritime Mobile Service Net; on daily; 21412MHz at 2200 to
2300GMT. This is our 18th year on this Freq. Dr. Ernie, VE3EGM, is one of
our relay stations. Thanks, 73, Bob Corbin N2RSM

The Pacific Maritime Mobile Service Net; on daily; 21412MHz at 2200 to
2300GMT. This is our 18th year on this Freq. Dr. Ernie, VE3EGM, is one of
our relay stations. Thanks, 73, Bob Corbin N2RSM

DDD Net The DDD Net operates on a daily basis, frequency is 14.115mHz and
the warm up time is approx 0330z going formal at 0400z. We have relays in
Tasmania - VK7PR, Peter
New Zealand - ZL1ATE, Tony; ZL2FS, Jim and ZL1UE, Malcolm
Alberta - VE6LS, Al in Edmonton
Vancouver Island - VE7CZN, Jim and VE7KON, Ken.
Phone patch is available( where legal) and traffic is forwarded by Email (as
available). Info from Peter Thomas, VE7PT

This is just a sample, there are many others.

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, Va

"No
answer to calls to USCG on 2182, 4125 etc."


That's an unreasonable expectation to assume the USCG would hear a small
boat between Midway and Japan on HF, which is far from our area of
responsibilty. You're on your own out in waters like that, and 2182 or 4125
are for 20-200 mile coverage. Higher frequencies as you used to call someone
nearer to your locaton, are certainly better for long haul comms.



Note the etc., I called on 2, 4, 8, 16 Mhz freqs. Back then (1980s) satcom gear
was just too expensive for most small fishing boats. The US Albacore tuna fleet
is comprised of small boats, usually in the 50-85 ft range. We knew we were on
our own and accepted that risk. None of us expected the USCG to protect us so
far from the US, but it's always worth a try. Another resource that actually
has in some respects superior long range air rescue capabilities compared to
the USCG is the USAF Rescue Squadrons. They have HC 130H aircraft very similar
to the USCG planes, but with a couple of big differences. They can carry
pararescue jumpers who sometimes jump thousands of miles offshore to do
emergency medical work on a ship. Also, the USAF planes carry air refueling
gear and can extend the range of a Blackhawk rescue helo waaay beyoind what the
USCG can fly with their unrefuelable Jayhawks. They have helped in a number of
civilian sea rescues. Not sure how the USCG and the USAF divide tasks, but I
assume that the USAF is contacted by the USCG RCC since the USAF planes do not
normally monitor marine HF SSB freqs. The USAF planes do not normally carry
dropable pumps but they do carry dropable liferafts and can drop a very
impressive large inflatable with a big waterproof outboard which is used by the
pararescue jumpers after they land in the water.

On Saturday 15 May 2004 12:21 am in rec.boats.electronics BOEING377 wrote:

"No
answer to calls to USCG on 2182, 4125 etc."


That's an unreasonable expectation to assume the USCG would hear a small
boat between Midway and Japan on HF, which is far from our area of
responsibilty. You're on your own out in waters like that, and 2182 or
4125 are for 20-200 mile coverage. Higher frequencies as you used to call
someone nearer to your locaton, are certainly better for long haul comms.


This entire thread is getting silly.
HF is deprecated and obselescent.
It is a SOLAS requirement for most vessels to carry satellite comms
when out of VHF range, stop bitching and install the correct kit.

http://www.inmarsat.org/maritimesafety/mss_gmdss.htm


--
My real address is crn (at) netunix (dot) com
WARNING all messages containing attachments or html will be silently
deleted. Send only plain text.

Are you that same ****ing idiot - Where do you get such asshole ideas
from. He didn't say that at all.


On Fri, 14 May 2004 17:41:16 -0400, "Jack Painter"
wrote:


Thanks for the heads up that there are no Hospitals on the island of New
Guinea!

That's an unreasonable expectation to assume the USCG would hear a small
boat between Midway and Japan on HF, which is far from our area of
responsibilty. You're on your own out in waters like that, and 2182 or
4125
are for 20-200 mile coverage. Higher frequencies as you used to call
someone
nearer to your locaton, are certainly better for long haul comms.

Why is it that USCG "monitored" frequencies are not reliable at these
distances, but ham frequencies are pretty reliable. 4125 is just a bit above
the 80m ham band. I can talk to Australia, Africa, Europe and Asia
fairly reliably.

I think the bottom line is that for whatever reason, the USCG and USCGA do
not do a very good job of monitoring the frequencies that they claim to.
Hams are always on the air somewhere, getting a ham license is the best
insurance for one's safety.

Doug, k3qt
s/v Callista

That's a stupid statement. What do you consider as "most" vessels?
Certainly none of the hundreds I have cruised with over the past
few years.

Doug, k3qt
s/v Callista


"Chris Newport" wrote in message
news:3510853.l2XEpJlcUd@callisto...
On Saturday 15 May 2004 12:21 am in rec.boats.electronics BOEING377 wrote:

"No
answer to calls to USCG on 2182, 4125 etc."


That's an unreasonable expectation to assume the USCG would hear a small
boat between Midway and Japan on HF, which is far from our area of
responsibilty. You're on your own out in waters like that, and 2182 or
4125 are for 20-200 mile coverage. Higher frequencies as you used to
call
someone nearer to your locaton, are certainly better for long haul
comms.


This entire thread is getting silly.
HF is deprecated and obselescent.
It is a SOLAS requirement for most vessels to carry satellite comms
when out of VHF range, stop bitching and install the correct kit.

http://www.inmarsat.org/maritimesafety/mss_gmdss.htm


--
My real address is crn (at) netunix (dot) com
WARNING all messages containing attachments or html will be silently
deleted. Send only plain text.

"BOEING377" wrote

Note the etc., I called on 2, 4, 8, 16 Mhz freqs. Back then (1980s) satcom
gear
was just too expensive for most small fishing boats. The US Albacore tuna
fleet
is comprised of small boats, usually in the 50-85 ft range. We knew we
were on
our own and accepted that risk. None of us expected the USCG to protect us
so
far from the US, but it's always worth a try. Another resource that
actually
has in some respects superior long range air rescue capabilities compared
to
the USCG is the USAF Rescue Squadrons. They have HC 130H aircraft very
similar
to the USCG planes, but with a couple of big differences. They can carry
pararescue jumpers who sometimes jump thousands of miles offshore to do
emergency medical work on a ship. Also, the USAF planes carry air
refueling
gear and can extend the range of a Blackhawk rescue helo waaay beyoind
what the
USCG can fly with their unrefuelable Jayhawks. They have helped in a
number of
civilian sea rescues. Not sure how the USCG and the USAF divide tasks, but
I
assume that the USAF is contacted by the USCG RCC since the USAF planes do
not
normally monitor marine HF SSB freqs. The USAF planes do not normally
carry
dropable pumps but they do carry dropable liferafts and can drop a very
impressive large inflatable with a big waterproof outboard which is used
by the
pararescue jumpers after they land in the water.

Mr. ____

The USAF Air National Guard is called on to make any at sea recovery which
is out of range of the USCG HH-60 Jayhawks, and no surface asset is near
enough or able to assist. That kind of effort cost the life of a pararescue
jumper after his helo team rescued the crew of s/v Satori. and required
refueling before they could commence searching for the m/v Andrea Gail. The
UH-60 was unable to air refuel, and ditched, causing the loss of the
pararescue. For the USCG's work, the HH-60 is better suited than the
Blackhawk, as the refueling probe adds so much weight that the resulting
loss of single-trip range available to the Blackhawk makes it unsuitable for
the typical USCG rescue missions. Also, the USCG HC-130's do not monitor
marine band SSB either, although both the ANG and all USCG a/c are capable
of any HF comms that a distressed vessel needed to communicate with. We also
drop VHF hh radios to a vessel that has lost power and cannot communicate
with an orbiting Hercules, Jayhawk or Falcon a/c.

73
Jack Painter
Virginia Beach

"Doug Dotson" wrote

Why is it that USCG "monitored" frequencies are not reliable at these
distances, but ham frequencies are pretty reliable. 4125 is just a bit
above
the 80m ham band. I can talk to Australia, Africa, Europe and Asia
fairly reliably.

I think the bottom line is that for whatever reason, the USCG and USCGA do
not do a very good job of monitoring the frequencies that they claim to.
Hams are always on the air somewhere, getting a ham license is the best
insurance for one's safety.

Doug, k3qt
s/v Callista

Doug, I don't agree that there is any pattern or history of that situation,
but your last comment was certainly well said. As to the "I have, so
therefore" extrapolation of long distance HF comms, that really doesn't
correlate to the daily long distance messaging traffic we work all over the
Western hemisphere for USCG HF communcations. At any given moment, there are
reasons which it is preaching to the choir to tell you about, but for the
group's sake - those are atmosperic interferences, ionispheric absorbsion,
solar ejections, flares, etc that make long distance propagation really
good, or really poor. Some Hams are certainly more adept at doing this, and
can often make better work of a given situation with equipment that may be
specifically set up for that. But that's "when they can". Tthe missions that
our transmitters and receivers work are much broader, and relied upon 24/7
in all forms of weather, so there are some compromises when compared to
special purpose propagation techniques and equipment that others may
possess. The transmitting station in my home for instance, has better long
range capabilities than any single transmitting site of the USCG. But that
is because we made this setup for a very specific purpose to assist in long
range air to ground communications. In spite of this, I have to secure for
thunderstorms, as you understand I'm sure. So would I rather have one super
setup, or 50 good transmitters and receive antennas spread all over the
country and available with the click of a mouse? I'll tell you, it's a lot
more risky running a SAR case from my single station than with a team in the
master ComSta with all those assets available as backup.

The USCG investment in HF communications is staggering, and so is the cost
to maintain it. One of the primary purposes we do this is to assist the
maritime community! As one sarcastic poster pointed out in a snide post
earlier, satcom has replaced almost all comms, but the truth is not everyone
will ever be able to afford that. So we try to maintain HF service in the
best manner possible to serve the whole maritime community.

Yes we could be better, but I doubt that many in this group are qualified
to understand how. If you know how, then by all means please tell us, as I
asked you before, it is important to hear feedback and we ask for it all the
time.

73

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach VA