Introducing Thamesbank

[Thamesbank]

Sometimes it\'s easier to have the info infront of you

It helps to pick up the small print such as the regs are not in force yet.
BTW I would not like to be in a NB anywhere on the tidal. Even the short run from Teddington to Brentford lock is exciting enough and you must plan your tides.
Another thought, why do you need to have a licence for a VHF anyway? You don't need one to use a boat.

 

[TrueBlue]

Re: New VHF requirements on tidal Thames

[ QUOTE ]

New VHF requirements on tidal Thames
21-Aug-06


From 1 September 2006, new General Directions from the Port of London Authority (PLA) come into force making it compulsory for all boats over 13.7metres (45ft) to be equipped with and use VHF radio. Previously this only affected boats over 20metres (65ft).


[/ QUOTE ]

All good points gentlemen, but what irritated me was the effective ten days notice. The run from Limehouse upstream provides a very nice link in a circular route which is well used by NBs.
What's wrong with mobile 'phones. They were acceptible up to now?

As with any boating venture the skipper must consider his route and dangers. If the stream / tides / wind are not suitable lock keepers at either end advise against a passage and because for most narrow boaters it is their first passage they - almost without exception take the advice.

If one goes on the flood tide as advised by the local cruising club / lockkeeper and keep tight to the offside there is no problem of insufficient power, indeed I've done a trip accompanying very small Sea Otter craft who are very underpowered, apart from going slowly there was no problem. The overheating is not usually a matter of being underpowered, it's more a matter of the keel cooling being undersized. Just cut the speed down and the engine stays within limits.

The only challenging bit is between Limehouse and Westminster. After that the Cats have disappeared and the rest is great fun.

As a general aside, this forum is too hard on Narrowboats, they're no worse than any other boater; methinks you are giving them a bad press because they're too sensible to enjoin in verbal fisticuffs. So there!

 

[Thamesbank]

Agreed

The more boats the better. I am just a bit sceptical about NB's as they were designed to fit into a canal lock from James Brindley
and not to ride the tide.

 

[byron]

Re: New VHF requirements on tidal Thames

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

New VHF requirements on tidal Thames
21-Aug-06


From 1 September 2006, new General Directions from the Port of London Authority (PLA) come into force making it compulsory for all boats over 13.7metres (45ft) to be equipped with and use VHF radio. Previously this only affected boats over 20metres (65ft).


[/ QUOTE ]


What's wrong with mobile 'phones. They were acceptible up to now?



[/ QUOTE ]

I hope this was said as a joke. If something happens and it frequently does, the reports are put out over the VHF. What use is a mobile phone then? You think PLA are going to ring everyone and tell them that a kid fell in off a bridge in such and such an area or there's a collision between areas A & B.

We all know you are a supporter of NBs and I applaud you for this. Someone needs to speak up for them as they can't all be dopey inconsiderate donuts. The problem is one only remembers the idiots. Today a probably saw ten pass my house, the only one I remember is the one flying a white ensign. The other 9 were probably nice people let down by the one idiot who thinks he's a British Warship as there's no way he's been been issued a Warrant as a member of the RYS.

 

[Thamesbank]

Agreed, VHF makes sense

Why a license then?

 

[byron]

Re: Agreed, VHF makes sense

[ QUOTE ]
Why a license then?

[/ QUOTE ]
Only an Operator's licence. A simple test to show you know the difference between a MAYDAY and a PAN or MEDICO and which channels to use plus a few other necessaries.
Anyway, having served nigh on 30 years as an Auxiliary C.G. (now retired) I can assure you no prosecution would be brought against an unlicenced operator using a VHF in an emergency. Remember it is not an offence to have a VHF aboard, only to operate it.

 

[Chris_d]

Re: Sometimes it\'s easier to have the info infront of you

Are you serious? perhaps you better do a VHF course /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Thamesbank]

How much does a VHF course and license cost?

And how long is the course?

 

[Steve Clayton]

Re: How much does a VHF course and license cost?

A day

http://www.bishamabbeysailing.co.uk/vhf.html

 

[TrueBlue]

Re: Byron - your first reply to my post

Byron you're absolutely right of course, what
I didn't make clear was that previously PLA said the process was for craft to telephone Woolwich radio on departure and arrival at the exit point.

Of course VHF is the sensible thing to have - but for ditch crawlers?? It's fine for sea-going boats because it's part of the accepted equipment and would be used at some point in the passage. For NBs it only has a real use on the Tideway and on the Trent - but even fewer make this passage.

Again, I agree the general bulletins and warnings are best broadcast by VHF - but hang on what about Mobile phone Text messages??

Why should your argument about VHF not apply equally to the non-tidal Thames? Surely there is a case for information bulletins - Bridge Jumpers at Witchurch, pumpout at Abingdon broken (yet again), nobody on duty at Bray (and so on). But then although the EA is equipped with VHF they ignore public use.

Not very logical to my mind.

 

[byron]

Re: Byron - your first reply to my post

Texting? You serious again or just at the wind-up? You honestly think the PLA can send out Texts by the dozen in the time available. One VHF messages reaches all including those who are in the immediate vicinity
I used Bridge Jumper as an example, merely because just such a message went out on VHF and I was able to get to Blackfriars within minutes and get the unconcious guy onto my bathing platform. It could have been anything like the broken down NB adrift above Westminster he called for help on a handheld and I was able to take him in tow. The plain fact is, if one wants to use perilous waters with unsuitable craft then the simple but effective protection of a VHF is a small but necessary price to pay. Jeeze! you can buy a MIDLAND handheld VHF for £30. Furthermore it isn't just a question of their safety, it is imperative that if there is an incident then all available vessels are available. Of course its a bit far fetched but what if there was another Marchioness disaster and an unknowing NB ploughed right on missing survivors or worse yet running them down?

 

[TrueBlue]

Re: Byron - Defeat!

OK Byron, I admit defeat; defeated by your most sensible argument (yet again, drat!)

I will defend the notion of texting for two reasons:-

(1) Phone to phone text is obviously not practical for this purpose and nor are individual phone calls. BUT technology is in place for mass texting from computer systems. All Woolwich would have to do is key in the message.
What is NOT in place is the technology (well equipment anyway) to trap the mobile numbers of users entering and leaving the system.

(2) I have seen comments on these boards about the cessation of monitoring Ch16 and how several folks have said they would use a mobile in preference. This indicates to me that voice VHF is on decline - to be replaced in part by automated systems. In time Marine band (for pleasure use) will go the way of HAM radio - CQ,CQ, anybody there?

The requirement for VHF will hit NarrowBoats hard because "most" of them are over the limit for the regulation, whereas for other types of craft 13.7m is quite a big boat, probably seagoing and would carry VHF anyway. Indeed any craft under that size is in all probability more in need of VHF as they are more likely to get in trouble.


The central issue for me is that the PLA had hitherto deemed that telephone contact was adequate, so why has this changed?

I am very concerned that NBs will be put off cruising the Tideway and the Great London River will be poorer for it.

I won't labour the point any more - as I guess everyone is getting bored with it.

Thank you Byron, for your engaging and intelligent counters, they have helped me clarify my points and I look forward to sparring on future topics if / when the occasion arises!

 

[byron]

Re: Byron - Defeat!

What I liked was the fact that it was all intelligent reasoned arguements and no one resorted to name calling. Kind of proves that Boaters are a cut above your average human and should be granted special status and granted tax concessions.