radio licence

[bigmart]

Re: Another Question

for you Mike. When you raise your head above the parapet on these forums. Do you feel like you're being got at?

Martin

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mike_Martin]

Re: Another Question

Nah, I like to see how other customers think I'm treating them.

I personally think I am doing a fantastic job and am quite happy to send £20 per year to myself for doing it.

Mike

<hr width=100% size=1>No fixed JOB Title, something or other in Ofcom

 

[Mike_Martin]

Re: Radar...?

With a RADAR being a radio transmitter, it's always been the case, there even used to be a seperate licence for one.

Mike

<hr width=100% size=1>No fixed JOB Title, something or other in Ofcom

 

[Mike_Martin]

It's not a tax, it covers the costs of capturing all those very helpful SAR details and sending them each week on to the MCA and each 6 weeks to the ITU.

Mike

<hr width=100% size=1>No fixed JOB Title, something or other in Ofcom

 

[Mike_Martin]

How on Earth are they expected to pay for my new UBER Red Taper salary. Har har.

M

<hr width=100% size=1>No fixed JOB Title, something or other in Ofcom

 

[Mike_Martin]

Clarification and attention to detail often make all the difference.

YOU cannot use the radio legally unless YOU are in DISTRESS without the Operator's certificate.

DISTRESS = Grave and Imminent Danger.

Mike

<hr width=100% size=1>No fixed JOB Title, something or other in Ofcom

 

[Mike_Martin]

Reoter

Quote "When challenged as to why they exist ,the answer is always " to issue radio licences" and as to where does the money go " to fund the issue of licences". In other words, it is a self serving and totallly non-productive quango. No, the Coastguard does not get a bean out of it."

That made me laugh out loud that did, I haven't heard that old toffee for years. If you don't read the newsletter that we send out you can have a look at it here http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/ra/topics/maritime/maritime-index.htm
to find an explanations of why the RA and now Ofcom looks after Radio Spectrum in the UK.

As to the other bits and bobs our last prosecutions were of commercial fisherman as to there radio being super-charged no they're the same as ours, 25 Watts max. The language is an issue of dialect you need to go and visit a few Fishing harbours to see what I mean.

Mike



<hr width=100% size=1>No fixed JOB Title, something or other in Ofcom

 

[Mike_Martin]

Flight Radio Telephony Operator's Certificate = Aero
Maritime Radio Operators' Certificate = Maritime.

Quite simple really.

M

<hr width=100% size=1>No fixed JOB Title, something or other in Ofcom

 

[rickp]

Which reminds me - I tried to do the online CG66 form. Unfortunately the form didn't work on the 3 browsers I have on my mac (safari, mozilla or Microsoft's IE). I had to use IE under windows XP to allow me to complete the form.

I'd have thought that you'd want such an online resource to be usable by the widest range of browsers possible.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mike_Martin]

I shall communicate that to my colleagues at the MCA but I guess that they will suffer the same constraints of money that we do for such things.

If enough people make use of it in order to claim a "justifiable service" it will attract better funding.

Mike

<hr width=100% size=1>No fixed JOB Title, something or other in Ofcom

 

[rickp]

Thanks for raising it with your colleagues.

I'm not sure why making a webform that conforms to standards should be a 'justifiable service' though. Standards are a good thing, I'm sure you'll agree - and following them in the web sphere will also help those with disabilities use websites more easily. (Okay, in this particular case that may not be a big issue - but designing forms that rely heavily on javascript makes things very awkward for those with screen readers etc.)

Pet peeve rant over

Rick

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[petery]

Re: Oh dear !

Terminate their contract and take it back under yoiur direct control!!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Jools_of_Top_Cat]

I did the online CG66 but it appears to have failed. Mike I wonder if you would confirm this for me, I don't mind giving my name on here so here goes. The current on line page does not seem to allow you to view what details you have listed, so you cannot edit a previous mistake? or is that me.....

Julian Triggs
Top Cat


By the way, reading you sig, are you now a pay band rather than a CS officer, they have done this to me, I take great pleasure now on official documentation descibing my trade as a pay band or my rank as pay band. I was told by our HR that I was some kind of technical thingy when I queried our loss of officer status, I wish I had said to her, you are then some kind of secretary type thingy then.

<hr width=100% size=1>Julian

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk>Top Cat Homepage</A>

 

[MainlySteam]

Yes I fully appreciate that Mike, but there again I suspect that a very large proportion of vessels in the UK actually do not make such voyages, ever. In NZ, Australia, and USA, for example, the vast majority of voluntarily equipped vessels carrying VHF would be incapable of voyages such as crossing the English Channel/North Sea or Irish Sea/North Channel (either because of size or because of crew competence or even because of no wish to) and I would have thought the UK would be similar unless there is a much smaller take up of VHF's on smaller vessels there (runabouts/day sailors, small recreational fishing, etc).

While this is not an international comparison it is a body of water comparison. Here in Wellington only a very small percentage of all pleasure vessels equipped with VHF would ever cross Cook Strait (it is only 12 miles wide at its narrowest, but voyage is actually around 26 nm Wellington Entrance to Tory Channel entrance so is very much shorter than Solent to Cherbourg for example) even though there is a very desirable cruising ground on the other side. While some larger vessels are put off by the Strait's reputation (and the English Channel has a reputation too, including fog and a fear of being run down it seems) it is that most are just too small or do not have the competence, confidence or desire to do so.

For USA pleasure vessels, and that is the largest such fleet in the world by far, the destinations of Canada (for which, if I recall correctly both administations accept the requirements of the other so no problem), Mexico, and the Caribbean attract very large numbers of international voyages but I am unaware of that negatively impacting on the decision to go with the regulatory regime the USA now has for VHF radio.

Interestingly, Australia has also recently included small commercial vessels and I suspect that is a good decision. Again, I would suspect that in the UK most small ferries running harbour/sheltered water runs and small fishing vessels (unless they have rights to fish in another nation close by's waters) never go international but stand to be corrected on that.

Obviously, it does not affect me directly at all as far as pleasure vessels are concerned, and perhaps I even have no right to comment, but the regime just seems very conservative and restrictive when compared to the directions other nations are taking. It also seems a number of pleasure boaters have concerns.

As many others say, I really do appreciate your posting - doing that is definitely not conservative /forums/images/icons/smile.gif.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

I think you'd be suprised how many pleasure vessels do the cross channel hop. After all, it's not much different in distance to going round the Isle of Wight, and that's hardly taxing in reasonable conditions for even small boats. If they can swim across, take amphibious cars across, and many other wacky stunts, it's not beyond even 16' power boats to make the crossing in the right conditions


<hr width=100% size=1>Utinam logica falsa tuam philisophiam totam suffodiant

 

[MainlySteam]

Am not disputing how many doing it, just that I suspect that the great majority of pleasure vessels in the whole of the UK which could/should/are equipped with VHF do not go international.

Also, and I think Brendan knows enuff of me to understand this, if everyone is quite happy paying licence fees, course fees for training for VHF certificate, etc well it is obviously not for me to bother. Just making the point that it is different to most places these days.

I suspect that the lack of licence/certification here has had a big impact on the number of smaller vessels taking up VHF here but has been in place so long now and have not really monitored that aspect so couldn't be sure. Would be interesting to see what happens in Australia which has only recently gone that way. Although as smaller commercial vessels are also allowed the same it cannot been for encouragement of use purposes.

Actually, when I say small commercial in Australia, is not that small although I do not know what the cutoff is (if any). I first came across it when was invited by a shipbuilder on some sea trials of a commercial passenger vessel in Australia fitted out for entertainment cruises - it was hardly small, was around 120 foot! Just happened to ask the skipper when he used the radio and I also saw no callsign at the radio location and he educated me.

As an aside, here on VHF callsigns are hardly ever used by either commercial (including large ones) or pleasure vessels unless the transmission requires it for safety reasons (and then only if the boat has one), always the vessel name - what is the practice there?

Regards

John

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

The only time I've ever heard call signs used, is when the Coastguard get fed up with someone on Ch16. They ask for call sign if an idiot is making a nuisance of themselves....then all goes strangely quiet!

I don't even remember what mine is <sigh> we use boat names as a matter of course.

Not really for me to comment on fees and training courses, other than it works fairly well, didn't stop me using my VHF responsibly for several years without licence or training, and when I did take my operator licence, I was much the better for it.Maybe that was only guilt. To be fair, the authorities don't chase people a great deal, other than to put notices on peoples boats in marinas once in a while. They seem fairly relaxed about the whole thing, and only chase major offenders, and on the whole have bigger fish to fry

<hr width=100% size=1>Utinam logica falsa tuam philisophiam totam suffodiant

 

[Twister_Ken]

x-channel

I've got a mate who sailed Cherbourg to Keyhaven in a Wayfarer. And having got there he got a fellow Wayfarer owner to tow him up to Sctland where he spent a fortnight cruising the Orkneys, including a double crossing of the Pentland Firth. Mind you, he's French.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>

 

[MainlySteam]

Re: x-channel

And Uffa Fox sailed International 14's across the Channel too as is well known. I once read Sir Peter Scott's autobiography "In the Eye of the Wind" and seem to think he mentioned it in there too plus other longish sails in 14's.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Twister_Ken]

Near centurion

Surely we're not gong to let this thread go without nudging it past the 100 mark. It's been a while since we've had a century post.

Wonder if Mike Martin has tracked down Tyce yet, cried havoc, and let slip the dogs of war?



<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>