Recent Pan-Pan.

[alan_d]

As I understand it, one is obliged not to disclose the content of a VHF transmission one hears if one is not the intended recipient. Pan-Pan and Mayday messages are directed at All Stations, so if you hear one you are an intended recipient. Of course, there may be reasons other than legal prohibition why it might be better not to disclose the content of a particular message.

 

[NorthUp]

Prob best to have a read of S48 as referenced by Triassic before posting more dets.

Do you seriously think the powers that be would prosecute for discussing details of a pan broadcast in 2018?
The law was written in the days of telegrams radioed from the far flung corners of the empire, nobody puts confidential or secret info out on open frequencies these days.

 

[chrishscorp]

We too heard this particular pan pan, he must have been about 12-15 NM away from us so ended up focussed on the racing fleets we were encountering, so didnt hear the outcome. Good to hear he was able to be promptly assisted

 

[Triassic]

As it was broadcast on channel 16 I suspect many others heard it.

By transmitting on 16 it was in the public domain.

The question is not wether it was in the public domain, it is about your subsequent disclosure of the information received on here which is contrary to Sect 48. 1 (b).

The fact that it is unlikely to be followed up, let alone prosecuted, is not the point. There is valid argument that the legislation is effectively out of date as the need for the contents of VHF transmission to be protected may no longer exist, or you could try and argue noble cause in that your disclosure promotes discussion and education that may one day save lives, however the fact still exists that you are breaking the law. The vast majority of us might not be that bothered, but if I had been sailing my Shrimper the other day and I thought you were questioning my seamanship I might be inclined to throw some back and see if it sticks.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

As far as I can see, all three Shrimpers current in production (the 17, 19 and 22) have staysails - ie they have triangular fore-and-aft sails set on stays.

That's not my definition of staysail. Be interesting to see what everyone else considers a staysail to be.

Traditionally, JD is correct - a staysail is simply a sail set on a stay. That was the usage in the days of fully rigged ships. However, modern usage varies from the inner jib on a cutter rig to a light weather sail set between the masts on a ketch.

 

[lpdsn]

Do you seriously think the powers that be would prosecute for discussing details of a pan broadcast in 2018?
The law was written in the days of telegrams radioed from the far flung corners of the empire, nobody puts confidential or secret info out on open frequencies these days.

It's about time they started getting tough on these delinquents. Someone who could start a thread on a pan pan in 2018 probably doesn't even practice his archery as required by law. A serial offender. Where will it end?

 

[JumbleDuck]

Prob best to have a read of S48 as referenced by Triassic before posting more dets.

Since a Pan-Pan call is to all stations, everyone who hears it is an intended recipient. No offence.

 

[JumbleDuck]

The question is not wether it was in the public domain, it is about your subsequent disclosure of the information received on here which is contrary to Sect 48. 1 (b).

That only refers to information received contrary to Sect 48 1 (a). If you were an intended recipient,you can disclose to your heart's content.

 

[newtothis]

Since a Pan-Pan call is to all stations, everyone who hears it is an intended recipient. No offence.

I'm entirely convinced your interpretation of the law is correct. But unless you're the judge who will be hearing the case, I would err on the side of caution.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Traditionally, JD is correct - a staysail is simply a sail set on a stay. That was the usage in the days of fully rigged ships. However, modern usage varies from the inner jib on a cutter rig to a light weather sail set between the masts on a ketch.

And since the issue here was whether a stay was available, the traditional definition seems the most appropriate.

 

[dom]

Since a Pan-Pan call is to all stations, everyone who hears it is an intended recipient. No offence.

Not wanting to blow this out of proportion, but all of us receive information which is subject to restrictions: jury members, business counterparts, or whatever. Restrictions can range from a simple Confidentiality Agreement to the Official Secrets Act.

Specifically, the relevant prosecuting authority here, the MCA, has repeatedly warned about misuse of information pertaining to VHF distress calls for the purposes of social media tittle tattle. In fact, here is an old thread discussing just that:
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthrea...48-of-The-Wireless-and-Telegraphy-Act-(2006)&

Edit: the MCA's view appears to be that simply being the 'intended recipient' does not absolve the recipient from all restrictions. As far as I am aware there is no case law here, but I wouldn't personally want to be the MCA's first test case.

Not to forget that the MCA has many more possibilities for prosecution under this act, e.g. S111

"S111 General restrictions
(1) Information with respect to a particular business which has been obtained in exercise of a power conferred by this Act is not, so long as that business continues to be carried on, to be disclosed without the consent of the person for the time being carrying on that business.
................."

 

[flaming]

And since the issue here was whether a stay was available, the traditional definition seems the most appropriate.

Try telling that to the hundreds of racing sailors who set spinnaker staysails like this.

And Genoa staysails for close reaching like this.

Which don't have stays...

 

[Mark-1]

Without being to much of a bore rotrax I'd be quite interested to hear your views on Section 48 of the 2006 Wireless Telegraphy Act?

I'm sensing this might not be the best thread to mention my 66-180MHz scanner?

 

[Triassic]

I'm sensing this might not be the best thread to mention my 66-180MHz scanner?

Oh I don't know, I think the Forum is in one of those moods where liberal interpretations are pretty welcome....

 

[[163233]]

Which don't have stays...

They do sort of, the luff and associated gubbins forms one.

 

[Blue Sunray]

Not wanting to blow this out of proportion, but all of us receive information which is subject to restrictions: jury members, business counterparts, or whatever. Restrictions can range from a simple Confidentiality Agreement to the Official Secrets Act.

Specifically, the relevant prosecuting authority here, the MCA, has repeatedly warned about misuse of information pertaining to VHF distress calls for the purposes of social media tittle tattle. In fact, here is an old thread discussing just that:
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthrea...48-of-The-Wireless-and-Telegraphy-Act-(2006)&

Edit: the MCA's view appears to be that simply being the 'intended recipient' does not absolve the recipient from all restrictions. As far as I am aware there is no case law here, but I wouldn't personally want to be the MCA's first test case.

Not to forget that the MCA has many more possibilities for prosecution under this act, e.g. S111

"S111 General restrictions
(1) Information with respect to a particular business which has been obtained in exercise of a power conferred by this Act is not, so long as that business continues to be carried on, to be disclosed without the consent of the person for the time being carrying on that business.
................."

Unlikely I know but I would quite like to see them try, as it seems that if one is to make a VHF call be it Pan Pan, Mayday or just a radiocheck, this forum is quite possibly going to be used to discuss ones sailing competence, maintenance regime and/or personality, which seems unhelpful at best and possibly dangerous if someone neglected to make a call which they should otherwise of done for fear of ridicule from the keyboard warriors on here. It's not as if the boat/crew in this thread, or the other one this carried on from, are particularly hard to identify if one happened to know them and their sailing plans.

FWIW (ie not much), it does seem quite contrary to the spirit of the law, let alone good comradeship.

 

[Triassic]

That only refers to information received contrary to Sect 48 1 (a). If you were an intended recipient,you can disclose to your heart's content.

My interpretation is that the original Pan Pan call, being an all station broadcast, might be excluded, the subsequent transmissions between the vessel in distress and those directly assisting them would not be. So disclosing the way this call was resolved and the identity of those attending would be in breach of the legislation.

I only raised the point because I'm not a particular fan of threads that seek to question someones actions when the OP isn't in full possession of the facts. It's speculating as someone else's expense and that's not attractive.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Specifically, the relevant prosecuting authority here, the MCA, has repeatedly warned about misuse of information pertaining to VHF distress calls for the purposes of social media tittle tattle.

And have never prosecuted anyone, so I'll file it as "Bluster, incompetent call handling by current CG staff for the covering-up of."

 

[JumbleDuck]

Which don't have stays...

Not staysails, then, in any sense. But then, you racers are odd people. Nice, but odd. Putting all that effort into coming back to where you started!

 

[JumbleDuck]

I only raised the point because I'm not a particular fan of threads that seek to question someones actions when the OP isn't in full possession of the facts. It's speculating as someone else's expense and that's not attractive.

That's a fair point. I think it depends on how anonymous the boat is, which in turn depends on the circumstances.