Regulation - A practical Demo

[tome]

There's only one aspect of our sailing which is compulsory and licenced at present - communications. Legally, you cannot operate a VHF radio unless under the supervision of somebody holding a SRC or VHF licence.

Tune in to ch 16 in the Solent to hear for yourself the dreadful standard of communications. I cannot legally repeat some of the traffic I heard yesterday but it icluded messages passed direct on ch16, radio checks whilst a Pan-Pan was in progress, calls without identifying the calling station, a sailing vessel with engine problems describing who had serviced it (all on ch 16) which provoked a non-useful rebuke from an unidentified station. All in all a pretty low standard, although interspersed with proper procedures from many vessels.

On the other hand I have a sailing colleague who thinks all training and licencing is unnecessary. He operates a radio without any operator licence, and I asked him recently which station he would switch to if receiving a call from another vessel. He couldn't name a single one of the inter-ship channels.

I deduce from this that training is useful and licencing a complete waste of time and money.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Jacket]

How many of us could name an intership channel though? Maybe those who make regular calls, but I've made calls 3 times in 5 years, and so would struggle to remember. I know the emergency channels and channel 16 proceedure and as far as I'm concerned that'll do.

But I agree with you about the amount of rubbish you hear over VHF. I wish everyone used it as often as me, and left us all in a bit of peace. The way things are its dangerous, as I know many skippers who turn their VHFs off on busy weekends, just to get a bit of peace and quiet.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[SteveA]

Thank goodness I don't sail in the Solent!

Sailing in the Irish Sea I've even heard Holyhead Coastguard calling Liverpool for a radio check because there had been no traffic for a long time.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[adl]

Have not got a VHF ticket but know the rules, can communicate properly and agree with everything you say. RYA CC, DS YM as well i have heard absolute horror stories from and about various schools around the solent. About the level of people who get passes this is why I feel no obligation to spend money on these tickets. Until it is mandatory to have a useless piece of paper I wont.

<hr width=100% size=1>Buachaille OR80

 

[oldsaltoz]

Sounds like a report on the forums to me

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[TheBoatman]

VHF is mandatory and I believe that the fine can consist of any or all of the following.
1. £10.000 fine
2. Confiscation of the VHF
3. 5 years in the nick.
4 Confiscation of the vessel the VHF is in.

I believe that if the RA was to start imposing all of the above we would see a sudden increase in people doing the course and a lot less Bl***dy stupid sods on the air. I reckon that if the RA was to nick 5-6 boats on the Solent one w/end confiscate the lot and put the (ex) skipper ashore, the following w/end would be very quiet on Ch 16.
To say that because you have heard horror stories is no arguement to not being legal.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[davidhand]

Is the licence to which you refer called a "Restricted Radiotelephone Operator Permit" 'cos I got one and I didn't have to take no test, just swear up and down on a stack of bibles that I could read and write English. I did have to take a motorbike test though but that was years and years ago and I haven't ridden one for about..., well I've forgotten.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[loonyscot]

You don't need training or qualification, i picked up all my radio know how from my parents and friends, and although i don't know everything i know the important stuff: Maydays ,Pan-Pans, intership, radiocheck, ship-marina etc. The problem is that if you're new to sailing, having had little practical experience, you may go on umpteen courses on navigation, sail handling, boat handling etc, but the little but needed VHF knowledge can be overlooked.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

The licences being referred to in this thread are compulsory here in the UK for all vhf users. As well as licensing the radio equipment, the operator must also be individually licensed, or operating under the supervision of a licensed person.

The system you operate under in the US under FCC regulations is somewhat different, in that you can obtain a ships licence, and require no operator licence -unless docking in foreign ports or using non vhf bands, in which case you can obtain the Restricted Radiotelephone Operator Permit you referred to.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

If you're operating a marine vhf radio in the UK, then you do require qualifications (unless you are using the radio under the supervision of someone who does have a licence)

In addition you require a licence for the radio.

If you don't have both then you are using the radio illegally

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

Comes down to one of the basic legal principles ie Laws (read licensing) which are not enforced or are unenforceable are a waste of space!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[sailbadthesinner]

Re: but look at the prosecutions

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.radio.gov.uk/topics/enforcement/prosecution.htm>RA convictions</A>



<hr width=100% size=1><font color=red>I can't walk on water, but I do run on Guinness</font color=red>

 

[BrendanS]

Re: but look at the prosecutions

I was just correcting the statement that qualifications aren't required. Didn't say anything about whether it's enforceable.

I only took my exam end of last year, and I've been using vhf for years

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Peppermint]

Re: Regulation - Needs enforcement

Areas where enforced legislation has had notable results include The Building Industry & Motorcycling.

To be effective regulations should be clear, simple and enforced or done away with.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[sailbadthesinner]

Re: but look at the prosecutions

sorry brendan this was a general post just tagged on to yours
not meant as criticism

i have to say the licensing of vhf is just a money exercise as we are using valuable bandwidth.
i think training is appropriate jnust so you know what to do in an emergency
having said that tho
the idiots on the net can enliven an otherwise dull afternoon.

<hr width=100% size=1><font color=red>I can't walk on water, but I do run on Guinness</font color=red>

 

[sailbadthesinner]

i think that is it
on the solent each time i have been there has been so much chatter you switch it off, possibly missing an important call
up in nw it is a pleasing diversion to hear the oddcoatsgaurd discussion

<hr width=100% size=1><font color=red>I can't walk on water, but I do run on Guinness</font color=red>

 

[Twister_Ken]

How embarrassing

Think I was the RA I would have buried a bug in that table, so that no-one could see how little I do to earn my keep.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mike_Martin]

Hi Gents,

Interesting thread, missed it because it didn't have any of my work "watchwords" (ie radio, VHF etc) in the title.

There is no requirement, unlike SOLAS vessels, for pleasure craft to carry radio equipment hence the designation "Voluntary Fit". However, if you choose to do so you are required to follow the same rules that SOLAS vessels do.

These legal requirements (Radio Licence and Operators Certificate of Competence) are actually specifically set out in the international Radio Regulations (visit http://www.radio.gov.uk/topics/maritime/maritime-index.htm and read the Airwaves newsletters for full details) and are implemented through national legislation (in the UK the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 as amended etc) this illustrates the importance of the Maritime radio service. I won't repeat what I have previously written in AW as it would make this a very long and boring post.

There are a few points that I feel should be addressed though:

If Ship Radio Licensing was a "money issue" surely the Agency would be constantly increasing the fee rather than decreasing it, those who are licensed will know what I'm talking about. Also consider that the total licence income from the 63,000 Ship licences is less than that brought in from one mobile telephone operator (yes the RA licences them as well!!)

Some administrations (notably the US and NZ) have withdrawn, due to their geographical location, the requirement for "domestic" vessels (those that do not leave their own Territorial Waters and only carry VHF equipment) to have a licence. This is due to the fact that the huge majority of their pleasure craft owners have no wish to, nor ever do visit other administrations. However, when these vessels do wish to go to foreign climes thay are expected to be properly licensed (with operator certificates) as this is a requirement of the international regs. We have a problem with this as we have two administrations a couple of hours passage away from us and British pleasure craft visit France, Holland, Spain and Ireland as a matter of course.

I'll try not to go into my spiel about proper training, suffice it to say that everyone should remember that the course is not just about getting off your own Distress/Safety call, it is also about when and how to relay someone else's, use of correct channels, making correct Passage Reports (TRs) and general understanding of what the system is for.

Mike

<hr width=100% size=1>Manager,
Aeronautical & Maritime Services Section,
Radiocommunications Agency

 

[tome]

Mike

Informative reply, thanks. I can now see a justification for the fee which wasn't clear to me before - the international requirements for licensing which must incur a cost. Since I go foreign regularly I won't complain further about my annual 20 quid fee.

I believe your final paragraph is the most important practical argument for proper training as we owe a duty of competent assistance to other vessels in difficulties. There but for the grace of God...

The original point which I was making was that regulation in this respect does not demonstrate encouraging standards amongst us amateur sailors, and I hope people will bear this in mind before calling for wider licensing of our activities.

Regards
TomE

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[TheBoatman]

Well done Mike a nice reply.
I for one would like to see the "under supervision" clause re-peeled because if I as a licenced operator can oversee someone who isn't then I should be doing it. Before anyone jumps up and down about the licenced operator being disabled, that doesn't apply, you can still use the equipment to send a message if someones life is in danger.
Am I the only one that hates listening to someone who obviously has not done the course talking to the CG

<hr width=100% size=1>