A_7
New member
I thought that Solent Coastguard would no longer give Radio Checks. However they were responding no problem the other day. All day, in fact, virtually non-stop.
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
Solent Radio Check
- Thread starter A_7
- Start date
AIDY
Active member
I thought the same too.
But at the weekend they were requesting it to be done on channel 67.
One wonders why people cant do radio checks with other boats or marinas ? and cut the chatter out of 16 and 67. you often here the same vessel calling every weekend.
Personally the only time i have ever spoken to the coastguard is to log a passage report, when crossing the channel. but i don't know what would happen if i forgot to log in with them on arrival ?
<hr width=100% size=1>/forums/images/icons/wink.gif <font color=blue> Regards Andy </font color=blue>
But at the weekend they were requesting it to be done on channel 67.
One wonders why people cant do radio checks with other boats or marinas ? and cut the chatter out of 16 and 67. you often here the same vessel calling every weekend.
Personally the only time i have ever spoken to the coastguard is to log a passage report, when crossing the channel. but i don't know what would happen if i forgot to log in with them on arrival ?
<hr width=100% size=1>/forums/images/icons/wink.gif <font color=blue> Regards Andy </font color=blue>
john_morris_uk
Well-known member
I seem to remember that the chances of anything happening if you fail to report are fairly slim. If there is a problem reported, I understand they use your report to enhance their SAR effort. I might be wrong and having a senior memory moment though...
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
Doug_Stormforce
New member
SCG has and does repeatedy sate that radio checks are to be done on Ch 67.
There is an old duffer on the Hamble (shall remain nameless) who spends most weekends sat on his boat on the pile moorings. He generally makes two radio checks a day but never leaves his mooring.
As a regular sailor and powerboater who is afloat most days I make the assumption that if the radio worked yesterday it will work again toady.
Regarding passage plans, if you do not call in on arrival nothing is done, passage plans are simply logged on their computer, so that if there is a problem later or you are reported missing by a friend or family the CG has your plan and therefore a starting point for SAR
<hr width=100% size=1>RYA Courses in the Solent at http://www.stormforce.biz
There is an old duffer on the Hamble (shall remain nameless) who spends most weekends sat on his boat on the pile moorings. He generally makes two radio checks a day but never leaves his mooring.
As a regular sailor and powerboater who is afloat most days I make the assumption that if the radio worked yesterday it will work again toady.
Regarding passage plans, if you do not call in on arrival nothing is done, passage plans are simply logged on their computer, so that if there is a problem later or you are reported missing by a friend or family the CG has your plan and therefore a starting point for SAR
<hr width=100% size=1>RYA Courses in the Solent at http://www.stormforce.biz
Aardee
Well-known member
I believe the answer to your question is not a lot. As explained on the VHF course I recently attended, they only refer to their record of logged & completed passages in the event of someone being reported missing.
<hr width=100% size=1>"I am a bear of very little brain and long words bother me..."
<hr width=100% size=1>"I am a bear of very little brain and long words bother me..."
sailorman
Well-known member
delf wot u dont realise is that they "turned the set on monday evening".
however can they expect the thing to work this w/e with-out mummy telling them it does.
we use to go cross channel with no radio up to 1984, God how did we do it, no Decca either
<hr width=100% size=1>
however can they expect the thing to work this w/e with-out mummy telling them it does.
we use to go cross channel with no radio up to 1984, God how did we do it, no Decca either
<hr width=100% size=1>
Heckler
Active member
wonder what plod would say if we asked for a 999 telephone check every time we turned on our mobiles?
stu
<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.beneteau-owners-association.org.uk>http://www.beneteau-owners-association.org.uk</A>
stu
<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.beneteau-owners-association.org.uk>http://www.beneteau-owners-association.org.uk</A>
broadcaster
New member
Hi,
I test my radio at the beginning of the season by calling my hand held on an inter- ship channel and then again if we have altered the electrics or if the mast is stepped. Maybe they could set up a DSC responder to test radios in future. For example you send a DSC call up to a special number and it just calls back and confirms transmission. It should be possible without having any human intervention.
Andy
<hr width=100% size=1>
I test my radio at the beginning of the season by calling my hand held on an inter- ship channel and then again if we have altered the electrics or if the mast is stepped. Maybe they could set up a DSC responder to test radios in future. For example you send a DSC call up to a special number and it just calls back and confirms transmission. It should be possible without having any human intervention.
Andy
<hr width=100% size=1>
AlexL
Member
I have never felt the need to do a Radio check to the CG as I have to radio the lock on CH80 in my marina every time I go out and every time I come back in. I know the lock is only a few hundred yards away but I assume that if he can here me then the radio is working. If people are worried about the radio not working then just call up the marina for something or call up a friends boat.
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
BlueSkyNick
Active member
Solent CG are the worst culprits
I have come to the conclusion that SCG themselves, are their own worst enemy in this regard. They do not take sufficient action to reduce the number of calls.
They would say that the duration of each radio check should be kept to a minimum to save time on the airwaves. I would argue that a "stitch in time would save nine". When they respond to one radio check, a whole number of other boats think it would be a good idea to do the same.
Sometimes, say on a busy Sunday morning, they announce that they will not respond to radio checks. Within 30 minutes, somebody will have called them - maybe not having heard the previous announcement - and SCG will respond.
Recently, I have heard them asking for checks to be on Ch67 in future, then other members of staff still respond to checks on Ch16.
There are many other examples.
What they should do, IMO, is not just respond with a 'Loud and Clear' or whatever, but add on that they are not there for radio checks at all, and they do not expect to hear from that vessel again. It would only add a few seconds to each transmission, but eliminate a large number more, where others take heed and not call in the first place.
Better still, if SCG had some form of database where they could record unncessary checks, and were able to identify multiple callers, further action could be taken. This would also be a deterrent to others. It only needs to be a simple MS Access or even a Spreadsheet to have an impact.
Finally, if they asked for radio call signs, not just boat names, some callers wouldn't bother.
That's my view - how we get anybody to take any notice, is another point entirely.
<hr width=100% size=1>I'm average size, Its just that everybody else is short.
I have come to the conclusion that SCG themselves, are their own worst enemy in this regard. They do not take sufficient action to reduce the number of calls.
They would say that the duration of each radio check should be kept to a minimum to save time on the airwaves. I would argue that a "stitch in time would save nine". When they respond to one radio check, a whole number of other boats think it would be a good idea to do the same.
Sometimes, say on a busy Sunday morning, they announce that they will not respond to radio checks. Within 30 minutes, somebody will have called them - maybe not having heard the previous announcement - and SCG will respond.
Recently, I have heard them asking for checks to be on Ch67 in future, then other members of staff still respond to checks on Ch16.
There are many other examples.
What they should do, IMO, is not just respond with a 'Loud and Clear' or whatever, but add on that they are not there for radio checks at all, and they do not expect to hear from that vessel again. It would only add a few seconds to each transmission, but eliminate a large number more, where others take heed and not call in the first place.
Better still, if SCG had some form of database where they could record unncessary checks, and were able to identify multiple callers, further action could be taken. This would also be a deterrent to others. It only needs to be a simple MS Access or even a Spreadsheet to have an impact.
Finally, if they asked for radio call signs, not just boat names, some callers wouldn't bother.
That's my view - how we get anybody to take any notice, is another point entirely.
<hr width=100% size=1>I'm average size, Its just that everybody else is short.
Mike_Martin
New member
I thought that rather than let this becoming a slanging match that I would ask the "horse", see below:
Quote
Solent Coastguard, like all Coastguard Co-ordination Centres will try to provide a safety service to the mariner in whatever way it can and this can include the provision of a radio check when operational circumstances permit..
During the quieter winter months when radio traffic is light the provision of radio checks is not a problem and does keep us in touch with vessels when the risks are potentially higher.
During the summer months when the numbers of leisure craft on the water increases a thousand-fold the provision of radio checks becomes impossible because of the resulting and almost continuous increase in radio traffic and the fact that this is the peak season for Coastguard Co-ordination Centres dealing with distress alerts and other emergencies. Furthermore, this increase in radio traffic could prevent the receipt of a distress or urgency message by the Coastguard.
To try to reduce the amount of VHF radio traffic on VHF radio, particularly Channels 16 and 67, Solent Coastguard (and certain other centres) will invoke a "no radio checks status" and encourage vessels to check their radios before leaving the marina or harbour either with the marina or with another vessel thereby negating the need to do so with the Coastguard.
I know this approach may be seen as inconsistent by some but we are a customer focused Agency and as I said at the beginning of this message, we will always do our best to provide a service to our customers. That said, search and rescue takes priority over everything and if that primary role is likely to be compromised by radio checks then the latter will not heppen.
I have noted too the inconsistent approach by different operators and watches at Solent Coastguard and I will take this up separately.
Regards
Peter Dymond
Head of SAR
Maritime & Coastguard Agency
End quote.
Mike
<hr width=100% size=1>Team Executive,
Maritime & Aeronautical Team, Ofcom
Quote
Solent Coastguard, like all Coastguard Co-ordination Centres will try to provide a safety service to the mariner in whatever way it can and this can include the provision of a radio check when operational circumstances permit..
During the quieter winter months when radio traffic is light the provision of radio checks is not a problem and does keep us in touch with vessels when the risks are potentially higher.
During the summer months when the numbers of leisure craft on the water increases a thousand-fold the provision of radio checks becomes impossible because of the resulting and almost continuous increase in radio traffic and the fact that this is the peak season for Coastguard Co-ordination Centres dealing with distress alerts and other emergencies. Furthermore, this increase in radio traffic could prevent the receipt of a distress or urgency message by the Coastguard.
To try to reduce the amount of VHF radio traffic on VHF radio, particularly Channels 16 and 67, Solent Coastguard (and certain other centres) will invoke a "no radio checks status" and encourage vessels to check their radios before leaving the marina or harbour either with the marina or with another vessel thereby negating the need to do so with the Coastguard.
I know this approach may be seen as inconsistent by some but we are a customer focused Agency and as I said at the beginning of this message, we will always do our best to provide a service to our customers. That said, search and rescue takes priority over everything and if that primary role is likely to be compromised by radio checks then the latter will not heppen.
I have noted too the inconsistent approach by different operators and watches at Solent Coastguard and I will take this up separately.
Regards
Peter Dymond
Head of SAR
Maritime & Coastguard Agency
End quote.
Mike
<hr width=100% size=1>Team Executive,
Maritime & Aeronautical Team, Ofcom
JonBrooks
New member
Re: Solent CG are the worst culprits
Maybe IMHO it should be that boaters should not expect the coastgaurd to do radio checks and do it via a handheld or another boater before setting off.
Its not that hard to do that. if your marina based you can call your marine before leaving.
With a bit of thought and planning am sure most of us could find another way to do a radio check without bothering the coast guard.
I have never called them for a radio check but always check mine before setting out.
After all you don't dial 999 and ask the police, ambulance or fire to check you landline or mobile are working ok.
All IMHO
Regards
<hr width=100% size=1>Jon Brooks Icom UK Ltd. 01227 741741
Maybe IMHO it should be that boaters should not expect the coastgaurd to do radio checks and do it via a handheld or another boater before setting off.
Its not that hard to do that. if your marina based you can call your marine before leaving.
With a bit of thought and planning am sure most of us could find another way to do a radio check without bothering the coast guard.
I have never called them for a radio check but always check mine before setting out.
After all you don't dial 999 and ask the police, ambulance or fire to check you landline or mobile are working ok.
All IMHO
Regards
<hr width=100% size=1>Jon Brooks Icom UK Ltd. 01227 741741
Rich_F
New member
"Customer Focused"?
The Coastguard should consider that they have hundreds/thousands of "customers" out there, and in answering an unnecessary radio check for one, they are causing annoyance to many others.
Rich
<hr width=100% size=1>
The Coastguard should consider that they have hundreds/thousands of "customers" out there, and in answering an unnecessary radio check for one, they are causing annoyance to many others.
Rich
<hr width=100% size=1>
bedouin
Well-known member
Re: Overheard Recently..
I overheard the following on CH16 not that long ago:
"Portland Coastguard, Portland Coastguard, this is Solent Coastguard - Radio Check please - Over"
<hr width=100% size=1>
I overheard the following on CH16 not that long ago:
"Portland Coastguard, Portland Coastguard, this is Solent Coastguard - Radio Check please - Over"
<hr width=100% size=1>
AIDY
Active member
Re: Overheard Recently..
Come to think of it, I did as well over the bank weekend.
<hr width=100% size=1>/forums/images/icons/wink.gif <font color=blue> Regards Andy </font color=blue>
Come to think of it, I did as well over the bank weekend.
<hr width=100% size=1>/forums/images/icons/wink.gif <font color=blue> Regards Andy </font color=blue>
Kristal
New member
Re: Solent CG are the worst culprits
My handheld has been acting peculiarly recently, so I radio checked with a nearby boat. The one time I used Thames CG was just after buying the boat and turning on the VHF for the first time. Overheard radio checks tend to go:
Caller: Thames Coastguard, xxxx, radio check please.
CG: xxxxx, this is Thames Coastguard, you are loud and clear on channel 16.
Caller: Many thanks, Thames Coastguard, xxxxx out.
Succint and effective.
/<
<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.crystaltwo.co.uk/>Crystal II in Pictures</A>
My handheld has been acting peculiarly recently, so I radio checked with a nearby boat. The one time I used Thames CG was just after buying the boat and turning on the VHF for the first time. Overheard radio checks tend to go:
Caller: Thames Coastguard, xxxx, radio check please.
CG: xxxxx, this is Thames Coastguard, you are loud and clear on channel 16.
Caller: Many thanks, Thames Coastguard, xxxxx out.
Succint and effective.
/<
<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.crystaltwo.co.uk/>Crystal II in Pictures</A>
bedouin
Well-known member
I also use this approach, but to be honest I am not sure how effective it really is. I imaging 25W of transmit power would reach the HH within a couple of hundred yards without an aerial attached!
So while it checks that the output stage of the transmitter is working fine, it doesn't really give you any idea about the state of the cable and aerial, which is what is most likely to fail.
<hr width=100% size=1>
So while it checks that the output stage of the transmitter is working fine, it doesn't really give you any idea about the state of the cable and aerial, which is what is most likely to fail.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Nick_Pam
Member
Purely out of interest, since I have an interest in radio, I thought I'd add one small point.
Every transmitting radio has a small RF transistor which generates micro-watts of Radio Frequency output, and a set of power transistors which magnify the original output to 1/5/25 watts etc depending on your radio.
Even if the output transistors on your VHF had blown, the lock-keeper several hundred yards away (or your handheld in the cabin) would have no trouble in hearing you, because of the power generated by the initial RF transistor, but a coast-guard or life-boat several miles away wouldn't hear a thing!!
Why do power transistors blow??? Basically due to a poor radiated signal caused by faulty aerial connection, water-logged joints, damaged aerial cable.......sounding familiar??
Just a thought - the occasional check perhaps wouldn't go amiss, although twice a day is probably pushing it!!
<hr width=100% size=1>
Every transmitting radio has a small RF transistor which generates micro-watts of Radio Frequency output, and a set of power transistors which magnify the original output to 1/5/25 watts etc depending on your radio.
Even if the output transistors on your VHF had blown, the lock-keeper several hundred yards away (or your handheld in the cabin) would have no trouble in hearing you, because of the power generated by the initial RF transistor, but a coast-guard or life-boat several miles away wouldn't hear a thing!!
Why do power transistors blow??? Basically due to a poor radiated signal caused by faulty aerial connection, water-logged joints, damaged aerial cable.......sounding familiar??
Just a thought - the occasional check perhaps wouldn't go amiss, although twice a day is probably pushing it!!
<hr width=100% size=1>
Jools_of_Top_Cat
New member
and another thing
When a group of boats are harbour hopping as a flotilla, would it really be that difficult for them to pre-arrange a working channel. If they all had their sets on 77 for example there would be no need to call each other constanlly on 16 all day long.
grrrrr.
angry from N. Wales.
<hr width=100% size=1>J
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk>
</A>
When a group of boats are harbour hopping as a flotilla, would it really be that difficult for them to pre-arrange a working channel. If they all had their sets on 77 for example there would be no need to call each other constanlly on 16 all day long.
grrrrr.
angry from N. Wales.
<hr width=100% size=1>J
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk>
Mike_Martin
New member
Re: and another thing
Incredibly sensible suggestion and of course exactly how it is meant to be done.
There is no need to use C16 if you have already mutually agreed on a working channel.
Mike
<hr width=100% size=1>Team Executive,
Maritime & Aeronautical Team, Ofcom
Incredibly sensible suggestion and of course exactly how it is meant to be done.
There is no need to use C16 if you have already mutually agreed on a working channel.
Mike
<hr width=100% size=1>Team Executive,
Maritime & Aeronautical Team, Ofcom