vhf radio usage

[benjenbav]

Not sure anyone's mentioned it so far but, when calling a harbour or a marina, it must make sense to use the harbour or marina's "local" working channel* straight off rather than clogging Ch 16 and then moving to a working channel by agreement.


*In Reeds if not already known

 

[prv]

- 1

Roger is not a marine pro-word, nor is it in the International Marine Vocabulary.

I didn't say it was. In fact, I implied (I accept not especially strongly) that it wasn't. I said it was a pro-word in some circles - ie aviation, military, etc. If I thought it was generally valid, including in marine VHF, I'd have just said it was a valid pro-word full-stop.

Pete

 

[prv]

Not sure anyone's mentioned it so far but, when calling a harbour or a marina, it must make sense to use the harbour or marina's "local" working channel* straight off rather than clogging Ch 16

More than "makes sense" - it's the only way you're going to contact them as they don't monitor 16.

I often hear Solent "advising" someone of this fact

Pete

 

[timbartlett]

Not sure anyone's mentioned it so far but, when calling a harbour or a marina, it must make sense to use the harbour or marina's "local" working channel* straight off rather than clogging Ch 16 and then moving to a working channel by agreement.


*In Reeds if not already known

It more than just "makes sense": in most cases it is the only way you will get a reply. Coast radio station licences cost £100 per channel per year, and Marina licences cost £75 for three channels (m, m2, 80) per year. They cannot reply on Channel 16, no matter how much you call them on it.

 

[Baddox]

It more than just "makes sense": in most cases it is the only way you will get a reply. Coast radio station licences cost £100 per channel per year, and Marina licences cost £75 for three channels (m, m2, 80) per year. They cannot reply on Channel 16, no matter how much you call them on it.

Interesting. Do the marina staff need a shore station operators’ license or does the Marine SRC cover their radio usage even on land?

 

[benjenbav]

More than "makes sense" - it's the only way you're going to contact them as they don't monitor 16.

I often hear Solent "advising" someone of this fact

Pete

Didn't know this. Mind you I've never tried calling a harbour or a marina on 16.

 

[timbartlett]

Interesting. Do the marina staff need a shore station operators’ license or does the Marine SRC cover their radio usage even on land?

SRC does it for the international channels. M and M2 don't need an authority to operate. Nor do "Private channels" (but the coast station licence costs even more for private channels).

 

[BlueSkyNick]

More than "makes sense" - it's the only way you're going to contact them as they don't monitor 16.

I often hear Solent "advising" someone of this fact

Pete

Not only don't but can't monitor 16 - stuck on Ch80 only.

 

[timbartlett]

What light through yonder window breaks?

But "roger" is a valid pro-word in some circles, and using it on marine VHF doesn't seem like such a heinous crime to me. It fills a useful role, too - what would you replace it with? Pete

I don't regard it as a heinous crime, either, but according to the Radio Regulations, the correct proword is "Received" or "Romeo Romeo Romeo"

"Wherefore art thou?" does not seem to feature in the ITU Manual!

 

[oceanfroggie]

Marine comms technology is Jurassic, analog VHF compared to aviation has so few frequencies/channels available in the narrow spectrum. Digitally compressed voice including full text service would give greater range and better sound quality. DSC being limited to digital call initiation then reverting to analog for voice seems like something daft dreamed up in the 70s.

In relation to marinas, nowadays many folk use mobile phone for contact.

 

[epervier]

Only sailing boats call each other on VHF in the Solent. Powerboat-marina and power boat-powerboat always use their phones, so they can nip in and get the berth.
BTW, it isnt necesarry to call the CG on your phone to test its working, either.

 

[prv]

Marine comms technology is Jurassic, analog VHF compared to aviation has so few frequencies/channels available in the narrow spectrum.

Aviation uses analogue VHF too.

Pete

 

[neale]

The problem is people who fly planes are being forced onto the water with the soaring price of fuel

Let's hope they don't buy a big MoBo then.

A Cessna, at circa 15mpg, sounds very economical to me

 

[oceanfroggie]

Aviation uses analogue VHF too.

Yes the comparison was the limited spectrum available to marine hence few useable channels. Marine VHF is really about safety ch16/ch70 rather than comms between ships/shore facilities. Whereas aviation is about 'control'. Aviation has had its share of problems with analog and moving towards digital comms. Barely enough TX time available at some busy terminal areas, and key over.

 

[timbartlett]

...so few frequencies/channels available in the narrow spectrum.... Digitally compressed voice including full text service would give greater range and better sound quality.... DSC being limited to digital call initiation then reverting to analog for voice seems like something daft dreamed up in the 70s.

The main problem with channels is that so many of the available channels are still allocated to public correspondence -- for which we no longer have anywhere near as much need nor the coast radio stations to handle it. There are odd occasions when it might be nice to have, but it certainly doesn't warrant the allocation of all those duplex channels. Get rid of all that lot, and there could be 60-odd simplex channels available for intership and port ops!

Not completely convinced about the extra range -- it would be a marginal benefit, IMHO, because VHF is largely limited by geography rather than transmission mode.

It was "dreamed up in the seventies!". But if you've ever been to the tower of babel that is a UN convention (I've been to IMO, not ITU, but I can't imagine that they are very different!) you'll understand why they take decades to achieve anything: civil servants and lawyers who know little (if anything) about the subject arguing for the vested interests of their own governments in languages that most of them can't speak or understand, while "observers" (who do know about the realities) sit and fume in the back rows and watch sensible ideas disappearing down the plug-hole of bureaucracy and intergovernmental willy-waving.

 

[Mariner69]

........It was "dreamed up in the seventies!". But if you've ever been to the tower of babel that is a UN convention (I've been to IMO, not ITU, but I can't imagine that they are very different!) you'll understand why they take decades to achieve anything: civil servants and lawyers who know little (if anything) about the subject arguing for the vested interests of their own governments in languages that most of them can't speak or understand, while "observers" (who do know about the realities) sit and fume in the back rows and watch sensible ideas disappearing down the plug-hole of bureaucracy and intergovernmental willy-waving.

+1

Dangerous Goods convention took ages. Post 911 the USA shoved through ISPS code in just over a year. Maybe the words "You're either with us or against us", may have had some persuasive effect. Could do with a lot of streamlining. IMHO

 

[prv]

Yes the comparison was the limited spectrum available to marine hence few useable channels.

According to this chart, the aviation band is a bit wider than the marine, but not massively so. I'd have thought that aviation transmissions cover a larger area (much higher antenna heights!) which probably accounts for that to some extent (ie we can reuse channels across a smaller area than they can).

I think Tim has a point on the demise of phone-patch service.

Pete

 

[rbcoomer]

What I want to know is, who the hell was Roger.

Jolly old pirate fella wasn't he?

Perhaps more importantly, are there any laws to prohibit some muppet from calling their boat 'Mayday'...

"Brixham Coastguard, Brixham Coastguard, this is Mayday, Mayday, Mayday, over..."

 

[prv]

Perhaps more importantly, are there any laws to prohibit some muppet from calling their boat 'Mayday'...

Yes. Ofcom won't give you a station license.

According to the instructor on my VHF course, there was a catamaran in Cowes whose license application kept being rejected. The boat was called Wet Pussy

Pete

 

[rbcoomer]

Yes. Ofcom won't give you a station license.

According to the instructor on my VHF course, there was a catamaran in Cowes whose license application kept being rejected. The boat was called Wet Pussy

Pete

That of course assumes the owner bothers! I registered mine, but what about those who have their SRC but perhaps never registered or needed a call-sign etc? Even in my very limited circle of boating friends I know of two who have a VHF but no call-sign or MMSI (in this instance, both should have ). There must however be loads of SRC operators without their own boats and also boats with VHF installed but owner doesn't hold SRC? What if a mobile user happens to be aboard said boat called 'Mayday' - I don't believe any checks would be in place to catch that one! (Although I'd hope that anyone holding an SRC wouldn't be stupid enough to use the boat name if it WAS called Mayday!)

I'm not sure what happened before DSC, but without the need for MMSI number, how many actually bothered to register with Ofcom? Then there's those who's rigs pre-date Ofcom (BT used to administer radio didn't they?) Surely the licence is for the operator anyway not the set - so is there actually a legal requirement to register a boat fitted with VHF? I appreciate that it's in the owner's best interest to do so in order for coastguard/RNLI etc know what they're looking for, but that's no guarantee that they do is it?

Also, I believe that unlike amateur radio, the call-sign is attached to the boat not the operator and thus as boats get sold on, renamed etc it must get even more of a nightmare! I don't think I have to renew my online Ofcom registration for 10 or 12 years? I will, and indeed already have (for a group MMSI), but either way it seems a long gap to me for something that could ultimately prove very important to provide current information?