30boat
N/A
I've done just that.I kept my old Sailor vhf along with the dsc Simrad with an antenna splitter connecting both to the aerial.I can transmit on both and reception is actually much better on the Sailor for some reason.
With regard to several threads on DSC radios
- Thread starter Becky
- Start date
fireball
New member
As with most "New" technologies it will take a while for the full potential to be realised. DSC for leisure sailors really does depend on the use of the vessel, if coast hopping in the south/solent area then DSC will not give you much more than conventional VHF - the only (real) advantage is the ability to hit that alarm button and then leave it - knowing that help will be on it's way.
Leaving the UK shores then I believe DSC is more important - it conveys all the information about your distress in the local language so hopefully you will get the correct response.
Unfortunately the rules on DSC exclude filtering or volume control on DSC alerts - ok for MayDay/Panpan calls but a nuisance on all other "alerts". Surely a skipper should be able to add a filter to the non-essential traffic to ignore non-local traffic. EG - for a yacht in the eastern solent, however, hearing alerts for the poole area is not going to be of interest as it will take several hours to get there, the same information might be of interest to a trimaran or powerboat who can get there much quicker.
The only way we are going to get the rules changed is to raise these issues to the relevant bodies and make it clear where the problems lie. The listening watch on CH16 has already been extended in the south due to lack of takeup on DSC and without suitable sets and guidelines for use being adhered to (by the french!) there is likely to be a continued slow takeup of the DSC side - meaning the CG will have to extend it's deadline further.
Cost savings are there to be had - but not at the inconvenience of the users....
Leaving the UK shores then I believe DSC is more important - it conveys all the information about your distress in the local language so hopefully you will get the correct response.
Unfortunately the rules on DSC exclude filtering or volume control on DSC alerts - ok for MayDay/Panpan calls but a nuisance on all other "alerts". Surely a skipper should be able to add a filter to the non-essential traffic to ignore non-local traffic. EG - for a yacht in the eastern solent, however, hearing alerts for the poole area is not going to be of interest as it will take several hours to get there, the same information might be of interest to a trimaran or powerboat who can get there much quicker.
The only way we are going to get the rules changed is to raise these issues to the relevant bodies and make it clear where the problems lie. The listening watch on CH16 has already been extended in the south due to lack of takeup on DSC and without suitable sets and guidelines for use being adhered to (by the french!) there is likely to be a continued slow takeup of the DSC side - meaning the CG will have to extend it's deadline further.
Cost savings are there to be had - but not at the inconvenience of the users....
JonBrooks
New member
Just to clear a couple of points and maybe help with some of the duff data that is floating about at the moment.
Taking in to account there are some 68000 ships radio licenes issused to date in the UK and that of them some 20000 have MMSI numbers this would indicate a DSC take up of about 25%.
Also some othe figures I picked up very recently.
The UK CG must send an auto ack with 15 seconds of getting a DSC Distress, in practice this is actually about 6.5 seconds.
It would also seem that the greatest offender of what we here are calling false DSC messages is Joburge.
Now unless you people on here and others take the advice given a few weeks back and write and complain to MCA it will be a long drawn out change.
Whilst they know it is a problem at the moment they only hear it from Mike and I and a few others.
It needs to come from the everyone in writing.
DSC is without any doubt a great system, if all follows the right rules.
It will speed up response, it is much more acurate, it will save lives.
I am not saying this as Jon from Icom but as an informed boater.
Regards
Taking in to account there are some 68000 ships radio licenes issused to date in the UK and that of them some 20000 have MMSI numbers this would indicate a DSC take up of about 25%.
Also some othe figures I picked up very recently.
The UK CG must send an auto ack with 15 seconds of getting a DSC Distress, in practice this is actually about 6.5 seconds.
It would also seem that the greatest offender of what we here are calling false DSC messages is Joburge.
Now unless you people on here and others take the advice given a few weeks back and write and complain to MCA it will be a long drawn out change.
Whilst they know it is a problem at the moment they only hear it from Mike and I and a few others.
It needs to come from the everyone in writing.
DSC is without any doubt a great system, if all follows the right rules.
It will speed up response, it is much more acurate, it will save lives.
I am not saying this as Jon from Icom but as an informed boater.
Regards
Robin
Well-known member
Jon
I can't argue with the quoted take up figures, though a figure of 1 in 4 sets being DSC doesn't apply around my circle of sailing friends that is for sure!
As far as Joburg is concerned, yes they are a real pain in the transom but they are by no means the only offenders, it is just that they are an easy example to use being in the Central Channel and heard by many. Their messages are not 'false' per se as they must think it perfectly acceptable practice to preceed every announcement with a DSC alarm, that is a policy decision surely on their part. The 'false' alarms heard that are NOT necessarily false, just that the Ch70 alarm signal reaches parts that the voice channel cannot, leaving the receiving vessel wondering what the heck is going on, like a heavy breather on the 'phone. It seems to me that this is a system design fault because it is well accepted that this range differential exists. What was not addressed was the effect of this in practice, ie cry wolf enough times and everyone switches off, metaphorically and litterally.
[ QUOTE ]
Now unless you people on here and others take the advice given a few weeks back and write and complain to MCA it will be a long drawn out change.
Whilst they know it is a problem at the moment they only hear it from Mike and I and a few others.
It needs to come from the everyone in writing.
[/ QUOTE ]
The MCA must be WELL aware of the problem, they must be hearing it all day and every day. Indeed I had a PM from one CG who told me off the record it drove them nuts too. I believe it is pretty bad down Dover way as well where UK/French/Belgian and Dutch transmitters are all in range. Maybe, probably certainly, the UK CG receivers have the facilty to adjust the volume of the alarms? Otherwise methinks there would be some law suits pending for industrial injury - damaged eardrums from a DSC alarm heard over a headphone!
Yes I will write in to the MCA but really a) they should be well aware and b) this is something perhaps where the RYA should get involved as should the magazines.
Robin
I can't argue with the quoted take up figures, though a figure of 1 in 4 sets being DSC doesn't apply around my circle of sailing friends that is for sure!
As far as Joburg is concerned, yes they are a real pain in the transom but they are by no means the only offenders, it is just that they are an easy example to use being in the Central Channel and heard by many. Their messages are not 'false' per se as they must think it perfectly acceptable practice to preceed every announcement with a DSC alarm, that is a policy decision surely on their part. The 'false' alarms heard that are NOT necessarily false, just that the Ch70 alarm signal reaches parts that the voice channel cannot, leaving the receiving vessel wondering what the heck is going on, like a heavy breather on the 'phone. It seems to me that this is a system design fault because it is well accepted that this range differential exists. What was not addressed was the effect of this in practice, ie cry wolf enough times and everyone switches off, metaphorically and litterally.
[ QUOTE ]
Now unless you people on here and others take the advice given a few weeks back and write and complain to MCA it will be a long drawn out change.
Whilst they know it is a problem at the moment they only hear it from Mike and I and a few others.
It needs to come from the everyone in writing.
[/ QUOTE ]
The MCA must be WELL aware of the problem, they must be hearing it all day and every day. Indeed I had a PM from one CG who told me off the record it drove them nuts too. I believe it is pretty bad down Dover way as well where UK/French/Belgian and Dutch transmitters are all in range. Maybe, probably certainly, the UK CG receivers have the facilty to adjust the volume of the alarms? Otherwise methinks there would be some law suits pending for industrial injury - damaged eardrums from a DSC alarm heard over a headphone!
Yes I will write in to the MCA but really a) they should be well aware and b) this is something perhaps where the RYA should get involved as should the magazines.
Robin
JonBrooks
New member
As with most Emergency service control rooms the Alarms are not direct into the ear!
Stuff that for a job if not!
It is the MCA who can make the changes and both a national and internationally.
They are aware but maybe not of the extent of the problems is causes to you on the water.
I will try and raise it at the next MRAC meeting but that is not till March
Whislt RYA can get backing they have no real powers in this case IMHO.
Living very close to Dover I hear very few.
We have havd a DEMO radio conected to out v high mast here (RX Only)
Very few alerts heard.
Regards
Stuff that for a job if not!
It is the MCA who can make the changes and both a national and internationally.
They are aware but maybe not of the extent of the problems is causes to you on the water.
I will try and raise it at the next MRAC meeting but that is not till March
Whislt RYA can get backing they have no real powers in this case IMHO.
Living very close to Dover I hear very few.
We have havd a DEMO radio conected to out v high mast here (RX Only)
Very few alerts heard.
Regards
Sailfree
Well-known member
My point was that most people are cancelling the alarms rather than interrogating them and following up if they don't hear any response from the coastguard.
I agree with you the system at present is not working as it should as people are getting in the habit of cancelling a frequent alarm rather than check whether anyone in their vicinity needs help.
I agree with you the system at present is not working as it should as people are getting in the habit of cancelling a frequent alarm rather than check whether anyone in their vicinity needs help.
tome
New member
Jon
I've made my feelings about the lack of volume control on DSC sets clear to MCA and hope that others will also.
Tom
I've made my feelings about the lack of volume control on DSC sets clear to MCA and hope that others will also.
Tom
tome
New member
Response from CG
I received the following response from my complaint to HMCG:
[ QUOTE ]
I am afraid I can only offer sympathy - as a Class D user myself, I know exactly the problem. The international standard IEC 62238 has a better form of words than the European one:
Acoustic Alarm Power (IEC 62238)
The acoustic alarm shall initially be of a power that it is clearly distinguishable, but not interfere with, radiotelephone communications. If not manually cancelled within 10 s, the power should rise to a level of at least 80 dB(A) at a distance of 1 m from the equipment before automatic cancellation.
4.2.2.6.3 Acoustic alarms (EN 301 025)
The acoustic power of an alarm shall be at least 80 dB(A) at a distance of 1 m from the equipment.
Both, though, will end up with a piercing noise before the on-watch can get to it. Manufacturers do raise this issue at the appropriate fora, but the SAR lobby is adamant that this alert must be heard. Although against the Radio Regulations, I am aware that because of the problem you raise, many people turn the DSC off. I am sorry I can't offer more.
[/ QUOTE ]
I received the following response from my complaint to HMCG:
[ QUOTE ]
I am afraid I can only offer sympathy - as a Class D user myself, I know exactly the problem. The international standard IEC 62238 has a better form of words than the European one:
Acoustic Alarm Power (IEC 62238)
The acoustic alarm shall initially be of a power that it is clearly distinguishable, but not interfere with, radiotelephone communications. If not manually cancelled within 10 s, the power should rise to a level of at least 80 dB(A) at a distance of 1 m from the equipment before automatic cancellation.
4.2.2.6.3 Acoustic alarms (EN 301 025)
The acoustic power of an alarm shall be at least 80 dB(A) at a distance of 1 m from the equipment.
Both, though, will end up with a piercing noise before the on-watch can get to it. Manufacturers do raise this issue at the appropriate fora, but the SAR lobby is adamant that this alert must be heard. Although against the Radio Regulations, I am aware that because of the problem you raise, many people turn the DSC off. I am sorry I can't offer more.
[/ QUOTE ]
Robin
Well-known member
Re: Response from CG
Tom
At last some official acknowledgement that there IS a problem! It might be worth posting this reply from HMCG as a primary post, this is an old one and it might get missed?
I wonder where we go from here?
Robin
Tom
At last some official acknowledgement that there IS a problem! It might be worth posting this reply from HMCG as a primary post, this is an old one and it might get missed?
I wonder where we go from here?
Robin
tome
New member
Re: Response from CG
Yes, good idea Robin
Yes, good idea Robin
StugeronSteve
New member
I have called Solent about an unacknowledged DSC mayday from a vessel on fire. For some reason Solent had not picked up the call, even though it was on their patch, and so I was asked to pass on the relevant details. I had position, time and nature of distress, but had failed to note the MMSI number. No probs, a quick look in the set's call log will supply the answer, I thought, however, a dodgy button wouldn't let me access the menu function. Another vessel then entered the discussion and supplied the missing MMSI. Solent called the vessel on Ch16 and he denied sending the alert. Simrad fixed my set FOC, I did feel like asking them to write to Solent and confirm that I wasn't another yachtie plonker who couldn't work his vhf, but didn't bother.
Apparently loads of the false alarms are caused by peeps playing with their sets, or showing crew how to send distress calls, so be careful!
Apparently loads of the false alarms are caused by peeps playing with their sets, or showing crew how to send distress calls, so be careful!