"you've had long enough.....

[Birdseye]

"you\'ve had long enough.....

Not the precise words used, but near enough. The Coastguard man was talking about doing a presentation on DSC to members of our club and his message was that the leisure yottie had had long enough to buy a DSC set, that ch16 listening by phones would stop in 2 years and we MUST all have converted by then.

Dont get me wrong. The whole thing was nicely said, but I was left in no doubt what the MCA expected of us.

Which of course wont happen. Even the rich yotties of the Solent (must be to pay those marina fees!!!) wont all have junked useable old style sets by then, and even if they do we poor yotties in the sticks will have bought them up. So if we still have the old style sets, and the MCA plan on us not having them, what will happen? Will they refuse to respond to anything other than a Mayday on ch16 for example?

Or will it, like digital TV, become a failed system.



<hr width=100% size=1>this post is a personal opinion, and you should not base your actions on it.

 

[bedouin]

Re: \"you\'ve had long enough.....

I thought that CG had already ceased to maintain a dedicated listening watch by phone on Ch 16, but that there was no plan to cease a 'speaker watch on Ch16 - has that changed now?

I think DSC technology has become out-of-date before it has been fully adopted. It is time for the whole system to be revised - but that will take about 20 years to agree /forums/images/icons/frown.gif

To some extend VHF itself is getting out-of-date. With cheap affordable satellite technology (from EPIRBs to Satellite Phones) there are a number of alternatives out there.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Joe_Cole]

Re: \"you\'ve had long enough.....

From everything I've read here about the Solent, the only time people will upgrade to DSC is when it can do an automated Radio Check!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[sailorman]

Re: \"you\'ve had long enough.....

over & out

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Robin]

What a fine mess you have got us in.........

Probably misquoted Laurel & Hardy....

But IMHO it IS a mess. No calling on CH16 which will be reserved for distress only, but no replacement calling channel, you are supposed to use DSC and call using the MMSI. So if you need to call the ship that is about to run you down you can only do it by putting out an ALL ships DSC alert because he won't be listening on 16 like now. Likewise you cannot call 'blue yacht 2mls S of...' because you don't know his MMSI number.



<hr width=100% size=1><font size=1>Sermons from my pulpit are with tongue firmly in cheek and come with no warranty!</font size=1>

 

[TheBoatman]

Re: What a fine mess you have got us in.........

Ch 13 is dedicated bridge to bridge but I wouldn't rely on it anymore than I would rely on the "old" VHF method either. If I was about to be run down standing below yelling down a mike wouldn't be my first consideration, trying to steer out of the way might?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[TheBoatman]

Re: \"you\'ve had long enough.....

Joe
I agree but would have put it differently,,,, the only time they (the Solent sailors) will upgrade to DSC is when the CAN'T get a radio check on Ch 16?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Piere]

Re: \"you\'ve had long enough.....

I'm told Dover cg are not at all happy about the new approach and will still keep more than one ear on 16. well done dover keep up your sterling work!!!!!

heres a little bit of useless info . On a recent visit a cg officer was asked if our little yots are visible by their radar,, oh no you are much too small too see .

a few moments later he said "of course you lot always go out in groups don't you , we often see several of you out together"

The mind boggles

they do a great job though

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Robin]

Re: What a fine mess you have got us in.........

Quite agree, but I only used it as an example to show what you will NOT be able to do without a dedicated calling channel. I don't think folks have yet realised the implications, if you want to call a friend and don't know his MMSI what will you do? Call him on the mobilephone and ask for his MMSI, then call on the VHF?

My point is that aside from making or receiving a Mayday or similar call, or calls to a few friends whose MMSI you do know the set will have limited use. Those nice people in the next berth you met last night and have just seen going your way up ahead cannot be contacted since you don't have their MMSI.

Is this realistic or is what will really happen that everyone will keep calling on CH16 just as they do now and to hell with it? Anarchy on the airwaves? And I bet Solent CG and the others will keep answering their requests for radiochecks!

<hr width=100% size=1><font size=1>Sermons from my pulpit are with tongue firmly in cheek and come with no warranty!</font size=1>

 

[Robin]

Re: \"you\'ve had long enough.....

Dover CG must have poor radar then because I once called Ushant Traffic Control (who monitor the TSS at the other end of the Channel) and asked about visibility in Chenal Du Four, we were 15mls out in thick fog. Ushant asked our position and when given it said 'oh yes we have you on our radar' - very impressive. They also checked with Pointe St Mathieu (bottom of Chenal du Four) and reported the vis back to us and Pointe St Mathieu also offered to 'talk us through on radar' if we needed it. We didn't need help through, we have radar and tested WPTs we trust, but they seemed confident their radar was good enough to see us through.

<hr width=100% size=1><font size=1>Sermons from my pulpit are with tongue firmly in cheek and come with no warranty!</font size=1>

 

[Evadne]

Another alternative?

The coastguard have already retreated into their windowless radioshacks, leaving a voluntary organisation to man their coast lookouts (Coast watch, I believe they are called, and a fine job they do too). Could they be hoping that the same thing will happen to Ch 16? Would the RNLI ever take over the role, if distress listening on Ch. 16 was abandoned by the Coastguard? Many government bodies have beeen "privatised", are we seeing the "charityisation" of essential services at sea?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Ohdrat]

Re: Essential Sea Services

Lets just hope they don't outsource.. then it really will be a unholy mess..

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Robin]

A lot of worthless handhelds then?

Or at least of very limited use. So if you have say a fire below and cannot get to the VHF to put out a Mayday, but manage to get into the liferaft WITH the handheld, there will be no listening watch on CH16, so who do you call on what channel? You cannot call any other vessel (no calling channel) and have no DSC on a handheld so cannot call even the limited number of vessels whose MMSI you (might) know.


<hr width=100% size=1><font size=1>Sermons from my pulpit are with tongue firmly in cheek and come with no warranty!</font size=1>

 

[Koeketiene]

Re: Another alternative?

Maybe Phoney B.Liar could privatise radiochecks?
There's obviously a market for them.

<hr width=100% size=1>Experience is a good teacher, but she sends in terrific bills.

 

[AndrewB]

Re: "you\'ve had long enough.....

Apparently the new CG radars at Dover were detuned when installed a year or so ago so they would no longer spot small targets such as yachts. It was supposed to be a temporary arrangement, to cope with the new AIC facilities -- odd to hear they still haven't made the correction, which one might suppose has major safety implications.

But quite apart from radar, in good weather they only have to look out of the window of their magnificently positioned look-out to be able to watch yachts anywhere in the Dover Straight!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Gunfleet]

Re: \"you\'ve had long enough.....

nothing to stop them calling the coastguard mmsi for a radio check!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[MarkV]

Re: A lot of worthless handhelds then?

This is already happening now, remember the crew who spent eight days in a life raft in the Irish Sea. Don't know if they had a DSC set (before they set fire to the boat) but no one seemed to be listening to the voice calls.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

Re: A lot of worthless handhelds then?

My suspicion is that in a real emergency a HH vhf is useless for calling for help as the range and power is limited. I'd put more trust in flares. Suspect the real answer is an Epirb 406

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[bedouin]

Re: A lot of worthless handhelds then?

I tend to agree. I know that my HH is of very little use in calling for help, and I suspect many fixed installations too do not have the range to call for help offshore.

I now tend to regard the 406 EPIRB as the most important piece of emergency kit I carry but it is worrying that I have no real way of testing it.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Ships_Cat]

Re: A lot of worthless handhelds then?

That is it - handheld VHF is not part of GMDSS, 406 EPIRB is for all Sea Areas 1 to 4 so that is what one should take into the raft for alerting, if able, no matter where you are.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>I am the cat but I am only 6.