Missing Vessel reported on the Maritime Service Net on 20 meters

Absolutely not

 

So, basically, what you are saying is that instead of spending 4-7 hundred on a ham radio, the person should have spend 4-7 hundred on an Iridium phone, so he could have called the CG office direct himself when the marine HF went un-answered? Or, he should have had a GMDSS onboard?

 

Since we are back on this tac, I would say that if a person were planning on cruising off shore, these would be prudent steps. In Coast Guard proceedings, masters of ships are
often cited for doing something "that a prudent master would not do" or Failed to do something that "a purdent master would do" These are the measuring sticks that sea
captains are judged by. If you are going to sea, you should prepare yourself and your boat. This would be my shopping list for emergency electronics; GMDSS console, EPIRB, SART, Iridium phone.. You have all this and you have covered your bases aboutr as well s they can be covered. If you get into trouble, you should be able to call for help without
relying on amateur radio operators who are, for the most part, ill-trained/equipped to help you in a timely manner. All you need are a few phone numbers and a few publications
that should come with your GMDSS console. If something takes all of those out of commision, your ham gear is probably trashed as well.

NI7I

 

14.300 is used my the Maritime Mobile Service Net and by the Intercontinental Net, among others. It is not "exclusively used" by any net.

There is absolutely NO reason why a recreational vessel has to carry commercial HF -- especially if the operator does not intend to do deep sea voyages or do more than an occasional day cruise beyond normal VHF range.

Some on this forum appear to believe that the ARS is not appropriate for ANY purpose other than rag-chewing or chasing DX. NEWS FLASH: It is very appropriately utilized by many hams for many other purposes. If a ham happens to also be a pilot, he/she carries a ham rig (or several) on his/her aircraft. If a boat or RV owner, why on earth does anyone believe it inappropriate for him/her to have a ham rig (or several) on the boat or RV. Many people have been rescued because of the fact that a ham rig worked when the cell phones / police radios / marine radios / all other means of communication did not.

Many boat and RV owners (and pilots) are on very limited budgets. They cannot afford to spend thousands of dollars to purchase the equipment that you suggest -- NOR SHOULD THEY BE ASKED TO DO SO. They should be allowed to enjoy ham radio along with their other hobby(ies), and allowed to use their ham gear in any manner they see fit -- including as their emergency communications equipment (exactly as US and International laws specifically permit).

What incredible arrogance, childishness, and selfishness !!!!

 

Have you actually read the comments on this thread? First, there have been several net control stations from the mmsn that have implied absolute ownership of the frequency.
Second, I didn't say boaters were or should be required to carry anything. That's up to the Coast Guard. In almost all of my posts suggesting more than ham gear for emergency
situations was when they plan on a voyage/cruise off shore... I should have been more explicit.. by offshore, I meant well away from the beach .. If you have purchased a
cruising yacht or airplane for that matter, you are investing a great deal of money already... A few thousand more dollars to keep you alive is not unreasonable. If you dint want
to buy a GMDSS console or an EPIRP or a SART, an Iridium phone can be had for less than a thousand dollars. I had a handheld phone that had service everywhere I sailed (which was
pretty much all over the world). with such a phone, you need not rely on amateur radio for help.. You can dial up the appropriate resources yourself. It was never said that amateur
radio was inappropriate.. Just inadequate.. You call me arrogant and selfish.. I suggest that a boater that cruises off shore without even an iridium phone, is both arrogant and
selfish.. He would expect others to come to his aid when he hasn't taken the steps needed to ensure that he could. When you embark on a hobby that has inherent risks, you
should do the prudent thing to ensure that you wont become somebody else's problem... You should be a responsible boater / pilot.. If you cant afford to take even the most
basic steps, perhaps you should find and aspect of boating or flying that has fewer risks. As to the appropriate uise of ham radio.. There is nothing that i have said that even implies
that using ham radio for emergencies is inappropriate.. The mmsn has shown that help can be rendered with the use of our hobby.. They often do a good job of it..

Most of the arrogance, childishness, and selfishness that I have seen on this thread has come from the more rabid supporters of the mmsn.. And here I will say that I am not painting
all of the participants of this net with that brush.. It only takes a handful, however to make it appear that they are a majority.


NI7I

 

Well, no, of course not. Straw man argument doesn't work nearly as well if everyone actually read what people said.

 

Pay attention - the vessel in question did not have ham radio either. They only had marine VHF, in other words only equipped for sea area A1. These missing vessel calls are usually just a case of a boat having repairs, the crew being hung over, or some other reason for being late, but sometimes it's serious.

14.300 is the internationally designated global center of emergency traffic on 20m. It should be kept clear of contesting, digimodes, beacons etc. No particular net has a right to the frequency, but whoever uses the frequency should listen for emergency traffic at all times, and those that use the frequency should really be the those who has the most ability to help people in distress - thus those maritime nets. If you want a legal basis for that, look to FCC rule §97.101 - this is good amateur practice and cooperation on effective frequency use. If you interfere with the nets in question, you are both violating rules against interference and rules asking you to play well with others; of course, if you do it during an actual emergency you'd also be violating more serious rules and laws.

PS: I have no affiliation with these nets - I'm more of a contester, experimenter and DX'er - but even though I hold a marine radio license it's good to know that somebody's listening in case there is a need on land or sea.

 

Why use 20 meter ham stuff at all. Reading through the MMSN's own website, I find a story of how they went up above 14.350 because field day was coming and they had to maintain emergency contact with a stranded vessel. Some short spiel about how this was legal under blah blah blah followed.

So, if its legal, why not do it all the time? Go above the ham bands and get away from the conrtesters and such.

I never gave the MMSN much thought, until I needed to ask them for some assistance. What ensued was an absolute slapstick series of events that would have rivaled anything the 3 stooges did. A simple yes or no question turned into SaR and State Troopers being called, by folks who had absolutely no concept of what was happening. The net control could maintain absolutely zero order over his followers and it was a loud cacophony of crap on frequency. Everybody who was armchairing it from their "command post" decided to throw their weight around and make an absolute mess for me.

Ever since then, I have absolutely no use for the MMSN and think they should use a maritime HF frequency to provide this "vital service".

Brad

 

I am pretty sure I heard them do that more recently. Maybe it was during Sweeps. Right on 14.350 USB. Anyway, the incident I heard was not an "emergency" by any stretch. Sounded like they were trying to find a vendor for some parts.

 

Listening to some of the more rabid suporters of the mmsn, you would think that there are virtually thousands of sailors whose lives were saved, each year, by
their efforts. Looking at their website, you find tha t it just isnt the case.. from 2000 thru 2008 there are around 30 that they site. Maybe 4 a year. Granted,
only one during that whole period would be great.. But why, on the air and on forums like this are the numbers so inflated? As has been pointed out, some of these
events could very well have been handled poorly.. Some of the participants havent a clue about how to render effective assistance via radio, to boats in trouble.
Some do, I'm sure, but they arent there all the time.. I recall an event some years ago; The boat was near Puerto Rico.. After over an hour, somebody in the midwest
ended up calling a great lakes coast guard facitilty.. It took more than another hour before the coast guard in puerto rico was notified.. Had the boater the
gear he needed aboard his boat, he could have called the coast guard in puerto rico himself, immidiately.. If he had a commercial mf/hf rig he could have activated the
auto alarm on 2182 which would have opened the squelch on the coast guards rigs locally as well as all ships in the area. At that time the coast guard maintained watch
on that freq as did all merchant ships of any flag. His location would have assured that somebody would have heard his call for help. Yet, he chose 14.3 and it took
hours for him to be in touch with the local coast guard. Turned out that he wasnt really in distress, just scared. But, nobody knew that untill well after it happened.
There was a lot of shouting and a lot of confusion fromthese well trained net control stations.. Of course that's only one incident and one sholuldnt judge the net
by one incedent.

NI7I

 

It is indeed legal to operate at any frequency if a life-or-death emergency is going on, but it's better to stay in the band and have a usual place for emergency and near-emergency traffic. In the marine VHF service, channel 16 has a similar function except it's just not for emergency and safety traffic, but also for calling and short messages. You could ask, why have a marine emergency channel at all, when they could just break in anywhere. Why have a marine VHF service at all, and not just leave those frequencies to amateur use or auction them off? Well, the reasons are similar: It's where it's been agreed internationally to listen for emergency and calling traffic, most radios sold can't just transmit anywhere, and often it's good that you can get help before the situation turns life-threatening,* and there's legitimate non-emergency traffic that the service is there to support.

*: Technically, on a small recreational vessel I could sail the world with just a marine VHF and an EPIRB, but I can only activate the EPIRB if I'm in serious danger, and it will initiate a SAR effort. With Inmarsat and/or MF/HF communications, the mariner can report and get assistance for a nuisance that might become life-threatening if allowed to progress, assist other vessels, get competent medical instructions, etc. and avoid a costly and risky SAR effort.

 

Comparing the informal designation of 14.3 and the vhf marine regulations is just not valid. Ch 16 has its designation by a bit more than an informal declaration. It is there by international treaty. If frequ3ncies were to be "auctioned" off as you put it, they would be the ham bands. However, the process would be difficult as they are also\
there by international treaty.

Technically, that small boat doesnt even need a marine VHF or EPIRB to cruise the world.. That's sort of rediculous but it's true. It's my belief that they should have
no less than what a merechant ship carries for emergency communications. Baring that, they should at least have an Iridium phone, a vhf marine rig, an EPIRB, and a
SART.. I would also want them to have a GMDSS console. But with the Iridium phone, they would be able to get in touch with any resources they may need should
emergency situations arise. Why should they rely on amateur radio? Why would they even want to relay an a bunch of amateurs when they would have immediate
access to professional lifesavers. It makes little sense. Of course if they had these resources, 14.3 and the mmsn would lose some of their "importance".. this would
probably hurt a lot of feelings.

NI7I

 

So what you are saying is if there isnt a net going on, and a maritime moble net op tells 2 people having a QSO to get off the frequency, they are interfering with that QSO and should be held accountable right?

 

Note the red text.


§ 97.403 Safety of life and protection of property. No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station of any means of radiocommunication at its disposal to provide essential communication needs in connection with the immediate safety of human life and immediate protection of property when normal communication systems are not available.</pre>