Re: [Radio Officers, &c] 500 Kc at KPH

[Richard Dillman]

>If I remember correctly, I think KPH had a V beam pointed up to Alaska
>and we could work them on 500 if need be. RD could enlighten us on
>that.

We have KPH era V beams still in service at the receive site but they are for HF.

For MF the earliest antenna we have documented is a 300ft base insulated tower. This was associated with RCA transmitter BL-10 which was capable of 40kW. That transmitter was installed in the early 1950s. We don't know what was used before that. See:

http://www.radiomarine.org/gallery/show?keyword=bl10&panel=pab1_7#pab1_7

When the tower rusted out it was replaced with the Marconi T we still use today for KSM.

For receiving there were several Beverage antennas on various azimuths as well as a Marconi T. The selector buttons for the Beverages are still at Position 1 but sadly the antennas are long gone. However the guys said they liked the Marconi better and could hear more on it.

>So I think that the Hams who want to obtain a commercial CW ticket,
>more power to them. However I don't think they would have much luck
>getting the 6 month endorsement very easy.

Or the 1 year endorsement for the first radiotelegraph! However we are always looking for properly licensed ops at KSM who are willing to learn the ropes of commercial operation - quite different from amateur operation as you know. Sit the circuit, take the test and get the No. 1 ticket (in my opinion).

VY 73,

RD

=================================
Richard Dillman, WPE2VT
Chief Operator, Coast Station KSM
Maritime Radio Historical Society
http://www.radiomarine.org
=================================

[David Navone]

Dot-dash-diss: The gentleman hacker's 1903 lulz
27 December 2011 by Paul Marks

A century ago, one of the world's first hackers used Morse code insults to
disrupt a public demo of Marconi's wireless telegraph

LATE one June afternoon in 1903 a hush fell across an expectant audience in
the Royal Institution's celebrated lecture theatre in London. Before the
crowd, the physicist John Ambrose Fleming was adjusting arcane apparatus as
he prepared to demonstrate an emerging technological wonder: a long-range
wireless communication system developed by his boss, the Italian radio
pioneer Guglielmo Marconi. The aim was to showcase publicly for the first
time that Morse code messages could be sent wirelessly over long distances.
Around 300 miles away, Marconi was preparing to send a signal to London from
a clifftop station in Poldhu, Cornwall, UK.

Yet before the demonstration could begin, the apparatus in the lecture
theatre began to tap out a message. At first, it spelled out just one word
repeated over and over. Then it changed into a facetious poem accusing
Marconi of "diddling the public". Their demonstration had been hacked - and
this was more than 100 years before the mischief playing out on the internet
today. Who was the Royal Institution hacker? How did the cheeky messages get
there? And why?

It had all started in 1887 when Heinrich Hertz proved the existence of the
electromagnetic waves predicted by James Clerk Maxwell in 1865. Discharging
a capacitor into two separated electrodes, Hertz ionised the air in the gap
between them, creating a spark. Miraculously, another spark zipped between
two electrodes a few metres away: an electromagnetic wave from the first
spark had induced a current between the second electrode pair. It meant long
and short bursts of energy - "Hertzian waves" - could be broadcast to
represent the dots and dashes of Morse code. Wireless telegraphy was born,
and Marconi and his company were at the vanguard. Marconi claimed that his
wireless messages could be sent privately over great distances. "I can tune
my instruments so that no other instrument that is not similarly tuned can
tap my messages," Marconi boasted to London's St James Gazette in February
1903.

That things would not go smoothly for Marconi and Fleming at the Royal
Institution that day in June was soon apparent. Minutes before Fleming was
due to receive Marconi's Morse messages from Cornwall, the hush was broken
by a rhythmic ticking noise sputtering from the theatre's brass projection
lantern, used to display the lecturer's slides. To the untrained ear, it
sounded like a projector on the blink. But Arthur Blok, Fleming's assistant,
quickly recognised the tippity-tap of a human hand keying a message in
Morse. Someone, Blok reasoned, was beaming powerful wireless pulses into the
theatre and they were strong enough to interfere with the projector's
electric arc discharge lamp.

Mentally decoding the missive, Blok realised it was spelling one facetious
word, over and over: "Rats". A glance at the output of the nearby Morse
printer confirmed this. The incoming Morse then got more personal, mocking
Marconi: "There was a young fellow of Italy, who diddled the public quite
prettily," it trilled. Further rude epithets - apposite lines from
Shakespeare - followed.

The stream of invective ceased moments before Marconi's signals from Poldhu
arrived. The demo continued, but the damage was done: if somebody could
intrude on the wireless frequency in such a way, it was clearly nowhere near
as secure as Marconi claimed. And it was likely that they could eavesdrop on
supposedly private messages too.

Marconi would have been peeved, to say the least, but he did not respond
directly to the insults in public. He had no truck with sceptics and
naysayers: "I will not demonstrate to any man who throws doubt upon the
system," he said at the time. Fleming, however, fired off a fuming letter to
The Times of London. He dubbed the hack "scientific hooliganism", and "an
outrage against the traditions of the Royal Institution". He asked the
newspaper's readers to help him find the culprit.

He didn't have to wait long. Four days later a gleeful letter confessing to
the hack was printed by The Times. The writer justified his actions on the
grounds of the security holes it revealed for the public good. Its author
was Nevil Maskelyne, a mustachioed 39-year-old British music hall magician.
Maskelyne came from an inventive family - his father came up with the
coin-activated "spend-a-penny" locks in pay toilets. Maskelyne, however, was
more interested in wireless technology, so taught himself the principles. He
would use Morse code in "mind-reading" magic tricks to secretly communicate
with a stooge. He worked out how to use a spark-gap transmitter to remotely
ignite gunpowder. And in 1900, Maskelyne sent wireless messages between a
ground station and a balloon 10 miles away. But, as author Sungook Hong
relates in the book Wireless, his ambitions were frustrated by Marconi's
broad patents, leaving him embittered towards the Italian. Maskelyne would
soon find a way to vent his spleen.

One of the big losers from Marconi's technology looked likely to be the
wired telegraphy industry. Telegraphy companies owned expensive land and sea
cable networks, and operated flotillas of ships with expert crews to lay and
service their submarine cables. Marconi presented a wireless threat to their
wired hegemony, and they were in no mood to roll over.

The Eastern Telegraph Company ran the communications hub of the British
Empire from the seaside hamlet of Porthcurno, west Cornwall, where its
submarine cables led to Indonesia, India, Africa, South America and
Australia. Following Marconi's feat of transatlantic wireless messaging on
12 December 1901, ETC hired Maskelyne to undertake extended spying
operations.

Maskelyne built a 50-metre radio mast (the remnants of which still exist) on
the cliffs west of Porthcurno to see if he could eavesdrop on messages the
Marconi Company was beaming to vessels as part of its highly successful
ship-to-shore messaging business. Writing in the journal The Electrician on
7 November 1902, Maskelyne gleefully revealed the lack of security. "I
received Marconi messages with a 25-foot collecting circuit [aerial] raised
on a scaffold pole. When eventually the mast was erected the problem was not
interception but how to deal with the enormous excess of energy."

It wasn't supposed to be this easy. Marconi had patented a technology for
tuning a wireless transmitter to broadcast on a precise wavelength. This
tuning, Marconi claimed, meant confidential channels could be set up. Anyone
who tunes in to a radio station will know that's not true, but it wasn't
nearly so obvious back then. Maskelyne showed that by using an untuned
broadband receiver he could listen in.

Having established interception was possible, Maskelyne wanted to draw more
attention to the technology's flaws, as well as showing interference could
happen. So he staged his Royal Institution hack by setting up a simple
transmitter and Morse key at his father's nearby West End music hall.

The facetious messages he sent could easily have been jumbled with those
Marconi himself sent from Cornwall, ruining both had they arrived
simultaneously. Instead, they drew attention to a legitimate flaw in the
technology - and the only damage done was to the egos of Marconi and
Fleming.

Fleming continued to bluster for weeks in the newspapers about Maskelyne's
assault being an insult to science. Maskelyne countered that Fleming should
focus on the facts. "I would remind Professor Fleming that abuse is no
argument," he replied.

In the present day, many hackers end up highlighting flawed technologies and
security lapses just like Maskelyne. A little mischief has always had its
virtues.

Paul Marks is senior technology correspondent for New Scientist

http://www.radiomarine.org/gallery/show?keyword=bl10&panel=pab1_7#pab1_7

VY 73,

RD

--
THIS IS THE "RADIO OFFICERS, &C" MAIL LIST - UNSUBSCRIBE AND OTHER SETTINGS
ARE BELOW.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Radio Officers" group.
To post to this group, send email to radio-o...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
radio-officer...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/radio-officers?hl=en

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4711 - Release Date: 12/29/11

[D.J.J. Ring, Jr.]

I worked KLB Seattle WA Radio from Alaska during SOS de PJTA ms Prinsendam October 4, 1980.  In fact KLB called me with traffic so I moved off 500 and grabbed the message.

I used to have (before a flood water damage) a copy of the KPH log of the SOS - they copied all night and all day until QUM.

What no one knew (except Jim Pfister, CRO and myself) was that Williamsburgh/WGOA was just using 60 watts from the transistorized ITT/Mackay Marine 2017A as the keying relay between the Morse had died a few days earlier and was replaced by a relay found in the E/R (engine room).  The emergency substitution was never meant to be keyed for hours on and off.

Fortunately the auto alarm keyer had its own relay which enabled me to send the A/A signal with full power - half kW with double side band modulation in use during the SOS - probably around 1.75 kW or so peak power out.

Then it was back down to 60 watts for the DDD SOS SOS SOS DDD message.

I did try to call KPH and kFS some times in the middle of the night but the static was usually too much.  The static on 04 October 1980 was high at first then lowering.

I know now that if I had called KPH he would have heard me.  The reason I didn't hear KPH was because they observed radio silence on 500 kHz during the SOS.

Since I was by that time in control of the SOS communications, I bet I could have justified a short call of 

KPH KPH DE WGOA WGOA GM QRU? K

After all I was needed on 500 kHz.

I bet I could have even justified a short message sent or received on 500 at that time - doing it like it used to be done inthepark days.

So the answer is: YES.

But the KPH operator would have to be listening very carefully with the RF gain advanced.

Watching was different than guarding.  I know that a split phone watch is better than a speaker in the background but even when exchanging traffic and listening with one ear, sometimes conditions required me to turn down the volume temporarily on the ear with 500 kHz in it.   I'd usually put it on speaker then.  But near port with very loud signals sometimes even the speaker got turned way down when copying a weak signal on the other earphone.

Sorry guys and gals, it happened.

73

David J. Ring, Jr., N1EA
SOWP, VWOA, OOTC, FISTS, CW-Ops, CFO, A1-OP, ex-FOC 1271 ARRL-LM

Chat Skype: djringjr MSN: djringjr@msn.com AIM: N1EA icq: 27380609

Radio-Officers Google Group -- Marine Morse Historic Recordings Page

[Dave Shirlaw]

Loved this story!

Merry Christmas

[Rich]

CQ

Hi Rich Dillman:

Don't get me started on the T1 license.

I personally had the T1 of some braggard reduced to T2 because he did not have one year of telegraph experience.

Even if you worked at KSM/KPH every weekend in a year, that is NOT qualifiying time. A year is 365 days.

Any person who obtains a T1 license in this day and age will be throughly investigated by MYSELF.

The F.C.C. knows well about this, I made that point painfully clear to them over 5 years ago.

Rich Monjure

[Dr.Hess]

Go Get 'Em, Rich!!!

Dr.Hess


On Dec 31 2011, 12:19 pm, Rich <salseronorteameric...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

[W7GK]

On Dec 31 2011, 10:19 am, Rich <salseronorteameric...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Greetings Rich. Read your remarks about the T1 and quite likely no
passenger ship in service today even has radiotelegraph set onboard so
the T1 is a moot issue for anyone hoping to earn a living being a
Radio Officer aboard ship or on shore.

The T1 still exists and except for the 1 year experience requirement
anyone can take the exam and be issued a license. To become a R/O
there's another catch, that being on U.S. vessels I believe you have
to be certified by the U.S. Coast Guard to officially serve as an R/O.

Looking at the 1 year experience requirement I think of a comment by
Caeser when a Centurian who'd served in the Legions for 20 years
requested he be made a General. Caeser's comment was he had mules
who'd also served 20 years and they were still mules. Point being you
can have a single experience repeating for 20 years or many different
experiences over 20 years.

To be honest I obtained a T2 and have never done public correspondence
in the maritime service and only been aboard an ocean going freighter
twice. Yet when I served as an intercept operator in the military I
can't remember the number of boxes of 8x10 fanfold paper used up
copying all different kinds of traffic on a mill. Richard let me sit
KSM and endorsed my T2. By no means does it make me a qualified R/O,
I'll never make a cent doing it and no skipper in their right mind
would hire me even if there was a U.S. ship that needed one, but, it
was a very interesting experience.

Handling message traffic is not a difficult challange once you learn
the format and proceedure. I've never handled commerical
radiotelegrams but in the day handled a lot of MARS radiograms on CW
and RATT. Format and proceedure is different but after handling about
a half dozen messages it becomes pretty much routine. The FCC simply
states handling traffic - nothing about the other aspects of being an
R/O. So is 1 year experience for an R/O onboard a ship sending and
receiving 1 message every four days or so for a year equivalent to an
R/O aboard a passenger liner handling 25 messages a day or an operator
at a busy shore station handling 60 messages a day for the same
period? According to the FCC rules both are qualified to sit the T1.
Does receiving commercial press count, it's a subscription service and
it's made available to people onboard the ship? The FCC doesn't
specify an amount of public correspondence only a time period.

Understandably old timers who served as R/O's aboard ship and others
serving at coastal stations who earned T1's being a bit upset about
someone getting a T1 today. A lot of people who earned a 1st Class
Radiotelephone ticket and then one day had it cancelled and reissued a
GROL were a bit upset as well. Many amateurs, including me, who'd
gotten their tickets by sitting the 13 and/or 20 wpm code tests were
also upset when it went codeless. Unfortunately that's the way
government works and say this in a whisper, so the FCC doesn't hear,
but don't be surprised if the T3-T1 licenses totally disappear and
some GROL thing takes its place.

Fortunately there are small groups like the MHRS who put in a lot
hours and money out of their own pockets trying to preserve the
tradition and history of R/O's. What they need is encouragement and
help. My personal feeling is if someone has the gumption and is
willing to pass the exams for a license and has or can demonstrate the
skills to handle public correspondence by CW that should be enough.
Having active stations and operators may mean the difference between
the service surviving or being shuttered.

Rich, if you want to get into investigations, there are many who
really deserve investigation more than an individual getting a T1. Put
a crooked politician in jail or get him kicked out of office and I'll
be the first to congratulate you.

Dave, W7GK
Spring Creek, NV

[Rich]

Hi Dave,

As a matter of fact, ALL the telegraph operator's certificates (T3, T2, and T1) are being eliminated and there will be only ONE "FCC Telegraph Operator's Certificate. It will have the authority of the old T2.

73,
Rich Monjure

--- On Mon, 1/2/12, W7GK <w7g...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Peter VK4QC]

I know we've been over this before and correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Telegraphy now obsolete in the Maritime Mobile Service? Except for a few stalwarts still flying the flag the only place you can hear and send good solid CW these days is on the amateur radio bands. Sad to say but It seems the Telegraph Operators Certificate is little more than curiosity value now...

73, Peter VK4QC

[Stan Barr]

On 03/01/12 05:27, Peter VK4QC wrote:
> I know we've been over this before and correct me if I'm wrong, but
> isn't Telegraphy now obsolete in the Maritime Mobile Service? Except for
> a few stalwarts still flying the flag the only place you can hear and
> send good solid CW these days is on the amateur radio bands. Sad to say
> but It seems the Telegraph Operators Certificate is little more than
> curiosity value now...

As I think we've discussed before, some countries in the Far East and
some Russian ships still use morse, but it'll probably die out with the
retirement of the operators :-(

One of the biggest morse users is 4XZ, Haifa Naval Radio, which
transmits 5-letter code groups on a dozen or so frequencies 24/7.

--
Cheers and 73,
Stan Barr G0CLV G-QRP 3369 g0...@dsl.pipex.com

"Never leave well enough alone." - Raymond Loewy

[Kilobravo]

It would seem to be a case of where the bureaucracy in this case the FCC has not kept up with the reality of the actual situation.

 

You could imagine a situation where the best A1 equipment in the world was onboard a vessel, complete with an operator holding a T1, T2 or T3 ticket, a British Class 1 or 2 and on and on,  what could he do?

 

He could pass no traffic, there is no one on the other end of the circuit. He could receive no safety messages, no weather.

 

Why is there any telegraphy ticket classifications anywhere ?

 

73

 

KB

 

VE1DS

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

[Richard Dillman]

I know we've been over this before and correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Telegraphy now obsolete in the Maritime Mobile Service? Except for a few stalwarts still flying the flag the only place you can hear and send good solid CW these days is on the amateur radio bands. Sad to say but It seems the Telegraph Operators Certificate is little more than curiosity value now...

73, Peter VK4QC

-----

May I expand on the list of stalwarts?

There are extensive CW networks in use by Japanese fisheries. They have multiple coast stations that communicate with large fleets of ships. I was shocked when I first came across them a> because they are there and b> because of the highly professional operators.

Korea maintains several CW coast stations (HLO, HLG, HLW, etc.) that are in service H24, run their wheels and send traffic lists.

There are multiple CW stations in China (XSV, XSG, etc.) that we copy regularly here. They send marine information in addition to encrypted traffic.

Those are the most prominent stations I know of. But a bit of trolling in the HF spectrum will reveal many more. The utility listening email list UDXF regularly posts lists of CW stations, everything from military nets in the CIS to coast stations still operating around the world.

And of course I must mention that KSM still works ships - even non-historic ones we haven't worked before - and sends marine traffic and press.

The population of commercial CW stations in the HF spectrum is a mere shadow of what it once was, admitted. But there is still plenty on non-amateur CW to copy if one is willing to tune around a bit.

[Mike Zbrozek]

 

 

Hello Group-

 

Ve1ds asked about why there are Telegraphy Class tickets?

In the USA this was the reason:

 

T3 was for coastal stations that used less than 1KW output power, like Police radio stations.

People do not remember that in the early part of the last century the Police used cw.

Before rtty, and fax the cops would send  qtc to other stations regarding police business.

Difficult to believe but true, and the radio opr needed a 3rd Tel ticket. BTW, each large city

had only one master cw station for tfc, not each police station. In Detroit the Master cw

stn was on Belle Isle, and most stations used a freq on 5 MHZ. And I bet a lot of other

local and federal governmental agencies used cw way back in the day therefore requiring

the need for a third tel license/radio opr. 

 

T2 was for any RO on vessels that sailed that was over 1600 gross tons.

 

T1 was for the CH RO on a Passenger ship. Many Passenger ships carried about 3-4 ro's and the

Chief RO needed a T1.

 

And now u know the rest of the story.

Happy New Year...2012

 

 

73

VIVA CW

 

Mike K8XF

Ex FCC Detroit

1977-79

Ex Sparks 1980-1996

[RADIO OFFICERS]

Ciao RD,
yes I confirm in Europe we still listen to many professional W/T
communications on marine bands and on MF and HF bands used mainly by CIS
Forces but not only.
W/T dear Peter is not obsolete, I do not like to open a polemic but new
systems has been choosed to avoid salaries for Radio Operators and to sell
new technology (Lobbies would that).
During my last embark on a Bulk Carrier the Captain decided to switch off
the NAVTEX and requested me to pick up all the safety infos as usual...on MF
and HF bands. On NAVTEX also nowadays I assure you that many errors are
received by ships, I am Secretary of a delegation of the Ship's Master
Association and I am in touch with seafarers complaining about new
communication systems and also about satellite communications, the problem
is that: in this World we are under a new form of Diktatur and people have
lots of fears to fight against big Companies because anybody (me too) are
afraid to loose something.
I cannot believe that a Radio Operator like you really think that W/T is
obsolete...it will be really grave!!
If you wanna open a polemic I am ready but you must to be ready to read
messages very long like the distance between Italy and Australia HI! Please
Peter if you want to send me your answer I pray you to avoid to snob
me..............................O O
Best regards.
Alfredo DE CRISTOFARO

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Dillman" <ddil...@igc.org>
To: <radio-o...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Radio Officers, &c] Re: 500 Kc at KPH

73, Peter VK4QC

-----

RD

--

[Mike Zbrozek]

Hello Alfredo -

Why did the Capt on the Bulk Carrier shut off the Navtex RX?
To save paper? I knew some Capts that would do something stupid and cheap
like that.....

73
Mike K8XF

[RADIO OFFICERS]

No dear Old Man Mike Sir,
the Captain was exhausted to receive only messages plenty of ***** and
##################### instead of proper coordinates and other significant
information.
Did you ever used NAVTEX and PLS said me what was the highest wave you meat
at sea Sir???
Best regards.
Alfred

[Richard Dillman]

Hello Group-

Ve1ds asked about why there are Telegraphy Class
tickets?
In the USA this was the reason:

-----

Thanks for all, Mike.

In addition to your information about the T3 it also allowed the holder to be an operator at a coast station - under supervision. Our very own Denice Stoops operated under color of her T3 at KPH. She has now upgraded to a T1, making all of us very proud.

The T2, in addition to your information, is also needed by the technicians and engineers at coast stations like KSM, in addition to the operators. I think that would also be true at stations like KPH, WCC, WLO, KLB, etc. even though their emissions are not CW.

Regarding the use of CW by police, that is indeed and almost forgotten aspect of the radio art here in the US so thanks for pointing it out. I believe there were some police CW circuits still in operation up to WWII.

And let's not forget the Flight Radio Officers! Many thought they were the cream of the crop. I have a book by a Pan American FRO. The Pilot in Command depended on his comms and DF bearings to let down through cloud layers without bumping into any mountains, a demanding task in places like Rio.

-----

VIVA CW

-----

Right!

[Mike Zbrozek]

Hello Alfred-

I remember the Navtex RX on the bridge. Many times the small printed roll of text
stretched
to the deck. Since the US Coast Guard bcst navtex 4 times a day if you didnt program the
Navtex rx to reject further bcsts you would receive the reduntant qtc's...and that goes
for other
USCG stns on the same freq. All you had to do is program ur rx to reject the other
stations
that were far away and you would not run out of paper.....but too many Mates and Capt's
never figured out how
to program the rx..... Another fine example of people that have no business handling
electronics, Navtex, etc....
I found Navtex a good thing. I didnt care to copy the USCG notice to mariners on mf with
all the static.
And the USCG would send about 15 wpm. That was no fun copying that junk....sorry to say.

Regards to the highest wave met at sea? I dont know, I was a Radio Officer
and didnt measure them....HI...I saw plenty of monster waves sailing to Valdez Alaska in
the 1980's.
Even big oil tankers rolled like a toy in that kind of wx. I dont miss those sleepness
nights anymore.

[RADIO OFFICERS]

Dear OM Mike,
many thanks for your lesson, you are amateur radio
too...................................is there on this list a true RADIO
OFFICER can understand me PLS??
Is there on this list a Radio Officer fashionated of his job??
73's Alfred

[Rich]

CQ

Let me remind everyone sailing today under GMDSS. You can NOT turn the Navtex machine off at sea! It is part of GMDSS, and is the main means of receiving MSI in Sea Areas A1 and A2, where the service is available.

This is a point most people don't understand. Let me clarify for everyone.
If you are on a GMDSS ship, and that ship is within range of a Navtex station, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SET UP YOUR NAVTEX TO RECEIVE IT, AND YOU MUST RECEIVE THOSE BROADCASTS.

If you have an older Navtex machine, you must make a log entry each and every time you make changes to the settings of your machine. If you have one of the new automatic Navtex machines, you MUST ensure that the stations on your voyage are in the machine, and that you are receiving broadcasts from them.

This leads to another important point - the GMDSS log. On U.S. ships they are non-existent. YOU MUST KEEP A GMDSS LOG, IT IS NOT AN OPTION.

The GMDSS log will either be proof of compliance with GMDSS or evidence that the ship is sailing OUT OF COMPLIANCE.

73,
Rich Monjure

[Rich]

Alfredo (and CQ)

If your Captain was receiving nothing but errors on the Navtex machine, that means the Navtex machine was incorrectly programmed or there was a problem with the system.

Did you double-check the programming of the Navtex machine?

Did you run a self-test of the system?

Did you check the condition of the antenna, and the connections?

73,
Rich Monjure

[Rich]

CQ

Let us all NOT forget INTERPOL, the International Police. They operated a world-wide CW network, the control station being FSB in France. I don't remember their frequencies, but I used to listen to them as a lot of their traffic was plain-text English!

Does anyone remember their call tape? "CQ IP" I believe was how it was called.

The last time I remember hearing them in CW was 1984. Are there any former IP CW ops on this list?

73,
Rich Monjure

[Rich]

WAVES

The worst voyage of my life was on the M/V Sheldon Lykes/KRJP. Back in 1987 we were on our way to Northern Europe from New Orleans in DECEMBER. There was NO GMDSS.

I was told we were in 60 foot seas. I went to the bridge to see this and it was FRIGHTENING.

There had been a failure of some type in the engine room, we were slowed to 3 knots, and delayed for days due to these seas/problems.

I do not miss that, no, not at all.

73,
Rich Monjure

[RADIO OFFICERS]

Rich,
thanks for your lesson too......................
Best 73's Alfred

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich" <salseronor...@yahoo.com>
To: <radio-o...@googlegroups.com>

[Rich]

Hi Alfredo (and CQ)

Yes, there are many real R/O's on this list! I am one, myself!

I understand what you are saying, but I just had questions as to why you would not investigate the Navtex problem further.

Captains and Mates don't make good radio operators, in most cases. Why is up to question.

While I can't agree with returning to 500 kc/s CW, I do believe it was a big mistake removing us from the ships. We should all still have our jobs as Chief GMDSS officer.

73,
Rich

[RADIO OFFICERS]

Dear Rich,
several times I read this list during the day also when I am at the office.
I know on this list there are many true R/O's several of them are retired
and this is good for them but several of us, we are still quite young and we
should use this international mailing list to discuss about the troubles of
Maritime Communications nowadays.
I ask apologizes if I have sent some provocative messages, it is not in my
style I make for joke only to arrive at the inner point of the real question
of Maritime Communications.
Unfortunately in the past we had not internet to stay in touch with
colleaugues World Wide and our Category was a small community in the
Seafarers World.
Now we have this mailing list and we have the possibility to discuss better
the situation......I do not believe on ships R/O's are not longer necessary,
it is only the point of view of ship's owner promoting new technologies for
crew reduction. I am not against new technologies I want to mean in my
complains that they must to be runned by qualified people.
In Italy in the 90's RadioTelegraphist School's were still opened and in
sight of new technologies they changed their courses of studies in 5 years
instead of the previous 3 years........but all has been lost for the
voluntee of the Seven Sisters and acquiatance of many other Companies
included IMO and other Organism in charge of the safety of navigation.
So They really obtained a better safety at sea??
What we could do to discuss as former professionsts with them...are there
some possibilities??
CQ CQ
Best regards,
Alfredo.
P.S. To Mike apologizes for messages......................HI!!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich" <salseronor...@yahoo.com>
To: <radio-o...@googlegroups.com>

[D.J.J. Ring, Jr.]

Alfredo - and I know I speak for you also and the other Managers of this list - disagreement is always welcomed on this list, but being disagreeable isn't.

You speak English very well, but it is not what you knew as a baby, we have to understand that many on this list are not primarily English native speakers.

As you and I both know, my dear Alfredo, we've had some very sad moments when a person from a non-English speaking country misunderstood a message.  I had that experience myself.

I had just complimented a fellow from Argentina for his wonderful message when he got very angry and left this list and never returned.

I happen to like that person very very much and I am very sad that there was some word that me surely must have misunderstood.
 
But even when we try to speak clearly it seems there is always the possibility of misunderstanding.  This is very sad, and it is tragic.

But there are words that can be said that aren't misunderstood, there are ways of speaking in disagreement that are rude and disagreeable.

Anyone insulting another, using profane language, trying to provoke another to become angry just for fun or otherwise will be warned by either Alfredo or myself.

We have managers who speak English, Spanish, French, Dutch, Flemish, Finnish, Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, German, Russian, and several Slavic languages.

Alfredo and myself have used our managers to stop misunderstandings in the past and we thank them for their service to this list.

People have an interior morality and they know when they step over the line, several members today have written why some people are sending messages that offend and wonder if there is something wrong with that person.

All I can say is that we all have our moments where we wish we hadn't said what we did say, none of us are perfect.

However, I do believe that all people have in their soul and understanding of what is right and what is wrong and if they do not hear that inner voice, there is something very very wrong.

Play nice.   If you act up you will be moderated.  If you do something that is horrific, either Alfredo, myself or one of the other managers will moderate or ban you depending on the severity.

Happy 2011 gentlemen and ladies.

73

DR

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 2:47 PM, RADIO OFFICERS <seane...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Dear Rich,
several times I read this list during the day also when I am at the office.
I know on this list there are many true R/O's several of them are retired and this is good for them but several of us, we are still quite young and we should use this international mailing list to discuss about the troubles of Maritime Communications nowadays.
I ask apologizes if I have sent some provocative messages, it is not in my style I make for joke only to arrive at the inner point of the real question of Maritime Communications.
Unfortunately in the past we had not internet to stay in touch with colleaugues World Wide and our Category was a small community in the Seafarers World.
Now we have this mailing list and we have the possibility to discuss better the situation......I do not believe on ships R/O's are not longer necessary, it is only the point of view of ship's owner promoting new technologies for crew reduction. I am not against new technologies I want to mean in my complains that they must to be runned by qualified people.
In Italy in the 90's RadioTelegraphist School's were still opened and in sight of new technologies they changed their courses of studies in 5 years instead of the previous 3 years........but all has been lost for the voluntee of the Seven Sisters and acquiatance of many other Companies included IMO and other Organism in charge of the safety of navigation.
So They really obtained a better safety at sea??
What we could do to discuss as former professionsts with them...are there some possibilities??
CQ CQ
Best regards,
Alfredo.
P.S. To Mike apologizes for messages......................HI!!

----- Original Message ----- From: "Rich" <salseronorteamericano@yahoo.com>
To: <radio-officers@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:11 PM
Subject: [Radio Officers, &c] Captains and Mates are incompetent radio operators.

Hi Alfredo (and CQ)

Yes, there are many real R/O's on this list!  I am one, myself!

I understand what you are saying, but I just had questions as to why you would not investigate the Navtex problem further.

Captains and Mates don't make good radio operators, in most cases.  Why is up to question.

While I can't agree with returning to 500 kc/s CW, I do believe it was a big mistake removing us from the ships.  We should all still have our jobs as Chief GMDSS officer.

73,
Rich

--
THIS IS THE "RADIO OFFICERS, &C" MAIL LIST - UNSUBSCRIBE AND OTHER SETTINGS ARE BELOW.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Radio Officers" group.

To post to this group, send email to radio-officers@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to radio-officers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/radio-officers?hl=en

--
THIS IS THE "RADIO OFFICERS, &C" MAIL LIST - UNSUBSCRIBE AND OTHER SETTINGS ARE BELOW.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Radio Officers" group.

To post to this group, send email to radio-officers@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to radio-officers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

[Rich]

No offense taken, Alfredo!

I agree with you that the companies are CHEAP. That was their reason for supporting the removal of radio officers.

On the international level, I think these guys just do not understand life on a ship and the people on them.

73,
Rich

[Mark Haskell]

Commercial examination teams still require the examiners to hold at least the T2 as well. Even if you have the GMDSS Operator/Maintainer you still have to hold the Second Class Radiotelegraph Operator's Certificate. I found that out when I was looking to apply to be a commercial examiner.
-73-
Mark
WB9UJS
T2  PG  DB
 

> Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 13:02:41 -0500
> From: ddil...@igc.org
> To: radio-o...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Radio Officers, &c] Radio Telegraph licenses in the USA

> --
> THIS IS THE "RADIO OFFICERS, &C" MAIL LIST - UNSUBSCRIBE AND OTHER SETTINGS ARE BELOW.
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Radio Officers" group.

> To post to this group, send email to radio-o...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to radio-officer...@googlegroups.com

[RADIO OFFICERS]

Thanks David,

for your kind request of moderation, yeah you are right.

My sole tought was intended to promote on this list a

proper way to discuss about the troubles of Maritime

Communications nowadays, I would like very much to know

the different opinion of the members of this mailing list about their

thoughts around the Safety of Maritime Communications Today.

For example around the World how many Coast Radio Station

are still active on HF bands to receive a DISTRESS CALL.

In Europe not many..............LYNGBY RADIO...

The satellite??????????? Troubles???????????

I suppose many of us are still "afraid to complain"

73's Alfredo

To post to this group, send email to radio-o...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to radio-officer...@googlegroups.com

[Rich]

Hi Mark,   I would have to disagree with you on that.   IF a person is going to be giving TELEGRAPHY exams, then yes he must have the license.  If a person is NOT going to give TELEGRAPHY exams, I do not believe he needs the T2.   Anyone is welcomed to correct me if I am wrong.  Surely, a man can't administer an exam to someone if he doesn't hold the license himself... right?   73, Rich --- On Tue, 1/3/12, Mark Haskell <wb9...@msn.com> wrote:

[Mark Haskell]

When I checked with the W5YI team the word was you had to have the T2- I guess in case it came up that you might have to administer a telegraphy examination. Anyway I did not apply -- I have enough administrivia to do without adding to the load!
-73-
Mark
 

---

Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 12:26:19 -0800
From: salseronor...@yahoo.com

[D.J.J. Ring, Jr.]

Hello Rich,

We were deceived on this one just we were deceived on GMDSS electronic training.  For one the unions reassured the R/O's in the USA - and I don't think they were part of the deception - that the electronics training would be equal or greater than our REOs, MREOs, and higher (R/O Richard Ostrowski has one of the top ratings and he I believe might tell me what it is called.).

This didn't happen.  Just like the Elkins Institute fiasco where they were training Captains to be "Weekend Wonders" to get their Radiotelephone GROL license to do away with carrying the R/O on EXXON ships, Elkins and others managed to change the requirements after they were passed.  A week course is all it takes.

If they ever did this to allow a R/O to become Unlimited Master or Chief Engineer there would be a great outcry hopefully, but there was little that we could do.  We were tricked.

The T3, T2, T1 license can be given by an Amateur Extra licensee in the USA.  Thoughts of the out of a job R/O picking up coffee money for doing testing was gone.

The FCC had already watered down the Morse test.  It is now a multiple choice test and there is no sending test.  If you have an Amateur Extra and passed the 20 WPM code test you get credit for the 20 WPM and 16 GPM cipher groups Morse test without ever proving you could copy cipher groups or send.

73

DR

[D.J.J. Ring, Jr.]

That's not accurate Mark.  I've been a member of NRI - the commercial testing part of W5YI's business, and from the very beginning it was open to Amateur Extra licenses but also if you had a T2 or T1.

If I remember correctly and I suspect I don't, at one time you had to be a T1 to give the T1 exam, so the T2 holder could not give the exam but the Amateur Extra could do it.

That's insane.

David J. Ring, Jr., N1EA
SOWP, VWOA, OOTC, FISTS, CW-Ops, CFO, A1-OP, ex-FOC 1271 ARRL-LM

Chat Skype: djringjr MSN: djringjr@msn.com AIM: N1EA icq: 27380609

Radio-Officers Google Group -- Marine Morse Historic Recordings Page

[Mike Zbrozek]

Hello Rich and Group-

I wonder how many US Flag ships follow the GMDSS requirements as you mentioned?
I know a lot of Mates and Captains hated to do any extra paper work regarding radio.
How many rust buckets follow any gmdss rules about navtex or other gmdss items?

73
Mike K8XF

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich" <salseronor...@yahoo.com>
To: <radio-o...@googlegroups.com>

[Rich]

CQ   Please note everyone that Lyngy Radio is CLOSED.   73, Rich Monjure --- On Tue, 1/3/12, RADIO OFFICERS <seane...@hotmail.com> wrote:

From: RADIO OFFICERS <seane...@hotmail.com> Subject: [Radio Officers, &c] QTC To: radio-o...@googlegroups.com

[Rich]

What is really insane is the fact that FCC testing belongs in one place... AN FCC OFFICE administered by FCC AGENTS.   Allowing "civilians" to administer these tests is just insane.   I'm talking about the Amateur licenses as well as commercial.   Things are the way they are now because the F.C.C. doesn't care.   --- On Tue, 1/3/12, D.J.J. Ring, Jr. <n1...@arrl.net> wrote:

[Rich]

Hi Mike (and CQ)

My experience on U.S. Flag GMDSS ships was that NONE of the Captains or Mates had a clue. They absolutely REFUSED to keep a log. I'd go up on the bridge many a time and find the entire GMDSS console SHUT OFF.

Without a professional radio officer to operate the GMDSS equipment, I would bet there are many ships out there that are in violation.

73,
Rich

--- On Tue, 1/3/12, Mike Zbrozek <k8...@verizon.net> wrote:

> From: Mike Zbrozek <k8...@verizon.net>
> Subject: [Radio Officers, &c] Using Navtex machines in the GMDSS.

[Mike Zbrozek]

Hello Rich and the Group-

Wow, I was afraid you would say that Rich. Somebody told me that the FCC doesnt do
ship radio inspections for years now...its up to RCA or ITT? If there ever was a good
reason to visit a US Flag ship this is it....for the FCC.

I remember during my sailing days many mates and Captains had the attitude that if some
ship
was in in distress it was of little concern to them. Sure the rules said that you had to
assist
if possible but in reality the Bridge Boys just wanted to finish off their watch and go
back
to sleep...or work OT if possible. Wonderful attitude.....

[Robert Maskill]

On 03/01/2012 22:38, Rich wrote:
> CQ
> Please note everyone that Lyngy Radio is CLOSED.
> 73,
> Rich Monjure
>

Not according to their website http://tdc.dk/lyngbyradio/

Also I normally receive updates from them and have heard nothing, also
nothing in this weeks ALRS update.

--
Robert Maskill - G4PYR - Peterborough Cambridgeshire
Coastal Radio Communications www.coastalradio.org.uk
Orton info community web site www.ortoninfo.co.uk
Nene Valley Railway Pictures www.nvrpics.org.uk

[Stan Barr]

On 04/01/12 08:25, Robert Maskill wrote:
> On 03/01/2012 22:38, Rich wrote:
>> CQ
>> Please note everyone that Lyngy Radio is CLOSED.
>> 73,
>> Rich Monjure
>>
>
> Not according to their website http://tdc.dk/lyngbyradio/
>
> Also I normally receive updates from them and have heard nothing, also
> nothing in this weeks ALRS update.
>
>

I'm pretty sure I've heard them on 2182 in the past few weeks.

--
Cheers and 73,
Stan Barr G0CLV G-QRP 3369 g0...@dsl.pipex.com

"Never leave well enough alone." - Raymond Loewy

[RADIO OFFICERS]

Dear Robert,
here is Alfredo and I am one of your website visitors because I have
appreciated very much your job and what you are still doing for the past and
the present of Marine Radio Communications.
Please Robert according to your infos how many Coast Radios in Europa now
mantain a watch on GMDSS HF Frequencies?
I am in the Italian Ships' Master Association and I am in touch with Mates
and Captains who reported me that from East Africa and Red Sea the sole
station replying to GMDSS Test is LYNGBY RADIO.....are there some other
Coast Radios mantain an automatic watchkeeping on 4/8/12/16 MHz GMDSS
QRG's??
According to some GMDSS Tests made, for example in Italy, it seems that only
2187,5 kHz is automatic watched from our Coast Radios.......
From some unofficial infos our Coast Guard in Rome has a GMDSS consolle but
they have only Whip antenna/ antennas connected to the GMDSS automatic
receiver.
As Secretary of my Association I tried to have more infos asking to some
Italian Authorities the situation above mentioned but untill now not
answer.......last request of infos about 1,5 years ago.
BST RGDS
Alfredo DE CRISTOFARO

[Robert Maskill]

On 04/01/2012 08:55, RADIO OFFICERS wrote:
> Dear Robert,
> here is Alfredo and I am one of your website visitors because I have
> appreciated very much your job and what you are still doing for the past
> and the present of Marine Radio Communications.
> Please Robert according to your infos how many Coast Radios in Europa
> now mantain a watch on GMDSS HF Frequencies?
> I am in the Italian Ships' Master Association and I am in touch with
> Mates and Captains who reported me that from East Africa and Red Sea the
> sole station replying to GMDSS Test is LYNGBY RADIO.....are there some
> other Coast Radios mantain an automatic watchkeeping on 4/8/12/16 MHz
> GMDSS QRG's??
> According to some GMDSS Tests made, for example in Italy, it seems that
> only 2187,5 kHz is automatic watched from our Coast Radios.......
>> From some unofficial infos our Coast Guard in Rome has a GMDSS
>> consolle but
> they have only Whip antenna/ antennas connected to the GMDSS automatic
> receiver.
> As Secretary of my Association I tried to have more infos asking to some
> Italian Authorities the situation above mentioned but untill now not
> answer.......last request of infos about 1,5 years ago.
> BST RGDS
> Alfredo DE CRISTOFARO
>

In the UK a watch on 2187.5 is maintained by the Coastguard as there are
NO commercial coastal stations in the UK.

For the Republic of Ireland both Malin Head Coast Guard Radio and
Valentia Coast Guard Radio monitor 2187.5

According to lists Oostende Radio and The Belgian, Dutch, French &
German Coast Guards also monitor.

I have no up to date details for stations in Southern Europe though I
would imagine that any coastal station that monitors 2182 also monitors
2187.5

I will have a look through ALRS and the Reeds Almanac for Europe and see
if I can compile a list for you.

[RADIO OFFICERS]

Thank you Robert I will appreciate very much if can do it for me.
73's Alfredo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Maskill" <robert...@coastalradio.org.uk>
To: <radio-o...@googlegroups.com>

[David Oakden]

It was mentioned that Lyngby Radio was closed - as a CW station it is but for GMDSS purposes it is a main control distress centre
The attached link may be of interest
http://www.marsat.ru/files/info_pril1.pdf

Happy New Year to everyone, 73s de David Oakden 1st Class PMG (expired)
Still happily CW'ing as G3UFO

[N9AS Art Simpson]

so true,

I remember being called into search and rescue via 500 khz

and aftet that I was the least popular man on the ship.

thanks Mike,

Simpson260
N9A S

73
Mike K8XF

Hi Mike (and CQ)

73,
Rich

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4721 - Release Date: 01/03/12

[Kilobravo]

Thanks for the link below, it looks like the system is very well organized.

 

KB

----- Original Message -----

From: David Oakden

To: radio-o...@googlegroups.com

[Rich]

OK, I could be wrong, but someone please correct me if I am.

73,
Rich

--- On Wed, 1/4/12, Stan Barr <g0...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:

[Rich]

Dear Robert,

Please see the Admiralty List of Radio Signals, Volume 5 (GMDSS). Lyngby Radio is NOT LISTED.

Also, refer to NM39 of 2010, I believe.

73,
Rich Monjure

--- On Wed, 1/4/12, Robert Maskill <robert...@coastalradio.org.uk> wrote:

> From: Robert Maskill <robert...@coastalradio.org.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Radio Officers, &c] QTC
> To: radio-o...@googlegroups.com

[Rich]

CQ   From what I see in ALRS Volume 5, 2011/2012 edition, Lyngby DOES maintain a Sea Area A1 watch on VHF Channel 70 from the following stations (all remotely controlled from Lyngby):   Als, Anholt, Arsballle, Blavand, Bovbjerg, Fornaoes, Frejliv, Hanstholm, Hirtshals, Karleby, Kobenhavn, Laesoe, Mern, Roesnaes, Skagen, Vejby, Vejle.   Their Sea Area A2 watch (2,187.5 kc/s) from the following stations (remotely controlled from Lyngby):   Blavand, Lyngby, Sakgen     NO SEA AREA A3/A4 watch on any HF DSC Alerting frequency is shown.   So, I was mistaken.  It appears that Lyngby only suspended there HF DSC watches.   Once again, if anyone finds an inaccuracy in the above, please let me know.   73, Rich

[Robert Maskill]

On 04/01/2012 18:28, Rich wrote:
> Dear Robert,
>
> Please see the Admiralty List of Radio Signals, Volume 5 (GMDSS). Lyngby Radio is NOT LISTED.
>
> Also, refer to NM39 of 2010, I believe.
>
> 73,
> Rich Monjure
>

I got a read receipt from them bust awaiting an answer to my email.

Also note that they appeared in a log posted today on 2187.5

Will keep the group posted as and when I get a reply.

[JF]

On 1/3/2012 7:22 PM, Mike Zbrozek wrote:
> I remember during my sailing days many mates and Captains had
> the attitude that if some ship was in in distress it was of
> little concern to them. Sure the rules said that you had to
> assist if possible but in reality the Bridge Boys just wanted
> to finish off their watch and go back to sleep...or work OT
> if possible. Wonderful attitude..... 73 Mike K8XF

Mike,
That brings back another unpleasant memory, while on a car
carrier transiting from Japan to the U.S. I was off watch, the
500 kHz auto alarm rcvr was on, and I happened to be in the
radio room when I clearly heard on another receiver the 1-minute
sequence for triggering the alarm (those who have been on that
route may remember that bored Russian RO's occasionally liked to
send the AA trigger without ID), but the AA bell did not sound.

I wondered what the hell was going on, as the AA always passed
its self-test; so, I looked through the manual and found a small
penciled note by an anonymous shore tech saying that the AA
sensitivity had been reduced to eliminate false alarms, with
no other details. I sent a telex to the ship's corporate
electronics maintenance dept. asking if they knew about this,
and their reply was that AA sensitivity had been reduced because
they did not want it to hear ships more than 100 miles away, as
the company did not intend for their ship to go out of its way
further than that to make a rescue.

That opened my eyes to corporate comradery at sea.

John F.

[Peter VK4QC]

Hi Alfredo, Happy New Year!

I'm not snubbing you just didn't see your reply until now as it was buried in this thread. The group has suddenly exploded so lots to read through!

I know all about the demise of the R/O which was to save shipping companies money and create a new market for equipment manufacturers, plus dismantling of coast stations saving communications companies millions. I also participated in the hand-over from the old SOLAS system to GMDSS and the transition period.

99% of DSC calls were false distress alerts! We had to wade through reams of BS coming through on the telex. Each and every false alarm had to be followed up by the book.

Yes, there ARE a few CW coast stations and ships around but they are on the decline and will continue to do so. 

Richard, I know you have done a huge job maintaining KPH/KSM presence on 500 and no one can take that away. I personally worked KPH hundreds of times while at sea, and, by the way, met one of the operators, Warren (TR) on his visit to VIB.

My point is, the R/O will never make it back on board ship now as the transition to the new system has gone too far. So the Telegraphy certificates have become obsolete. The US seems to be the only country where you can get one. The reality is, we are dreaming if we think we can recreate the past.

73 to all,

Peter VK4QC

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:24 AM, RADIO OFFICERS <seane...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ciao RD,
yes I confirm in Europe we still listen to many professional W/T communications on marine bands and on MF and HF bands used mainly by CIS Forces but not only.
W/T dear Peter is not obsolete, I do not like to open a polemic  but new systems has been choosed to avoid salaries for Radio Operators and to sell new technology (Lobbies would that).
During my last embark on a Bulk Carrier the Captain decided to switch off the NAVTEX and requested me to pick up all the safety infos as usual...on MF and HF bands. On NAVTEX also nowadays I assure you that many errors are received by ships, I am Secretary of a delegation of the Ship's Master Association and I am in touch with seafarers complaining about new communication systems and also about satellite communications, the problem is that: in this World we are under a new form of Diktatur and people have lots of fears to fight against big Companies because anybody (me too) are afraid to loose something.
I cannot believe that a Radio Operator like you really think that W/T is obsolete...it will be really grave!!
If you wanna open a polemic I am ready but you must to be ready to read messages very long like the distance between Italy and Australia HI! Please Peter if you want to send me your answer I pray you to avoid to snob me..............................O O
Best regards.
Alfredo DE CRISTOFARO






----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Dillman" <ddil...@igc.org>
To: <radio-officers@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:59 PM

Subject: Re: [Radio Officers, &c] Re: 500 Kc at KPH

I know we've been over this before and correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Telegraphy now obsolete in the Maritime Mobile Service? Except for a few stalwarts still flying the flag the only place you can hear and send good solid CW these days is on the amateur radio bands. Sad to say but It seems the Telegraph Operators Certificate is little more than curiosity value now...

73, Peter VK4QC

-----

May I expand on the list of stalwarts?

There are extensive CW networks in use by Japanese fisheries.  They have multiple coast stations that communicate with large fleets of ships.  I was shocked when I first came across them a> because they are there and b> because of the highly professional operators.

Korea maintains several CW coast stations (HLO, HLG, HLW, etc.) that are in service H24, run their wheels and send traffic lists.

There are multiple CW stations in China (XSV, XSG, etc.) that we copy regularly here.  They send marine information in addition to encrypted traffic.

Those are the most prominent stations I know of.  But a bit of trolling in the HF spectrum will reveal many more.  The utility listening email list UDXF regularly posts lists of CW stations, everything from military nets in the CIS to coast stations still operating around the world.

And of course I must mention that KSM still works ships - even non-historic ones we haven't worked before - and sends marine traffic and press.

The population of commercial CW stations in the HF spectrum is a mere shadow of what it once was, admitted.  But there is still plenty on non-amateur CW to copy if one is willing to tune around a bit.

RD

=================================
Richard Dillman, WPE2VT
Chief Operator, Coast Station KSM
Maritime Radio Historical Society
http://www.radiomarine.org
=================================

--
THIS IS THE "RADIO OFFICERS, &C" MAIL LIST - UNSUBSCRIBE AND OTHER SETTINGS ARE BELOW.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Radio Officers" group.

To post to this group, send email to radio-officers@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to radio-officers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/radio-officers?hl=en

--
THIS IS THE "RADIO OFFICERS, &C" MAIL LIST - UNSUBSCRIBE AND OTHER SETTINGS ARE BELOW.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Radio Officers" group.

To post to this group, send email to radio-officers@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to radio-officers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

[Rich]

Hello Peter and CQ,   I agree with you, there is no going back to the past.    BUT, there is a definate need for a professional radio officer to operate the GMDSS system.  WHY?  It is because the Captains and Mates don't understand it, do not want to understand it, can't understand it, and they simply will NOT DO IT.   I am NOT talking about a CW operator.  I'm talking about a professional radioman who understands the GMDSS system, understands radio, sees it's importance, and WILL do the job.  It is a safety issue.   73, Rich --- On Wed, 1/4/12, Peter VK4QC <vk...@wia.org.au> wrote:

From: Peter VK4QC <vk...@wia.org.au> Subject: Re: [Radio Officers, &c] Re: 500 Kc at KPH

[Peter VK4QC]

I hear you loud and clear Rich and agree 100%. There should be a dedicated Comms Officer on board. The original question was whether the telegraphy certificate is obsolete. I say it is. The US is the only place I know of where you can still get one.

73, Peter VK4QC

--

THIS IS THE "RADIO OFFICERS, &C" MAIL LIST - UNSUBSCRIBE AND OTHER SETTINGS ARE BELOW.
 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Radio Officers" group.

To post to this group, send email to radio-o...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to radio-officer...@googlegroups.com

[Robert Maskill]

On 04/01/2012 18:53, Robert Maskill wrote:
> On 04/01/2012 18:28, Rich wrote:
>> Dear Robert,
>>
>> Please see the Admiralty List of Radio Signals, Volume 5 (GMDSS).
>> Lyngby Radio is NOT LISTED.
>>
>> Also, refer to NM39 of 2010, I believe.
>>
>> 73,
>> Rich Monjure
>>
>

I have received the following this morning from Lyngby Radio.

Dear Robert

I can confirm that the MF frequencies on our website are
correct and still in use.

Best regards
Lyngby Radio

[Alfredo De Cristofaro]

Ciao Peter and Happy New Year,

I know your fashion for W/T and your thoughts about GMDSS and I know also your opinion about the figure of R/O that won't come back on board ships, you should be right, you have more experience than me in Sea RadioComms but I have sent my "provocative"

messages on this Group because working for the Italian Ship's Master Association I am little exhausted to hear lots of complaining

about the new systems and there are still several Areas around the World not yet covered by the GMDSS technologies,  everything seems to work well and nobody wants to speak officially about the troubles of the new systems, I think behind this kind of PONZIO PILATO washing hands there are Authorities do not like to assume their responsabilities. Behind IMO there are many Lobbies and it is not easy to fight against them to show that GMDSS system is a big Bluff without an appropriate back-up system and a proper person who could run by the system expecially in case of a DISTRESS.

For examples around Italian seas the Italian NAVTEX coverage is very bad, this situation has been reported us from several Mates...it is easier to receive a NAVTEX from North Europeann Countries than from an Italian NAVTEX site.

Try to sail along the African Coasts.......

For now the sole real possibility to assure a coverage in case of DISTRESS is by means of Satellites but we cannot forget that in GMDSS not all ships are equipped for the AREA 4.

What can we do??

Perhaps nothing...but on my "LoogBook" I have some casualities happened because of the "incompetence" and mistakes due to a non proper handling of the system.

Do you remeber, for examples,  the sunk of the Ferry Boat in the Red Sea brought back pilgrims from LA MECCA to Egypt0??

A, DISTRESS was sent via satellite and a U.K. station received the SOS but nobody handled properly the Request of DISTRESS immediately and many people die...because, perhaps they were Muslims not much interest from Western Countries to investigate about this casuality...

I am on watch on VHF Ch. 16 everyday from the Office and I assist at the situation of the false alarms on the VHF band, unfortunately this kind of trouble pushed the Italian Coast Guard to investigate properly if a DISTRESS sent on DSC Ch 70 is true or not and in in these cases I report to this Group that this kind of investigation costed life of seafarers and fishermen, I have recorded some DISTRESS TFC and for example when the Fishing Trawler "VITO PADRE" sunk, the Italian Coast Radios wasted their time with the Local Harbour Master to investigate more than 1 hour before sending rescues...they wasted  their time to call on CH.16 the Trawler for long time and when discovered that the Boat wasn't in port and no reply came from the vessels they decided to send crafts but it was late because the crew died. I can say more and more about similar facts but I want to avoid it because I think it is enough "to be killed" HI!!

Ciao Peter and All.

Alfredo

To post to this group, send email to radio-o...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to radio-officer...@googlegroups.com

[Mike Zbrozek]

 

 

Hello Group -

 

With all this talk regarding our profession and its termination due to GMDSS

I wonder how the Radio Officer Unions in many countries handled this change?

In the US we had the ROU and the ARA, both failed to keep the Radio Officer

aboard US Flag ships. Altho I hear on some ARA ships the Sparks is some

kind of flunky for the OM and CE. A flunky is a clerk/shoe shine boy.

How did the European Radio Officer Unions due? Not very well I believe?

I have heard that in some countries they offered the Sparks a chance to get

his 3rd mates license with extra schooling. I wish the US Govt had this kind of offer.

However on MSC ship that are US Govt owned and operated with civil service

crews I see that they still have a Radio Officer technician. With poor pay and

vacation they are always looking for people....

 

Both the big US Radio Unions kept telling the membership that they are working

to keep us employed but actually they knew better and kept their eye on their own

union job ........and left when the ax fell....with a lot of money for their own retirement.

In the meantime many US Flag ships have vanished and the jobs are gone.

And the vast remainder of US ships are under charter to the US Govt carrying cargo for

the US Military....In the world as a whole if you are from a third world country the

chances of sailing are limitless, how does $200 per month sound? And all

the rice and fish heads you can eat....yum yum....

 

 

73

Mike K8XF

[Rich]

Hello JF,

One thing you said in a prior message...

"those who have been on that route may remember that bored Russian RO's occasionally liked to send the AA trigger without ID"

Russian shipboard radio officers, back in the day, were the BEST shipboard operators in the world. I would find it hard to believe they would do what you said.

Besides, if there was no ID with these signals, how do you know WHO sent them?

73,
Rich

--- On Wed, 1/4/12, JF <lhouse...@livingston.net> wrote:

> From: JF <lhouse...@livingston.net>
> Subject: Re: [Radio Officers, &c] Using Navtex machines in the GMDSS.

> sequence for triggering the alarm ( but the AA bell did not

> sound.
>
> I wondered what the hell was going on, as the AA always
> passed
> its self-test; so, I looked through the manual and found a
> small
> penciled note by an anonymous shore tech saying that the
> AA
> sensitivity had been reduced to eliminate false alarms,
> with
> no other details. I sent a telex to the ship's corporate
> electronics maintenance dept. asking if they knew about
> this,
> and their reply was that AA sensitivity had been reduced
> because
> they did not want it to hear ships more than 100 miles
> away, as
> the company did not intend for their ship to go out of its
> way
> further than that to make a rescue.
>
> That opened my eyes to corporate comradery at sea.
>
> John F.
>

[Rich]

Hello Alfredo and CQ:   You bring up some good points.   GMDSS has back-ups as part of the system.  What is necessary is that there is someone on the ship that knows how to use GMDSS to it's fullest capability.  The situation on most ships today is that the Mates can use the Inmarsat phone and the VHF, and that's it.  They do not understand proper radio procedures.   As far as the shipboard operator is concerned, it is his duty to use the RIGHT system for the Sea Area he is in, and route the Distress message to the most appropriate RCC.   Once the RCC gets the signal, there isn't much a ship operator can do about incompetence at the RCC.   73, Rich

[Dick Singer]

Hi Mike,

 

Yes it was pretty poor to have support from anyone - how do you fight against big money?

 

I understand Exxon is building 40 LNG ships to bring back to the US from Qatar. Of course no American crews.

 

Dick

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 6773 (20120106) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

[RADIO OFFICERS]

Ciao Dick and hello to All,

here in Italy we have the same situation with the shipping.

As secretary of my delegation I usually try to find embarks for seafarers and excluding few Officers in the Deck and Engine Dpts. for the other crew jobs no possibilities, they are fully replaced from third world personnel...unfortunately many people inside the shipping said that Italian do not like to sail more...HI!! In my office I have hundreds of requests coming from sailors, Bosuns and other crew members...why ship's  companies refuse me these requests...money, the answer is very simple only to save money...

A third World War?? Yes it is possible...but I will refuse to give my blood for my Country and the Western Block...

BST RGDS

Alfredo

--

[RADIO OFFICERS]

Hello Mike and All

about Italian Radio Officers UNION, the answer is very easy,

The UNION assured the job only to Radio Officers near the retirement and for the others??

The UNION sold the Category to Italian Coast Guard in the person of the Admiral SICUREZZA with the promise to convert the Categroy as Deck Officers...a Bluff...because it has never been made and this has been the end of Italian R/O's.

During the UNION fights Italian R/O's in the Mediterranean Sea had a QRX every evening on 4143 kHz but during the meeting between R/O's UNION and Coast Guard was established to close the above mentioned frequency.

Every evening I remember Admiral SICUREZZA in my prayers...and the main bluff is that the English meaning of the name SICUREZZA is SAFETY ahahahahahahahah!!!!!!

BST RGDS

Alfredo

----- Original Message -----

From: Mike Zbrozek

To: radio-o...@googlegroups.com

--

[Rich]

CQ   Regarding the talk of Radio Officer Unions and third world crews.   I was in the ROU when it was shut down by it's own corrupt leadership.  You guys will find this hard to believe, but the ROU President actually asked the membership if they were willing to go on strike to ensure their jobs would be eliminated on schedule!   I am a strong Nationalist.  If a ship is Italian Flag, every single sailor on it should be Italian.  Any ship owned by an Italian company should be required to fly the Italian Flag.   Same for the U.S., and every other country.   What we have in the world today are the super-rich trans-nationalists, high-finance, etc working for a one-world government (at their command) where they will erase borders and national currency.  In their view, a merchant ship need not fly a flag at all, except maybe the flag of the U.N.   These evil people, the "one-worlders" are the true enemy of freedom for all people.  They are the enemy of the working man.   73, RM   --- On Fri, 1/6/12, RADIO OFFICERS <seane...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[Mike Zbrozek]

 

 

Hello Rich and the Group -

 

Would you please explain, ""willing to go on strike to ensure their jobs would be

eliminated on schedule"....That make no sense to me? Please explain if possible.

 

73

 

Mike K8XF

[Alfredo De Cristofaro]

Hello Rich and All,

I agree with you, under the aspect of the "one worlders" it is my same thought and I am afraid that these kind of people, it is possible,  will bring the World to a III World War if they don't stop the "devil" they have inside.

Perhaps many  colleaugues of this fantastic Group won't understand what I want to mean but we seriously are in a very bad and dangerous situation.

This kind of people for their own interests are againts life, job and all the other beautiful things we have on this Planet that each of us should mantain fighting in some manner against them.

In Italy we are really  in a bad crisis nobody want to solve properly because the Govt is not working in the proper way,  in the last manouvre made by our Govt they are continuing to increase taxes to common people like me and to small investors, in the last week 13 suicides between little investors they were afraid couldn't mantain their job and workers in their small business/factories.

The UNIONS are fighting now but they sleept for  very long time, in our brand (MARITIME JOB) in Italy there are about 50.000 seafarers without job, TV Networks had been involved in this trouble but Shipping Companies have not ears for them...

Lots of Italian Shipping Companies are building their new ships of any type in Asia, mainly in South KOREA and our shipyards are on strike because there are more than 10.000 workers are loosing their jobs.

I think also the job of R/O's is a thing that can be still discussed because IMO when introduced GMDSS, I have spoken at that time with Mr. Vladimir LEBEDEV at IMO, didn't say to Maritime Countries to trash at sea R/O's but they gave to the various Govt the freedom to decide to mantain or not R/O's on board....naturally Italian Lobbies (CONFITARMA) fighted to eliminate R/O's from Italian ships and as I said you in my previous message R/O's UNION sold the Category with false promises to Italian Coast Guard.

Until 80's for Italian ships was not possible to have more than 1/3 of the crew from third world and Companies should justify to Maritime Authorities the presence on board of foreign crew members.......no more necessary nowadays.

Where are we going???

BST RGDS

Alfredo

 

 

 

- Original Message -----

From: Mike Zbrozek

To: radio-o...@googlegroups.com

[JF]

On 1/4/2012 11:27 PM, Rich wrote:
> Hello JF,
> One thing you said in a prior message...
> "those who have been on that route may remember that bored Russian RO's occasionally liked to send the AA trigger without ID"
> Russian shipboard radio officers, back in the day, were the BEST shipboard operators in the world. I would find it hard to believe they would do what you said.
> Besides, if there was no ID with these signals, how do you know WHO sent them?
> 73, Rich

Hello Rich,
Could have been someone else, I suppose...I said that because
back around then, in some conversation that I only vaguely
remember now, I was told that it was thought that bored Russian
RO's were doing that. Might have been some ARCO or Texaco tanker
REO's on the Alaska run that told me, I met several on shore.

Those unidentified AA signals really annoyed USCG station NOJ on
Kodiak Island - once I heard them come right back on 500, with a
very sloppy fist and bad grammar, angrily demanding to know who
was sending it. They didn't get any reply, of course.

73
John F.

[Rich]

Sure Mike:   The last ROU contract outlined a schedule for removing the ROU Radio Officers from the ships.  There was, of course, a huge outcry against this contract that was signed WITHOUT A VOTE BY THE MEMBERSHIP.   The ROU President at the time (I will not mention his name) sent out pledge cards, asking member to promise to go on strike to defend that contract!!!   That is what happened.   73, Rich

--- On Fri, 1/6/12, Mike Zbrozek <k8...@verizon.net> wrote:

[Rich]

Hello Alfredo and CQ,   As we can see, working people around the world are aware of what is going on.   Honest working people always seek to solve problems without fighting, revolution, death, and suffering.   The New World Order folks destroy working people in phony, inhumane wars.  These wars are designed to kill off what they consider "excess humanity" AND make the corrupt leaders even richer.  They're "killing two birds with one stone."   If there is world-wide upheaval against tyrannical governments, it will NOT be the working people who are to blame... it will be the governments themselves.  These oppressive, inhumane governments are pushing working people to the point that they will have no other choice but to revolt or die in death camps.   RM --- On Sat, 1/7/12, Alfredo De Cristofaro <ik6...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[Jim Nardi]

You're right about our Russian brothers being good cw ops, with regards to false signals, it was pretty common years ago for european ships to send the telephone alarm signal, I was told they do it when they cannot raise the shore-side "radio telephone op", I assumed that the ship board side were not R/O's ....   Jim

--- On Sat, 1/7/12, JF <lhouse...@livingston.net> wrote:

-- THIS IS THE "RADIO OFFICERS, &C" MAIL LIST - UNSUBSCRIBE AND OTHER SETTINGS ARE BELOW. You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Radio Officers" group. To post to this group, send email to radio-o...@googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to radio-officers+unsub...@googlegroups.com

[Mike Zbrozek]

 

 

Hello Rich -

 

Its difficult to believe that The Prez of ROU would do something this suicidal.

He feathered his nest and its a shame to see this type of insane behaviour.

I remember near the end of ROU they wanted 10K to join this Union, nutz.

[Douglas]

The below is not quite true. The contract didn't outline a schedule for removal of the Radio Officer. The last contract signed by the Radio-Electronics Officers Union was with Sea-Land. It detailed a rigorous schedule of schooling and certification, including electrical engineering courses, that R/O's would have to attend. Also this contract was with only one of the ROU's contract companies (Sea-Land). It wasn't with our other companies such as MTL, Farrell, Waterman, etc I (and others) pointed out that the terms of compliance would be nearly impossible for many. It would require being in school for most of the year when the R/O was not aboard ship, devastating family life, etc. Of course, most think that the President and directors of ROU were backed into a corner to sign this by Sea-Land. I thought they should have turned over negotiations to professional negotiators. Perhaps it was the ego of the then president and directors that they thouight they could handle tough negotiations on their own. In any event, within a year, the union and the members were declared in default of the contract by Sea-Land. Accordingly, per the contract rules, members were pulled off the ship as each docked at the end of the year (1999?). My arguments were manifold with the president. He put all of the severance pay into the union medical plan, doling it out equally to all members who had sailing time just before a bankruptcy of the union was declared. I was permanent on the Sealand Achiever and as a result of a leave of absence due to child care, lost my severance.  Another argument with the president was over the continuance of the Union. Theoretically we could have continued on a small scale with just Waterman and Farrel, for a few more years. The Military Sealift Command wanted to keep R/O's on Waterman's MSC contract ships. However, the president declared bankruptcy and the members, despite lawsuits, could do little. Frankly, there was some argument justifying Sea-Lands' position: they seemed willing to keep us if we had evolved into Electrical Engineering Officers. Too many in our union were coasting, not getting involved with electronics all over the ship. I was increasingly involved with engine room automation, computer networks, etc. We couldn't simply stay in the radio room and keep our job. productivity was the name of the game. The watch regulations had even been changed to reflect this. We no longer had to keep continuous watch on 500KHZ (even before GMDSS). We only had to be there during the silent periods. Several of our more productive members carried handi-talkies or similar receivers so they could be carrying on a watch while listening to 500KHZ audio anywhere on the ship. Whenever I was on the bridge, I'd feed the 500KHZ audio into the time tick speaker on the bridge. Regards, Doug Losty/WA1TUT exROU MREO

[RADIO OFFICERS]

Ciao Rich and All,

I repeat myself but I have your same point of view about the world situation nowadays.

I like the Revolution but how many people are ready for that??

We must to wait untill Govts. will touch our BREAD...untill people will have BREAD for food no REVOLUTION.

I have read other messages about the fights of R/O's UNIONs, I will be very short...all UNIONs around the world have politicians infiltrated and politicians you know they make only interests of the Lobbies..In my Country (HI) many sindacalists became Deputies or Senators...and after?? They forgotten workers.

I hope in this Group we can open a debate to clear the end of our Category definetively to have a world-wide common point to start for further discussions

Why we have to accept the wrong/occult manouvres made against our voluntee??

Radio Operators on board ships were Officers and how is it possible that from 31 december 1999 to the day after these Officers desappeared?? I hope nobody will reply with the word "GMDSS"...

BST RGDS for now.

73's to all, Alfredo

[vk...@hf.ro]

Alfredo

R/O's are NOT coming back.

As a regular attender at IMO conferences, I can assure you that there is NO plan to reintroduce R/Os.

Rgds

Glenn

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Radio Officers, &c] Nationalism
From: Alfredo De Cristofaro <ik6...@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, January 07, 2012 1:52 am
To: <radio-o...@googlegroups.com>

I think also the job of R/O's is a thing that can be still discussed because IMO when introduced GMDSS, I have spoken at that time with Mr. Vladimir LEBEDEV at IMO, didn't say to Maritime Countries to trash at sea R/O's but they gave to the various Govt the freedom to decide to mantain or not R/O's on board...

[Alfredo De Cristofaro]

Ciao Glenn,

you could be right, the trouble is that also IMO is a Lobby...

I am in Italian Ship's Master Association and I know enough about...you are speaking for a Lobby dear Glenn...this is the trouble of R/O's.

R/O's cannot come back on board ships because the voluntee of a Lobby manouvred by................and by.................and by...............

Glenn I think you should remember when you were a simple Radio Operator...

IMO is an Organism of ONU, ITU the same and ONU is for the New World Order...and Rich said enough about.

Glenn you are on a RADIO OFFICERS GROUP and not on an IMO Forum, anyway we are colleaugue and we should speaking using other tones and not only "arrogance" to affirm that my our your thought is righter than mine or yours.

For example why you don't tell us - as IMO attender - the true motifs of the end of R/O's.

You know very well that GMDSS is a bluff, if you have a different opinion please try to explain us perhaps we dind't understand the system...

So please help us to understand why R/O's cannot come back on board ships, many of us want his job back..is it a sin or there is any life risk when a man spoke against a Lobby???

Ciao Glenn PLS send your answer.

73's Alfredo

 

----- Original Message -----

[Mike Zbrozek]

 

 

Hello Doug -

 

We have swapped e-mail in the past and I am glad you brought up a few more interesting points

about ROU. I remember ARCO Marine was starting to get a long cabled headset so that you can qsx

to 500 and work on the radar upon the bridge. All you had to do is plug the connector into the

remote time tick box. That was after I left ARCO in 1986. I would never work on radar with that

umbilical cord tied to my head and I am glad that I left them in time. ARCO was another anti-OT

anti Radio Officer firm. Two years with ARCO was enuff for me....then I went to work for Exxon.

 

73

 

Mike K8XF

 

 

[vk...@hf.ro]

Hello Alfredo,

Firstly, I am sorry if my reply appeared arrogant.  However - the GMDSS has been in force for more than 10 years, and it isn't going to change.

The GMDSS is not a bluff.  Despite the systems's flaws, it is the world's standard maritime comms system, and there are many parts of it (Inmarsat C, 406 EPIRBs, AIS) that actually work very well - much better than 500.

Where it falls down is the terrestrial radio component - i.e. MF/HF and VHF.  That is too complicated for the mates to understand.

Why?

Ironically, because the system used for VHF/MF/HF comms (DSC) was designed by a lot of ex-R/O's, who thought that R/O's would remain...there are too many commands in the system, it is too cluttered and over complicated for a non radio professional to understand.

There is no mystery about why R/O's were removed from ships - money, pure and simple.

As I said, I strongly agree that there should be an electronics officer on ships - this person should be responsible for emergency comms.  Safety would be greatly improved.  

There should be a dedicated comms person during an emergency - the mates and the old man are all too busy dealing with the problem to talk on the radio...this has been proven time and time again.

Alas, this is not going to happen.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that we wanted to get electronics officers back on ships.

The way the GMDSS rules are written at the moment, there is nothing stopping shipping companies employing electronics officers - this is one of the options for GMDSS deep sea ships (Sea Area A3).

However, it is an option at the moment - and, surprise surprise, very few shipping companies use that option....

To make it compulsory would require an amendment to Chapter IV of the SOLAS convention.  How do we do that?

IMO is only a place where meetings are held - the decisions are made by the member countries.

A country (not an individual person) would have to write an official paper to IMO's Comms and SAR sub-committee (COMSAR), arguing for a change in SOLAS.  Let's say the paper made it in time for the next meeting (March).

The paper would be discussed at the meeting, and if the meeting agreed, it would then put a recommendation to the IMO's Maritime Safety Committee, who would also have to agree with the paper.  If they agreed, SOLAS would be amended.

However, such a paper would be immediately opposed by the great majority of countries that attend IMO - it would be rejected out of hand.

That's the way IMO works - individual countries put ideas up, and if they are acceptable to the majority, they go ahead.

The concept of an electronics officer would be opposed by the majority of countries, so it would not get up.

Hope that makes it clear.

Rgds

Glenn

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Radio Officers, &c] Nationalism

From: Alfredo De Cristofaro <ik6...@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, January 07, 2012 1:50 pm
To: <radio-o...@googlegroups.com>

Ciao Glenn,

you could be right, the trouble is that also IMO is a Lobby...

I am in Italian Ship's Master Association and I know enough about...you are speaking for a Lobby dear Glenn...this is the trouble of R/O's.

R/O's cannot come back on board ships because the voluntee of a Lobby manouvred by................and by.................and by...............

Glenn I think you should remember when you were a simple Radio Operator...

IMO is an Organism of ONU, ITU the same and ONU is for the New World Order...and Rich said enough about.

Glenn you are on a RADIO OFFICERS GROUP and not on an IMO Forum, anyway we are colleaugue and we should speaking using other tones and not only "arrogance" to affirm that my our your thought is righter than mine or yours.

For example why you don't tell us - as IMO attender - the true motifs of the end of R/O's.

You know very well that GMDSS is a bluff, if you have a different opinion please try to explain us perhaps we dind't understand the system...

So please help us to understand why R/O's cannot come back on board ships, many of us want his job back..is it a sin or there is any life risk when a man spoke against a Lobby???

Ciao Glenn PLS send your answer.

73's Alfredo

 

----- Original Message -----

From: vk...@hf.ro

To: radio-o...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2012 9:20 PM

Subject: RE: [Radio Officers, &c] Nationalism

Alfredo

R/O's are NOT coming back.

As a regular attender at IMO conferences, I can assure you that there is NO plan to reintroduce R/Os.

Rgds

Glenn

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Radio Officers, &c] Nationalism

From: Alfredo De Cristofaro <ik6...@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, January 07, 2012 1:52 am
To: <radio-o...@googlegroups.com>

I think also the job of R/O's is a thing that can be still discussed because IMO when introduced GMDSS, I have spoken at that time with Mr. Vladimir LEBEDEV at IMO, didn't say to Maritime Countries to trash at sea R/O's but they gave to the various Govt the freedom to decide to mantain or not R/O's on board...

Alfredo

 

 

 

- Original Message -----

From: Mike Zbrozek

To: radio-o...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2012 4:38 AM

Subject: Re: [Radio Officers, &c] Nationalism

 

 

Hello Rich and the Group -

 

Would you please explain, ""willing to go on strike to ensure their jobs would be

eliminated on schedule"....That make no sense to me? Please explain if possible.

 

73

 

Mike K8XF

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Rich

To: radio-o...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 9:12 PM

Subject: [Radio Officers, &c] Nationalism

CQ   Regarding the talk of Radio Officer Unions and third world crews.   I was in the ROU when it was shut down by it's own corrupt leadership.  You guys will find this hard to believe, but the ROU President actually asked the membership if they were willing to go on strike to ensure their jobs would be eliminated on schedule!   I am a strong Nationalist.  If a ship is Italian Flag, every single sailor on it should be Italian.  Any ship owned by an Italian company should be required to fly the Italian Flag.   Same for the U.S., and every other country.   What we have in the world today are the super-rich trans-nationalists, high-finance, etc working for a one-world government (at their command) where they will erase borders and national currency.  In their view, a merchant ship need not fly a flag at all, except maybe the flag of the U.N.   These evil people, the "one-worlders" are the true enemy of freedom for all people.  They are the enemy of the working man.   73, RM   --- On Fri, 1/6/12, RADIO OFFICERS <seane...@hotmail.com> wrote:

From: RADIO OFFICERS <seane...@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [Radio Officers, &c] Radio Officer Unions To: radio-o...@googlegroups.com

Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 1:37 PM

Ciao Dick and hello to All, here in Italy we have the same situation with the shipping. As secretary of my delegation I usually try to find embarks for seafarers and excluding few Officers in the Deck and Engine Dpts. for the other crew jobs no possibilities, they are fully replaced from third world personnel...unfortunately many people inside the shipping said that Italian do not like to sail more...HI!! In my office I have hundreds of requests coming from sailors, Bosuns and other crew members...why ship's  companies refuse me these requests...money, the answer is very simple only to save money... A third World War?? Yes it is possible...but I will refuse to give my blood for my Country and the Western Block... BST RGDS Alfredo

----- Original Message ----- From: Dick Singer To: radio-o...@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [Radio Officers, &c] Radio Officer Unions Hi Mike,   Yes it was pretty poor to have support from anyone - how do you fight against big money?   I understand Exxon is building 40 LNG ships to bring back to the US from Qatar. Of course no American crews.   Dick __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 6773 (20120106) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com

[Rich]

Hi Doug and CQ,   You're forgetting the FINAL contract, the one that said "since training has not worked, is not working, and will not work."   Remember that one?  That's the one I'm talking about.  Not the one you're talking about from 1998.   73, RM --- On Sat, 1/7/12, Douglas <spark...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Rich]

Mike,   The ROU president did this, I believe, because he KNEW he was going to lose the final election to David Flaa and the New ROU team.   So, what did the ROU president do?  CANCEL THE 1999 ELECTION!!!!!   73, RM

--- On Sat, 1/7/12, Mike Zbrozek <k8...@verizon.net> wrote:

From: Mike Zbrozek <k8...@verizon.net> Subject: Re: [Radio Officers, &c] ROU SELLOUT To: Radio-o...@googlegroups.com Date: Saturday, January 7, 2012, 1:19 PM

[Rich]

Ok everybody, I feel like I have run this topic into the ground.  I'll comment though.   IF the officers left on board could understand GMDSS, had an interest, and WOULD DO IT, we'd have no problem.   The truth is that THEY CAN'T, THEY DON'T, and THEY WILL NOT DO IT.   This results in GMDSS ships NOT standing all the Internationally agreed radio watches.  This results in an DANGEROUS SITUATION.   There are lots of former professional Radio Officers that would love to go on board to be GMDSS operators.  It is needed because the other officers DO NOT CARE.   The problem with IMO is that they are too far detached from "ground zero" to understand.    Now, if they DO understand what is happening, then it's just money-grubbing for the companies.   73, RM

--- On Sat, 1/7/12, Alfredo De Cristofaro <ik6...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[Douglas]

Final contract with who (or whom?) :-)   As far as I know, the final contract was with Sea-land as I've mentioned. The other contracts were null and void after the ROU's bankruptcy filing.   As I remember, what you're talking about was simply a bulletin to the membership.   Doug Losty --- On Sat, 1/7/12, Rich <salseronor...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Alfredo De Cristofaro]

Ciao Glenn,

thank you for your answer very appreciated.

I want to say you something about a very important Dept. of a ship, the Engine Department.

I have started to sail in the 80's and I have assisted at the introduction of Advanced Technlogies on board ships mainly in the Engine Rooms. According to the High Technologies introduced no watches or works were necessary in the COP of the ship during a voyage, the convincement of Productors and Installators was that few Mates were necessary to run by an Engine Room and during the night the watches could be mantained automatically from the cabins of the Mates or Chief Engineer thanks to a little consolle.

Thanks to these New Technologies some workers in the Engine Dept. were removed from the Crew List (mechanical worker, greaser, engine boy), but they really didn't think about possible failures in the Engine during a stormy night...at the beginning many people were enthusiast about these new technologies but after short time things changed and Mates came back in the COP also during nightime but... unfortunately they were alone during their watches, for this reason the few people remained in the Engine Dept, those in the past were on duty only during daylight hours..such as electricians...were involved in the watches in the Engine Rooms during the night.

What's really happened...false alarms...because of false alarms many times I have assisted at black outs or engines stopped by the alarm sensors without a proper motif but only due to the movements of the ship, rolling and pitching produced false alarms and for this reasons Chief Engineers and Mates switched off several automatic sensors and they abandoned their cabins to come back in the COP like before the introduction of High Technologies...but the Crew Lists in the mean time lost many people of the Engine Dept.(Crew Reduction)

Some ships' owners than started to think at Multipurpose Crews HI!! So they pushed because a Deck Officer could became also an Engine Officer but they had not much success except rare cases not important to mention.

Plus or Minus this story is the same happened to R/O's with the introduction of New Technologies, when all equipments run properly also a child could be on watch but in case of a DISTRESS or FAULTY who will take care of the communications and the HF/MF back-up system around the world from how many Coast Radios is well monitorized? Also in the GMDSS because of False Alarms MF and HF back-up system has fallen in the oblivion except rare cases and the large part of the few Coast Radios remained, mantain a watch only on 2187.5 kHz.

On your website after 11 years from the introduction of GMDSS you are continuing to mantain the section "FLAWS IN THE SYSTEM". Now I want to ask an opinion...you said the GMDSS has been projected by R/O's too and for this reason they decided to mantain the MF/HF communications mainly as a back-up for satellite's failures but in truth how many Mates are able to use properly the old radio systems and how many new generation Captains have a conscienses that in open seas they can remain in a DISTRESS  situation only with the possibility of a SSB radio communication??  And with whom??

Yeah but GMDSS has fitted a ship also with satellite buoys eheh...but it is not possible to speak trough a buoy with Rescue Centers they will never activate SAR procedures untill they have recognized the authenticity af a DISTRESS...to move crafts costs money and money...

There are several FLAWS we can discuss togheter but I am sure IMO members are not interested in these things? Perhasps the Lobby of satellite providers??

Glenn permit me to say you that communications at sea nowadays is a drama hidden by big interests and the R/O's now are considered the "weak thought" of an old system?? I am "laughing" thinking about a Mate who must to send an important Fax via satellite when it is on failure or satellites do not occur this risk?? Partly these kind of troubles has been solved by the redundancy of equipments and also on this point we can open a "never ending story"...

Looking at the face of the reality of sea RadioComms how many problems we could discuss togheter??

Ciao Glenn and BST RGDS to all australian friends on the Group.

[vk...@hf.ro]

Hello again Alfredo,

Inmarsat C is an excellent and very reliable system.

However, if it failed, many GMDSS ships would have problems raising an alert on HF.

There are more than enough HF coast stations to receive the alert, but the average deck officer has little to no HF proficiency.

They would be able to get a DSC distress alert out on HF by pressing the big red DISTRESS button on the DSC controller, but when it came to ongoing comms via R/T.........a lot of them would have problems.

In a last resort, the 406 EPIRB would be used - COSPAS/SARSAT works very well.

[Peter VK4QC]

Hello Alfredo, Glenn and CQ,

I guess this is all down to lack of training, lack of discipline and lack of enforcing the regulations. If enough people got together and lobbied the authorities, things might change. There are online resources available which might make this happen such as Avaaz.org. If they took up the cause, they could muster hundreds of thousands of people around the world. The world at large is not aware of this problem. Only us. If you want to change something, better inform everyone about it and get some support.

73, Peter

VK4QC

--

[RADIO OFFICERS]

Ciao Peter and CQ,

I have just given a look at the Avaaz.org  website..very interesting.

I suggest to other members of this Group to take a look.

Thanks for now Peter I go to have my lunch here is 13.00 LT.

73's Alfredo - IK6IJF

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Peter VK4QC

To: radio-o...@googlegroups.com

[Kilobravo]

I was recentely reading about Space AIS:

 

 

Where HF DSC seems to be the weak link in GMDSS maybe it should be relegated to a lower status.

 

The AIS system would seem to be the way to propagate distress signals, now that Space based AIS is developed the VHF range problems will be solved, the satellites would cover all maritime areas,  all the pertinant information is in the AIS message, name, QTH, course , speed etc. Add a few bits for the Distress signal is all that would be needed.

 

The problem of poorly trained personnel would be solved as the system would be automatic.

 

It would also solve the propagation problems that exist with HF DSC signals, as it would be line of sight communications.

 

It could be the backup for Inmarsat C, with the poorly designed DSC system the back up to the AIS Alerting system.

 

That would give the vessel at least 3 methods to transmit a distress signal.

 

The HF console could sit there gathering dust and it would not matter as it probably would never be needed.

 

73

 

KB  VE1DS

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: vk...@hf.ro

To: radio-o...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2012 7:32 AM

Subject: RE: [Radio Officers, &c] Nationalism

[Dick Singer]

Alfredo - I totally agree with you - we in the US are faced with similar situations. Manufacturing jobs sent overseas to cheap labor, ship building sent overseas to cheap labor. Politicians are all behind their party's agendas and getting money shoved

into their pockets and not what is best for the county. This really discusses me.

 

73

Dick

 

 

From: Alfredo De Cristofaro

To: radio-o...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2012 1:52 AM

[Eric Weber]

Satellites sound great other than the 12 hour Inmarsat outage a couple of months back for the entire Pacific Ocean!.....

 

They didn’t want to admit the cause but I suspect someone did a “upgrade” and loaded the Atlantic West firmware into the Pacific Network Control Station?

 

Mahalo:

Eric Weber

Radio Officer

M/V Manulani WECH

 

From: radio-o...@googlegroups.com [mailto:radio-o...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kilobravo
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2012 2:49 PM
To: radio-o...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Radio Officers, &c] Nationalism

 

I was recentely reading about Space AIS:

--

[Alfredo De Cristofaro]

Ciao Eric,

thank you for your report very important to understand certain situation that for many of us are new because we are not longer on ships.

A good friend of mine, R/O at the beginning of GMDSS reported me also virus infections that once locked completely the use of satellite download for all the trip from West Africa to Genova.

Ciao Eric have good voyages.

73's Alfredo

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Eric Weber

To: radio-o...@googlegroups.com

[Rich]

Hello KB and CQ:

One thing I noticed KB said:   "Where HF DSC seems to be the weak link in GMDSS maybe it should be relegated to a lower status."

I disagree with you.  Here's why.   What you MUST understand is that we have three Sea Areas ESTABLISHED on the use of DSC and conventional radio.    Sea Area A1 - VHF DSC (ch 70) Sea Area A2 - MF DSC (2,187.5 kc/s) Sea Area A4 - HF DSC (4207.5, 6312, 8414.5, 12577, 16804.5 kc/s)   DSC is the MAIN MEANS of emergency communications in these areas, by design.  This makes PERFECT SENSE.   Consider:   You are in Sea Area A1, say, 8 miles from an VHF Coast Station with continuous monitoring of channel 70.  You need to send a distress alert, which can be done at the press of a button.  1/2 second AFTER you release the red button, alarms are ringing on ALL SHIPS within 20 miles of you AND at the local RCC WHO WILL BE HANDLING YOUR RESCUE.   The local RCC will send a DSC Distress Acknowledgement signal, addressed to ALL STATIONS, no later than 60 seconds after they receive your distress alert. So you'll KNOW you've been heard.   Then you follow-on using R/T on VHF channel 16.   YOU COULD NOT MAKE AN INMARSAT PHONE CALL IN 1/2 SECOND.   You'd be INCORRECT to use Inmarsat in this scenario!  Your Inmarsat phone call from Sea Area A1 will be routed to an RCC a great distance away AND WILL NOT alert the ships in your vicinity!  (Like your little VHF DSC radio will.)   We are all radiomen here.  I absolutely DEMAND that everyone think like radioman!   Sea Area A3 is based on the coverage of Inmarsat, by design.  If you're in distress in Sea Area A3, you are to reach for your Inmarsat system and use it, via the appropriate LES, to reach the most appropriate RCC for your location.    That's the definition of Sea Area A3 - "An area between 70N and 70S, within range of the Inmarsat Satellite footprint."   Inmarsat is strictly a ship-to-shore, shore-to-ship system.  It does NOT alert the ships in your immediate vicinity, not when the ship originates the call.  In Sea Area A3 a ship will use MF DSC on 2,187.5 kc/s to send a ship-to-ship DSC distress alert, and this too can be done at the touch of a button.  It will ring the alarms on all ships within 150 miles in about SEVEN SECONDS after the operator released the red button.   These ideas are the things that are NOT BEING TAUGHT in U.S. GMDSS classes, and when I was teaching GMDSS I made a big deal about these ideas.  Every student of mine KNEW these Sea Areas, and the capabilities and differences between a ship-to-shore alert vs. a ship-to-ship alert, but I digress.   In Sea Area A3, HF DSC is a BACK-UP to Inmarsat.  That is, unless the ship has chosen the "all radio" approach.  (I disagree with that.  All A3 ships should carry BOTH Inmarsat and HF radio.)  If you're in distress in Sea Area A3, and your Inmarsat system fails, you use HF DSC.   Some will think of EPIRBS, here.  EPIRBS should NOT be used if another form of ship-to-shore alerting can be used.  EPIRBS are great, but you can't talk over them.   There is a lot more to GMDSS than what I have discussed.  There is MSI reception THAT IS REQUIRED.  (Most ships out there are sailing in violation.)  There are TESTS that must be made.  There are LOGS that MUST be kept.  (Most ships don't even keep logs.)   Don't give me this argument that "DSC is too hard, so we need to get rid of it."  IT IS A SIMPLE SYSTEM IF YOU CAN THINK.   Unfortunately, these block-headed MATES can't THINK when it comes to radio.  PUT A PROFESSIONAL ON BOARD.   There is absolutely NOTHING hard about DSC.  NOTHING.   73, RM

[Kilobravo]

 

Thanks for the information....

 

That is  very interesting, I worked for them indirectly for many years and it was a top notch outfit, everything was run very professionally. It would be interesting to know if it was a space problem (satellite based) or a terrestrial problem with the earth stations.

 

 

 

Regardless, it is a very innovative communications system capable of putting Maritime Mobile communications on par with terrestial communication systems.

 

As shown by that outage you should never put all your eggs in one basket, as I mentioned 3 systems, independant from each other, would be about as robust as one could make the system and still be cost effective.

 

All this equipment exists and only needs to be worked into the system, that might be the most difficult part.

 

73

 

KB  VE1DS

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Eric Weber

To: radio-o...@googlegroups.com