US Coast Guard Announcement RE: Radiotelephone Distress Call Watchkeeping

[Pete]

USCG NOTICE: RADIOTELEPHONE DISTRESS WATCHKEEPING
Mariners are advised that due to the aging Coast Guard Medium Frequency radio infrastructure, calls to the Coast Guard on the international radiotelephone distress frequency 2182 kHz may not be reliably received by the Coast Guard. Areas where maritime broadcasts on 2670 kHz are being received satisfactorily by mariners should not be affected. Similarly, mariners using high frequency (HF) radiotelephones equipped with digital selective calling (DSC) capable of operating on the 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 MHz distress frequencies should not be affected. Coast Guard watchkeeping services on these HF radiotelephone and DSC distress frequencies are posted at
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=cgcommsCall. Mariners who receive a distress alert or call that has not been acknowledged by the Coast Guard are asked to assist if possible and advise the nearest Coast Guard unit using whatever means are practicable.

[Rich]

CQ,   This is just UNACCEPTABLE.  (See original notice below.)   Just what do you need to reliably receive R/T voice calls on 2,182 kHz?   NOT MUCH.   This is another example of bungling and incompetence in the United States Coast Guard.    73, RM --- On Fri, 3/23/12, Pete <n5...@flash.net> wrote:

[Bryan Fisher]

Rich, if it's not that much, how about you go into your checkbook and write out a check to purchase the 'not much' that the USCG needs to reliably monitor 2182?  I'm sure they'd welcome your funds, seeing as how they're on a shoestring budget, and always have been.

You seem to really despise the Coast Guard, and especially its communicators.  I just don't understand you, I guess...even though I'd have risked my life to save yours if you had been in trouble when I was a USCG radioman.  But then, that's what we were paid for, so...keep that checkbook handy.

Bryan

RMC, USCG

---

From: Rich <salseronor...@yahoo.com>
To: radio-o...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 9:09 PM
Subject: [Radio Officers, &c] The U.S. Coast Guard... AGAIN!

--
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

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

Hello Bryan,

I don't think RM despises the USCG at all.  I do think he despises activities that injure men and women at sea.

I suspect that if there were still RM around and the USCG were proposing to remove them, RM would be an ardent supporter of keeping them.

I know RM is a former U.S. Marine, and that he is proud of that tradition, Semper Fi, and Semper Paratus are elements of our military which do coexist, and I believe RM would want the US Marines to be Semper Paratus in the finest tradition and practice of the USCG.

But as civilians, we must, I believe speak out when the legislature doesn't fund needed equipment, or the facilities to maintain life saving equipment of any armed forces, however, in my view, it wouldn't be the first time that the USCG for political reasons put their own men and women and the maritime community at risk, by acting with premeditation to achieve a political end such as doing away with 500 kHz and 2182 kHz watchkeeping.  I remember when USCG shut down WT watch on 500 kHz.  There wasn't an enlisted man around that thought it was a good thing that I ever heard of, and they all griped privately about the press release about "500 kHz having a maximum range of 100 miles under any conditions" as it seemed like liar (oops, I meant "lawyer") talk for "even under a severe storm and impaired reception range caused by severe static and decreased antenna efficiency caused by salt spray, even then 500 kHz will get you out 100 miles."

If I were to be asked if we should fund a bridge to nowhere in Alaska or improve radio equipment in our armed forces, or make our armed forces better equipped to do their mission(s), I'd unhesitatingly say "Yes!".  I believe that RM would respond in the same way.

RM, am I right?  Do you support the USCG men and women who carry out their missions and want them to be excellently equipped for the tasks that they carry out for our safety and the safety of mariners?

I believe he would say "Yes" - perhaps RM wasn't as reflective on the impact of his statement as he should have been.

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

[Bryan Fisher]

David,

I agree wholeheartedly with what you say.

The only way I can respond is to say that I rarely, if ever, met any Coast Guard radioman who was engaged in any activity that displayed (quoting here) "bungling and incompetence."  Surely the entire group, RM included, knows that the operators are bound by the orders of their superiors, and that those orders sometimes include where and on what frequencies to stand watch.  Quality of service provided is NOT a command prerogative.

Perhaps RM could spend more time bemoaning political interference in Coast Guard operations rather than inferring lack of professional competence or proficiency on the entire USCG communications community, which inflammatory statements like "continued bungling and incompetence" would suggest.  I'm a peaceful guy, but don't get me started on the Marines, whose own inadequacies (NOT in the area of communications, BTW) I have personally witnessed.

73s

BDF

---

From: "D.J.J. Ring, Jr." <n1...@arrl.net>
To: radio-o...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Radio Officers, &c] The U.S. Coast Guard... AGAIN!

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

No fighting, gentlemen.  Unfortunely, during the 1980-90s, the USCG had other priorities it seems, I have heard large cutters calling NMN Virginia for hours without responsr, then there is WOOH in 1983.  NMF Boston had to call NMN on telephone to alert them to their SOS offshore VA?  Sad.

73

DR

[Bryan Fisher]

Again, singular instances do not condemn the entire professional infrastructure.  

I was a USCG radioman between the 1970s and 1990s and I stand by my coworkers, shipmates, and operating standards.  To the best of my memory and knowledge, those standards did not deteriorate - at least, at no station where I served.  The services we offered the maritime public (in mechanical terms) seemed to decline as technology advanced, and there appeared to be a political/doctrinal Star Chamber of sorts (personally, I think it was the brief but stunningly damaging acceptance of Total Quality Management policies by the USCG) whose members were in influential but professionally-detached positions, and who seemed determined to plunge forward to new horizons at the cost of old, proven policies.  CW?  Old, outdated, worthless - get rid of it. [Still in use?  Of course.  Reliable?  Very.  But...it's OLD!].  Now that policy is trickling down to other distress-related coverage, like effective monitoring of 2182.  I believe that people will die because of this.  But I also believe that it's not out-and-out incompetence on the part of the operator community, it is crass interference and change for change's sake at the upper echelons of the Coast Guard's federal management that's taking this toll.

Also...my personal bottom line is that I am tired of hearing cheap shots at Coast Guard radiomen by dissatisfied commercial operators, not one of whom has ever stood watch in a Coast Guard communication station.  Fox and stork.

BDF

---

From: "D.J.J. Ring, Jr." <n1...@arrl.net>
To: radio-o...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 7:19 AM

[Mike Zbrozek]

 

 

Hello Bryan and the Group-

 

I see that you are always defending the USCG. Dont take the criticism so deep.

The past is history now and its time to move on to bigger and better things.

I am sure you are a man that can understand that concept. While I sailed I had to put

up with idiots that made fun of my profession. I ignored those children and laughed

all the way to the bank. I am sure a few of those dummies are still sailing crying about other things nowadays.

 

 

 

73

 

Mike K8XF

Ex Sparks 1980-1996

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

I agree with you, Bryan, the professionalism of the USCG RM on the whole has never been in doubt.  I numbered among my closest friends, Bob Flynn, W1MMF, retired Chief RM and George Manning, K1CG, a retired Master Chief Radioman, both recently passed away.  Most of the problems were at CAMSLANT Portsmouth, VA/NMN.  None or very litle of it was at any stations except Atlantic coast stations, NMN, NMF and NMA.  I never heard poor performance from NMG New Orleans, NMC, Pacific Area Master Station, NOJ, Kodiak Island, Alaska, NMO Honolulu, Oahu Island, Hawaii, NMR, San Juan, Puerto Rico, NRV, Guam Island:  These stations responded in one or two calls, even from 6,000 miles away.

See http://www.qsl.net/n1ea/sos.htm

It definately was a Atlantic problem.

73

DR

[R/O Hans van den Toorn]

I fully agree with David.
During my time on merchant ships from 1967 till 1990 I have sent
thousands of OBS and AMVER messages to USCG stations all over the
world and always met a 100 percent professional at the other side of
the radiocircuit.
I remember NMR operators already calling me one minute before ''OBS
time'' while on Atlantic crossings from Gibraltar to the US eastcoast
v.v.
Nothing but praise for these excellent high speed cw operators.

The problems with 2182 kHz Rich mentioned before probably have to do
with USCG management an/or Government funding.

73

Hans/PA3ERE

On Mar 30, 3:39 pm, "D.J.J. Ring, Jr." <n...@arrl.net> wrote:
> I agree with you, Bryan, the professionalism of the USCG RM on the whole
> has never been in doubt.  I numbered among my closest friends, Bob Flynn,
> W1MMF, retired Chief RM and George Manning, K1CG, a retired Master Chief
> Radioman, both recently passed away.  Most of the problems were at CAMSLANT
> Portsmouth, VA/NMN.  None or very litle of it was at any stations except
> Atlantic coast stations, NMN, NMF and NMA.  I never heard poor performance
> from NMG New Orleans, NMC, Pacific Area Master Station, NOJ, Kodiak Island,
> Alaska, NMO Honolulu, Oahu Island, Hawaii, NMR, San Juan, Puerto Rico, NRV,
> Guam Island:  These stations responded in one or two calls, even from 6,000
> miles away.
>

> Seehttp://www.qsl.net/n1ea/sos.htm

>
> It definately was a Atlantic problem.
>
> 73
>
> DR

> >   ------------------------------
> > *From:* "D.J.J. Ring, Jr." <n...@arrl.net>
> > *To:* radio-o...@googlegroups.com
> > *Sent:* Friday, March 30, 2012 7:19 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Radio Officers, &c] The U.S. Coast Guard... AGAIN!

>
> > No fighting, gentlemen.  Unfortunely, during the 1980-90s, the USCG had
> > other priorities it seems, I have heard large cutters calling NMN Virginia
> > for hours without responsr, then there is WOOH in 1983.  NMF Boston had to
> > call NMN on telephone to alert them to their SOS offshore VA?  Sad.
> > 73
> > DR

> >  On Mar 30, 2012 4:50 AM, "Bryan Fisher" <mariner...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > David,
>
> > I agree wholeheartedly with what you say.
>
> > The only way I can respond is to say that I rarely, if ever, met any Coast
> > Guard radioman who was engaged in any activity that displayed (quoting
> > here) "bungling and incompetence."  Surely the entire group, RM included,
> > knows that the operators are bound by the orders of their superiors, and
> > that those orders sometimes include where and on what frequencies to stand
> > watch.  Quality of service provided is NOT a command prerogative.
>
> > Perhaps RM could spend more time bemoaning political interference in Coast
> > Guard operations rather than inferring lack of professional competence or
> > proficiency on the entire USCG communications community, which inflammatory
> > statements like "continued bungling and incompetence" would suggest.  I'm a
> > peaceful guy, but don't get me started on the Marines, whose own
> > inadequacies (NOT in the area of communications, BTW) I have personally
> > witnessed.
>
> > 73s
>
> > BDF
>

> >   ------------------------------
> > *From:* "D.J.J. Ring, Jr." <n...@arrl.net>
> > *To:* radio-o...@googlegroups.com
> > *Sent:* Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:09 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Radio Officers, &c] The U.S. Coast Guard... AGAIN!

> > David J. Ring, Jr., N1EA <http://www.qsl.net/n1ea/>
> > SOWP <http://www.sowp.org/>, VWOA <http://www.vwoa.org/>, OOTC<http://www.ootc.us/>,
> > FISTS <http://www.fists.co.uk/>, CW-Ops <http://www.cwops.org/>, CFO<http://groups.google.com/group/Chicken-Fat-Operators-Club?hl=en>,
> > A1-OP <http://www.arrl.org/a-1-op>, ex-FOC 1271 ARRL-LM<http://www.arrl.org/>
> >  Chat Skype: djringjr MSN: djrin...@msn.com AIM: N1EA icq: 27380609
> >  Radio-Officers Google Group<http://groups.google.com/group/radio-officers?hl=en>-- Marine
> > Morse Historic Recordings Page <http://www.qsl.net/n1ea/>

[Rich]

Bryan,   I TOLD YOU, man.  I am NOT going down this road again.   Monjure --- On Fri, 3/30/12, Bryan Fisher <marin...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Rich]

Bryan,   You're sick of hearing it?  THEN SHUT UP.

Monjure --- On Fri, 3/30/12, Bryan Fisher <marin...@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Bryan Fisher <marin...@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Radio Officers, &c] The U.S. Coast Guard... AGAIN!

[Rich]

Mike and CQ,   EXACTLY Mike!  (See your original note, below.)   This is something I explained, IN PAINFUL DETAIL to Bryan over two years ago.   He wants to do it over again and I AM NOT GOING TO DO IT.   The fact is the fact.  Fischer wants to talk about Coast Guard incompetence?  Well, what has the U.S.C.G. done lately that supports my view?   1. Coast Guard "telecommunications specialists" receive NO GMDSS training.   2. When I was teaching GMDSS, about 1-1/2 years ago, I received a Distress Alert on all multiple DSC Alerting frequencies from a U.S. ship off the coast of Colombia.  It was repeating every 4 minutes or so, so I knew it had not been acknowledged.   Since I was not authorized to acknowledge it myself, I picked up the telephone and called RCC Norfolk.    The "person" who answered the phone sounded like a 14 year old girl.  She did not understand radio procedure, she didn't know what a distress relay was.   I explained to her what I received.  She said they had it.    I continued to listen to this alert repeat.  IT NEVER GOT ACKNOWLEDGED.  Why?  Maybe the U.S. Coast Guard didn't know they were supposed to acknowledge it, or didn't know how?   3. U.S.C.G. NMC approves GMDSS courses.  You'd be shocked at the number of diploma mills carrying "USCG CERTIFICATION."   There's more, but I'm not going to talk about it NOW.   This is happening NOW, 2012, not back in 1984.  You aren't even aware of what happening!   73, RM --- On Fri, 3/30/12, Mike Zbrozek <k8...@verizon.net> wrote:

[Rich]

CQ   Let's listen to a U.S.C.G. radio man...     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp3RgMI1Opc

[Rich]

Dear David and CQ,   Read your last, listed below this message.  YOU ARE CORRECT David, I'd agree with you 100%.   Do you know how much it costs to set up a good receiving station for 2,182 khz?   1. LAND - which the U.S.C.G. already has. 2. BUILDING - which they already have. 3. A Drake R8B receiver. 5. A wire, about half-wave lenght at 2,182 khz, humg up as high as possible.   THATS IT.   As far as equipment goes, that's about $2,000.00.  The Coast Guard Radio Men (oh, pardon me "telecommunications specialists") could install it on their military pay.   Then, you'd have men guarding the frequency.  Here again, on their military pay.   I just get a bit angry when Bryan comes up here, like he's got tears in his eyes because I personally insulted his former branch.    THE TRUTH is the U.S. Coast Guard is, in general, TERRIBLE at commerical merchant marine communications.  Don't get me started on how bad they are at GMDSS.    Bryan, "if the shoe fits, wear it."  Try it on for size and if you can't get it on, take no offense. I explained all that 2 years ago.  I am not going to do it again.   73, Rich Monjure

--- On Thu, 3/29/12, D.J.J. Ring, Jr. <n1...@arrl.net> wrote:

From: D.J.J. Ring, Jr. <n1...@arrl.net> Subject: Re: [Radio Officers, &c] The U.S. Coast Guard... AGAIN!

[Rich]

Bryan Fisher,   Stop the crap, will ya?  We went over this about two damn years ago.  If you can't remember, just go back into the freaking archives of this list, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.         Don't you remember?   Stop making quotes for the AMVER bulletin.

--- On Thu, 3/29/12, Bryan Fisher <marin...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Rich]

David and CQ,   I just re-read what this guy Fischer said.  Get this...Fischer says:  "Quality of service provided is NOT a command prerogative."  Yes, that is what this man Fischer said.    Well, I have news for this 20+ year retired Coast Guard man.  IT SURE THE HELL IS A COMMAND PREROGATIVE!   Any Marine on my watch that was substandard was given additional training.  It that didn't work, the Marine in question was transferred to the INFANTRY.   Really, any man who would say that about the U.S. Coast Guard exposes the problems in that organization.  In the U.S.C.G., if a man can't do his job, it doesn't matter.  (They  would want to hurt anyone's feelings by pointing that out!)   It's the same problem in a lot of places.  Everyone goes to a "school,"  everyone holds a "certificate," yet these "seemingly qualified" people can't perform their jobs.  That about sums it up.   The sad thing is that  Bryan doesn't even realize what he has just said!  In his mind, that kind of incompetence is NORMAL!  (At least, as he is telling us, in the U.S.C.G.)     I said it before, I'll say it again, and Bryan Fischer just confirmed it.  U.S.C.G. Radio - BUNGLING AND INCOMPETENCE.  You can even HEAR this U.S.C.G. bungling on youtube!    U.S.C.G. - Gee whiz, we can't AFFORD to monitor 2,182 kHz!   MONJURE -  GET MORE MONEY FOR YOUR MISSION, THEN DO IT.   73, RM

[Bryan Fisher]

Again, here's implied condemnation from someone who has no idea what operating procedures are mandatory for Coast Guard RM's.  You have a SAR checklist and you MUST follow it.  The operator MUST ask those questions (name of vessel, persons on board, description, etc.).  What you're unaware of is that he has already notified his watch officer, who in turn has notified AIRSTA Kodiak, who are scrambling helos, ships, and other rescue resources (how do you think those helos got to the scene?), and they're running the tapes back to verify anything the operator didn't copy (QTH, POB, vessel name, description, other information).  Believe me, this conversation is the last thing running on the list of activities.  The watch officer at NOJ is monitoring the conversation at his position and is on the phone with San Francisco, Juneau, and downtown Kodiak, and the landline operators are passing information in real-time to the SAR center at both AIRSTA Kodiak and at RCC Juneau.

You have to realize...you're seeing the tip of the iceberg.  You also have to consider that if, every time a SAR takes place, they jerked an inexperienced operator off the mike and put senior people in the position, the only thing you'd end up with after the older people move on is a group of people who can't do SAR.  You MUST leave the guy to work the SAR so he can learn.  He is NEVER without extensive backup, and the wheels are always turning to get SAR resources to the scene.

I understand how it looks in this 'snapshot.'  What you don't understand is how many wheels are turning while this is taking place.

BDF

RMC, USCG

---

From: Rich <salseronor...@yahoo.com>
To: radio-o...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 9:44 AM
Subject: [Radio Officers, &c] Listen for yourself.

CQ   Let's listen to a U.S.C.G. radio man...     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp3RgMI1Opc

[Bryan Fisher]

CQ,

I'll explain this again, because Rich doesn't seem to quite understand what I'm saying.

When I say "quality of service" I refer to what's happening here: the loss of coverage on 2182 due to deterioration of the infrastructure.  The command (meaning the commanding officers of the various COMMSTAs, etc.) are not empowered to assign engineering resources to go out and rebuild remote antennae structures in the various shore stations that monitor 2182 in their area of responsibility, nor are they allowed to alter the personnel manning levels necessary to add more watchstanders up and down the coastal zones so that 2182 is more vigorously and effectively monitored.  ALL of these decisions take place at the District, Area, and ultimately at the Headquarters level.  THAT is what I mean by 'quality of service is not a command prerogative.'  I clearly stated in my original email that it was the mechanical, not the personnel, factor that was going south in this equation.

Lay off the Coast Guard, can't you?  Our watchstanders were top-notch, and I stand by them.

73s

BDF

RMC USCG

---

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

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 9:36 AM
Subject: [Radio Officers, &c] Bryan Fischer says it all in one short statement. Read this...

[Bryan Fisher]

Monjure,

Well, at least I'm trying to discuss this with objectivity instead of sinking to cheap personal crap like this.

Bryan

---

From: Rich <salseronor...@yahoo.com>
To: radio-o...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 9:14 AM

[Bryan Fisher]

Monjure,

Every time you drag out a scathing insult to my Coast Guard brothers and sisters and blast it across this group, I will address it.  You might as well get used to it.  If it personally annoys you, I don't much care.

Just be happy that I'm averse to voicing my opinion of the Marines, and I do have some opinions there.

73

BDF

RMC USCG

---

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

Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 8:39 PM

[Mike Zbrozek]

Hello Bryan -

 

I think the group understands your point of view on USCG matters.

I have mixed feelings about the USCG since I sailed from 19801996 but I dont feel

that I have to give a sermon on this matter over and over again. Take it easy and dont

let somebody upset you. This is 2012 and lets not forget that.....

 

 

73

 

Mike K8XF

 

 

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

From: Bryan Fisher

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

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

I know what you say is true, Bryan.  I have seen this personally and i agree with it.  I also believe that that someone at the USCG should have modified those procedures.  I know this is higher up than the RM on watch and his CRM who indeed has by this time gotten help from his other duties in addition to supervising, such as retyping messages for telex received on WT or RT.

Some but not all information is available immediately to the USCG such as ship description, but people on board isn't and nature of distress isn't, nor how many lifeboats will be attempted to be launched.  If description of vessel isn't available immediately, it should be and this should be corrected.

As I've said here and I will say again, I've never heard of a CRM doing a poor job.  However, if I were the CO of one of the stations, I'd have the new watchstanders log the event and have a RM2 or RM3 stand the safety watch.  Again the failure is one that is one of the USCG brass, not the CRM or the RM1, RM2 and RM3's.  The problem is out of their control - but shouldn't have been.

I've seen the USCG at their best and it takes my breath away the professionalism and quality of it, but I've also seen where procedures should have been improved.

One thing is that the Watch Supervisor is suddenly left with too much work when there is an SOS.  I suspect that in an effort to get "production" out of the Chief, he is overworked before this.

I lobbied unsuccessfully for the changing of USCG to be a civilian manned quasi military organization - to bring them in line with what Canada did.  To say that the bulk of the RM's in the USCG couldn't do as well as the Canadian Coast Guard Radio Stations would be misleading, they could and did.

One of the problems as told to me by some in the USCG was that as soon as you got good, you'd be assigned to a cutter.  Great for the USCG, not so good for SOLAS (Safety Of Life At Sea).

There were problems - many were political problems with the brass advocating for changes to SOLAS perhaps for monetary reasons of a retirement job.  The problem wasn't in the "middle" - not with the RMC, RM1, RM2, RM3, but at the top and very bottom.

The problems should NOT have existed, not yesterday, not today and not tomorrow.

Here is just one example, and as I will admit there are many more examples of excellence, the point is that this shouldn't have happened:

For example, on the afternoon of 25 March 1990, U.S.C.G. Cutter SENACA/NFMK in position latitude 3843' North, longitude 75 37' West called U.S.C.G. COMSTA PORTSMOUTH VIRGINIA (NMN), located at 3647'00"N 7620'00"W, for over forty minutes on 500 kHz: a distance of approximately 121 nautical miles (NM) from NMN. I called NMN several times on 500 kHz to tell him that one of our Coast Guard cutters, the USCGC SENACA, was calling, but only after I called NMN at 2057 GMT using an extremely slow code speed of five words per minute did NMN answer on 500 kHz. My ship the SS KING/WAKL was located at 3157'27"N 7803'57"W, a distance of 302.5 NM from NMN. I also made one call on 500 kHz at 20 WPM to YARMOUTH COAST GUARD RADIO/VAU (Canada) (4444'24"N 6607'19"W) at 2109 GMT, and VAU immediately answered me from a distance of 906 NM. The operators at Canadian Coast Guard Radio Stations are civilian operators who have to be good to keep their jobs, and they can operate at normal commercial speeds (25 to 35 WPM).

My thought was that if I could succeed at getting the USCG civilianized good RM's and good R/O's could contribute to their country's excellence because they loved their jobs and were good at it - not just because they wanted to fulfill their military requirements.

Anyone can disagree, but my proposal wasn't mean spirited at all, I wanted excellence, I wanted USCG retirees and USMM retirees.  I've seen them work together and the result was true excellence.

73

DR

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

[Jim Nardi]

Dave,

          with ref to the present discussions on USCG comms you might find it useful to take a look at the

TCO certification info on the USCG Aux (Auxilliary) site.

 

Brgds,

Jim

From: "D.J.J. Ring, Jr." <n1...@arrl.net>
To: radio-o...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sunday, April 1, 2012 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Radio Officers, &c] Listen for yourself.

I know what you say is true, Bryan.  I have seen this personally and i agree with it.  I also believe that that someone at the USCG should have modified those procedures.  I know this is higher up than the RM on watch and his CRM who indeed has by this time gotten help from his other duties in addition to supervising, such as retyping messages for telex received on WT or RT.Some but not all information is available immediately to the USCG such as ship description, but people on board isn't and nature of distress isn't, nor how many lifeboats will be attempted to be launched.  If description of vessel isn't available immediately, it should be and this should be corrected.As I've said here and I will say again, I've never heard of a CRM doing a poor job.  However, if I were the CO of one of the stations, I'd have the new watchstanders log the event and have a RM2 or RM3 stand the safety watch.  Again the failure is one that is one of the USCG brass, not the CRM or the RM1, RM2 and RM3's.  The problem is out of their control - but shouldn't have been.I've seen the USCG at their best and it takes my breath away the professionalism and quality of it, but I've also seen where procedures should have been improved.One thing is that the Watch Supervisor is suddenly left with too much work when there is an SOS.  I suspect that in an effort to get "production" out of the Chief, he is overworked before this.I lobbied unsuccessfully for the changing of USCG to be a civilian manned quasi military organization - to bring them in line with what Canada did.  To say that the bulk of the RM's in the USCG couldn't do as well as the Canadian Coast Guard Radio Stations would be misleading, they could and did.One of the problems as told to me by some in the USCG was that as soon as you got good, you'd be assigned to a cutter.  Great for the USCG, not so good for SOLAS (Safety Of Life At Sea).There were problems - many were political problems with the brass advocating for changes to SOLAS perhaps for monetary reasons of a retirement job.  The problem wasn't in the "middle" - not with the RMC, RM1, RM2, RM3, but at the top and very bottom.The problems should NOT have existed, not yesterday, not today and not tomorrow.Here is just one example, and as I will admit there are many more examples of excellence, the point is that this shouldn't have happened:

For example, on the afternoon of 25 March 1990, U.S.C.G. Cutter SENACA/NFMK in position latitude 3843' North, longitude 75 37' West called U.S.C.G. COMSTA PORTSMOUTH VIRGINIA (NMN), located at 3647'00"N 7620'00"W, for over forty minutes on 500 kHz: a distance of approximately 121 nautical miles (NM) from NMN. I called NMN several times on 500 kHz to tell him that one of our Coast Guard cutters, the USCGC SENACA, was calling, but only after I called NMN at 2057 GMT using an extremely slow code speed of five words per minute did NMN answer on 500 kHz. My ship the SS KING/WAKL was located at 3157'27"N 7803'57"W, a distance of 302.5 NM from NMN. I also made one call on 500 kHz at 20 WPM to YARMOUTH COAST GUARD RADIO/VAU (Canada) (4444'24"N 6607'19"W) at 2109 GMT, and VAU immediately answered me from a distance of 906 NM. The operators at Canadian Coast Guard Radio Stations are civilian operators who have to be good to keep their jobs, and they can operate at normal commercial speeds (25 to 35 WPM).

My thought was that if I could succeed at getting the USCG civilianized good RM's and good R/O's could contribute to their country's excellence because they loved their jobs and were good at it - not just because they wanted to fulfill their military requirements.Anyone can disagree, but my proposal wasn't mean spirited at all, I wanted excellence, I wanted USCG retirees and USMM retirees.  I've seen them work together and the result was true excellence.73DR

David J. Ring, Jr., N1EASOWP, 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

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Bryan Fisher <marin...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Again, here's implied condemnation from someone who has no idea what operating procedures are mandatory for Coast Guard RM's.  You have a SAR checklist and you MUST follow it.  The operator MUST ask those questions (name of vessel, persons on board, description, etc.).  What you're unaware of is that he has already notified his watch officer, who in turn has notified AIRSTA Kodiak, who are scrambling helos, ships, and other rescue resources (how do you think those helos got to the scene?), and they're running the tapes back to verify anything the operator didn't copy (QTH, POB, vessel name, description, other information).  Believe me, this conversation is the last thing running on the list of activities.  The watch officer at NOJ is monitoring the conversation at his position and is on the phone with San Francisco, Juneau, and downtown Kodiak, and the landline operators are passing information in real-time to the SAR center at both AIRSTA Kodiak and at RCC Juneau.

You have to realize...you're seeing the tip of the iceberg.  You also have to consider that if, every time a SAR takes place, they jerked an inexperienced operator off the mike and put senior people in the position, the only thing you'd end up with after the older people move on is a group of people who can't do SAR.  You MUST leave the guy to work the SAR so he can learn.  He is NEVER without extensive backup, and the wheels are always turning to get SAR resources to the scene.

I understand how it looks in this 'snapshot.'  What you don't understand is how many wheels are turning while this is taking place.

BDF

RMC, USCG

From: Rich <salseronor...@yahoo.com>
To: radio-o...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 9:44 AM
Subject: [Radio Officers, &c] Listen for yourself.

CQ   Let's listen to a U.S.C.G. radio man...     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp3RgMI1Opc

-- 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.comTo unsubscribe from this group, send email to radio-officer...@googlegroups.comFor 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-o...@googlegroups.comTo unsubscribe from this group, send email to radio-officer...@googlegroups.comFor 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-o...@googlegroups.comTo unsubscribe from this group, send email to radio-officer...@googlegroups.comFor more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/radio-officers?hl=en

[Eric Weber]

It would be nice if they included the vessel call sign or mmsi???? , of course the USCG doesn’t even use their own call signs…

 

The vessel name is an almost useless piece of information, there are multiple vessels with the same names.

 

The UK, Canada and Japan had better proceedures….  Of course we no longer have to worry about radio proceedures no one listens…

 

They rely on Inmarsat which had a 12 hour outage last year and several shorter one’s

 

The big improvement in the GMDSS system since 2000 is the addition of the LRIT requirement.

 

Rgds:

Eric

 

From: radio-o...@googlegroups.com [mailto:radio-o...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of D.J.J. Ring, Jr.
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 3:22 PM
To: radio-o...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Radio Officers, &c] Listen for yourself.

 

I know what you say is true, Bryan.  I have seen this personally and i agree with it.  I also believe that that someone at the USCG should have modified those procedures.  I know this is higher up than the RM on watch and his CRM who indeed has by this time gotten help from his other duties in addition to supervising, such as retyping messages for telex received on WT or RT.

Some but not all information is available immediately to the USCG such as ship description, but people on board isn't and nature of distress isn't, nor how many lifeboats will be attempted to be launched.  If description of vessel isn't available immediately, it should be and this should be corrected.

As I've said here and I will say again, I've never heard of a CRM doing a poor job.  However, if I were the CO of one of the stations, I'd have the new watchstanders log the event and have a RM2 or RM3 stand the safety watch.  Again the failure is one that is one of the USCG brass, not the CRM or the RM1, RM2 and RM3's.  The problem is out of their control - but shouldn't have been.

I've seen the USCG at their best and it takes my breath away the professionalism and quality of it, but I've also seen where procedures should have been improved.

One thing is that the Watch Supervisor is suddenly left with too much work when there is an SOS.  I suspect that in an effort to get "production" out of the Chief, he is overworked before this.

I lobbied unsuccessfully for the changing of USCG to be a civilian manned quasi military organization - to bring them in line with what Canada did.  To say that the bulk of the RM's in the USCG couldn't do as well as the Canadian Coast Guard Radio Stations would be misleading, they could and did.

One of the problems as told to me by some in the USCG was that as soon as you got good, you'd be assigned to a cutter.  Great for the USCG, not so good for SOLAS (Safety Of Life At Sea).

There were problems - many were political problems with the brass advocating for changes to SOLAS perhaps for monetary reasons of a retirement job.  The problem wasn't in the "middle" - not with the RMC, RM1, RM2, RM3, but at the top and very bottom.

The problems should NOT have existed, not yesterday, not today and not tomorrow.

Here is just one example, and as I will admit there are many more examples of excellence, the point is that this shouldn't have happened:

For example, on the afternoon of 25 March 1990, U.S.C.G. Cutter SENACA/NFMK in position latitude 3843' North, longitude 75 37' West called U.S.C.G. COMSTA PORTSMOUTH VIRGINIA (NMN), located at 3647'00"N 7620'00"W, for over forty minutes on 500 kHz: a distance of approximately 121 nautical miles (NM) from NMN. I called NMN several times on 500 kHz to tell him that one of our Coast Guard cutters, the USCGC SENACA, was calling, but only after I called NMN at 2057 GMT using an extremely slow code speed of five words per minute did NMN answer on 500 kHz. My ship the SS KING/WAKL was located at 3157'27"N 7803'57"W, a distance of 302.5 NM from NMN. I also made one call on 500 kHz at 20 WPM to YARMOUTH COAST GUARD RADIO/VAU (Canada) (4444'24"N 6607'19"W) at 2109 GMT, and VAU immediately answered me from a distance of 906 NM. The operators at Canadian Coast Guard Radio Stations are civilian operators who have to be good to keep their jobs, and they can operate at normal commercial speeds (25 to 35 WPM).

My thought was that if I could succeed at getting the USCG civilianized good RM's and good R/O's could contribute to their country's excellence because they loved their jobs and were good at it - not just because they wanted to fulfill their military requirements.

Anyone can disagree, but my proposal wasn't mean spirited at all, I wanted excellence, I wanted USCG retirees and USMM retirees.  I've seen them work together and the result was true excellence.

73

DR

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

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

[Rich]

Bryan Fisher and CQ,   You really make a big assumption when you said; "What you don't understand is how many wheels are turning while this is taking place."   One more comment:

FISHER SAID:    "You also have to consider that if, every time a SAR takes place, they jerked an inexperienced operator off the mike and put senior people in the position, the only thing you'd end up with after the older people move on is a group of people who can't do SAR."

MONJURE SAYS:   I did not mention anything about that, but thanks for bringing it up!  What kind of shoddy training does this indicate?   An operator who graduates radio school should be ready to sit a position.  That's what he is supposed to be trained to do.  Just what are your men doing in school, drinking coffee and swapping sea-stories?   From what you say, it seems like U.S.C.G. "Telecommunications Specialists" learn "on-the-job."  Sad, but it explains a lot of what I heard.   73, RM

--- On Sun, 4/1/12, Bryan Fisher <marin...@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Bryan Fisher <marin...@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Radio Officers, &c] Listen for yourself. To: "radio-o...@googlegroups.com" <radio-o...@googlegroups.com> Date: Sunday, April 1, 2012, 9:33 AM

Again, here's implied condemnation from someone who has no idea what operating procedures are mandatory for Coast Guard RM's.  You have a SAR checklist and you MUST follow it.  The operator MUST ask those questions (name of vessel, persons on board, description, etc.).  What you're unaware of is that he has already notified his watch officer, who in turn has notified AIRSTA Kodiak, who are scrambling helos, ships, and other rescue resources (how do you think those helos got to the scene?), and they're running the tapes back to verify anything the operator didn't copy (QTH, POB, vessel name, description, other information).  Believe me, this conversation is the last thing running on the list of activities.  The watch officer at NOJ is monitoring the conversation at his position and is on the phone with San Francisco, Juneau, and downtown Kodiak, and the landline operators are passing information in real-time to the SAR center at both AIRSTA Kodiak and at RCC Juneau.

You have to realize...you're seeing the tip of the iceberg.  You MUST leave the guy to work the SAR so he can learn.  He is NEVER without extensive backup, and the wheels are always turning to get SAR resources to the scene.

I understand how it looks in this 'snapshot.'

BDF RMC, USCG

[Bryan Fisher]

Rich, I understand that you'll counter every single thing I say, and that you will never acknowledge the professionalism of Coast Guard communicators, so I throw in the towel and will no longer annoy other members of the group with responses after this.  You are manifestly incorrect, but you'll never admit it.  Go back to being the know-it-all you appear to be, and enjoy your 'victory.'  We all know the truth.

73s

BDF

RMC USCG

---

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

Sent: Sunday, April 1, 2012 6:27 PM

Subject: Re: [Radio Officers, &c] Listen for yourself.

Bryan Fisher and CQ,   You really make a big assumption when you said; "What you don't understand is how many wheels are turning while this is taking place."   One more comment:    FISHER SAID:    "You also have to consider that if, every time a SAR takes place, they jerked an inexperienced operator off the mike and put senior people in the position, the only thing you'd end up with after the older people move on is a group of people who can't do SAR."   MONJURE SAYS:   I did not mention anything about that, but thanks for bringing it up!  What kind of shoddy training does this indicate?   An operator who graduates radio school should be ready to sit a position.  That's what he is supposed to be trained to do.  Just what are your men doing in school, drinking coffee and swapping sea-stories?   From what you say, it seems like U.S.C.G. "Telecommunications Specialists" learn "on-the-job."  Sad, but it explains a lot of what I heard.   73, RM   --- On Sun, 4/1/12, Bryan Fisher <marin...@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Bryan Fisher <marin...@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Radio Officers, &c] Listen for yourself. To: "radio-o...@googlegroups.com" <radio-o...@googlegroups.com> Date: Sunday, April 1, 2012, 9:33 AM Again, here's implied condemnation from someone who has no idea what operating procedures are mandatory for Coast Guard RM's.  You have a SAR checklist and you MUST follow it.  The operator MUST ask those questions (name of vessel, persons on board, description, etc.).  What you're unaware of is that he has already notified his watch officer, who in turn has notified AIRSTA Kodiak, who are scrambling helos, ships, and other rescue resources (how do you think those helos got to the scene?), and they're running the tapes back to verify anything the operator didn't copy (QTH, POB, vessel name, description, other information).  Believe me, this conversation is the last thing running on the list of activities.  The watch officer at NOJ is monitoring the conversation at his position and is on the phone with San Francisco, Juneau, and downtown Kodiak, and the landline operators are passing information in real-time to the SAR center at both AIRSTA Kodiak and at RCC Juneau. You have to realize...you're seeing the tip of the iceberg.  You MUST leave the guy to work the SAR so he can learn.  He is NEVER without extensive backup, and the wheels are always turning to get SAR resources to the scene. I understand how it looks in this 'snapshot.'  BDF RMC, USCG

[VA3ICC]

Geez guys...........stop the BIG EGO talk.  This back and forth oneupmanship is simply boring for the rest of us.

 

Nothing 'nice' to say then keep it shut.

 

VA3ICC

 

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

From: Bryan Fisher

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

[Rich]

Bryan and CQ,   I have no idea what you are talking about.  I will comment on your message.      1.     B Fischer:   "I understand that you'll counter every single thing I say..."   R Monjure   Yes I will, if I have an opinion about it that is contrary to yours!     2.     B. Fischer:   "...that you will never acknowledge the professionalism of Coast Guard communicators..."   R Monjure:   I have acknowledged the professionalism of SOME U.S.C.G. radiomen.  I specifically mentioned ex-USCG RM's I know personally namely ROB CHAMBEE and JOHN (JACK) BEITH.  BARRY BASEL also comes to mind.  All fine radio operators all ex U.S.C.G. men.   I also remember the U.S.C.G. radio man who could not receive a telegram sent at 5 GPM.     B Fischer:   "I ... will no longer annoy other members of the group with responses after this."   R Monjure:   THANK YOU!    Now you can calm down, stop crying, ring-out your hankerchief and stop playing the victim.