Re: Marine VHF Radio for Truck

[rickman]

On 9/2/2013 1:11 AM, Fred McKenzie wrote:
> In article<l00fl2$qid$1...@dont-email.me>, rickman<gnu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I doubt I'll be mounting this in a boat although that is a possibility
>> someday, I do have a ski boat. But more likely is that I'll mount it at
>> my house on a lake to provide some amount of emergency monitoring. So I
>> expect to mount it in the pickup so it can be easily removed and brought
>> into the house. I guess that means a second antenna too.
>
> Rick-
>
> I am assuming you can manage the legal requirements for use of the
> radio. As others mentioned, a license may be needed.
>
> One question you must address, is what kind of range do you need to
> cover? VHF radios are essentially line-of-sight. Due to the curvature
> of the earth, the "radio horizon" will limit your range.
>
> You can estimate the distance in miles to the radio horizon, as the
> square root of twice the altitude of your antenna in feet. For example,
> the antenna on the roof of your truck will be approximately five feet
> off the ground. The square root of ten is about 3.2, so your horizon on
> level ground will be about 3 miles away.
>
> You can add the distance to the kayak's horizon to yours. So it would
> matter if the kayak is on a mountainous stream or on the open ocean or
> lake.
>
> If vehicle mounting does not provide the range you need, a tall antenna
> may be required at the house. (Have you considered using cell phones?)

Hi Fred, I appreciate the response.

I'm not sure there is a lot of value to calculating the line of sight
for the antenna mount. I don't have much choice in the mount other than
having to make it lower because of some practical consideration like
hitting bridges... As to need, I want the max I can get of course. The
other end of the link will all be handheld radios.

The kayaks will be on the Chesapeake Bay, but close to shore. So land
obstructions will be the limiting factor most of the time. At least it
seemed that way on prior trips. But I don't have a lot of experience
with the hand held units we used so I'm not sure what I should have
expected.

The sort of issue I'm more interested in discussing are things like what
type of antenna and how best to mount and connect it to the radio. Of
course, I'm interested in the radios if anyone here has experience with
them. I see 25 Watt (which I'm assuming is the max available) units at
the bottom end for just over $100 and others which seem to be similar in
regards to the specs I understand for over $200 and of course the prices
run upward too. Are there aspects I should look for that I need to dig
deeper into the specs to find? For example is there some spec on the
internals of the receiver that would make a weakly received signal more
clear than another radio? What about the speaker itself? Would it be
better to have an external speaker or is the internal speaker usually ok?

I'm looking for advice from those who are experienced with marine VHF.
Of course, I don't know what I don't know, so I'm looking for help
figuring out the questions.

--

Rick

[Jerry Stuckle]

Rick,

You've answered a couple of questions here. First of all, you are in
the United States, so are governed by the FCC.

Marine radio licenses are not needed for the kayaks while on the river,
but land stations (i.e. your truck) would do.

You could be considered a "Private Coastal Station". You would have to
"provide a service to vessels..." to get this license. I'm not sure if
the FCC would consider talking to your kayaks to be "a service to
vessels" - I guess it could be argued that it is.

Another option would be a "Marine Utility Station" - these restricted to
handhelds with ten watts or less power. You still have to "provide a
service to vessels".

Another option would be the "General Mobile Radio Service". You don't
have to provide a service to vessels with this license, but it is
basically handhelds in the 1-5 watt range (and can have removable
antennas, so you could add an external antenna). You need a license
here, but family members can all operate under the same license
(individual licenses are not required).

Of course, every person operating a radio could get a ham license; you
would be much less restricted in your operation (power, frequencies,
etc.). You just can't use it for business - which it sounds like you
aren't. Each person would have to pass a test (not that hard and many
ham clubs around the country provide testing on a regular basis). Of
course, it gives you a lot of other options, also - like using a
repeater to extend the range of both the kayaks and your truck, assuming
one is available (I don't know what's available around the Chesapeake
River area, but this area is loaded with repeaters).

I hope this helps you with some ideas.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================

[rickman]

ccc>>

Jerry, yes, this helps a lot. Once I was told I needed the license I
found the FCC site to be less than clear. I appreciate you laying out
the options. I would like to have a more powerful transmitter than the
handhelds have, so I think I will research the Private Coastal Station.
One of the licenses mentioned on the FCC page says you can fill in the
form online and you effectively are licensed as soon as you make the
application. I believe this was the "marine utility station license",
but I can't find that info at the moment.

Does a private costal station have to be stationary? Could I swap the
unit between house and vehicle? Or do I need two licenses?

--

Rick

[David Platt]

What follows is just my own subjective "take" on the issue... please
don't treat it as gospel.

>The sort of issue I'm more interested in discussing are things like what
>type of antenna and how best to mount and connect it to the radio.

Broadly-speaking, you'll have a choice of antennas which do, or do
not, require a good ground plane to operate (quarter-wave monopoles
being an example of those which do, and end-fed half-wave antennas
being an example of those which do not). A lot of boat-mount marine
VHF antennas seem to be of the ground-independent type - they can be
mounted up alongside the mast, or connected to a fiberglass hull, and
will still work well.

There's a lot to be said for buying a "designed for boat mounting"
antenna even for shore or vehicle mounting... such antennas will
probably be made to withstand salt-spray corrosion, and will live
longer than an "inland" antenna.

For mounting such on a vehicle... plan to mount it up above the
roofline rather than down at the bumper. For hatchbacks, a trunk-lip
mount can work quite well. Mounting to a roof rack is also a
possibility. Depending on the antenna height and vehicle type, it's
also possible to drill a hole in the roof or side, and install a mount
through the hole (maybe not the best idea if you plan to sell the
vehicle anytime soon). If you use a ground-dependent antenna, the
mount will need to be connected directly to the chassis sheet-metal.

> Of
>course, I'm interested in the radios if anyone here has experience with
>them. I see 25 Watt (which I'm assuming is the max available) units at
>the bottom end for just over $100 and others which seem to be similar in
>regards to the specs I understand for over $200 and of course the prices
>run upward too. Are there aspects I should look for that I need to dig
>deeper into the specs to find?

Long-term ruggedness and reliability is an important factor in marine
radios, and it's probably one that you're going to find in the specs.
Reading on-line and magazine reviews, and talking to dealers (and
users) about problems, and the return rate, is probably a good idea.

Standard Horizon, and Icom, seem to be two of the big-name players in
the "commercial grade" marine radio business.

As to specs... one thing to look for is receiver selectivity. In a
"crowded" RF environment (such as the Chesapeake bay and its shores)
there's going to be a very great deal of transmission going on around
you, including full-power (25-watt) transmissions from shore stations
and boats. A strong signal on one channel can saturate a radio's
receiver, and block out weaker signals on other channels
("desensitization"). The better the strong-signal handling (dynamic
range) and adjacent-channel selectivity a radio has, the better it
will be able to receive distant signals in the face of a strong local
transmission.

Some of the higher-end marine mobile radios have a "dual operating
position" feature. You can connect a second microphone (often with
its own built-in controls and display) located well away from the main
radio, and operate the radio from the second location. This can be a
useful feature both on boats (e.g. put the second station up on a
conning tower) and in shore installations.

I haven't seen any marine mobile radios which have detachable
faceplates (i.e. intended for remote mounting).

> For example is there some spec on the
>internals of the receiver that would make a weakly received signal more
>clear than another radio?

Sensitivity, and selectivity are what you're looking for. The
sensitivity number will tend to dominate the performance under true
weak-signal conditions - that is, when there are no strong
transmissions on other channels in your neighborhood. The selectivity
number becomes important when there are other radios transmitting
nearby.

> What about the speaker itself? Would it be
>better to have an external speaker or is the internal speaker usually ok?

Depends on the radio. Some radios have good internal
speakers... although I suspect this is not terribly easy to achieve if
the radio has to be water-resistant... and some are just terrible.
The more compact the radio, the worse its internal speaker is likely
to sound (I think).

I'd be surprised if most mobile-type marine radios can't hook up to
external speakers, so you can always add one on if the built-in
speaker is not adequate for your needs. Bi-amping and subwoofers are
optional :-)

Other issues:

- Do make sure you buy a radio which has been fully certificated
for operation under FCC Part 80 regulations. Buying radios
intended for other services (land mobile, amateur, etc.) and
reprogramming them for the maritime channels is *not* a good
idea... it's legal to do so, but *not* legal to transmit with such
radios. Big fines are possible if you're caught.

- On the (somewhat noisy) issue of licensing... as I understand it,
you will not need any license at all if all you are going to do is
"monitor" (receive only)... at least, that's true around the
Chesapeake, which is entirely US territory and subject to US
regulations. The moment you transmit, though, the rules are
different. Since you're talking about a shore/vehicle station,
you'd have to have a "private coast" or "marine utility" station
license, and these are only available to a limited category of
people: see 47 CFR 80.501(a) for a list of qualifying categories.
Possibly (a)(8) would apply in your situation: "a person servicing
or supplying vessels other than commercial transport vessels"?

[Jerry Stuckle]

OK, I did a little more looking into the FCC regs (Part 80 governs
Maritime use). The supplemental restrictions for a Private Coastal
Station are listed at
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=cc735d881c6a4bb62b95f154e6567bc1&rgn=div8&view=text&node=47:5.0.1.1.1.11.78.1&idno=47.

It looks like you do not meet any of the requirements, so you would not
be eligible for such a license.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address

Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================

[Patty Winter]

In article <l05btp$kt0$1...@dont-email.me>, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

[whole bunch of unneeded previous quotage deleted]

>Jerry, yes, this helps a lot. Once I was told I needed the license I
>found the FCC site to be less than clear. I appreciate you laying out
>the options. I would like to have a more powerful transmitter than the
>handhelds have, so I think I will research the Private Coastal Station.

Jerry's suggestion of getting amateur radio licenses is a good one
if GMRS won't suit your needs.

If you're involved in kayaking, do you not have an outdoors or
marine store near you? They would certainly be familiar with the
best communications options for that sport.


Patty
N6BIS

[rickman]

Actually I expect they would know what they sell, which for the most
part would be handheld devices for kayaks and such and 25 Watt devices
for powered vessels. Originally I thought I was asking simple questions
about installation, but it seems the licensing is the problem. Even
hand held use from land is not allowed if I am reading this correctly.

The initial use is to support a group of kayakers who are paddling
around Kent Island, an all day trip. In the past we have driven from
access point to access point so that we can stay in contact with them
and assist if required. We provide information on conditions and relay
information between groups in the paddle. This has been done with hand
held units and the reliability of the connection is spotty at best due
to the limited sight distance. I was hoping to get better coverage by
installing a higher power unit in my truck and using an antenna with
better figures as well as at a higher location.

So at this point it looks like the idea of getting a simple commercial
unit for the truck is not an option for this year (the paddle is two
weeks away). I will look into getting a ham license which I believe
would allow me to communicate with the paddlers. Also, as I have said,
I want to begin monitoring channel 16 at Lake Anna. But no point in
monitoring if I'm not allowed to respond. So maybe this will be an
option for next year...

--

Rick

[rickman]

I might be able to justify "(8) A person servicing or supplying vessels
other than commercial transport vessels;" Worth a try. I do fiberglas
repair as well as maintenance of the mechanical parts on the kayaks that
have rudders or skegs. This is not a profession, but they seem to be
pushing for non-commercial use on this one.

But a amateur license might be the best bet. Does this require my to
learn a bunch of technical stuff? That shouldn't be a problem, in
theory I'm an EE, but I've done mostly digital work and I know RF is a
whole different animal. Can you point me in the right direction toward
getting an amateur license that would let me operate a marine radio on
land? Who knows, I might end up doing a bunch of other amateur radio
stuff... I know it can be an addictive hobby... lol

--

Rick

[Jerry Stuckle]

I'm not sure you can justify it. You're doing it as a hobby, for your
club (or whatever), not as a commercial enterprise. The FCC seems to be
trying to limit the number of land licenses being issued.

> But a amateur license might be the best bet. Does this require my to
> learn a bunch of technical stuff? That shouldn't be a problem, in
> theory I'm an EE, but I've done mostly digital work and I know RF is a
> whole different animal. Can you point me in the right direction toward
> getting an amateur license that would let me operate a marine radio on
> land? Who knows, I might end up doing a bunch of other amateur radio
> stuff... I know it can be an addictive hobby... lol
>

You'll need to learn some rules and regs, and some theory. But it's not
hard - the question pool is published; nowadays people just memorize the
pool from which the questions are taken.

But an Amateur Radio license allows you to operate Amateur Radios - no
marine or any others. That's why I say everyone in control of a radio
(including on the kayaks) would have to have a ham license (and call
sign). But we have lots of frequencies available and lots of options.

You can find more information at www.arrl.org.

[Patty Winter]

In article <l0648m$hat$1...@dont-email.me>, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:


[Please trim unnecessary quoted text!]

>So at this point it looks like the idea of getting a simple commercial
>unit for the truck is not an option for this year (the paddle is two
>weeks away). I will look into getting a ham license which I believe
>would allow me to communicate with the paddlers.

Yes, as long as at least one person in each kayak is also licensed.


Patty

[Ralph Mowery]

"rickman" <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:l064q8$jm5$1@dont->

> But a amateur license might be the best bet. Does this require my to
> learn a bunch of technical stuff? That shouldn't be a problem, in theory
> I'm an EE, but I've done mostly digital work and I know RF is a whole
> different animal. Can you point me in the right direction toward getting
> an amateur license that would let me operate a marine radio on land? Who
> knows, I might end up doing a bunch of other amateur radio stuff... I know
> it can be an addictive hobby... lol
>
> --

I have not read all the thread, but the main thing for amateur license is
there any money changing hands in the process? If not and this is just a
bunch of friends, then the amateur (ham) license canbe the way to go. You
can use whatever ammount of power you want up to 1500 watts. There are some
5 watt hand held units for around $ 50 that seem to work fine. Mobile units
of around 50 watts for less than $ 200 .

You do not really have to know anything, just have the ability to memorize
the answers to around 300 questions. You can get a book (or down load it on
line) that has the exect questions and answers. The test will be a portion
of the question pool. I think that 70 % is passing. The questions have 4
multiple choice answers to choose from. I don't know the price to take the
test now, but probably under $ 15. The exams are given several times a year
in most states at differant locations.

You can go here to see some practice tests.
http://qrz.com/hamtest/

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

rickman wrote:
>
> So at this point it looks like the idea of getting a simple commercial
> unit for the truck is not an option for this year (the paddle is two
> weeks away). I will look into getting a ham license which I believe
> would allow me to communicate with the paddlers. Also, as I have said,
> I want to begin monitoring channel 16 at Lake Anna. But no point in
> monitoring if I'm not allowed to respond. So maybe this will be an
> option for next year...
>

As we have been saying, there is no problem with you monitoring in your
truck, but your state may have laws against using a scanner or other
receiver in a vehicle.

A good scanner and antenna at home would allow you to monitor them, and
a telephone list of emergency numbers would do you good. If someone is
in trouble, you could use your phone to call for help.

Note that a ham license only allows you to communicate with other hams
on ham frequencies. There is a provision in US law that allows you
to operate outside of the ham bands in an emergency, but it is very often
misunderstood, and you would be well advised to study it.

The law was intended for situations like the Titanic, where the ship was
going down, but unlike the Titanic, no one else was able to hear or
speak with them. I doubt that would ever occur on the Chesapeake.

If there is ANY other means of communication, e.g. a VHF radio, a cell phone,
etc, then it is still illegal for you to operate outside the ham bands.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM/KBUH7245/KBUW5379

[rickman]

Hmmm... maybe I don't understand the amateur license. The need is for
using marine band radios, not just any radios that can be found. That
is not going to change. Are you saying that an amateur license won't
allow the use of a marine band radio in the context I have been
describing?

I found a few links on the tests and they seem pretty simple. As yopu
say, there is a little memorization of regulations and some technical
stuff which isn't hard. I can't imagine I wouldn't be able to pass the
test this weekend. But it sounds like it would be of no use for this
purpose. It seems rather restrictive to me that anyone can have a
marine band radio in their boat and use it freely, but if you need to
contact your house or other shore location you need to use something
else. I'm sure talking between ships is useful, but in many cases the
need is between ship and shore. I'm just not allowed to use a marine
radio on shore... what?

--

Rick

[rickman]

Is VHF outside of ham bands? I looked at the test data a little, but
didn't find that particular info. From the wording I found about the
licenses, I guess I thought ham use included the marine VHF band. There
seems to be concern about operating at frequencies below 30 MHz unless
you pass a tougher test.

It seems very restrictive that anyone can use a marine VHF radio on
their boat, but if they want to speak with someone on shore that is not
allowed except for special cases like drawbridge operators. I can
understand that marine radios are not for shore to shore communications,
but it only seems natural to use the same radio for ship to ship and
ship to shore comms.

--

Rick

[Jerry Stuckle]

Hams have frequencies all over the place - including VHF, but a ham
license only allows you to use the ham bands. Other bands have other
license requirements.

And yes, the marine band licenses are very restrictive, but for a very
good reason - there are a limited number of channels available, and they
are meant for ship business. The FCC doesn't want everyone and their
brother to use it to chat with the family/friends back on shore; in
busier areas the channels would quickly become too crowded to be usable.
That's why it is limited to shore stations providing services to ships.

Maybe your best bet is to just use cell phones. I would think coverage
around Kent island should be OK.

[Jerry Stuckle]

No, it won't. And FCC rules will not allow you to use marine band
radios in the way you wish.

> I found a few links on the tests and they seem pretty simple. As yopu
> say, there is a little memorization of regulations and some technical
> stuff which isn't hard. I can't imagine I wouldn't be able to pass the
> test this weekend. But it sounds like it would be of no use for this
> purpose. It seems rather restrictive to me that anyone can have a
> marine band radio in their boat and use it freely, but if you need to
> contact your house or other shore location you need to use something
> else. I'm sure talking between ships is useful, but in many cases the
> need is between ship and shore. I'm just not allowed to use a marine
> radio on shore... what?
>

Unfortunately for you, them's the rules (see my other post).

[Bill Ogden]

Please understand that a "band" (such as VHF band) is a collective term for
a large range of frequencies. The FCC assigns different frequencies (or
ranges of frequencies) to different services. The VHF "band" terminology is
generally used for the 30 - 300 Mhz range. Within this range there are
frequencies assigned for amateurs, police, fire, marine, TV, commercial FM,
and so forth. In general, these assignments do not overlap. There are VHF
frequencies assigned for amateur use (such as 144-148 Mhz). There are
different "spot" frequencies or "channels" (as opposed to ranges) assigned
for marine usage, and so forth.

Marine users must have a "type approved" radio and it must be used on the
assigned frequencies (channels). Amateurs, in the general case, do not
require type-approved radios, but they must ensure that their radios operate
in the assigned amateur frequency ranges. An amateur could, in the general
case, operate a marine-type radio in an amateur frequency range but not vice
versa.

There is some informality about the terminology. The 144-148 Mhz amateur
allocation is usually named the 2-meter band. It is a VHF band. The
police/fire/etc frequencies in the 150-160 Mhz range are often collectively
known as "VHF". There are VHF television channels (although these are going
away in favor of UHF channels).

In marine use you might hear "VHF" as opposed to "HF" (or "SSB"). HF is
High Freuqency, generally considered to be anything in the 3 - 30 MHz range.
Generally, VHF is for local (more or less line of sight) communication and
HF is for much more distant communication. There are amateur frequency
ranges in HF, such as the "80-meter band, 3.5-3.0 MHz, or the 20-meter band
at 14-14.35 Mhz. There are a variety of marine assignments in the HF range.

Using VHF is generally simple if you are in the right distance range. You
simply press the button and talk. Using HF is considerably more complex due
the way HF radio waves interact with the ionosphere.

Amateur licenses and marine licenses are completely different animals and do
not overlap in any way.

Have you thought about CB? It is inexpensive and might cover the distance
ranges you are talking about. One problem is that there are some very odd
animals that play with CB and can occupy some of the 40 available channels.
However, in less dense areas you can probably productively use one of the
higher channel numbers. The CB "band" has 40 channels around 27 MHz. This
is still "HF" but is almost "VHF". On most days, the communication is
somehwat more than line of sight -- generally more than VHF--, but not large
distances. However, when the "band" is "open" there can be international
communication and considerable interference.

Bill
W2WO

[Michael Black]

On Thu, 5 Sep 2013, rickman wrote:


>> But an Amateur Radio license allows you to operate Amateur Radios - no
>> marine or any others. That's why I say everyone in control of a radio
>> (including on the kayaks) would have to have a ham license (and call
>> sign). But we have lots of frequencies available and lots of options.
>>
>> You can find more information at www.arrl.org.
>
> Hmmm... maybe I don't understand the amateur license. The need is for using
> marine band radios, not just any radios that can be found. That is not going
> to change. Are you saying that an amateur license won't allow the use of a
> marine band radio in the context I have been describing?
>

You're the one who started this by posting to an amateur radio newsgroup,
and then made it worse by adding other newsgroups in the
rec.radio.amateur.* hierarchy.

YOu say you are having problems getting licensed for the Marine band, so
people are offering information on other services that would be simply.
Amateur radio isn't "simpler" but for some uses the fact that it is
relatively wide open means it can be valuable. FRS and CB don't require
any licensing, cellphones are common nowadays, GMRS and MURS have
relatively simple license requirements.

If you "need" to stick with the Marine Band, then you need to offer up
reasons why.

Michael

[Michael Black]

On Thu, 5 Sep 2013, rickman wrote:

> It seems very restrictive that anyone can use a marine VHF radio on their
> boat, but if they want to speak with someone on shore that is not allowed
> except for special cases like drawbridge operators. I can understand that
> marine radios are not for shore to shore communications, but it only seems
> natural to use the same radio for ship to ship and ship to shore comms.
>

The magic reasoning is that if you're on a boat or ship, then you are on
the water, and the marine band would then apply. You may need it for
emergency, or talking to other boats. I'm sure you used to have to be
licensed in order to have a Marine band license, so things have changed.
Indeed, it was only about the late sixties that the VHF Marine band came
into existence, before that you had to use the 2 to 3MHz Marine band, with
much longer antennas and I think more serious licensing requirements. The
VHF Marine band gave a lot more boaters the use of radio, and some of
that was because in putting the band at higher frequencies, the range
was limited, so more people could make use of the allocation. And about
that time, the equipment on the HF marine band got fancier and more
expensive, precisely to make better use of that allocation.

But, if anyone could get a marine band radio and use it from shore, what's
to keep them from just using it as a general radio band? The allocation
is for marine use, yet if anyone could use a radio for the band from
shore, then they might use it for any purpose.

That's the difference, it's now easy to use the radio from a boat, where
the band is intended for, and difficult to use from shore since you need
to justify that you actually will be using it for ship to shore use.

There is every need for a boat to have a radio, no need for everyone on
shore to have a radio, so the licensing is restrictive. Likely not as
restrictive as you perceive it, but still there to weed out the people who
might wish to use it for other things.

Michael

[rickman]

On 9/5/2013 5:31 AM, Jeff wrote:
>
>> Is VHF outside of ham bands? I looked at the test data a little, but
>> didn't find that particular info. From the wording I found about the
>> licenses, I guess I thought ham use included the marine VHF band. There
>> seems to be concern about operating at frequencies below 30 MHz unless
>> you pass a tougher test.
>>
>> It seems very restrictive that anyone can use a marine VHF radio on
>> their boat, but if they want to speak with someone on shore that is not
>> allowed except for special cases like drawbridge operators. I can
>> understand that marine radios are not for shore to shore communications,
>> but it only seems natural to use the same radio for ship to ship and
>> ship to shore comms.
>>
>

> You cannot operate in the marine VHF band with a ham licence.
>
> (the talk about disaster situations just clouds the issue as anyone can
> legally use anything just about anything under those conditions
> regardless of a ham licence or not).
>
> The restriction on ship to shore use in the marine band was there
> originally to protect the revenue of the commercial coast stations.
> However, a licence is still required for a shore station of any type.
>
> You *might* be able to get a shore licence if you say that you are
> providing safety cover for the kayaks.
>
> CB or one of the other licence free allocations such as MURS or FRS
> mighty be your best bet, but of course you will not be able to talk to
> the Coastguard or other vessels.

Thanks for your advice. I will look into this deeper. It just seems so
strange to have a marine radio band that doesn't allow communications to
shore other than a few specific commercial facilities. I guess that is
why there is no one monitoring channel 16 here at lake Anna. There are
only a small handful of marinas and they aren't located so as to cover
the whole lake anyway. I don't think the police monitor marine VHF
because they don't regularly patrol. But the next time I see one I will
ask them about it.

I'm relatively near the center of the lake and so not badly positioned
to cover a large hunk of it if my antenna is high enough. I'd be
willing to put up a reasonable tower for this.. and who knows, a ham
antenna or two might just appear on it some day.

--

Rick

[rickman]

Lol, if cell phones were remotely practical they would be used. We
carry them on board, but never count on them working... hmmm, sounds a
lot like VHF!

Your concerns with the usage of marine VHF is a bit pedantic. If you
monitor channel 16 in that area 90% of the traffic is, "I caught a large
one, start the grill and chill some beer". It doesn't seem to cause any
problems. I think you over estimate how many ships are out there. It's
not like trucks on the highway, "Breaker, breaker 19..."

Part of the reason for using VHF in kayaks is because that is the type
of radio actually designed for that sort of use. So there are any
number of features built in such as weather warnings, etc. But the main
reason is that if you need help and you use your VHF, you are likely to
get a response from someone very close by who can actually *help* you.
The goal is not to communicate with one person you are kayaking with or
even me on the shore. Other types of radios are just not realistic.

--

Rick

[rickman]

Faulty reasoning. I can use the marine band radio from shore now. The
only thing stopping me is the law. Last year I was told it was ok to
use it from shore if I was communicating with a boat (which makes
perfect sense), now I find that is *not* the case. During our trip I
heard any number of conversations between boats and what appeared to be
their homes. There was no congestion, no interference of the airways,
just ship to shore communications when useful.

> There is every need for a boat to have a radio, no need for everyone on
> shore to have a radio, so the licensing is restrictive. Likely not as
> restrictive as you perceive it, but still there to weed out the people
> who might wish to use it for other things.

The utility of a radio, especially in emergency situations, is greatly
diminished if you can't reach people on the shore. My understanding is
that the range of these radios is *very* short if you are close to the
water. There were kayaks less than 4 miles away who I could not raise
on the radio and I was likely the closest point of assistance. If they
had needed to call for help, who exactly would they be able to reach?

In the sea kayaking community VHF radio is both regarded as an important
safety device because of the importance of communications and as a joke
because of how often it communicates with no out outside of your paddle
group. I don't think it is unreasonable for shore stations to be able
to monitor VHF and respond in an emergency situation or to prevent one.
In the situation at Lake Anna, if I am not allowed to have a VHF
license for my shore station, then what is the use of having a VHF radio
in a boat?

--

Rick

[rickman]

Thanks for your response, I am learning a lot from this discussion.

It is not realistic to expect the sea kayaking community to change from
using VHF to CB to suit my needs. Marine VHF is what I need to use.

I will likely pursue the shore license and see if I can get something
for here at Lake Anna. I'm still not clear on whether I can get a shore
license to put a radio in my truck. Also, the only official info I have
seen on this refers to "hand held" radios. My goal is to use a mounted
radio with an antenna which will get better range than a hand held.

We'll see how it goes. Certainly I won't get this ironed out in time
for this year, but maybe next.

--

Rick

[rickman]

Your response comes across as a bit rude. I don't actually "need" to
offer up justification for my need. But the point is that I don't have
control over what the rest of the kayaking community uses. They are
using marine VHF for a number of reasons and I am trying to work within
that restriction.

Actually if you go back and read the thread I started asking about
equipment, not realizing I had a licensing problem. I was thinking of
what I would need to make this work in my vehicle and in a home.

I hope this thread doesn't offend you in any way. Since this is not
strictly amateur radio I am asking about, would it be better to label it
as off topic?

--

Rick

[Jerry Stuckle]

I don't care what you think, or how many ships you think are out there,
or what you hear on the radio.

The bottom line is - what you want to do is illegal, and I gave a
perfectly reasonable explanation for it. You can accept that reason or
come up with your own. I really don't care any more at this point.

[Jerry Stuckle]

You need to look at the law, not listen to some armchair lawyer. We
pointed you to the actual regulations.

And if someone is caught using a marine radio on shore without a
license, it is a $10K fine - and chances are you will NEVER get ANY kind
of FCC license in the future.

>> There is every need for a boat to have a radio, no need for everyone on
>> shore to have a radio, so the licensing is restrictive. Likely not as
>> restrictive as you perceive it, but still there to weed out the people
>> who might wish to use it for other things.
>
> The utility of a radio, especially in emergency situations, is greatly
> diminished if you can't reach people on the shore. My understanding is
> that the range of these radios is *very* short if you are close to the
> water. There were kayaks less than 4 miles away who I could not raise
> on the radio and I was likely the closest point of assistance. If they
> had needed to call for help, who exactly would they be able to reach?
>

You can reach people on shore. For instance, the Coast Guard regularly
monitors the marine emergency channel, as do many other people. Not to
say other ships. There are lots of people they can reach.

And these *legal* stations have relatively high antennas - 4 miles is
nothing to them.

> In the sea kayaking community VHF radio is both regarded as an important
> safety device because of the importance of communications and as a joke
> because of how often it communicates with no out outside of your paddle
> group. I don't think it is unreasonable for shore stations to be able
> to monitor VHF and respond in an emergency situation or to prevent one.
> In the situation at Lake Anna, if I am not allowed to have a VHF
> license for my shore station, then what is the use of having a VHF radio
> in a boat?
>

In a *real emergency*, then rules are out. But you need to learn what
the term emergency means to the FCC. It does NOT mean "there's a storm
brewing". It does, however, mean things like "My boat is sinking and we
need immediate help".

The radio in the boat is not meant to talk to *YOU* - it is to talk to
*anyone* who can help - be it the Coast Guard, a marine, another ship or
whatever.

You keep arguing - but the law is the law. If you don't like it,
petition the FCC to have the law changed. Constantly bitching here is
not going to change anything - and will rapidly turn people off (like it
has me).

[rickman]

What I want to do is *not* illegal if I get the appropriate license(s).
I don't know why you are getting all huffy about it.

--

Rick

[rickman]

So how far is it to the nearest coast guard station at Lake Anna?

>> In the sea kayaking community VHF radio is both regarded as an important
>> safety device because of the importance of communications and as a joke
>> because of how often it communicates with no out outside of your paddle
>> group. I don't think it is unreasonable for shore stations to be able
>> to monitor VHF and respond in an emergency situation or to prevent one.
>> In the situation at Lake Anna, if I am not allowed to have a VHF
>> license for my shore station, then what is the use of having a VHF radio
>> in a boat?
>>
>
> In a *real emergency*, then rules are out. But you need to learn what
> the term emergency means to the FCC. It does NOT mean "there's a storm
> brewing". It does, however, mean things like "My boat is sinking and we
> need immediate help".
>
> The radio in the boat is not meant to talk to *YOU* - it is to talk to
> *anyone* who can help - be it the Coast Guard, a marine, another ship or
> whatever.

I think we already covered the fact that neither the Coast Guard or
anyone else is monitoring VHF at Lake Anna. Marine VHF is *not* solely
for commercial uses and it is *not* solely for emergencies. As such it
is much more limited by not allowing communications with shore stations
other than the limited set currently allowed.

> You keep arguing - but the law is the law. If you don't like it,
> petition the FCC to have the law changed. Constantly bitching here is
> not going to change anything - and will rapidly turn people off (like it
> has me).

I understand what I've been told about the law. I'm saying it seems to
be a bit over strict. You seem to have a problem with the fact that I
have an opinion. If you don't like my posts, why do you reply?

I'm trying to find a legal way to do what I want. I still don't know
that this is not allowed. I do now know that I will have to file for a
license and possibly two. I appreciate the help and I regret that you
consider my posts to be "bitching". I would suggest that you reread
them with a different perspective.

--

Rick

[Jerry Stuckle]

That's just it. You don't fit into any of the categories for which a
license is issued. "Providing services" does not mean giving weather
reports to your pals.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address

[Jerry Stuckle]

I don't know, and I don't care. It is immaterial.

>
>>> In the sea kayaking community VHF radio is both regarded as an important
>>> safety device because of the importance of communications and as a joke
>>> because of how often it communicates with no out outside of your paddle
>>> group. I don't think it is unreasonable for shore stations to be able
>>> to monitor VHF and respond in an emergency situation or to prevent one.
>>> In the situation at Lake Anna, if I am not allowed to have a VHF
>>> license for my shore station, then what is the use of having a VHF radio
>>> in a boat?
>>>
>>
>> In a *real emergency*, then rules are out. But you need to learn what
>> the term emergency means to the FCC. It does NOT mean "there's a storm
>> brewing". It does, however, mean things like "My boat is sinking and we
>> need immediate help".
>>
>> The radio in the boat is not meant to talk to *YOU* - it is to talk to
>> *anyone* who can help - be it the Coast Guard, a marine, another ship or
>> whatever.
>
> I think we already covered the fact that neither the Coast Guard or
> anyone else is monitoring VHF at Lake Anna. Marine VHF is *not* solely
> for commercial uses and it is *not* solely for emergencies. As such it
> is much more limited by not allowing communications with shore stations
> other than the limited set currently allowed.
>

I didn't say it was solely for commercial uses or solely for
emergencies. But it is not for talking to your pals in their boats when
you're on the ground.

>
>> You keep arguing - but the law is the law. If you don't like it,
>> petition the FCC to have the law changed. Constantly bitching here is
>> not going to change anything - and will rapidly turn people off (like it
>> has me).
>
> I understand what I've been told about the law. I'm saying it seems to
> be a bit over strict. You seem to have a problem with the fact that I
> have an opinion. If you don't like my posts, why do you reply?
>
> I'm trying to find a legal way to do what I want. I still don't know
> that this is not allowed. I do now know that I will have to file for a
> license and possibly two. I appreciate the help and I regret that you
> consider my posts to be "bitching". I would suggest that you reread
> them with a different perspective.
>

Then petition the FCC for a change in the law.

You have gone beyond constructive; you are just repeating yourself now.
It has become tiresome.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address

[rickman]

On 9/5/2013 11:35 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
> That's just it. You don't fit into any of the categories for which a
> license is issued. "Providing services" does not mean giving weather
> reports to your pals.

They don't need weather reports, they have access to that themselves.

--

Rick

[rickman]

Ok, then I guess you won't need to reply further. Thanks for the info
you have provided. It has been useful. I will be looking into
obtaining one of the licenses that have been discussed.

--

Rick

[Steve Crow]

You've missed the point.

Let's recap:

1. You want to use VHF Marine because everybody else is doing it.
2. You don't appear to fit into any of the requirements for a VHF Marine
license.
3. Unlicensed operation, or operation outside what is permitted by your
license, are both illegal.

Combine those three things and you have quite the quandry. Your peers in
the hobby are using VHF marine with some degree of success and you want to
be able to communicate with them. If your intended communications are
anything like those of your friends, then they, too, are likely operating
in a manner that runs afoul of the law.

Remember, just because everybody else is doing it doesn't make it legal.

There are a number of radio services that might fit your needs, which have
been discussed elsewhere in this thread, including MURS, GMRS, FRS, and, I
believe to a lesser extent, amateur radio. However, none of those will
grant you the type of interoperability you desire.

If you still have your heart set on using VHF Marine, the absolute BEST
thing you could do is to pick up the phone and call the FCC.
1-888-CALL-FCC. You can get in touch with someone there who is familiar
with the laws surrounding VHF Marine radio licensing and they will be able
to tell you whether you meet the requirements and exactly what type of
license to get.

Good luck, and have fun on Lake Anna. I wish I were there!

Steve in Richmond

[rickman]

On 9/6/2013 3:37 PM, Steve Crow wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 Sep 2013, rickman wrote:
>
>> On 9/5/2013 11:35 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>
>>> That's just it. You don't fit into any of the categories for which a
>>> license is issued. "Providing services" does not mean giving weather
>>> reports to your pals.
>>
>> They don't need weather reports, they have access to that themselves.
>>
>
> You've missed the point.
>
> Let's recap:
>
> 1. You want to use VHF Marine because everybody else is doing it.
> 2. You don't appear to fit into any of the requirements for a VHF Marine
> license.
> 3. Unlicensed operation, or operation outside what is permitted by your
> license, are both illegal.

You are making assumptions. Why is this such a big deal to you? I will
let the FCC decide if I can get a license. Why are some of you getting
your knickers in a knot about it?

> Combine those three things and you have quite the quandry. Your peers in
> the hobby are using VHF marine with some degree of success and you want
> to be able to communicate with them. If your intended communications are
> anything like those of your friends, then they, too, are likely
> operating in a manner that runs afoul of the law.

Can you be specific here. I have no idea what you are talking about.

> Remember, just because everybody else is doing it doesn't make it legal.
>
> There are a number of radio services that might fit your needs, which
> have been discussed elsewhere in this thread, including MURS, GMRS, FRS,
> and, I believe to a lesser extent, amateur radio. However, none of those
> will grant you the type of interoperability you desire.

You left out VHF which is the one of choice. All I need to do is
justify the appropriate license.

> If you still have your heart set on using VHF Marine, the absolute BEST
> thing you could do is to pick up the phone and call the FCC.
> 1-888-CALL-FCC. You can get in touch with someone there who is familiar
> with the laws surrounding VHF Marine radio licensing and they will be
> able to tell you whether you meet the requirements and exactly what type
> of license to get.
>
> Good luck, and have fun on Lake Anna. I wish I were there!

Hey, you are welcome to come up sometime. We should be here this
weekend. :) Do you kayak or canoe?

--

Rick

[Steve Crow]

On Fri, 6 Sep 2013, rickman wrote:

> On 9/6/2013 3:37 PM, Steve Crow wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 6 Sep 2013, rickman wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/5/2013 11:35 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's just it. You don't fit into any of the categories for which a
>>>> license is issued. "Providing services" does not mean giving weather
>>>> reports to your pals.
>>>
>>> They don't need weather reports, they have access to that themselves.
>>>
>>
>> You've missed the point.
>>
>> Let's recap:
>>
>> 1. You want to use VHF Marine because everybody else is doing it.
>> 2. You don't appear to fit into any of the requirements for a VHF Marine
>> license.
>> 3. Unlicensed operation, or operation outside what is permitted by your
>> license, are both illegal.
>
> You are making assumptions. Why is this such a big deal to you? I will let
> the FCC decide if I can get a license. Why are some of you getting your
> knickers in a knot about it?

Forgive me if it got lost in the noise, which is quite possible, but I
haven't seen where you have spelled out exactly what the intended
application is, so I'm forced to make assumptions.

As for why we're getting worked up about it? Personally, I'm not, but
based on the responses you've received from others in this group, I can
see where you might assume that I am. :) Let me attempt to explain some
of the, ehem.. hostility?

Amateur radio operators generally take great pride in their licenses and
the privileges afforded by that license. Likewise, they (we) generally
have a great respect for radio licensing, rules, and regulations, because
one component of the amateur radio service is self-policing of the
regulations and holding each other accountable for operating not just
within the letter of the law but with a high engineering standard.

As a result, when someone such as yourself comes along and has a genuine
concern and truly wants help with something he doesn't understand, too
many amateur radio operators ("hams") get up on their high horse and see
it as an opportunity to get all preachy and play FCC Police.

I don't play that game.

But that's why you're getting some of the responses you have.

Remember, too much of the ham radio crowd falls fully within the "cranky
old fart" category. :) Sadly, I'll be there myself in another 30 years or
so!

>
>
>> Combine those three things and you have quite the quandry. Your peers in
>> the hobby are using VHF marine with some degree of success and you want
>> to be able to communicate with them. If your intended communications are
>> anything like those of your friends, then they, too, are likely
>> operating in a manner that runs afoul of the law.
>
> Can you be specific here. I have no idea what you are talking about.
>

Basically, the way I understand what you're after is a way to talk to your
friends/peers/etc within your kayaking hobby that are already using VHF
marine radio. Which comes across as an assumption on your part that
because others are doing it, it must be legal, which is incorrect.

>
>> Remember, just because everybody else is doing it doesn't make it legal.
>>
>> There are a number of radio services that might fit your needs, which
>> have been discussed elsewhere in this thread, including MURS, GMRS, FRS,
>> and, I believe to a lesser extent, amateur radio. However, none of those
>> will grant you the type of interoperability you desire.
>
> You left out VHF which is the one of choice. All I need to do is justify the
> appropriate license.
>

No. I didn't. VHF is not a radio service. As was explained elsewhere in
this lengthy thread, VHF refers to the frequency band. There are three
major bands -- HF, VHF, and UHF. Within each band there are a number of
"radio services" -- each with a specific intended application and its
corresponding licensing requirements and operating regulations.

You don't get a "VHF license." You get a license for a radio service that
falls within the VHF bands, and for your purposes that could be amateur
radio (which, among other bands, has frequencies in VHF) and MURS (which
is VHF). The VHF Marine radio service falls within VHF, but VHF itself is
not a radio service.

That might be a part of the big misunderstanding here. Let me know if I
can clarify further.

>
>> If you still have your heart set on using VHF Marine, the absolute BEST
>> thing you could do is to pick up the phone and call the FCC.
>> 1-888-CALL-FCC. You can get in touch with someone there who is familiar
>> with the laws surrounding VHF Marine radio licensing and they will be
>> able to tell you whether you meet the requirements and exactly what type
>> of license to get.
>>
>> Good luck, and have fun on Lake Anna. I wish I were there!
>
> Hey, you are welcome to come up sometime. We should be here this weekend.
> :) Do you kayak or canoe?

I've always wanted to, but it's one of many things on my very long list of
things to try!

>
> --
>
> Rick
>

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 9/6/2013 4:21 PM, Steve Crow wrote:
>
> Amateur radio operators generally take great pride in their licenses and
> the privileges afforded by that license. Likewise, they (we) generally
> have a great respect for radio licensing, rules, and regulations,
> because one component of the amateur radio service is self-policing of
> the regulations and holding each other accountable for operating not
> just within the letter of the law but with a high engineering standard.
>
> As a result, when someone such as yourself comes along and has a genuine
> concern and truly wants help with something he doesn't understand, too
> many amateur radio operators ("hams") get up on their high horse and see
> it as an opportunity to get all preachy and play FCC Police.
>

Steve,

Please allow me to clarify. I (and others) have tried to help him by
showing him the FCC regulations regarding the marine radio band, and
offering alternatives. From the regulations, he does not fit into any
of the categories regarding land stations on the marine band. He claims
he provides "services" to boaters, but has never explained what those
"services" are. All he's said is he wants to talk to his kayaking friends.

Then he argues that he *should* be able to do it, for various reasons
completely unrelated to the actual rules and regs.

I guess my mistake here was to try and provide a rational explanation to
him as to why the FCC has those rules. He doesn't care; he just thinks
he should be able to chat with his friends who are out kayaking.

Finally I just got fed up with it. I no longer care about trying to
help him. I'll just wait for him to get a $10K fine from the FCC and
come crying back here as to how unfair it is.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address

Jerry, AI0K
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================

[rickman]

Yes, I can see that, thanks for the rational response.

> Remember, too much of the ham radio crowd falls fully within the "cranky
> old fart" category. :) Sadly, I'll be there myself in another 30 years
> or so!

Yeah, well I *am* a cranky old fart too, hence my responses... There is
no point in arguing something like this. I will very shortly just quit
responding to the other cranks.

>>> Combine those three things and you have quite the quandry. Your peers in
>>> the hobby are using VHF marine with some degree of success and you want
>>> to be able to communicate with them. If your intended communications are
>>> anything like those of your friends, then they, too, are likely
>>> operating in a manner that runs afoul of the law.
>>
>> Can you be specific here. I have no idea what you are talking about.
>>
>
> Basically, the way I understand what you're after is a way to talk to
> your friends/peers/etc within your kayaking hobby that are already using
> VHF marine radio. Which comes across as an assumption on your part that
> because others are doing it, it must be legal, which is incorrect.

The info on the FCC site says to me that kayakers *are* using the
"marine VHF" radios legally. I don't know why anyone seems to think
they aren't.

>>> Remember, just because everybody else is doing it doesn't make it legal.
>>>
>>> There are a number of radio services that might fit your needs, which
>>> have been discussed elsewhere in this thread, including MURS, GMRS, FRS,
>>> and, I believe to a lesser extent, amateur radio. However, none of those
>>> will grant you the type of interoperability you desire.
>>
>> You left out VHF which is the one of choice. All I need to do is
>> justify the appropriate license.
>>
>
> No. I didn't. VHF is not a radio service. As was explained elsewhere in
> this lengthy thread, VHF refers to the frequency band. There are three
> major bands -- HF, VHF, and UHF. Within each band there are a number of
> "radio services" -- each with a specific intended application and its
> corresponding licensing requirements and operating regulations.
>
> You don't get a "VHF license." You get a license for a radio service
> that falls within the VHF bands, and for your purposes that could be
> amateur radio (which, among other bands, has frequencies in VHF) and
> MURS (which is VHF). The VHF Marine radio service falls within VHF, but
> VHF itself is not a radio service.
>
> That might be a part of the big misunderstanding here. Let me know if I
> can clarify further.

I'm not sure what your point is exactly. I think you are being a bit
pedantic about my use of VHF as shorthand for "VHF Marine Radio" which I
thought was clear from context at this point. So for the record, I will
say I understand the difference.

I admit that at one point when some were suggesting that I could get a
ham license I didn't realize that would not allow me to talk to the
"marine VHF" radios legally. I now understand that and am not pursuing
the amateur license discussion further.

>>> If you still have your heart set on using VHF Marine, the absolute BEST
>>> thing you could do is to pick up the phone and call the FCC.
>>> 1-888-CALL-FCC. You can get in touch with someone there who is familiar
>>> with the laws surrounding VHF Marine radio licensing and they will be
>>> able to tell you whether you meet the requirements and exactly what type
>>> of license to get.
>>>
>>> Good luck, and have fun on Lake Anna. I wish I were there!
>>
>> Hey, you are welcome to come up sometime. We should be here this
>> weekend. :) Do you kayak or canoe?
>
> I've always wanted to, but it's one of many things on my very long list
> of things to try!

You don't even have to come up here. We sometimes go to Richmond to
paddle the James. There is a very active meetup.com kayaking group
called Virgina Paddlers. They have one or two flatwater kayak trips
near Richmond every week in season. It is pretty easy to borrow
equipment most of the time. Kayakers tend to be a very friendly and
generous crowd.

--

Rick

[rickman]

On 9/3/2013 2:57 PM, David Platt wrote:
> What follows is just my own subjective "take" on the issue... please
> don't treat it as gospel.

>
>> The sort of issue I'm more interested in discussing are things like what
>> type of antenna and how best to mount and connect it to the radio.
>

> Broadly-speaking, you'll have a choice of antennas which do, or do
> not, require a good ground plane to operate (quarter-wave monopoles
> being an example of those which do, and end-fed half-wave antennas
> being an example of those which do not). A lot of boat-mount marine
> VHF antennas seem to be of the ground-independent type - they can be
> mounted up alongside the mast, or connected to a fiberglass hull, and
> will still work well.
>
> There's a lot to be said for buying a "designed for boat mounting"
> antenna even for shore or vehicle mounting... such antennas will
> probably be made to withstand salt-spray corrosion, and will live
> longer than an "inland" antenna.

This is very useful info, thanks. I had not seen any antennas that
require a ground plane, but I had only spent one evening looking at
equipment. I think I had seen 8 foot antennas described as 5/8
wavelength IIRC, and other antennas which were shorter. None said
anything about a ground plane and I didn't see anything on the antenna
other than the vertical pole.


> For mounting such on a vehicle... plan to mount it up above the
> roofline rather than down at the bumper. For hatchbacks, a trunk-lip
> mount can work quite well. Mounting to a roof rack is also a
> possibility. Depending on the antenna height and vehicle type, it's
> also possible to drill a hole in the roof or side, and install a mount
> through the hole (maybe not the best idea if you plan to sell the
> vehicle anytime soon). If you use a ground-dependent antenna, the
> mount will need to be connected directly to the chassis sheet-metal.

I aw aware that height is important. I was thinking of mounting on the
back of the cab, beside the window, just below the roofline. I might
also rig up some sort of pole which can be raised and lowered to get
more height. In the use I am thinking of the vehicle would be
stationary for an hour or two and then moved to track the kayaks.

>> course, I'm interested in the radios if anyone here has experience with
>> them. I see 25 Watt (which I'm assuming is the max available) units at
>> the bottom end for just over $100 and others which seem to be similar in
>> regards to the specs I understand for over $200 and of course the prices
>> run upward too. Are there aspects I should look for that I need to dig
>> deeper into the specs to find?
>

> Long-term ruggedness and reliability is an important factor in marine
> radios, and it's probably one that you're going to find in the specs.
> Reading on-line and magazine reviews, and talking to dealers (and
> users) about problems, and the return rate, is probably a good idea.

I assume you meant "*not* going to find in the specs". Since I am blown
out of the water for this season, I will have time to do the research.


> Standard Horizon, and Icom, seem to be two of the big-name players in
> the "commercial grade" marine radio business.

Those seem to be the big names in hand held units from what I have heard.


> As to specs... one thing to look for is receiver selectivity. In a
> "crowded" RF environment (such as the Chesapeake bay and its shores)
> there's going to be a very great deal of transmission going on around
> you, including full-power (25-watt) transmissions from shore stations
> and boats. A strong signal on one channel can saturate a radio's
> receiver, and block out weaker signals on other channels
> ("desensitization"). The better the strong-signal handling (dynamic
> range) and adjacent-channel selectivity a radio has, the better it
> will be able to receive distant signals in the face of a strong local
> transmission.

Yes, I am familiar with selectivity and sensitivity.


> Some of the higher-end marine mobile radios have a "dual operating
> position" feature. You can connect a second microphone (often with
> its own built-in controls and display) located well away from the main
> radio, and operate the radio from the second location. This can be a
> useful feature both on boats (e.g. put the second station up on a
> conning tower) and in shore installations.

Yes, that can be useful, but pricey. I saw radios for $120 and I saw
wired remote controls for over $200. Go figure! Do they have any
wireless remotes? That would allow me to mount a receiver in the
vehicle and park it on a hill where it gets better reception while I can
be on the beach.


> I haven't seen any marine mobile radios which have detachable
> faceplates (i.e. intended for remote mounting).

>
>> For example is there some spec on the
>> internals of the receiver that would make a weakly received signal more
>> clear than another radio?
>

> Sensitivity, and selectivity are what you're looking for. The
> sensitivity number will tend to dominate the performance under true
> weak-signal conditions - that is, when there are no strong
> transmissions on other channels in your neighborhood. The selectivity
> number becomes important when there are other radios transmitting
> nearby.

Yes, I used to be more into radios and had forgotten those terms.

>> What about the speaker itself? Would it be
>> better to have an external speaker or is the internal speaker usually ok?
>

> Depends on the radio. Some radios have good internal
> speakers... although I suspect this is not terribly easy to achieve if
> the radio has to be water-resistant... and some are just terrible.
> The more compact the radio, the worse its internal speaker is likely
> to sound (I think).

All the radios I have seen *are* water proof. Not much point to having
a radio in a boat if it isn't. Your boat turns over and your radio gets
wet... not much good to you then.


> I'd be surprised if most mobile-type marine radios can't hook up to
> external speakers, so you can always add one on if the built-in
> speaker is not adequate for your needs. Bi-amping and subwoofers are
> optional :-)

You laugh...


> Other issues:
>
> - Do make sure you buy a radio which has been fully certificated
> for operation under FCC Part 80 regulations. Buying radios
> intended for other services (land mobile, amateur, etc.) and
> reprogramming them for the maritime channels is *not* a good
> idea... it's legal to do so, but *not* legal to transmit with such
> radios. Big fines are possible if you're caught.

Everything I've seen so far was 100% marine VHF.


> - On the (somewhat noisy) issue of licensing... as I understand it,
> you will not need any license at all if all you are going to do is
> "monitor" (receive only)... at least, that's true around the
> Chesapeake, which is entirely US territory and subject to US
> regulations. The moment you transmit, though, the rules are
> different. Since you're talking about a shore/vehicle station,
> you'd have to have a "private coast" or "marine utility" station
> license, and these are only available to a limited category of
> people: see 47 CFR 80.501(a) for a list of qualifying categories.
> Possibly (a)(8) would apply in your situation: "a person servicing
> or supplying vessels other than commercial transport vessels"?

Yes, that is what I came up with from another post. But I think that
limits you to the use of a hand held unit, which seems very bizarre.
I'm sure there are reasons for the FCC regs, they just aren't sharing
what they are.

--

Rick

[Steve Crow]

On Fri, 6 Sep 2013, rickman wrote:

-- snip --

>> Forgive me if it got lost in the noise, which is quite possible, but I
>> haven't seen where you have spelled out exactly what the intended
>> application is, so I'm forced to make assumptions.
>>
>> As for why we're getting worked up about it? Personally, I'm not, but
>> based on the responses you've received from others in this group, I can
>> see where you might assume that I am. :) Let me attempt to explain some
>> of the, ehem.. hostility?
>>
>> Amateur radio operators generally take great pride in their licenses and
>> the privileges afforded by that license. Likewise, they (we) generally
>> have a great respect for radio licensing, rules, and regulations,
>> because one component of the amateur radio service is self-policing of
>> the regulations and holding each other accountable for operating not
>> just within the letter of the law but with a high engineering standard.
>>
>> As a result, when someone such as yourself comes along and has a genuine
>> concern and truly wants help with something he doesn't understand, too
>> many amateur radio operators ("hams") get up on their high horse and see
>> it as an opportunity to get all preachy and play FCC Police.
>>
>> I don't play that game.
>>
>> But that's why you're getting some of the responses you have.
>
> Yes, I can see that, thanks for the rational response.
>

You're quite welcome.

>
>> Remember, too much of the ham radio crowd falls fully within the "cranky
>> old fart" category. :) Sadly, I'll be there myself in another 30 years
>> or so!
>
> Yeah, well I *am* a cranky old fart too, hence my responses... There is no
> point in arguing something like this. I will very shortly just quit
> responding to the other cranks.
>
>
>>>> Combine those three things and you have quite the quandry. Your peers in
>>>> the hobby are using VHF marine with some degree of success and you want
>>>> to be able to communicate with them. If your intended communications are
>>>> anything like those of your friends, then they, too, are likely
>>>> operating in a manner that runs afoul of the law.
>>>
>>> Can you be specific here. I have no idea what you are talking about.
>>>
>>
>> Basically, the way I understand what you're after is a way to talk to
>> your friends/peers/etc within your kayaking hobby that are already using
>> VHF marine radio. Which comes across as an assumption on your part that
>> because others are doing it, it must be legal, which is incorrect.
>
> The info on the FCC site says to me that kayakers *are* using the "marine
> VHF" radios legally. I don't know why anyone seems to think they aren't.
>

I'm not in a position to decide that, not being well-versed in the
modern-day requirements of the VHF Marine radio service. My point was
that you, as the (prospective) license holder, are responsible for
operating within the FCC rules, and you can't necessarily base your
operating practice on the actions of others.

In fact, I dare say it's a pretty safe bet that a good chunk of the people
on the VHF Marine band aren't licensed at all. It's common within the
radio services where radio gear is readily accessible off-the-shelf,
particularly in retail stores. Illegal unlicensed use is rampant in GMRS,
and we also have problems with certain seasonal users (hunters) using
amateur radio gear in our bands without a license. It's likely going on
in the VHF Marine band, too.

Just be careful out there.

>
>>>> Remember, just because everybody else is doing it doesn't make it legal.
>>>>
>>>> There are a number of radio services that might fit your needs, which
>>>> have been discussed elsewhere in this thread, including MURS, GMRS, FRS,
>>>> and, I believe to a lesser extent, amateur radio. However, none of those
>>>> will grant you the type of interoperability you desire.
>>>
>>> You left out VHF which is the one of choice. All I need to do is
>>> justify the appropriate license.
>>>
>>
>> No. I didn't. VHF is not a radio service. As was explained elsewhere in
>> this lengthy thread, VHF refers to the frequency band. There are three
>> major bands -- HF, VHF, and UHF. Within each band there are a number of
>> "radio services" -- each with a specific intended application and its
>> corresponding licensing requirements and operating regulations.
>>
>> You don't get a "VHF license." You get a license for a radio service
>> that falls within the VHF bands, and for your purposes that could be
>> amateur radio (which, among other bands, has frequencies in VHF) and
>> MURS (which is VHF). The VHF Marine radio service falls within VHF, but
>> VHF itself is not a radio service.
>>
>> That might be a part of the big misunderstanding here. Let me know if I
>> can clarify further.
>
> I'm not sure what your point is exactly. I think you are being a bit
> pedantic about my use of VHF as shorthand for "VHF Marine Radio" which I
> thought was clear from context at this point. So for the record, I will say
> I understand the difference.
>

Cool. I wanted to reiterate the difference because it is a pretty common
misunderstanding.

> I admit that at one point when some were suggesting that I could get a ham
> license I didn't realize that would not allow me to talk to the "marine VHF"
> radios legally. I now understand that and am not pursuing the amateur
> license discussion further.

Awesome. Now expect the rest of the folks here to run you out of the
amateur radio newsgroup. :)

On a more serious note, I'm always amazed that the response from so many
hams is to immediately suggest ham radio as the ultimate solution to any
communications dilemma, and quite often it is not. This was just one such
instance.

While there's no doubt it's an enjoyable hobby, and you'd probably get
some use out of it, it doesn't address your immediate needs.

(I was never a top performing sales guy at my last job. I wonder why?)

>
>>>> If you still have your heart set on using VHF Marine, the absolute BEST
>>>> thing you could do is to pick up the phone and call the FCC.
>>>> 1-888-CALL-FCC. You can get in touch with someone there who is familiar
>>>> with the laws surrounding VHF Marine radio licensing and they will be
>>>> able to tell you whether you meet the requirements and exactly what type
>>>> of license to get.
>>>>
>>>> Good luck, and have fun on Lake Anna. I wish I were there!
>>>
>>> Hey, you are welcome to come up sometime. We should be here this
>>> weekend. :) Do you kayak or canoe?
>>
>> I've always wanted to, but it's one of many things on my very long list
>> of things to try!
>
> You don't even have to come up here. We sometimes go to Richmond to paddle
> the James. There is a very active meetup.com kayaking group called Virgina
> Paddlers. They have one or two flatwater kayak trips near Richmond every
> week in season. It is pretty easy to borrow equipment most of the time.
> Kayakers tend to be a very friendly and generous crowd.

I'll likely end up sitting at home, on my gradually widening ass, watching
infomercials and eating frozen pizza... though it does sound appealing!

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 9/7/2013 12:11 AM, Steve Crow wrote:
>
>
> On a more serious note, I'm always amazed that the response from so many
> hams is to immediately suggest ham radio as the ultimate solution to any
> communications dilemma, and quite often it is not. This was just one
> such instance.
>
> While there's no doubt it's an enjoyable hobby, and you'd probably get
> some use out of it, it doesn't address your immediate needs.
>
> (I was never a top performing sales guy at my last job. I wonder why?)
>

Two things:

1. What do you expect from an Amateur Radio related newsgroup?

2. Amateur radio is a perfect solution for him, except he's placing
additional, unnecessary constraints. He has multiple bands he can use,
can run much more power, and no restrictions on base or mobile usage.
The only restrictions are he can only talk to other licensed hams, and
cannot use it for business. I don't see the latter as a problem, from
what he's said.

But then you obviously don't know anything about ham radio, yet you are
giving your opinion on it.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address

Jerry, AI0K
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================

[rickman]

On 9/7/2013 12:11 AM, Steve Crow wrote:
>

Yes, that is the current state of marine VHF. For certain users in
boats there is *no* licensing requirement. So unlicensed use is rampant
in marine VHF, but it isn't illegal.

Kayaking is awesome! I have a place on the water and I would take the
canoe out from time to time. But if there is any wind a canoe just gets
blown away. Then I got a kayak and the difference is amazing. In a
canoe you are a foot or so off the water, in a kayak your rear is
actually below the water line and you feel so much more a part of it.

The widening profile is not just mythical and not without consequence.
If you think you might enjoy the water, I strongly encourage you to get
out there and do something. Not only is it fantastic exercise, it is a
very social activity and the people are *great*. Don't just sit
there... Oh, did I mention there are lots of women who kayak? Often
more women than men show up at paddles... can you say that about ham fests?

Thank you for being a rational voice here. I don't think what I want to
do is unreasonable. I am sorry that some folks here responded so
strongly to my comments about the purpose of the marine VHF rules.
Maybe they can take a lesson from you... :)

--

Rick

[rickman]

Why do you continue to argue about this? I have explained repeatedly
that I won't be able to get anyone else to use ham gear. So I would not
be able to talk to anyone I wish to talk to.

Is this one of those groups where a small number of people dominate all
the conversations?

--

Rick

[Jerry Stuckle]

I wasn't talking to you.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address

[rickman]

No, you are speaking in a public forum. If you want a private
conversation you might consider an email.

--

Rick

[Jerry Stuckle]

You need to figure something out - this is a public forum. Not
everything is about YOU. And not everyone is talking to you.

But now you're just trolling. Next will come the ad hominem attacks.

[rickman]

On 9/7/2013 2:11 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 9/7/2013 2:03 PM, rickman wrote:
>> On 9/7/2013 1:22 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> On 9/7/2013 10:50 AM, rickman wrote:
>>>> On 9/7/2013 7:43 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>> On 9/7/2013 12:11 AM, Steve Crow wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On a more serious note, I'm always amazed that the response from so
>>>>>> many
>>>>>> hams is to immediately suggest ham radio as the ultimate solution to
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> communications dilemma, and quite often it is not. This was just one
>>>>>> such instance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While there's no doubt it's an enjoyable hobby, and you'd probably
>>>>>> get
>>>>>> some use out of it, it doesn't address your immediate needs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (I was never a top performing sales guy at my last job. I wonder
>>>>>> why?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Two things:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. What do you expect from an Amateur Radio related newsgroup?
>>>>>


>>>>> 2. Amateur radio is a perfect solution for him, except he's placing

^^^
-------------------------------------------------|||

See this part? Now read the rest of the post...

>>>>> additional, unnecessary constraints. He has multiple bands he can use,
>>>>> can run much more power, and no restrictions on base or mobile usage.
>>>>> The only restrictions are he can only talk to other licensed hams, and
>>>>> cannot use it for business. I don't see the latter as a problem, from
>>>>> what he's said.
>>>>>
>>>>> But then you obviously don't know anything about ham radio, yet you
>>>>> are
>>>>> giving your opinion on it.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you continue to argue about this? I have explained repeatedly
>>>> that I won't be able to get anyone else to use ham gear. So I would not
>>>> be able to talk to anyone I wish to talk to.
>>>>
>>>> Is this one of those groups where a small number of people dominate all
>>>> the conversations?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I wasn't talking to you.
>>
>> No, you are speaking in a public forum. If you want a private
>> conversation you might consider an email.
>>
>
> You need to figure something out - this is a public forum. Not
> everything is about YOU. And not everyone is talking to you.
>
> But now you're just trolling. Next will come the ad hominem attacks.

I think it is about me because... well, because you *were* talking about
me ("him" in this case), see the quote above.

I know it is a public forum. That is what I had to point out to you.
You seem to object to me using it as a public forum. You don't like
what I say and you don't like who I say it to.

If you don't like my posts, why do you keep replying to them?

BTW, by calling me a troll, *you* have started the ad hominem attack.
If you don't like the conversation you are free to not participate. You
are also free to killfile me. Then you won't be bothered by me anymore.

I'm sorry it got to this point. I don't try to antagonize people like
you, but there are no small number of folks on the Internet who seem to
want to run things and that doesn't work with me.

Thanks for the good information you have provided.

--

Rick

[Jerry Stuckle]

You just don't get it, do you?

I can talk ABOUT you all I want. But that doesn't mean you are worth
talking TO you.

And yes, this is a public forum. If I don't like what you say, I am
free to speak my view, also. But you don't seem to like that.

And no, calling you a troll is not an ad hominem attack on you. But it
just might be to trolls.

BTW - I'm not trying to "run things". I WAS trying to give you good
information on ways to solve your problem. But you kept on arguing,
even though the FCC regs say what you want to do is illegal.

You don't like the FCC's rules? Well, T.S. That's what they are. As I
said before - if you don't like them, petition the FCC to change them.
But your continued arguing in this or any other forum will get you no
positive result - and a lot of negative ones.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address

Jerry,AI0K
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================

[rickman]

Dude, you are a tough cookie. Ok, you win. I'm a troll and you are
the... well, whatever you are picturing yourself to be.

Does that make you feel better?

BTW, you were trying to run things. You seem to be incensed that I
replied to your post. Are you not saying I shouldn't reply? If not,
just what *are* you going on about?

I never suggested that you shouldn't speak your mind. I'm just pointing
out that you seem to be saying I don't have the right to reply which is
bogus.

--

Rick

[Jerry Stuckle]

Nope. I didn't say you couldn't post. I just said I wasn't talking to
you. But you still felt it necessary to object to my post. And you
complain about ME trying to run the conversation? No, those are the
actions of trolls.

And with this post, I'm tired of trying to teach a pig to sing. It's a
waste of time.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address

[Reader]

>> There is every need for a boat to have a radio, no need for everyone on
>> shore to have a radio, so the licensing is restrictive. Likely not as
>> restrictive as you perceive it, but still there to weed out the people
>> who might wish to use it for other things.
>
> The utility of a radio, especially in emergency situations, is greatly
> diminished if you can't reach people on the shore. My understanding is
> that the range of these radios is *very* short if you are close to the
> water. There were kayaks less than 4 miles away who I could not raise
> on the radio and I was likely the closest point of assistance. If they
> had needed to call for help, who exactly would they be able to reach?
>

> In the sea kayaking community VHF radio is both regarded as an important
> safety device because of the importance of communications and as a joke
> because of how often it communicates with no out outside of your paddle
> group. I don't think it is unreasonable for shore stations to be able
> to monitor VHF and respond in an emergency situation or to prevent one.
> In the situation at Lake Anna, if I am not allowed to have a VHF
> license for my shore station, then what is the use of having a VHF radio
> in a boat?
>

As someone mentioned earlier, the law was made to insure profits for the
corporations that built shore stations that were hooked up to the
telephone lines. This law of course is still in place. There is no more
profit for the corporations, but the law remains on the books.

I personally find much of the FCC rules and regulations to be simply a
means to insure profits for business. A perfect example is the law that
makes it almost impossible for a private person to put in their own low
power radio station to cover their town. In the rural area where I live
there is mostly dead air. I am retired and I would love to put in my own
station to broadcast music and local news.

That is one of the very serious problems with our form of democracy in
the USA. Most of the laws are actually written by companies or
corporations who bribe politicians to enact the laws they want. This
form of bribery has been found legal by the supreme court. However, if
you attempt to bribe your way out of a speeding ticket, you will most
likely suffer the full force of the law. Politicians get a special card
to allow almost any form of corruption.

If you go ahead and use the marine band as you would like to do, you may
or may not get away with it. If you do not use it a lot, you probably
will not get in trouble. I find absolutely no moral turpitude in your
plan to use that frequency as a kayak to shore communication. Legal and
moral are often 180 degrees apart in the USA.

Of course there are some who believe that any statute on the books comes
directly from God.

Michael

[Ian Jackson]

In message <l09fu8$jtn$1...@dont-email.me>, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com>
writes

>


>
>It seems very restrictive that anyone can use a marine VHF radio on
>their boat, but if they want to speak with someone on shore that is not
>allowed except for special cases like drawbridge operators. I can
>understand that marine radios are not for shore to shore
>communications, but it only seems natural to use the same radio for
>ship to ship and ship to shore comms.
>

Although I've been a licensed radio amateur for over 50 years, I haven't
really got a clue about using the marine VHF radio band, and the
regulations appertaining to it.

However, Wikipedia indicates that "It is used for a wide variety of
purposes, including summoning rescue services and communicating with
harbours, locks, bridges and marinas".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_VHF_radio

The question therefore is essentially whether the land side of the
two-way communication could also include things like the support teams
for water-based events. I would have thought it would be standard
practice for them to have two-way marine-band communications equipment
for this purpose, and if so, it could be argued that the OP falls into
this (presumably) permitted category. If they don't use the normal VHF
marine band, what frequencies (and equipment) do they use? The obvious
course of action would be to get the FCC to advise on the matter.
--
Ian

[rickman]

Go back and read my post. I didn't complain that you posted. I
complained that the content of your post contradicted the facts and that
you continued to make these wrong claims. You continued to say that I
could use Ham radio for my needs long after I have explained that I
can't get the rest of the kayaking community to switch radios.

You can go on about it all you wish, but that is not a realistic
expectation. So your comments are far off target. That is my point.
But you are free to continue to state them.

> And with this post, I'm tired of trying to teach a pig to sing. It's a
> waste of time.

After the first few posts, yes, the rest of this conversation *has* been

a waste of time.

--

Rick

[rickman]

Interesting. I considered that once myself. But the FCC has to license
you and they aren't accepting any new applications for license. They
don't say when they *will* be accepting new licenses either. Amazing!

> That is one of the very serious problems with our form of democracy in
> the USA. Most of the laws are actually written by companies or
> corporations who bribe politicians to enact the laws they want. This
> form of bribery has been found legal by the supreme court. However, if
> you attempt to bribe your way out of a speeding ticket, you will most
> likely suffer the full force of the law. Politicians get a special card
> to allow almost any form of corruption.
>
> If you go ahead and use the marine band as you would like to do, you may
> or may not get away with it. If you do not use it a lot, you probably
> will not get in trouble. I find absolutely no moral turpitude in your
> plan to use that frequency as a kayak to shore communication. Legal and
> moral are often 180 degrees apart in the USA.

I fully plan to apply for a license.

Thanks for the support.

--

Rick

[rickman]

I will be working on this in the coming week. Thanks for your comments.

--

Rick

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

"in Canada" non commercial vessels do not need a radio licence, but
operators require an operator's certificate..

[rickman]

Yeah, I read on the FCC site that I am ok as long as I am in US waters
or *not* communicating with a foreign station. Something like that. I
don't expect to have any issues related to this though. It gets pretty
cold up there near Canada and the water is even colder.

--

Rick

[Reader]

As someone mentioned earlier, the law was made to insure profits for the
corporations that built shore stations that were hooked up to the
telephone lines. This law of course is still in place. There is no more
profit for the corporations, but the law remains on the books.

I personally find much of the FCC rules and regulations to be simply a
means to insure profits for business. A perfect example is the law that
makes it almost impossible for a private person to put in their own low
power radio station to cover their town. In the rural area where I live
there is mostly dead air. I am retired and I would love to put in my own
station to broadcast music and local news.

That is one of the very serious problems with our form of democracy in
the USA. Most of the laws are actually written by companies or
corporations who bribe politicians to enact the laws they want. This
form of bribery has been found legal by the supreme court. However, if
you attempt to bribe your way out of a speeding ticket, you will most
likely suffer the full force of the law. Politicians get a special card
to allow almost any form of corruption.

If you go ahead and use the marine band as you would like to do, you may
or may not get away with it. If you do not use it a lot, you probably
will not get in trouble. I find absolutely no moral turpitude in your
plan to use that frequency as a kayak to shore communication. Legal and
moral are often 180 degrees apart in the USA.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

You DO realize that most Canadians live south of Duluth? Kitchener
is just north of the northern border of California - Great beaches on
Georgian bay and Lake Erie.. Great warm water canoeing and kayaking on
the Grand River.

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 9/7/2013 4:44 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:

> In message <l09fu8$jtn$1...@dont-email.me>, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> writes
>>
>
>
>>
>> It seems very restrictive that anyone can use a marine VHF radio on
>> their boat, but if they want to speak with someone on shore that is
>> not allowed except for special cases like drawbridge operators. I can
>> understand that marine radios are not for shore to shore
>> communications, but it only seems natural to use the same radio for
>> ship to ship and ship to shore comms.
>>
> Although I've been a licensed radio amateur for over 50 years, I haven't
> really got a clue about using the marine VHF radio band, and the
> regulations appertaining to it.
>
> However, Wikipedia indicates that "It is used for a wide variety of
> purposes, including summoning rescue services and communicating with
> harbours, locks, bridges and marinas".
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_VHF_radio
>

Ian, you should be reading the regs at www.fcc.gov, not trusting Wikipedia.

> The question therefore is essentially whether the land side of the
> two-way communication could also include things like the support teams
> for water-based events. I would have thought it would be standard
> practice for them to have two-way marine-band communications equipment
> for this purpose, and if so, it could be argued that the OP falls into
> this (presumably) permitted category. If they don't use the normal VHF
> marine band, what frequencies (and equipment) do they use? The obvious
> course of action would be to get the FCC to advise on the matter.

Not according to the FCC regs. See the references earlier in this
thread for requirements for a land marine station. There is no
"standard practice" for licensing people for this purpose. There are
only *very* limited options available.

And if there were an "official" event, large enough and sponsored by
someone, I am sure there would be marinas, etc., and the Coast Guard
(or, on lakes, Coast Guard Auxiliary) monitoring the radios.

And the op has repeatedly been advised to contact the FCC.

[rickman]

The Great Lakes are a well known death trap for the unprepared kayaker.
Check out some of the accident analyses on the cold water safety web
site...

http://www.coldwatersafety.org/

As for Grand River, here is a table of water temps. Seems Grand River,
on the average, is only has a safe temperature for two months out of the
year, July 10 to Sept 10.

If I were to be kayaking near Canada it would be more likely East Coast
and that is ocean and even worse. That's all I meant.

BTW, being south of Duluth is no indication that the water is safe...
Check out this case study that happened right here in Virginia...

http://www.coldwatersafety.org/Rule2.html#rule2Case7

If you can't use the above link go to the cold water web site and click
through to Golden Rule 2, case 7. When you read many of these reports
it gets to you after a while.

Many of these accidents could have been prevented if the kayakers had
used a marine band VHF or other radio to contact help. That is one of
the reasons why I want to get a marine radio here.

--

Rick

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

The grand on an AVERAGE year is safe as far as temps go from late june
to early October - and the water is generally (relatively) shallow and
slow moving through most of the watershed. This summer has been an
exception - running full almost all summer. THOUSANDS of canoeists
and kayakers all summer in the Kitchener and Cayuga areas in
particular.

[rickman]

The numbers I read *were* average numbers. What do you consider "safe"
water temps?

>> If I were to be kayaking near Canada it would be more likely East Coast
>> and that is ocean and even worse. That's all I meant.
>>
>> BTW, being south of Duluth is no indication that the water is safe...
>> Check out this case study that happened right here in Virginia...
>>
>> http://www.coldwatersafety.org/Rule2.html#rule2Case7
>>
>> If you can't use the above link go to the cold water web site and click
>> through to Golden Rule 2, case 7. When you read many of these reports
>> it gets to you after a while.
>>
>> Many of these accidents could have been prevented if the kayakers had
>> used a marine band VHF or other radio to contact help. That is one of
>> the reasons why I want to get a marine radio here.

Did you do any reading of the cold water safety site I mentioned. Most
people don't realize the danger of cold water or just how cold it needs
to be to be dangerous.

--

Rick

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

The temperatures right now - Sept 1 to 9, 2013 at the bottom of the
shand Dam at Belwood has been a steady 20C. It warms up as it flows
through the Elora Goege down to Brigeport (Kitchener) where it has
gone from 25 down to 20 and back up to 23C over the last 8 days.Down
at Port Maitland where it enters the lake, it has run from 27 to 21C,
and at it's coldest point it has varied between 18 and 15C.

This is colder than normal at this time of year due to heavier rains
and cooler weather. Last year it was likely 3-5C higher

15C is 59F,
23C is 73.4F
25 is 77F

At 60F water is borderline dangerous - but most places where the water
is currently that cold you could stand in the Grand and walk to shore.
Down at Port Maitland it handles great lakes freighters.
We used to swim in the grand and it's tributaries from early June on
untill late September as kids,

Get the book "paddling the Grand". It's about $20.

[rickman]

This has gotten *very* off topic for this group. But I want to point
out that your facts are wrong, dangerously wrong. You pointed me to a
book I would have to buy to read, but I don't need that. I have seen a
lot of *very* good info on the issue of cold water safety and water at
60�F is not *borderline* dangerous, it is just plain dangerous. If you
think that you can fall into water at that temperature regardless of how
deep it is without risk of death, you are mistaken. Go to the web site
I pointed you to and do some reading. *Everything* discussed on the web
site is backed by research and scientific evidence. It is all available.

This website and the National Center for Cold Water Safety was created
because of the many deaths which are largely attributed to the lack of
knowledge about the real hazards of cold water sports.

I won't discuss this further in this newsgroup, but feel free to contact
me directly if you wish or in another venue. Are there sports
newsgroups where this might be more appropriate? I'd be happy to
continue the conversation elsewhere.

--

Rick

[Reader]

My boat sank off Mitkof Island at night in the winter of 1971. There was
moss ice on the water and the air was -20. I had sent a distress call on
the radio. A tug cut its tow and pulled me out of the water and
resuscitated me. When the boat sank and I went into the water it felt
like I had been hit alongside the head with a 2X4. I was mercifully out
of consciousness within seconds. I have to say that it would be a very
quick way to die.

I grew up alongside the Pacific Ocean on the North Coast of Oregon. The
water temperature was in the 40s. We could swim in that surf for about
20 minutes before we turned blue. It was great fun in the surf but
pretty dangerous. We were forbidden by our parents to do this, but being
forbidden made it better. :-)

I can say from my experience that any kind of cold water can kill. When
it is at freezing it kills very quickly, when it is in the 40s it kills
a little more slowly. I think the temperature and time probably could be
made into a formula for death.

Like I said before, if you can keep from being cited by the FCC, a
marine radio would work pretty well for your purposes. It is very short
range and if you are using it in a small lake, the chances of your being
monitored are remote. Also you would not cause interference to anyone else.


Michael

[rickman]

I have to say you were indeed a lucky one to have survived your
experience. What you felt is called cold shock, your body's response to
immersion in cold water. It is worse with decreasing temperature, but
actually reaches it's maximum between 50 and 60 degrees. Colder
temperatures than this do not produce a more severe effect because your
body is already responding at its maximum.

There is often an initial gasp reflex on sudden immersion resulting in a
lung full of water which is typically fatal. If you survive this, you
lose control of your breathing.

It takes some 5 to 15 minutes for you to lose the ability to use your
limbs depending on the water temperature.

> I grew up alongside the Pacific Ocean on the North Coast of Oregon. The
> water temperature was in the 40s. We could swim in that surf for about
> 20 minutes before we turned blue. It was great fun in the surf but
> pretty dangerous. We were forbidden by our parents to do this, but being
> forbidden made it better. :-)

The gasp reflex and cold shock can be mitigated by acclimation. By
going into the cold water often you likely built up some resistance to
these effects. This will wear off in about the same amount of time it
took to acquire it, so it would not have helped you by the time of your
accident.

> I can say from my experience that any kind of cold water can kill. When
> it is at freezing it kills very quickly, when it is in the 40s it kills
> a little more slowly. I think the temperature and time probably could be
> made into a formula for death.

That is actually dependent on a number of other factors such as your
body fat and of course clothing you are wearing. Increased body fat
extends the time you can be immersed before suffering from hypothermia.
Physical conditioning does nothing to help.

> Like I said before, if you can keep from being cited by the FCC, a
> marine radio would work pretty well for your purposes. It is very short
> range and if you are using it in a small lake, the chances of your being
> monitored are remote. Also you would not cause interference to anyone else.

Yes, I will be kayaking this weekend and will discuss the issue with
some of my fellow paddlers. I'm sure they know more about this than I
have heard from them before.

--

Rick

[Reader]

Hi Rick

Yes I was lucky. My wife was listening to the radio at home. I had a
transceiver on 2182 at home. Oh dear, my bad it was illegal. She heard
my distress call and was on the edge of her seat. She then heard a
report from the tug that I had been recovered and was not breathing. She
thought the life she knew was over. Very traumatic for her, but not so
for me. She then heard the report that I had regained consciousness.

These events give one great respect for the elements and having a radio.

:-)

Michael

[rickman]

Yes, that is why I want to support the kayakers on the paddle next week,
as a safety measure. Last year we had a stiff wind from the north which
created significant waves at the start and a number of paddlers were not
able to make it all the way. I was part of the team which tracked their
progress and got them off the water. Cold was not an issue in this
case. Cold water makes such events much more dangerous. That is why I
want to have good radio communications.

I will be doing what is required to do this legally even if it means
sitting in a boat at the edge of the water.

Please take a look at this web site and let me know what you think. It
currently has a definite sea kayaking focus, but the intent is to
ultimately be inclusive of anyone who may end up in cold water, even if
not in a boat. If you would like to share the details of your story it
would be appreciated. You can contact me at the email address gnuarm at
gmail dot com

http://www.coldwatersafety.org/

--

Rick

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

rickman wrote:
>
> Yes, that is why I want to support the kayakers on the paddle next week,
> as a safety measure. Last year we had a stiff wind from the north which
> created significant waves at the start and a number of paddlers were not
> able to make it all the way. I was part of the team which tracked their
> progress and got them off the water. Cold was not an issue in this
> case. Cold water makes such events much more dangerous. That is why I
> want to have good radio communications.

IMHO you would be far better off having them get cellphones with GPS
in them and have them phone in with their exact location if they need help.

You don't need a waterproof phone, if you double bag it in one of those
plastic bags sold to boaters to keep things dry, you should be ok.

I don't know how close to the shore they intend to stay, but if they get
far enough out, the conversation about where they are is something like:

"What do you see in front of you"? "Water".
"What do you see behind you"? "Water".
and so on.

Or even worse, when the answer to that question is "Fog".

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM/KBUH7245/KBUW5379

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

Get a "cartopper" boat and strap it to a ladder rack on your truck -
put the "radio operator" in the boat.

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
> Get a "cartopper" boat and strap it to a ladder rack on your truck -
> put the "radio operator" in the boat.

The FCC web page that covers the regulations specifically say this is
illegal. The ship, as they call it, must be on the water.

So you probably can assume that they mean you can't be standing in the
water, as in on the beach, or in a bucket of water, as in one of the
Disney Pirates of the Caribbean movies.

[Reader]

>>
>> Yes I was lucky. My wife was listening to the radio at home. I had a
>> transceiver on 2182 at home. Oh dear, my bad it was illegal. She heard
>> my distress call and was on the edge of her seat. She then heard a
>> report from the tug that I had been recovered and was not breathing. She
>> thought the life she knew was over. Very traumatic for her, but not so
>> for me. She then heard the report that I had regained consciousness.
>>
>> These events give one great respect for the elements and having a radio.
>
> Yes, that is why I want to support the kayakers on the paddle next week,
> as a safety measure. Last year we had a stiff wind from the north which
> created significant waves at the start and a number of paddlers were not
> able to make it all the way. I was part of the team which tracked their
> progress and got them off the water. Cold was not an issue in this
> case. Cold water makes such events much more dangerous. That is why I
> want to have good radio communications.
>
> I will be doing what is required to do this legally even if it means
> sitting in a boat at the edge of the water.
>
> Please take a look at this web site and let me know what you think. It
> currently has a definite sea kayaking focus, but the intent is to
> ultimately be inclusive of anyone who may end up in cold water, even if
> not in a boat. If you would like to share the details of your story it
> would be appreciated. You can contact me at the email address gnuarm at
> gmail dot com
>
> http://www.coldwatersafety.org/
>

Hi Rick,

Yes that was a good web site. I realized that my friend and I had become
adjusted somewhat to the cold surf. We did in fact first just go in for
5 minutes and had to get out. As we progressed during the summer we got
up to 20 minutes.

There are some details I left out about my immersion in very cold water.
I don't know if they are important to you or not. I could fill you in on
the details if you chose.

[Michael Black]

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

> cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>> Get a "cartopper" boat and strap it to a ladder rack on your truck -
>> put the "radio operator" in the boat.
>
> The FCC web page that covers the regulations specifically say this is
> illegal. The ship, as they call it, must be on the water.
>
> So you probably can assume that they mean you can't be standing in the
> water, as in on the beach, or in a bucket of water, as in one of the
> Disney Pirates of the Caribbean movies.
>

Then put the boat in the water. That makes sense anyway, since if an
emergency comes up, you'll need the boat.

Now maybe this long off-topic wandering thread dealt with that originally,
and if so, then the solution is simple. Marine walkie talkies in the
kayak, a boat ready for rescue work on water, someone with height and a
scanner to wait for emergency calls, and cellphones for that person and
the rescue boat. A call comes in, if the rescue boat doesn't hear it the
listener higher up will, and calls the rescue boat with the cellphone.

Cellphones don't even have to be used, GMRS or CB or hey, amateur radio,
can all be used. Once the rescue boat is within range of the kayak, they
can ue the marine band, since both are boats and allowed to use the band.

Michael

[rickman]

I take it you have not read the full thread, that's ok. Cell phones
only work within range of a tower. The bay is miles wide and many areas
where we paddle have little or no cell phone coverage. Lake Anna is the
same. I have needed to use my cell phone while paddling only to find it
can't dial a number.

We always carry cell phones because they are useful when they work, but
we never rely one them. In fact, we never rely on any one safety
mechanism working. We always have a backup or two. That's why the
radio is useful. It can work when the cell phones don't and it can do
things a cell phone can't, like reach someone close by without knowing
their phone number.

--

Rick

[rickman]

I received the email of this message. I take it the email address on
that message is not valid. Can I get a real email address for you? I'd
like to discuss your incident in detail, just not in this group.

--

Rick

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:14:07 +0000 (UTC), "Geoffrey S. Mendelson"
<g...@mendelson.com> wrote:

>cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>> Get a "cartopper" boat and strap it to a ladder rack on your truck -
>> put the "radio operator" in the boat.
>
>The FCC web page that covers the regulations specifically say this is
>illegal. The ship, as they call it, must be on the water.
>
>So you probably can assume that they mean you can't be standing in the
>water, as in on the beach, or in a bucket of water, as in one of the
>Disney Pirates of the Caribbean movies.
>
>Geoff.

Put a swimming pool on a trailer and float a kayak in it.

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

rickman wrote:
>
> I take it you have not read the full thread, that's ok. Cell phones
> only work within range of a tower. The bay is miles wide and many areas
> where we paddle have little or no cell phone coverage. Lake Anna is the
> same. I have needed to use my cell phone while paddling only to find it
> can't dial a number.

Why are you so belligerent? Yes, I have read the entire thread, and I am aware
of the size of the bay.

GSM cell phone coverage is limited by timing to 35km, about 5-10 times the
range of a VHF handheld. If an 850 mHz GSM phone is not going to work
where you are then a handheld won't reach land either.

> We always carry cell phones because they are useful when they work, but
> we never rely one them. In fact, we never rely on any one safety
> mechanism working. We always have a backup or two. That's why the
> radio is useful. It can work when the cell phones don't and it can do
> things a cell phone can't, like reach someone close by without knowing
> their phone number.
>

But that was not the point of this whole pissing contest. It was based upon
your mistaken understanding that you could put a 25 watt boat radio in
your truck ON LAND and reach kayaks in the water.

The laws of physics being what they are, yes you could probably go fairly
far with a 25 watt radio, a good antenna and height and with a receive
preamp and a beam antenna be able to hear across the entire bay and
possibly be heard.

Since that is not an option, you are stuck with a handheld radio and a
rubber ducky, which will get you a couple of miles on a good day if you
are on land, and more if you are on water.

Come to think of it the best suggestion was to have someone build a decent
listening post on high ground (or with a tower) and relay information
to someone via cell phone on the water.

The are AFAIK no restrictions on land based fixed receivers and you could
take old Motorola Maxtracs (available for almost nothing these days),
connect them up to 3 element beam antennas, add a cheap receive preamplifier
and hear everything on the bay if you had enough receivers with their
antennas spread in an overlapping pattern.

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
> Put a swimming pool on a trailer and float a kayak in it.

That sounds like a good idea, it is a ship, and it is on water. :-)

[Michael Black]

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

> cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>> Put a swimming pool on a trailer and float a kayak in it.
>
> That sounds like a good idea, it is a ship, and it is on water. :-)
>
> Geoff.
>

What hapens if you put the kayak in a swimming pool on a cruise ship?

Michael

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,

The signal officer will come down from the bridge and tell you to
turn the radio off. :-)

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bill...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>

[rickman]

On 9/13/2013 3:59 AM, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
> rickman wrote:
>>
>> I take it you have not read the full thread, that's ok. Cell phones
>> only work within range of a tower. The bay is miles wide and many areas
>> where we paddle have little or no cell phone coverage. Lake Anna is the
>> same. I have needed to use my cell phone while paddling only to find it
>> can't dial a number.
>
> Why are you so belligerent? Yes, I have read the entire thread, and I am aware
> of the size of the bay.

I'm sorry. I didn't think I was being belligerent. You make a
suggestion that has been offered several times and has been explained
how that is not a viable solution several times, so I assume you have
not read these. Where was the belligerence?

> GSM cell phone coverage is limited by timing to 35km, about 5-10 times the
> range of a VHF handheld. If an 850 mHz GSM phone is not going to work
> where you are then a handheld won't reach land either.

You are making false assumptions. First, the cell phone doesn't need to
reach *me* a mile or two away. The cell phone has to reach the cell
phone *tower* which is in an unknown location. You are trying to
guesstimate where cell phones will work and I have been there and found
where they wont work as have others. Proof of the pudding... Also,
this isn't just about the trip on the bay, I am looking for a general
solution which applies at Lake Anna and other locations as well.

>> We always carry cell phones because they are useful when they work, but
>> we never rely one them. In fact, we never rely on any one safety
>> mechanism working. We always have a backup or two. That's why the
>> radio is useful. It can work when the cell phones don't and it can do
>> things a cell phone can't, like reach someone close by without knowing
>> their phone number.
>>
>
> But that was not the point of this whole pissing contest. It was based upon
> your mistaken understanding that you could put a 25 watt boat radio in
> your truck ON LAND and reach kayaks in the water.

I have not seen anything that says I can't do that. I have been told
that I must get a license for land operation. I'm still not clear on
just what type of land operation I am allowed to use.

I don't consider this a pissing contest. If you are getting torked off
about it, why do you respond? Please, I genuinely am just trying to
discuss this. If you think I am being belligerent and want to piss off
people, you are mistaken. It might be best if you didn't continue the
conversation.

> The laws of physics being what they are, yes you could probably go fairly
> far with a 25 watt radio, a good antenna and height and with a receive
> preamp and a beam antenna be able to hear across the entire bay and
> possibly be heard.
>
> Since that is not an option, you are stuck with a handheld radio and a
> rubber ducky, which will get you a couple of miles on a good day if you
> are on land, and more if you are on water.
>
> Come to think of it the best suggestion was to have someone build a decent
> listening post on high ground (or with a tower) and relay information
> to someone via cell phone on the water.
>
> The are AFAIK no restrictions on land based fixed receivers and you could
> take old Motorola Maxtracs (available for almost nothing these days),
> connect them up to 3 element beam antennas, add a cheap receive preamplifier
> and hear everything on the bay if you had enough receivers with their
> antennas spread in an overlapping pattern.

Thanks for your input.

--

Rick

[rickman]

On 9/13/2013 7:29 AM, Jeff wrote:
>
>> GSM cell phone coverage is limited by timing to 35km, about 5-10 times
>> the
>> range of a VHF handheld. If an 850 mHz GSM phone is not going to work
>> where you are then a handheld won't reach land either.
>>
>

> That is not correct of course; as it depends on where the cellphone
> towers are located wrt to the user, and the terrain in between.
> The OP has already stated that there is no cell phone coverage in the
> area, so the 35km range is a moot point. He may only wish to talk to the
> kayaks a few hundred yards away, but if you don't have any cell phone
> signal you can't !!!

Yes, the issue is not how close land or the other kayakers are, it is
the distance and terrain to the cell tower.

Just for the sake of accuracy... If I said there was *no* cell coverage,
that was a mistake. Cell phones work in some areas and we *do* have
cell phones with us when we paddle. But the coverage is spotty and we
can't rely on them just as we can't rely on marine VHF radios.

Cell phones are also very difficult to operate compared to a push to
talk radio. If you are in a situation where the wind has picked up and
you are fighting waves you don't have the opportunity to pull out a cell
phone and dial up numbers. You are lucky to be able to take one hand
off the paddle long enough to push the talk button.

--

Rick

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>

Just want to say, this has been an entertaining thread to read!

--
If the above message is full of spelling mistakes or the snipping is duff,
it's probably because it was sent from my iPhone, likely whilst walking.
Apologies!