NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/boats/8771

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 4.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!oasys!hanners
From: [e-mail] (Robert Hanners)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Ch 9-- VHF Rule Change
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 92 12:39:51 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Robert Hanners)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Annapolis, MD
Lines: 69

In rec.boats, [e-mail] (Michael Burati) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Hanners)
> writes:
>>       The new use of channel 9 is optional to all pleasure
>>     boaters nationally.  As a result of this rule making, the
>>     channel 16 monitoring requirement for non-commercial
>>     vessels has been lifted when such vessels use channel 9
>>     for calling purposes.  We wish to emphasize, however, that
>>     channel 16 remains as the distress and safety frequency.
>>
>>Note that channel 9 is "optional", not "mandatory".  Hard to believe
>>that the FCC or the USCG can make it mandatory in the northeast only,
>>as I thought I saw posted here.
>
>You did see it posted here, and I've seen it in LNM, and heard it from USCGAux
>a year ago, and on ch16 group Boston all the time (for the last two summers).
>
>Channel 9 is a calling channel.  The "OPTIONAL" above refers to the fact that
>non-commercial vessels may now "optionally monitor" channel 9 instead of 16.
>Note that the CG is now broadcasting Securite notices and requests for
>assistance on both 9 and 16 (at least in the NE) to make monitoring channel 9
>almost as safe as monitoring 16.   The FAX did say "Channel 16 remains as the
>distress and safety frequency".  This implicitly (and unfortunately the way
>they worded it above it's only implicit) means that Channel 16 is not to be
>used for non Distress or non Safety messages.  Note, that CG group Boston has

OK, I stand corrected regarding the northeast.  But I can't buy Mike's
explanation above where we are now allowed to "optionally monitor channel 9."
Hell, I can "optionally monitor 68" too-- big deal.  No, I think the
problem here is that what is being addressed by the quoted FCC attorney
are nationally applied rules.  Apparently, as is quite clear from a number
of posters, various areas or at least the northeast is authorized to make
its own rules.  Whether this is generally the case or that the northeast is
specifically provided for as a test area by the (national) FCC is unclear.

Regarding scanning radios.  I have one-- which I attempted to use as
suggested.  The problem is simply that there's far too much traffic.
Even with ch 9 now open for calling, my perception on the Chesapeake
last summer was that 16 appeared to be just as heavily loaded.  Scanners
can't function as intended if at least one of the channels is in
*continuous* use.  It's not difficult to see that you really need the
capability to listen to two transmissions simultaneously-- that's why
the creator gave us *two* ears.  (Obviously we need two radios.)

In the long term, if the situation continues as it has in the last decade,
I think the answer will have to be that, in some areas, there will be
even greater channel definition.  For example, low power calling to nearby
vessels-- ch X; high power (dx :-) calls-- ch Y; safety-- ch 16.  That's
effectively how things work now in many areas-- bridges monitor one
channel, restraurants another, marinas another, and racers yet another.

Eventually, radio checks may be performed to some extent by the set itself.
That's sorta how I do it now: I just flip on the hand-held and quickly
key the mast set-- and vice-versa.  And David, sooner or later, your
crystal set will die and you'll join the rankled ranks of the rest of us
that pick up 14 simultaneous transmissions with our modern sensitive rigs.

And one last change.  With TTY, weather faxes, The Wall Street Journal,
et cetera, mariners will need additional VHF channels or more SSB units.
Else I suspect (gack) precision tracking satellite dishes will start
popping up in the rigging. :-)

Happy holidays, everyone!

-- Bob

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Hanners         "My comments; only mine."          *DIASTOLE* 676673
CD, NSWC, Annapolis, MD                              [e-mail]