# Radio check



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I was anchored off the Quonset airshow on Saturday, which should be it's own thread it was so great. The performers, including the Blue Angels, regroup for each pass directly overhead.

I was monitoring 16 and in the span of a couple of hours, must have heard two dozen radio checks. Of course, one was from the obligatory 6 yr old who has been hearing all the adults do so. That was the only one that the Coast Guard replied to in a very intimidating voice to get the kid off the radio. 

What is it with all the radio checks? And on the wrong channel to boot. Good thing this is America, because the Lybian Coast Guard would have opened fire on the crowd for sure.

Oh I forgot the best one. There must have been a fire boat on station to which someone hails on 16....... "dahhhhh... eh deh fireboat. Da ya tink ya could open up so we could get some pictures....."


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

Minnewaska said:


> I was monitoring 16 and in the span of a couple of hours, must have heard two dozen radio checks. Of course, one was from the obligatory 6 yr old who has been hearing all the adults do so. That was the only one that the Coast Guard replied to in a very intimidating voice to get the kid off the radio.
> 
> What is it with all the radio checks? "


People don't know better, or just don't care. When you call on Channel 16 you're supposed to be calling another boat (or CG or marina or restaurant), not sending a message over the radio waves for anyone listening. I teach the CG Aux sail course and it's the first thing I tell my students when we get to the radio section.

The Coast Guard figures that 10 percent of the boaters out there have never had a boating safety course. That's a dangerous amount of people who have no clue.

I once had a student, brand new to sailing, who purchased a 40-foot sailboat as his first boat. He didn't even know what a wake was. At least he thought to take the course.


----------



## JKCatalina310 (Nov 18, 2010)

DRFerron said:


> The Coast Guard figures that 10 percent of the boaters out there have never had a boating safety course. That's a dangerous amount of people who have no clue.


I would suspect that is a low number and would but it more at 25% based on my experiences on the water.

My new boat has a RAM Mic at the helm and I had to turn it off three different times on Saturday alone because the radio checks, stupid calls (someone actually called over the radio to ask what the tide was doing) and morons that left the mics open so you would get lots of static. It is really annoying and I know I am supposed to be monitoring 16 but it just ruins the mood some days.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

SeaTow has an automated radio check system in many parts of the country. See Sea Tow: Automated Radio Check Service or Google "seatow radio check". It's free, it's easy, and it works great.


----------



## MikeWhy (Apr 22, 2011)

What's the problem with an all-vessel call for a radio check on 16? It's what I was taught, and what I've done for as long as I can remember. In some locations, Seatow comes back with a freq for their automated response service. A quick google for "marine vhf radio check" returns a few sporadic admonitions such as yours, to not use 16 for the radio check, and no reasonable alternative suggested. One site suggests "calling a friend" for a check instead. (Bite me on that.) I find no CG or FCC regs or commentary to the contrary. As for X percent not knowing what they're doing, I'm pretty sure it's the schools who are teaching the radio check procedures, on 16. You can count on an early morning, very formal, tensely rehearsed call when the school boats are out overnight. It's hardly worth debating. You need positive confirmation the transmit function is working. You need to know transmit is working on 16 before you leave your slip. Scheduling a rendezvous on a different channel is pointless; the acknowledgement already completed the radio check.


----------



## Bilgewater (Jul 17, 2008)

We get the same thing up here so I thought this was a good thread to post some information for west coast Canadian waters.
West coast Canadian waters:
- 16 is for emergencies or other station contact only.
- Non emergency CG contact is done on 83a or 83 in the US mode.
- Radio Checks are done on 83a or 83 in the US mode (definately not on 16).
- Most if not all Canadian marina's/Harbour Authorities are *NOT* contacted on 16, most are on 66a but some are on 06, 72, 68, 73, 10 but the information for the entire Canadian west coast can be found in the "Boaters Blue Pages" published by Pacific Yachting.
- Lower west coast Canada - Winchelsea Control activity is broadcast regularly on WX, the CG does not seem to appreciate giving this info on 16


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

*Radio Checks*

According to the Coast Guard:

_Boaters should normally use channels listed as Non-Commercial. Channel 16 is used *for calling other stations* or for distress alerting._

And from the FCC:

_DISTRESS SAFETY AND CALLING - Use this channel to get the attention of another station (calling) or in emergencies (distress and safety)._

A radio check is not a "distress alert" and if you are just sending out an open ended request to no one in particular, you are not calling another station (boat).

I suppose that one could make the argument that throwing out a request for anyone listening rather than hailing a specific boat is "calling another station" but considering the number of times I have heard the CG has come on the radio requesting that people do not use Channel 16 for radio checks, I doubt they'd agree with you.

I hear so many people on channels 68 and 74 anyway that if I wanted to do a radio check, I'd send it out over one of those channels if I don't have a specific boat that I know is out there and within hailing distance.


----------



## Boasun (Feb 10, 2007)

Radio checks on ch 16 are very much fronded upon. In fact you can be fined by the FCC. Though the fines seldom happen.
Do your radio checks on other channels. And if you have two radios, you can do your own checks on board as long the checkes ARE NOT on ch 16.
One minor detail; The USCG are also the LEOs of the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) when it comes to Marine radio usage.


----------



## Bilgewater (Jul 17, 2008)

MikeWhy said:


> What's the problem with an all-vessel call for a radio check on 16?


Other than the CG having a problem with it, it can get quite annoying when we are required to monitor 16 all the time and much of the chatter is boaters doing radio checks.


----------



## Tim R. (Mar 23, 2003)

Boasun said:


> And if you have two radios, you can do your own checks on board as long the checkes ARE NOT on ch 16.


Not a good idea. A radio check to a radio on board is rather useless other than to confirm that a transmission took place. It does not verify that your masthead antenna is working properly which is really what you are testing when doing a radio check.

I will usually do my check when I am so many miles away from the land station I am calling.

And calling your friend is probably the best check you can do because you can transmit on 16. Simply hail your friends boat that is at a known location(preferably a few miles away, line of sight). This verifies the distance and that your MH antenna is working properly. It also verifies that 16 is working properly.

You do not have to say "radio check" for it to be one! You simply have to establish 2-way communication.


----------



## lickingcardboard (Oct 21, 2010)

so if i want to check my radio; on ch 16 i hale another boat and ask that they go to ch?? and ask a question or two then say thanks and go back to 16, at that time i will know i have a good setup and no one on ch 16 is going to get mad.


----------



## Bilgewater (Jul 17, 2008)

That will work just fine but a better way is to always have a working channel you regularly use or monitor and do your buddy radio checks on that channel without the use of 16. Many if not most boaters have at least 2 radios, one monitoring/dual watching 16 and/or traffic channel and the other one scanning their favorites or switched to their favorite working channel. But I also agree with Boasun on the self radio check.


----------



## MikeWhy (Apr 22, 2011)

DRFerron said:


> ... considering the number of times I have heard the CG has come on the radio requesting that people do not use Channel 16 for radio checks, I doubt they'd agree with you.


That's it? Some very loose anecdotes and misguided personal "preferences" should amount to a clubbing with the education churl stick? Seatow, a commercial service, likewise berates with a "the pro's do it" phrasing on a sponsored website when they direct you to their automated services. Are you mistaking their on-air spamming for the law?

A CFR reference or Notice to Mariners would be nice, but I'm more than happy to comply on much less. It should be easy to find, but so far, I haven't found even one.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

MikeWhy said:


> A CFR reference or Notice to Mariners would be nice, but I'm more than happy to comply on much less. It should be easy to find, but so far, I haven't found even one.


I am a Recognized Examiner for the Restricted Operator's Certificate (Marine) in Canada.

We ask folks to use 83A for radio checks with CG. (Spectrum Management and Telecommunications - RBR-2 - Technical Requirements for the Operation of Mobile Stations in the Maritime Service)


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"What is it with all the radio checks? "

Just a matter of convention. A _paisley _radio is simply not as common as one might hope.

(Maestro, drum roll please!)

Hounds-tooth plaid perhaps?


----------



## sailpower (Jun 28, 2008)

10-4 Good buddy. Got your ears on? Comeback?

Different topic I know but it drives me nuts.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

US Rules



> It is illegal to use Channel 16 VHF-FM for radio checks. If requesting a radio check, use Channel 16 VHF-FM to hail the
> nearest Coast Guard Unit. Once the Coast Guard Unit acknowledges your hail, request Coast Guard Unit to switch and
> answer Channel 22A VHF-FM. Once Coast Guard Unit answers on Channel 22A VHF-FM, you may now request a radio
> check. The Coast Guard Unit will respond accordingly.
> ...


http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/lnms/D14 Special Notice 2011.pdf


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

seayalatermoonglow said:


> We get the same thing up here so I thought this was a good thread to post some information for west coast Canadian waters.
> West coast Canadian waters:
> - 16 is for emergencies or other station contact only.
> - Non emergency CG contact is done on 83a or 83 in the US mode.
> ...


A good summary

Winchelsea does monitor 10 and 16.

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/navy_images/marpac_images/home/notice.pdf

I would encourage folks to monitor vessel traffic services, specially at night or restricted visibility.


----------



## MikeWhy (Apr 22, 2011)

jackdale said:


> It is illegal to use Channel 16 VHF-FM for radio checks. If requesting a radio check, use Channel 16 VHF-FM to hail the nearest Coast Guard Unit. Once the Coast Guard Unit acknowledges your hail, request Coast Guard Unit to switch and answer Channel 22A VHF-FM.


That's even worse than I thought possible. Is anyone else similarly stunned by the apparent bureaucracy? Receiving a legible response already confirmed the function. Just the same, I'll print and laminate the document, and talk to the Coasties every morning. Absolutely wonderful.


----------



## Bilgewater (Jul 17, 2008)

Why would you do that? Now I'm confused.
16 is for emergencies, if everyone did what your proposing, how would we deal with emergencies. The regs are there to prevent this very thing. Please tell me I'm misreading your post.


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Mike, why the fixation on Ch 16? Ch 9 is the calling channel for both commercial and non-commercial traffic. You can also use Ch 68, 69, 71, and 72 for radio checks too. Over here in San Francisco Bay, all the channels I mentioned are heavily used and you will be sure to get a “check”. No need to clutter an emergency channel if you don’t have too.


----------



## MikeWhy (Apr 22, 2011)

Again, with the churl stick. *My* fixation? I don't have one. Take a look back at the OP. Everyone keeps radio watch on 16. When you call and don't get an answer, is it the dead air? Or is it that the radio isn't working? I'll keep in mind that about SFBay. I don't sail there, but who knows; I might some day.


----------



## Bilgewater (Jul 17, 2008)

MikeWhy said:


> Everyone keeps radio watch on 16. When you call and don't get an answer, is it the dead air? Or is it that the radio isn't working?


Yes, as a general rule everyone does watch 16. But *NOT* for radio checks but for distress transmissions, securite's and other radio communications directed toward them. So the answer to your question is likely "neither of the above and it is more likely that you are being ignored"...regular radio users are fully aware of the regs regarding radio checks and will not answer you on 16 in most cases. Any other working channel is whole other story.


----------



## MikeWhy (Apr 22, 2011)

I've gotten a reply every time, within seconds, each time.

I'm done with this.


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

I tend to agree with Mike and also resist the continuous reference to Ch 16 being an emergency channel.

It is a call channel to establish comms with another person/vessel and then one moves to another channel for conversation. That is how I have always understood it globally and I haven't seen it any other way.

It becomes an emergency channel when a distress is declared then it comes under the MAYDAY/SEELONCE protocol and from that point on it is dedicated to THAT emergency until released with a SEELONCE FINEE upon which it returns to being a call channel. I'm sure there will be a load of "experts" that disagree with that so let's hear it.

And while I'm here, a radio check is not to discover whether there is contact with another station, it is to discover *how good* your contact is, whether it is 5x5 (strength and clarity) and in my view is part of my safety checks. What does it help that you can hear other radios loud and clear but you come over all scratcy and barely readable?

As it happens in Auckland we log a trip report each time we sail and that serves as a radio check because Coast Guard will tell us if the radio reception is less than perfect. But if I didn't do that I would also do regular radio checks with a recognised authority, safe in the knowledge that I'm not talking to the fisherman on the boat next to me. Our lives may depend on good radio performance.

As always, just my opinion.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Great discussion and very happy to see the actual authoritative reference to not using Ch 16 for radio checks. Thanks.

The experience that caused me to post this was on the day of an airshow with a couple of hundred anchored boats. I couldn't know where the checks were coming from, but can say that the volume began and ended with the show schedule. A reasonable inference would be that these checks were being made at anchor at the show. For additional consideration, a radio check or acknowledgment that doesn't include your location is not terribly valuable, imho. 


There were also several "10-4"s and "comeback"s.....


----------



## marianclaire (Feb 4, 2010)

I have answered radio checks on 16 if for no other reason than to get them to stop calling. I give a "Load and clear one mile S of so and so". I have used the automated checks but there is no indication of the "checks" location. I could be 1 or 10 miles away. If I have a concern about my radio and do not have a buddy boat I hail Towboat US or the marina and follow them to their working channel. Dan S/V Marian Claire


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

*A *reason for the frequent and numerous radio checks is that a lot of people are in chartered, or Sailtime boats. That is, they are sailing boats that are not their own. These people are not intimately familiar with the equipment, or it's operational state. Therefore, they test the radio with a radio check.

They *should*, however, be preforming the checks on channel 9. The only problem with channel 9 is that people typically do not respond...

The SeaTow Radio check is a great idea, and I had used it on Ch 24 in Barrington, RI, (where I keep my boat) several times this spring when I was replacing much of my coax. However, when I have tried it recently, either my radio has completely crapped out, or the system has been turned off. It has been like this since June 1. Thus, I go to channel 9, where no one responds...


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

eherlihy said:


> They *should*, however, be preforming the checks on channel 9. The only problem with channel 9 is that people typically do not respond...


Nope - check this posting

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/general-discussion-sailing-related/75668-radio-check-2.html#post744629


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

eherlihy said:


> *A *reason for the frequent and numerous radio checks is that a lot of people are in chartered, or Sailtime boats. That is, they are sailing boats that are not their own. These people are not intimately familiar with the equipment, or it's operational state. Therefore, they test the radio with a radio check.


In Canada, at least, anyone using a VHF radio is required to be licensed. Part of that process is learning how to request a radio check.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

marianclaire said:


> I have used the automated checks but there is no indication of the "checks" location.


Really? All the SeaTow ones I have used announce their location in the announcement. Send SeaTow an e-mail - I bet they will update.


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

jackdale said:


> In Canada, at least, anyone using a VHF radio is required to be licensed. Part of that process is learning how to request a radio check.


So I guess all the radio checks we hear up there on 16... must all be from your southern neighbors? (that wouldn't surprise me at all)


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

jrd22 said:


> So I guess all the radio checks we hear up there on 16... must all be from your southern neighbors? (that wouldn't surprise me at all)


I wonder if anyone has 'stats' that have any idea of how many unlicensed users are out there... As jrd alludes to, some days we have to wonder if anyone that uses the radio frequently has had any instruction at all.

Sadly this sometimes involves serious life threatening situations....

It's been a while since I bought a VHF - but do the vendors ask to see a license?


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Settle down, Mike, remember, you were the one who is railing against the US Federal Regulation covering the use of marine band frequencies. The FCC and USCG are quite clear about not using Ch 16 for radio checks. Back in the day when we were required to have a 3rd class license and the boat a station license, we had to learn this stuff. I gave you a list of frequencies that you can use. Which, incidentally, will also work in Southern California, Chesapeake, New England, and the rest of the US. Now if you really want to use an inappropriate channel, you could go to 22A or 82A. I’m sure you will get a instantaneous response there.

IMHO, getting a radio check with the USCG isn’t a very good check. Why? They have very powerful transmitters and sensitive receivers using multiple antennas and repeaters that will pick you up when no else can. If it was me, I’d want to do a check with a fellow boater and find out his distance from me, clarity, etc. Again, what good is a radio check if the other guy is only a few hundred yards away from you? I am curious, how often have VHF radios gone bad on your boats? Is constant checking really necessary? Maintaining corrosion free antenna cable and connectors is probably the biggest maintenance item and that inspection is done visually. If you want to do an operator’s check for a charter boat, shouldn’t you be calling the charter base and getting it from them? Other than the batteries going dead in a hand held, the only radio “failure” I’ve had was when we had a low battery condition on the boat – Trust me, if you are seeing ten volts and below on your meter, that radio isn’t going to transmit very far.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

jrd22 said:


> So I guess all the radio checks we hear up there on 16... must all be from your southern neighbors? (that wouldn't surprise me at all)


We have our fair share of unaware Canucks.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

Faster said:


> I wonder if anyone has 'stats' that have any idea of how many unlicensed users are out there... As jrd alludes to, some days we have to wonder if anyone that uses the radio frequently has had any instruction at all.
> 
> Sadly this sometimes involves serious life threatening situations....
> 
> It's been a while since I bought a VHF - but do the vendors ask to see a license?


I bought a handheld a few years, no one asked.

I have heard some calls that clearly indicate a total lack of knowledge about VHF use. One started with "Help, help, help, Coast Guard, help." Turns out they got lost going from Friday Harbor to Anacortes. 
When Seattle asks if they had a GPS onboard, they response was "What's a GPS?"


----------



## MikeWhy (Apr 22, 2011)

As I've said, George, I'm more than happy to comply. But you'll (collectively) have to get off your high horse to turn this into a conversation.

So far, the authoritative references amount to this one single sentence in NTM 00/11: "It is illegal to use Channel 16 VHF-FM for radio checks." That's the entire text and reference. Depending on your point of view, it apparently reads like this one: "Water is wet." It lacks for me the obvious nature that it apparently has for you.

Here is a link to a certified and signed CFR Title 47, Part 80, the FCC regs governing radio use in the Maritime Service (in the US). I'll be darned if I can find regulations covering the use of 156.800 MHz, ch 16, in the specific and definite terms above.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2009-title47-vol5/pdf/CFR-2009-title47-vol5-part80.pdf.

The USCG likely has additional jurisdiction on spectrum use. Even so, I haven't found any more than what Jack posted.

Remember now, the question is under whose authority and why is it illegal, not whether it is, or whether it is even wise. (Although the NTM instructions quoted earlier amount to "insert head in ass and shout".)

As for the wisdom of a radio check, it's as ingrained a habit as checking that I have the keys in my hand before pulling the door shut. As a private pilot, since 1987, the radio check is part of the pre-flight checklist. You only need to watch a student pilot plug his headset in bass ackwards just once to understand that a radio check is much more than a mere formality. It doesn't have to be a hard equipment failure.

Anyway, aside from the obvious nature of water being wet, who knows where I can find the specific regulation prohibiting radio check on ch 16?


----------



## marianclaire (Feb 4, 2010)

? post 31. All I got was a recording of what I said. This was back a few months ago. I just went to the SeaTow page and looked at the automated radio check page. Will try them again when I get back to cruising. Thanks . Dan S/V Marian Claire


----------



## Frogwatch (Jan 22, 2011)

In many cases, I will continue to use Ch 16 for radio checks as a safety measure. Where I sail, there is very little VHF traffic so I was unaware this was a problem. With almost no traffic on Ch 16, the probability of someone listening on another channel is nil. The nearest Coast Guard station is probably beyond VHF range so forget calling them. One could call a marina (another specific station) and ask them for a radio check but often you do not know of a local marina.
Calling your own other VHF tells you almost nothing as you may get a signal but someone more than a mile away may not if your antenna is bad. You really do need to know if your VHF works if there is some chance it does not and it is a safety issue. This does not mean you need a radio check every time you go out but once a season seems reasonable. I'd rather be safe than legal.
OTOH, I was surprised in the Bahamas to hear marinas and bars advertising on Ch 16 VHF


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

MikeWhy said:


> Anyway, aside from the obvious nature of water being wet, who knows where I can find the specific regulation prohibiting radio check on ch 16?





> It is illegal to use Channel 16 VHF-FM for radio checks.


http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/lnms/D14 Special Notice 2011.pdf


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

> VHF Marine Channel 16 Designated for Emergency Calls - Section 80.369 of the FCC's Rules states that VHF
> Marine Channel 16 (156.800 MHz) is the international voice, distress, urgency, safety, call, and reply channel for ship,
> public, and private coast stations. The Coast Guard continually monitors Channel 16 and treats any distress call
> received as an emergency that should be immediately investigated. Prohibited Channel 16 communications include:
> ...


http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db0531/DA-11-970A1.pdf

Is this sufficient?


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

jackdale said:


> Is this sufficient?


Probably not. With all due respect to Mike, he had demonstrated that his mind is made up and not to be deterred by facts, including citations of US FCC and USCG rules.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

Check out

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2009-title47-vol5/pdf/CFR-2009-title47-vol5-part80.pdf


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

jackdale said:


> Is this sufficient?


I doubt anything will be sufficient.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

SVAuspicious said:


> Probably not. With all due respect to Mike, he had demonstrated that his mind is made up and not to be deterred by facts, including citations of US FCC and USCG rules.


Can we expect him in the Off-Topic forums next? 

On the other hand I was able to learn something about US spectrum management. Now I need to find the Canadian equivalents.


----------



## sawingknots (Feb 24, 2005)

i expect most of your concerns/gripes have a lot to do with being in a high traffic area,on the tennessee river [especially the upper end]even the local marina's use ch.16 for hailing,then switch imediately,i have often gone for days here and never even heard any radio traffic at all,one would play hell trying to raise someone on anything but ch.16 and usually not even then,the lock operators can be hailed on ch.14 [sometimes] up and down the tentom the tows/tugs use ch.16 exclusively for all comunications,apparently the c.g. or fcc etc don't have a problem with it,i think rules and reg. are often bent in order to be practical,when on the coast i monitor ch.16 24/7 but here i seldom even turn my radio on


----------



## MikeWhy (Apr 22, 2011)

Y'all will just have to understand, that this is as strange a conversation as, "What do you mean I'm tying my shoes wrong? I've been doing it that way since forever." "No, really. It says here the CG can impound your shoelaces if you keep doing that." It'll take a bit more time for the strangeness to rub off.


----------



## paulk (Jun 2, 2000)

It's a little like the Police department putting up a new Stop sign. There never was one there before, and you didn't notice how much traffic the new subdivision brings into the intersection, which made them put it in. Changes take some getting used to. Maybe you blow through the new sign the first time. Hopefully you don't get a ticket. Or you could wear loafers.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

MikeWhy said:


> That's it? Some very loose anecdotes and misguided personal "preferences" should amount to a clubbing with the education churl stick? Seatow, a commercial service, likewise berates with a "the pro's do it" phrasing on a sponsored website when they direct you to their automated services. Are you mistaking their on-air spamming for the law?
> 
> A CFR reference or Notice to Mariners would be nice, but I'm more than happy to comply on much less. It should be easy to find, but so far, I haven't found even one.


It is folks like you who clutter up 16 that cause so many folks to simply turn off the radio. This in-turn creates more of a safety hazard. Just because you were "taught" it does not mean it is correct. It is not only wrong but also actually ILLEGAL.

_Hey my daddy is Andrew Dice Clay and I was taught to stick my finger in the arse of the lady in front of me in the bank teller line. What you say? That's wrong....???? But......I was taught........._

And here is exact wording from the USCG:

*"It is illegal to use Channel 16 VHF-FM for radio checks.*_ If requesting a radio check, use Channel 16 VHF-FM to hail the nearest Coast Guard Unit. Once the Coast Guard Unit acknowledges your hail, request Coast Guard Unit to switch and answer Channel 22A VHF-FM. Once Coast Guard Unit answers on Channel 22A VHF-FM, you may now request a radio check. The Coast Guard Unit will respond accordingly."_

There are plenty of populated working channels from which to get a radio check in most all areas but some VERY remote areas but PLEASE stay off 16 for radio checks. Those of us following the COLREGS and monitoring 16 for safety get darn sick and tired of all the USELESS chatter on 16 of which 95% of it is usually completely necessary.

I know many a boater who have turned off the VHF. This is a dangerous trend caused by selfish and uneducated boaters. I sure hope some of the ones who caused this problem never need help from a boat that may be close by but turned off the radio due to useless chatter. We try VERY hard to monitor 16, and do our part, but every now and then we simply can't take all the nuisance chatter and choose the OFF function.

Please do your part to keep nonsense chatter like radio checks off of 16..


----------



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

Haha..... I am just the opposite. I hate to talk on VHF. So many bitchy hall monitors on the airway. I don't want to give them an opportunity to show everyone on the airway how much they know. I only switch on when I am far away from shore. There is nothing I need from vhf that I can't find on the boat or on Internet or cell phone. 

At night, I monitor channel 13, just in case I am in the wrong place. But those working captains are nice and patient. They never talk down to you. They don't need to step on your toe to elevate themselves. They always have my cooperation since I am just leisurely passing thru. No rush

Have not killed anyone and kill myself yet, so far so good.


----------



## MikeWhy (Apr 22, 2011)

And then, there's the moral high ground approach, without which threads in any public forum would be much less interesting and exciting.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

rockDAWG said:


> Haha..... I am just the opposite. I hate to talk on VHF. So many bitchy hall monitors on the airway. I don't want to give them an opportunity to show everyone on the airway how much they know. I only switch on when I am far away from shore. There is nothing I need from vhf that I can't find on the boat or on Internet or cell phone.
> 
> At night, I monitor channel 13, just in case I am in the wrong place. But those working captains are nice and patient. They never talk down to you. They don't need to step on your toe to elevate themselves. They always have my cooperation since I am just leisurely passing thru. No rush
> 
> Have not killed anyone and kill myself yet, so far so good.


My practice is to monitor 13 and 16 on dual-watch VHF radios. I have been known to drop back to 13 only when the weekend-warriors become overwhelming on 16.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

Is a DSC test call (all digital, no voice) sufficient, or is voice contact needed to confirm proper functioning of the radio?


----------



## JordanH (Dec 13, 2008)

jackdale said:


> I bought a handheld a few years, no one asked.


I'm sure you already know that it's because we don't need a ROC-M to purchase, own or fit a VHF to our vessels. Therefore, there is no one counting the stats.

Also, with regards to your anecdote, you are not required to have a ROC-M if you are using a VHF in a distress situation; albeit theirs was more of an Urgency situation than one of distress.

I was going to look up this info before posting my opinion but I believe the ROC-M course material states that you are permitted to perform the radio check on CH16 here in Canada, although it is suggested if you perform the radio check with the Coast Guard that you use one of their working channels. Unfortunately, I can't verify this as my book is on the boat and my wife's book has been leant to a friend.

Logically speaking, a radio check should be requested on CH16 if you are not requesting one from the Coast Guard as that's the calling channel and that's where anyone monitoring will be (should be). The radio check should be a simple numeric response without the need to switch to a subsequent channel. (Obviously, this is outside the USA given their rules.) For example, if a foreign ship has been sailing for weeks on the ocean and pops in to Canadian waters and they wish to verify their radio is working before they make landfall they would *need* to call on CH16 to request a radio check from another boater as they don't have "friends" in the area with pre-arranged channels etc.


----------



## MikeWhy (Apr 22, 2011)

The DSC check won't confirm that the handset, mic, and audio chain are functional. However, you can be reasonably certain your location and nature of the call will be transmitted when the need arises.


----------



## JordanH (Dec 13, 2008)

RhythmDoctor said:


> Is a DSC test call (all digital, no voice) sufficient, or is voice contact needed to confirm proper functioning of the radio?


A radio check is usually in the form of requesting a radio check and then the responder will give you a number which corresponds to how they received you.
1. Bad (Unreadable)
2. Poor (Readable now and then)
3. Fair(Readable with great difficulty)
4. Good (Readable with minor difficulty)
5. Excellent (Perfectly readable)

So, if you use DSC to establish a call, you should then speak with them so that you can find out how readable you are. Otherwise, don't waste your time.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

rockDAWG said:


> There is nothing I need from vhf that I can't find on the boat or on Internet or cell phone.


Maybe not that YOU need but what about a boater in distress. Last weekend there was a USCG distress call where a young boy was alone on a boat where his father had fallen off. What if it was you who was within a 1/8 mile of that and you never heard it and the guy drowned because you did not "need" anything from the VHF?

During those broadcasts from the USCG Rockland, ME station we counted no less than five interruptions on 16. Every one completely and 100% unnecessary. The best one was _"fish are hitten' hahd yee f'in haw'_.... Not a single one was a hail to the USCG, another boat or a distress call.



rockDAWG said:


> Have not killed anyone and kill myself yet, so far so good.


How do you know you've not killed anyone or at least potentially not "saved" anyone?

My good friend Ken actually saved a life off the Hampton River in NH when a small skiff flipped with two men aboard. This was only due to monitoring VHF 16 while they were fishing a mile or two away. Sadly they lost one guy but at least it was not both.....

Here's a quick blurb from Ken's ordeal:

*"Coast Guard Operations Unit Controller Chris Berry said by the time the Coast Guard responded to the incident, the first victim had been pulled from the ocean by a nearby boater."*

The ONLY reason that "nearby boater" was there was because of VHF 16 which Ken monitors religiously and now even more so.!! He thankfully puts up with the chatter....

Monitoring VHF 16, and having the common decency to keep it clean and free of useless chatter and radio checks, is not a moral high ground issue. VHF radio checks on 16 in the US are illegal so it is a legal issue.

Useless chatter then can cause potential safety issues when boaters turn off the VHF because they get sick and tired of listening to the BS. I bet the guy who is alive today is glad my buddy did not turn his off.....


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

JordanH said:


> I was going to look up this info before posting my opinion but I believe the ROC-M course material states that you are permitted to perform the radio check on CH16 here in Canada, although it is suggested if you perform the radio check with the Coast Guard that you use one of their working channels. Unfortunately, I can't verify this as my book is on the boat and my wife's book has been leant to a friend.





> 4.15 Signal (or Radio) Checks
> 
> When your radio station requires a signal (or radio) check, follow this procedure:
> 
> ...


Spectrum Management and Telecommunications - RIC-22 - General Radiotelephone Operating Procedures

If calling another station on 16, go to a working channel for the message.

If talking to the CG, use 83A to make contact in the Gulf islands. You need to check Radio Aids to Marine Navigation (Radio Aids to Marine Navigation 2011 - Canadian Coast Guard) to determine what stations the CG in that area is monitoring.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

MikeWhy said:


> .......As a private pilot, since 1987, the radio check is part of the pre-flight checklist. You only need to watch a student pilot plug his headset in bass ackwards just once to understand that a radio check is much more than a mere formality. It doesn't have to be a hard equipment failure.....


Mike, no moral high ground here. I think most just can't understand why you push back against a very clear law.

For that matter, you've pushed the limits with the aviation analogy. A general aviation dual plug headset can not physically be connected backwards. You can put the small plug in the big hole, although, it won't stay. You can't get the big plug in the small hole.

If you are at a controlled airport, your ground clearance will tell you that the radio is working, you don't do a radio check on the pre-flight. If an uncontrolled airport, there is often no one to call from the ground nor is a radio even required.

It seems you are trying to oversell your point.


----------



## MikeWhy (Apr 22, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> Mike, no moral high ground here. I think most just can't understand why you push back against a very clear law.
> 
> For that matter, you've pushed the limits with the aviation analogy. A general aviation dual plug headset can not physically be connected backwards. You can put the small plug in the big hole, although, it won't stay. You can't get the big plug in the small hole.
> 
> ...


What point am I selling? My contribution to the thread started: "What's the problem with an all-vessel call for a radio check on 16? It's what I was taught, and what I've ...", and stayed there, asking for clarification on the "very clear law". Which as it turned out, took 40 more posts to find the FCC Enforcement Notice to find the prohibition of "general calls".

Contrast that with the high handed "look at all the fooking idiots" rant you started. I wrote that last specifically in response to MaineSail's destruction-of-all-humanity rant, but you may wear it if you feel it fits. I didn't intend it so. Where I was concerned, it was already a done thread at that point. I had learned something, and others did as well.

I'll refrain from commenting on your incomplete primary flight instruction. I will point out, since this part is on topic, I have never once received other than a prompt, courteous response any time I've asked for a radio check, either on the ground or in flight before leaving the pattern. There's none of this "go suck an egg" attitude that's being voiced here.

Since you seem to insist on a clarification beyond what I've already written, I'm still dissatisfied with where it stands with regards legality. I understand the need to keep the channel available for emergency use. At the same time, given the unstated or even grossly over-stated emphasis on safety, a short simple "is this thing on" check seems more than rational and reasonable. You'll notice that this is as far as I'm willing to go with the end-of-the-world BS, and did not go further and threaten to come back and haunt those who couldn't spare 10 seconds of precious emergency spectrum to confirm my radio worked before I set out to sea. Nope. I wouldn't dream of overstating or over selling anything here. It would show disrespect and contempt.


----------



## JordanH (Dec 13, 2008)

jackdale said:


> Spectrum Management and Telecommunications - RIC-22 - General Radiotelephone Operating Procedures
> 
> If calling another station on 16, go to a working channel for the message.


I may stand corrected. Although the RIC-22 is aimed at general radio procedures and doesn't take the calling and working stations into account.

Also, they may be interpreted slightly differently, although I do believe you are correct.
The difference in interpretation is because they give the instruction to call AND request a signal check as part of one step. They do not say to call, THEN request the signal check on the working station. Again, this is due to RIC-22 being general radio procedure and not considering calling & working stations as being separate. Once again, you are likely correct with the call on 16 then move to the working frequency for the check.

Once again, I'll take a look at my ROC-M booklet when I get the chance and see what verbiage the CPS suggests.

I'm willing to be incorrect on this one but I don't see how requesting the check on CH.16 and moving to a working frequency will be any less annoying or reduce the clutter; Only lead to less radio checks being completed and more duplicate requests on CH.16.


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

So one guy says:

Coast Guard Radio, Coast Guard Radio, Coast Guard Radio this is GMW1354, Tiddlywinks, do you copy? Coast Radio says "This is Coast Guard Radio go ahead please". The guy says "Go channel 13". Coast Guard Radio says "Going down"

Another guy says 

"Coast Guard Radio, Coast Guard Radio, Coast Guard Radio, this is GMW1354, Tiddlywinks, Radio check. Coast Guard radio says "Recieving you 5X5, Coast Guard clear".

Just for interest - which paragraph above is longer (no prizes)?

And instead of changing channels, doing the radio check on channel 13 and then changing channels back up, Coast Guard Radio will hear a Mayday coming through on the channel he's on (Ch16).


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

MikeWhy said:


> .......I'll refrain from commenting on your incomplete primary flight instruction.....


Looking back to your first post, you are selling the idea that radio checks should continue on Ch16. You said, "It's hardly worth debating. You need positive confirmation the transmit function is working. You need to know transmit is working on 16 before you leave your slip." I've not poked you in the eye for anything other than misstatements of fact that other members here may not realize you misstated.

You can't plug a general aviation headset in backwards as you claimed in an analogy trying to support your point.

It is clear that you are not supposed to do radio checks on Ch16, despite your claim that you were trained to do so. Discussion over whether that rule makes sense is appropriate, but you challenged whether there was any authoritative prohibition at all.

As far as poking me in the eye over my primary flight training, that made me chuckle. You have no idea who you are talking to. Your initial post said you did the check during pre-flight, now you're checking before exiting the pattern. Stick to the Ch16 discussion. I highly doubt you have my life experience in the cockpit.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming. While I certainly can't know, it seems highly likely that the radio checks were coming from boats that were already at the show, not checking before they left their marina or the heaviest volume would have been in advance of the mass arrival, not throughout the show. I think there is more to this phenomenon than a safety procedure. I believe, as I intended to imply, that most are just playing with their radio. I think one should practice using the radio, as many are afraid of it. I only suggest they do it correctly and hail the USCG or their marina or hail a friend or passing boat, then switch off Ch16. The radio check is not the way to do it, and specifically prohibited on Ch16.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

MikeWhy said:


> I wrote that last specifically in response to MaineSail's destruction-of-all-humanity rant,


Destruction of all humanity? Interesting take on the safety concerns when annoyed boaters begin switching off the VHF because they are sick and tired of listening to folks use it inappropriately all day long.



MikeWhy said:


> I understand the need to keep the channel available for emergency use. At the same time, given the unstated or even grossly over-stated emphasis on safety, a short simple "is this thing on" check seems more than rational and reasonable.


Now multiply your own "short & simple 10 seconds" by all the boaters out there requesting a radio check on VHF 16. With this compounding it gets very tough to follow the law and monitor 16, as you are required to do by law, if equipped with a VHF radio. Many boaters have simply turned off the VHF and whether you see it as a safety issue or not it is. This needless chatter has caused many boaters to also break the law. VHF 16 radio checking is illegal and has helped cause more law breaking by folks who just can't take the clutter any longer....

Our local CG does chastise folks for radio checks on 16 but they still happen quite often.

When you have someone you know who is deeply impacted by an event such as my buddy then maybe you'll see just how important VHF 16 can be. But like a drunk driving accident, the "won't happen to me" attitude seems to run rampant. The guy who is alive today is darn lucky no one in the near vicinity was requesting a radio check or other nuisance chatter and stomping on the transmission he heard of the overturned boat off the Hampton River.

When they arrived on the scene they saw BOTH passengers in the water. They scooped the first guy during these few seconds while the other guy he disappeared below the surface and drowned. Seconds counted in this situation and the USCG and local rescue were way to far away to have made any difference other than scooping two dead bodies out of the water. Illegal nuisance traffic could have meant the death of one more person.

*Watchkeeping Rule For VHF*
*"Any vessel equipped with a VHF marine radiotelephone (whether voluntarily or required to) must maintain a watch on channel 16 (156.800 MHz) whenever the radiotelephone is not being used to communicate."*



MikeWhy said:


> You'll notice that this is as far as I'm willing to go with the end-of-the-world BS, and did not go further and threaten to come back and haunt those who couldn't spare 10 seconds of precious emergency spectrum to confirm my radio worked before I set out to sea. Nope. I wouldn't dream of overstating or over selling anything here. It would show disrespect and contempt.


End of the world BS? Try telling that to the family of the deceased or the guy who survived. Remember it is not just your 10 seconds it is yours + everyone else who insist that their 10 seconds can't possibly be a problem. The constant radio checking and illegal use of 16 that clutter it up have caused many boaters to break the law, and turn off the VHF. I do feel this is a disturbing trend especially when we sail on a rather desolate coast with lots of fog and other dangers.

I think your attitude towards this does show disrespect & contempt to the boating community trying to do their part and follow the law by monitoring VHF 16.


----------



## capecodda (Oct 6, 2009)

Maine Sail has this right. Minnewaska's experiences are similar to my own.

With the 4th of July weekend coming, I expect channel 16 to be so loaded up with radio checks and mindless chatter that it will be hard to do what's right and keep the radio on. On Cape Cod, its worse than in Maine, where fog and rocks seem to increase the average boating competence level.

Keeping 16 clear seems like such a small ask.


----------



## cb32863 (Oct 5, 2009)

Is the horse dead yet?


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

cb32863 said:


> Is the horse dead yet?


Nope. Been listening for the last hour to an event that was using both 16 and 22A (lots of responders) to a boat taking on water and sinking in the middle Chesapeake Bay. In the middle of the event some mental giant comes up on 16 for a radio check.

Unfortunately I wasn't surprised.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

Omatako said:


> And instead of changing channels, doing the radio check on channel 13 and then changing channels back up, Coast Guard Radio will hear a Mayday coming through on the channel he's on (Ch16).


The CG has radios tuned into 16 *plus* all of the other channels that they monitor. I have been in the Marine Communication and Traffic Service station in Sidney BC (Coast Guard Radio Victoria).

Around the Gulf Islands I go straight to 83A for a radio check. If you try doing a check on 16 the CG will send you to 83A.


----------



## sailpower (Jun 28, 2008)

jackdale said:


> If you try doing a check on 16 the CG send you to 83A.


If the CG responds on 16 and tells you to go to 83A didn't they just give you a radio check?


----------



## JordanH (Dec 13, 2008)

sailpower said:


> If the CG responds on 16 and tells you to go to 83A didn't they just give you a radio check?


As above, a radio check is a response including the readability of your signal. Telling you to go to 83A does not give you that information; They may have heard you but it wasn't very readable, or they may have heard you and it was crystal clear. You won't know unless you go to 83A to find out... after all, you *did* want a radio check, didn't you?

So far, I've not read any points that support the radio check on CH.16 and found no links suggesting it. Other than Omatako and I suggesting that it may be more efficient to do so, there's not any evidence that you should do so.

I wonder what if the ITU rules explicitly forbid this...


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

jackdale said:


> Nope - check this posting
> 
> http://www.sailnet.com/forums/general-discussion-sailing-related/75668-radio-check-2.html#post744629


Sorry, but I can see nothing there prohibiting Radio checks on channel 9...

again quoting the USCG manual;


> UNDERSTAND AND FOLLOW THESE PROCEDURES AT ALL TIMES:
> *Channel 16 VHF-FM may ONLY be used for initial calls and Distress.* Keep all calls as short as possible.
> 
> *It is illegal to use Channel 16 VHF-FM for radio checks.* If requesting a radio check, use Channel 16 VHF-FM to hail the nearest Coast Guard Unit. Once the Coast Guard Unit acknowledges your hail, request Coast Guard Unit to switch and answer Channel 22A VHF-FM. Once Coast Guard Unit answers on Channel 22A VHF-FM, you may now request a radio check. The Coast Guard Unit will respond accordingly.
> ...


(Someone better tell those fishermen that I have heard discussing the weather, politics, their wives, healthcare, plans for next weekend on Channel 78 to knock it off...)

No mention is made about any other channel. I would argue that even the hail with the intention of requesting that the CG switch to another channel to preform a radio check is a waste of the CG's time.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

eherlihy said:


> Sorry, but I can see nothing there prohibiting Radio checks on channel 9...


You can do this. But who monitors 9 other than those using the tri-watch mode on their radio?


----------



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

Maine Sail said:


> Maybe not that YOU need but what about a boater in distress. Last weekend there was a USCG distress call where a young boy was alone on a boat where his father had fallen off. What if it was you who was within a 1/8 mile of that and you never heard it and the guy drowned because you did not "need" anything from the VHF?
> 
> During those broadcasts from the USCG Rockland, ME station we counted no less than five interruptions on 16. Every one completely and 100% unnecessary. The best one was _"fish are hitten' hahd yee f'in haw'_.... Not a single one was a hail to the USCG, another boat or a distress call.


I hear what you are say and I agree with you. But in Chesapeake Bay especially near Annapolis, there are so many boats. It is unlikely anyone will need my assistance. At night or during the storm, when not many boats, I tend to set to Channel 16.



> How do you know you've not killed anyone or at least potentially not "saved" anyone?


I read and watch the News, it is unlikely I will miss that.


----------



## OtterGreen (May 10, 2011)

here in NJ,way too many people check on 16. the CG reminds boaters that radio checks can be done on ch9, the only ones that really do radio checks in ch16 are commercial vessels. I always use 9.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

OtterGreen said:


> here in NJ,way too many people check on 16. the CG reminds boaters that radio checks can be done on ch9, the only ones that really do radio checks in ch16 are commercial vessels. I always use 9.


A point that often gets missed with radio checking by using the USCG is that their antenna system can probably hear a gnats hair drop from a hundred miles and their TX is so powerful that even with a poorly performing system your radio check will probably come back good when other boaters not that far away may have never heard your call.

On thing I don't hear a lot of people do is state their location when requesting a check. I have heard boat names I know respond to another boat I also know and they are a hundred yards apart. I find it polite when responding to state your current position and then rate the transmission so the person requesting a check has a sense of their systems actual performance over a distance..


----------



## MikeWhy (Apr 22, 2011)

Minnewska, allow me to retract my earlier, then. This *is* about high handed smack downs, and you fancy yourself the champion of right and justice and caller of ********. Very well...

In an aviation forum, I would have written it different. For this audience, three or four words -- "plugged in bass ackwards" -- would have to suffice. For the GA audience, then: "I learned something from this. [06C] The headset jacks in the DA40 are on the sides of the center console, not the easiest to see in the best of circumstances, and positively buried under your unzipped parka in cooler weather. Plugging in then is a matter of feel and familiarity. We were in a bit of a hurry ... (intro flight; clouds and weather front inbound and a couple of hours out; we could complete the flight easily if we didn't dally.) I left him to plug in and get settled while I completed the preflight. The long and short is, he helpfully tried to plug in my headset as well, managed to plug in the intercom, but left the radio plug dangling. I keyed up a couple more times, and stared stupidly through the smoked glass while they continued to ignore my calls."

Figure it out from there; I normally charge for my wordiness. It is on point, not a contrived analogy, and the points of fact are these. Marine radios also have handsets that can be disconnected, damaged, or made otherwise inoperable. More to the point, signal checks on aviation working frequencies don't carry a threat of smug smackdowns from idle yahoos sitting around chugging their sundowners at 1:00 PM.

And since you're unclear on the concept, the following is an analogy, so you may better distinguish them in the future:

At some late point in a long lifetime of learning through trial and error to train the family dogs, I eventually came to realize that the word "No!" doesn't mean to them what I wished it to mean. On the other hand, simple, positive, actionable commands such as "Heel", "Sit", or "Fetch" bring eager compliance. Likewise, the language in the Notice to Mariners and FCC Enforcement Notice serve only to empower the self-appointed keepers of the airwaves without prescribing a clear, usable, and reasonable alternative.

Anything else?

To MaineSail: you can't have both in a rant. It's either a significant percentage of 600 radio checks each hour every hour, or "a foggy desolate coast". Pick one, and only one. They contradict.


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Mike, O.K. I get it, you do a radio check every time you leave the dock/weigh anchor. You even persist in using ch16 for your checks. How often do you make radio checks each year (on average) once, twice? Five, ten times? A hundred times? One last question, what is the brand and model of the VHF radio on your boat? I await your answers (and please keep the infantile vitriol at a minimum).


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Maine-
"A point totally missed with radio checking by using the USCG is that their antenna system can probably hear a gnats hair drop from a hundred miles and their TX is so powerful that"
That's not the impression they've given me. A plain whip on the roof, coax to get it down below, and their transmitter is limited to the same FCC power limits as the one on your boat.
AFAIK a USCG marine VHF station is *not* anything special. Or have you seen otherwise?


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

The difference isn’t in the raw power transmitted as VHF is limited to line of sight. It is the multiple repeater stations that spread the coverage around that makes the USCG system so much better than our radios. So, when you are communicating to CG Group 11 Treasure Island, you may in fact, be doing it through an antenna on Sutro, Marin Headlands, or any number of other antennas. On the receiving end, they have much better antennas, amplifiers, and receivers then we will ever hope to have. I have been in the Gulf of the Farallones and have clearly heard CG Group Monterey over a hundred miles away, albeit they have a repeater on the San Mateo coast.


----------



## VetMike (Mar 5, 2011)

I am working on my technician grade ham license. I know that the rules are somewhat different but I would think that FCC Part 97 would apply here as Marine VHF is technically part of the amateur band. Part 97 says radio checks are allowed but will consist only of your call sign and that 16 is to be used solely for establishing contact. Then you shift to another channel.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

This is like pulling against a dog on a rag. The dog likes it.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

VetMike said:


> I know that the rules are somewhat different but I would think that FCC Part 97 would apply here as Marine VHF is technically part of the amateur band.


Hi Mike. Part 97 does not apply, and the marine VHF frequencies are not part of the amateur band. There are lots of things in VHF including ham, marine, aviation, public safety, business, and others. All are independent of one another.

73 es sail fast, dave KO4MI


----------



## VetMike (Mar 5, 2011)

Thanks for the correction. Guess I need to re-study that chapter! But that does not negate the fact that 16 is supposed to used for distress calls and for calls to establish communications. At least that is my understanding.


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

hellosailor said:


> AFAIK a USCG marine VHF station is *not* anything special. Or have you seen otherwise?


I know I have not seen otherwise. When doing CG Aux patrols on the upper Chesapeake we could not always communicate with Sector Baltimore. We would have our radio comms relayed through a radio facility on the Western Shore.

After the Rescue 21 system was installed it got better.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

hellosailor said:


> AFAIK a USCG marine VHF station is *not* anything special. Or have you seen otherwise?


Canadian MCTS (Coast Guard Radio) uses communications sites (repeaters), often on mountain tops.

http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/folios/00026/docs/2011_RAMN_Pacific_Part_2-eng.pdf


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

" but I would think that FCC Part 97 would apply here as Marine VHF is technically part of the amateur band. "
No, Mike, marine VHF is not part of the amateur bands. Look at any of the band plan charts, there are many frequencies slotted in between different users, some shared, others not. Marine VHF is a service that operates under separate rules, not Part97, even if it is *close* to two-meter ham. A two-meter ham radio will not operate on the marine frequencies as it comes out of the box, it would need additional certification to offer them.
A licensed ham may choose to modify a two-meter radio...but that's a whole other kettle of fish.


----------



## gnrice (Jul 5, 2000)

Wow... Nine pages over radio checks? And I thought anchoring threads were silly. But the whole s**tfight makes me wonder about something.

We do one radio check a year, when we first get the boat in the water. The only reason we might do another is if we're trying to reach someone (Ch. 09 is the mosst commonly used hailing channel here and your WILL get several replies to your radio check on 09) and that person doesn't answer, or if we've been working on the radio. 

Considering all that, am I putting myself in grave danger not doing a radio check every time we leave the mooring or weigh anchor? Playing with fire for not doing a daily radio check? A tragedy waiting to happen because I didn't verify the radio's functionality before I cast off? Should we be doing them every hour or two like some people? 

Can't believe I have survived this long without having done a twice-daily radio check!


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

gnrice said:


> Can't believe I have survived this long without having done a twice-daily radio check!


I have never done a radio check. We keep on board two hand helds and one fixed. Murphy can't be that much of a bast***. I make sure that both hand helds are fully charged before leaving the slip.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

yep .. nine pages when the whole thing had been done and dusted in the first four posts.






oh yes and DRFerron ... oh yes he is ...


----------



## PaulinVictoria (Aug 23, 2009)

I never did a radio check after fitting a new radio. Should I do it on Ch16?


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

PaulinVictoria said:


> I never did a radio check after fitting a new radio. Should I do it on Ch16?


No - 83A :hothead


----------



## PaulinVictoria (Aug 23, 2009)

Hehe


----------



## sailjunkie (Nov 4, 2009)

jackdale said:


> No - 83A :hothead


You're quite right, Jack.

Hate to say this, but Cdn Power & Sail squadron used to encourage a lot of people to ask for a radio check on Ch. 16. They used to suggest that one hail Coast Guard Radio on 16 and ask for a radio check. CG Radio would respond by asking you to move to a working channel like Ch.22. The thinking was that you would know that you have at least 2 working channels.

After chatting with some CG buddies, I can say that the CG *strongly *discourages that practice. Instead, they suggest contacting them directly on 83 Alpha or 22 Alpha.

The one common theme, however, is that people who need to check radios, contact the CG directly, instead of making a general broadcast.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

VetMike said:


> Thanks for the correction. Guess I need to re-study that chapter! But that does not negate the fact that 16 is supposed to used for distress calls and for calls to establish communications. At least that is my understanding.


And your understanding is exactly correct.


----------



## JordanH (Dec 13, 2008)

sailjunkie said:


> Hate to say this, but Cdn Power & Sail squadron used to encourage a lot of people to ask for a radio check on Ch. 16. They used to suggest that one hail Coast Guard Radio on 16 and ask for a radio check. CG Radio would respond by asking you to move to a working channel like Ch.22. The thinking was that you would know that you have at least 2 working channels.


This is exactly what I recall from my CPS course. 
Now I've learned something new.


----------

