# USCG radio procedures



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

I would like to get your opinions about how the CG broadcasts distress call information. Whenever we hear the local CG (Port Angeles, Victoria, or Seattle) broadcasting a Mayday or Pan Pan message we turn the radio up and listen carefully so that we can assist if we are in the area. The problem for us is that after giving a lot of information they only give the location once and quite often we either don't understand it or we don't recognize the name of the location(Doe Cove, Black Bay, etc). If they give the Lat/Long then it is no problem, but this seems to be only about 20% of the calls. The problem is not that we are not familiar with this area, we have been boating here for a long time (30+ years) and probably have more local knowledge than 90% of boaters. We think it would be a good idea for the CG to repeat the location twice and give some sort of reference to the closest well known landmark eg. "in the vicinity of Buckeye Shoal, which is approximately two nautical miles west of the North end of Cypress Island". An immediate broadcast should be made with whatever information they have, but then as soon as possible we would like to hear a followup broadcast with better location info. In the cold water we have here people have a survival window of about 30 minutes, so it's extremely important to get assistance as quickly as possible.


----------



## btrayfors (Aug 25, 2006)

John,

You are absolutely right. I monitor Channel 16 most days and nights, and have been frustrated for years over the problems you cite.

Somehow, those in the upper echelons of the Coast Guard simply don't understand the problem, don't care about it, or don't know what to do about it.

The watchstanders do their best, but they are NOT being given adequate instruction and training about how to speak slowly and clearly, and repeat critical information (like position). I'm a native to the Chesapeake region, have sailed here for many decades. But, with 5,000 miles of shoreline, there are a lot of place names which I still don't recognize. This past Memorial Day weekend the USCG in Baltimore and in Hampton Roads broadcast several PAN PAN alerts for vessels in some sort of distress, but some of these were absolutely unintelligible in terms of position. Even when they repeated the broadcast a hour or so later, it wasn't possible to get the position.

Adding to the confusion is the fact that many watchstanders are young and are not native to the region. Thus they often cite landmarks which are ambiguous or plain misleading to those who know the area.

Any COASTIES reading this???? Listen up. You simply have to do better with the urgent broadcast info. It could help to save some more lives.

Bill


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

Hi Bill, my wife Laurie has emailed the CG about this and got a non- answer response stating regulations and established radio procedures without addressing the issue. I fully understand the need to immediately broadcast whatever location info. they have in the hope that someone is close by and can lend assistance, but what about someone that is close by and doesn't understand the location info. or isn't familiar with local names? If enough people contact the CG about this we might be able to get some needed changes made. Maybe they do not realize how many people like you (and us) are out there ready and willing to help? John


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Call the station in question and ask to speak to the Commanding Officer, I'm pretty sure you'll get immediate results. If not, call the District Headquarters CO. It's a matter of working your way up the chain of command until you get results. Or you can call back on the radio and make them clarify the info. Eventually someone will get the message and broadcast properly in the first place.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Don't be afraid of these guys...make them do their job and do it right. Just like Cops, we pay them to take care of us. (As expected)I did my job and did it well, hence 20 years Good Conduct award.


----------



## Goodnewsboy (Nov 4, 2006)

If you don't copy vital info first time out, why not tell the CG operator that you may be in position to assist and request that they say again the position (or whatever)?


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

I stay off ch. 16 during an emergency(as required) so I don't tie up the channel asking questions. If there is a long pause with no replies I will sometimes ask for a repeat of the location, but usually I stand by and wait for a repeat. I would guess that the last thing the CG wants is a bunch of people jumping on the channel potentially blocking someone that is in the immediate vicinity from getting through to them. That's the whole point of wanting them to change the procedure so that you don't have to call and ask, if they announced the position twice and then as soon as possible give a reference to a well known position it would eliminate the confusion and possibly get assistance to the emergency quicker(in time).


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

jrd22 said:


> I stay off ch. 16 during an emergency(as required) so I don't tie up the channel asking questions. If there is a long pause with no replies I will sometimes ask for a repeat of the location, but usually I stand by and wait for a repeat. I would guess that the last thing the CG wants is a bunch of people jumping on the channel potentially blocking someone that is in the immediate vicinity from getting through to them. That's the whole point of wanting them to change the procedure so that you don't have to call and ask, if they announced the position twice and then as soon as possible give a reference to a well known position it would eliminate the confusion and possibly get assistance to the emergency quicker(in time).


SOP is to get the CG on 16 and ask to imediately go to a side channel, then ask for clarification and let them know if they said it twice and slower, you wouldn't have to call them back


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

JRD...I tried posting on this yesterday but for some reason it did not appear. Anyway...I think you have raised a really good issue and one which is NATIONAL in scope and not simply local. I took the liberty of writing over on the BoatUS forums to the admin to see if they might help getting senior Coast Guard officers to consider this issue and perhaps open a dialog about what is needed. Aside from the need to repeat and provide reference points and lat/longs we also need to get them to slow down and stop mumbling.

*If anyone else believes this is an issue...pls. confirm right here with a post so that BoatUS and the CG may see that this is more than just a couple of whiners...and we might actually save some lives and boats! *


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

It is absolutely an issue, and not just a recent one either. One of it's common manifestations is the shift and answer routine. The CG broadcasts, concluding that one should "shift and answer, Channel 22Alpha, out." If you have poor reception or couldn't hear quite well enough, you do not know where to go.
"One mile east of Wolf's Point" means nothing to a foreign ship, or a sailboat far from it's normal cruising grounds. The CG is actually tending towards using the 'CB' lingo they, and the FCC, so deplore, where local knowledge is required. If Wolf's Point is the obvious reference, being more easily understood than lat/long, then it should at least be conveyed with the most relevant chart number available. The unfaimiliar mariner can then, quickly, assess his proximity to the incident reported.


----------



## yotphix (Aug 18, 2006)

I recall a recent ad or article for a radio with a difital memory that can instantly playback whatever was just broadcast. At the time I was thinking about how useful it would be for that exact situation. Although it would be good if the info was repeated, in the meantime I keep a scratch pad and pencil close at hand when on watch for recording pertinent details of distress calls although I still sometimes miss the lat/long!
Anyone know about the radio I saw? I can't remember who made it.


----------



## labatt (Jul 31, 2006)

Cobra just released the new VHF's that can play back twenty seconds (I believe) of the last transmission. 20 seconds is a long time.


----------



## sailortjk1 (Dec 20, 2005)

camaraderie said:


> *If anyone else believes this is an issue...pls. confirm right here with a post so that BoatUS and the CG may see that this is more than just a couple of whiners...and we might actually save some lives and boats! *


I agree 100%.

Last weekend heard several transmissions in which the radio operator sounded as if he had marbles in his mouth. Could not understand a single word he said. Also, he was not speeking into the mic. The background noise was more audioable than his voice was.

It is a problem and apperently it is Nation wide.

I also agree that we have to radio back for more info if we didn't get it the first time. "CG,Please repeat. We didn't fully understand your last transmission."

Something, anything to that effect. The radio works both ways.
If 16 is busy, than they will probably ask you to switch to 22A.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Be heard @: USCG: Contact Us


----------



## CharlieCobra (May 23, 2006)

Message sent...


----------



## Kernix (Oct 5, 2006)

sailortjk1 said:


> Last weekend heard several transmissions in which the radio operator sounded as if he had marbles in his mouth.


Oh that's just great - hiring a guy who does not speak properly for a rescue\distress channel - like having a cook with no hands, or a singer who chain smokes - WTF?????


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

Cam- glad to hear you and others agree that this is a serious problem , we thought it was just us. Please keep me informed if you hear from the CG and I will do the same, I am going to contact the local and district office as recommended by USCGRET1990 (thanks). The problem seems so obvious and the solution seems so simple I am surprised that the CG hasn't changed their procedures already. I hope everyone that reads this thread will post a reply - even just to say "I agree", Cam is right that in order for anything to happen they will want to see "numbers".


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

I contacted the Marine Safety Office for the 13th Dist. USCG in Seattle and asked who I should talk to about CG radio procedures. I was explaining what I was trying to do, and why, at some length when another person broke into the conversation and said "I'm Petty Officer ----------- and do I understand that you want the USCG to change it's national radio procedures, just for you?" I responded that, no, not just for me but for all boaters in distress and all boaters that would like to be able to assist those in distress. He changed his tune immediately and became very helpful and gave me a number to call in Virginia for the USCG headquarters. Unfortunately, it turned out the number was for an engineering dept. that has nothing to do with the radio procedures and the fellow there said that he had no access to ANY phone numbers at Headquarters? I then called the CO 13th Dist. office and someone there said that they would have to try to find a number of someone that could help me and they will call me back. Could be a long process, I'll keep at it and report back on any progress. If anyone has any contacts at the CG, I'd appreciate it if you would PM me. Thanks, John


----------



## Goodnewsboy (Nov 4, 2006)

Questions:

Is a change in "radio procedures" really needed to obtain an understandable transmission in the native language?

If it is just a matter of asking the USCG station for clarification _in the interests of aiding in rescue_, what is the reticence about making a plain request for same? I thought that the purpose of marine radios was communication.

There are no perfect radio operators in or out of the USCG.


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

Goodnews- According to the USCG, apparently (can't even get a definitive answer to that yet) the answer to your question is yes, a change would be required to state the location twice during the initial broadcast and to then follow up with a reference to the closest well known location if possible. Instead of having to call them back to ask for the location doesn't it make sense that they announce it twice so you don't have to call while they are handling an emergency? It seems that a lot of us have the same frustration with the way the CG gives the location so why not try to suggest a way to improve it for everyone? A few minutes may not seem like much, unless you are in the 40-50 degree water we have around here (Puget Sound) where 30 minutes is the average time before you die of hypothermia.


----------



## Goodnewsboy (Nov 4, 2006)

If having a radio operator say positions twice as has been suggested will do the trick, then by all means go for it.

You guys are probably just a lot faster with the pencil and paper than I usually am. I'll probably have to go with (spoken very quickly) "say again position, over."


----------



## ebs001 (May 8, 2006)

GOODNEWS


> I thought that the purpose of marine radios was communication


. That's eaxctly the point of this thread. I could not agree more with Cam. I have called the CG in the past when a PAN PAN or SECURITE might effect me. The thing is I should not have to. My primary complaints are they speak too quickly and they do not enunciate.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

ebs,
If you start using words like "enunciate" with them you are never going to establish communications. lol


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I forgot to mention, another way to (definetly) motivate your local USCG, is for them to get a call from a state senator.


----------



## Goodnewsboy (Nov 4, 2006)

Now there's a great way to improve communications; get a politician involved. A panic stricken USCG admiral is probably more dangerous than most things we encounter at sea. Who knows what might be done.

As for the politician, we'll end up paying a tax on radiotelephone usage to "fund" the training of USCG radio operators. Don't worry, the money will be earmarked.


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

At this point I would take any help I can get, even from a politician (anyone have any good contacts?). Haven't been able to put much(any) time into it this week, but hope to get back on the phone to try and find out who to contact. I haven't heard a word from the two CG employees who were going to get back to me with that info., didn't really expect to, they didn't sound too encouraging about anything getting changed "for a bunch of sailboaters". When and if I make any progress I'll post it here, don't hold your breath)


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I sure hope you guys try really hard to get some answers. I'd really like to stay out of it. I tend to go ballistic, which raises my already high Bp. But I'll do it if I have to. I think what you all are saying holds alot of merit and needs to be addressed.


----------



## ScuzzMonkey (Jun 26, 2006)

I'm coming to the thread a bit late, but just wanted to say I wholeheartedly agree--just encountered this problem (again) yesterday, with a SECURITE call from Sector Seattle regarding an obstruction to navigation. Apparently it was prominent--they made a point of mentioning that several ships had reported it--but they rattled off the coordinates once and only once, before I could get the volume knob up and my hand on paper and pencil. Wouldn't take hardly anything to repeat such basic info, and would save a lot of trouble and confusion in the long term... and maybe a few lives.


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

I was up in BC yesterday running around looking for areas to go prawning(since they closed it here in WA) and couldn't help but notice the difference between the USCG radio announcements and the Canadian CG. We listened to a tense interchange from CG Port Angeles and a Mayday from a woman reporting 5 people in the water near Sucia Island. Another boater eventually got all five onboard safely. We also heard several broadcasts from Victoria CG during the day. The difference between the US and Canadian broadcasts was like night and day. US was a very young sounding man who talked very fast, did not articulate, and acted flustered during the Mayday. We were able to determine the location because there were many transmissions and we could hear both ends. By contrast, all of the Canadian transmissions (not the same Mayday at Sucia) were very easy to understand, they spoke slowly and clearly(woman's voice), and remained very professional even when the boater was a bit frantic. We did have better reception from Victoria, but that wasn't the problem. Maybe it was a fluke, but the Canadian CG broadcasts always seem to be easier to understand now that I think back on it, anyone else notice this? Maybe it is a training/experience issue with the USCG?


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

I beleive that Yotphix was referring to this: "Last Call connects to your VHF radio and makes it simple to replay the last transmission received. Never miss another transmission or having to ask for a repeat message" Last Call VHF Radio Recorder/Playback | Marine Communications | Marine Computers | Captn. Jack's

Looks handy - too bad that there is a market for this...


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"we pay them to take care of us."
Actually, we don't. USCG stations are so short-handed that in some areas, civilian volunteers are manning the communications equipment as USCG-Auxiliary volunteers. The USCG has actively solicited civilians for this volunteer duty, in order to free up USCG members for other activity such as actually going out on SAR missions.
I wouldn't be surprised if the poor radio habits you heard were from newbies (either civilian or USCG) who simply haven't been given the proper training--because there's no time, budget, or personnel to train them.

Aside from taking up the problem with the station CO and the District office, the real answer is to write your CongressCritter and ask them to please give some BUDGET to the USCG, who work for peanuts and do a damned hard job.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Our Old Motto:
We who have done so much with so little for so long....
Can now do most anything with nothing at all!!!


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

Hellosailor, the USCG does a damn good job and they put their lives on the line everyday for us boaters, we all owe them our thanks. I have nothing but admiration for them and the job they do(well, except when they badly botch coming into the dock here with their 28', 750HP patrol boat, embarassing!). Radio communications, especially during an emergency, is too important to be given to a volunteer civilian, if that is what is going on, and I have no reason to believe that they would do that regardless of how tight the budget is. Whoever is handling the radio duty should be thoroughly trained, and if need be, supervised by an experienced operator until they can remain calm and professional and speak clearly in any situation that might come up. That is not setting the bar too high in my opinion.


----------



## labatt (Jul 31, 2006)

Just to dig up an older thread... this past weekend, on Lake Champlain, we were just clearing the point at the end of Willsboro Bay (our marina is in Willsboro Bay) when we heard on Channel 16 "Is there anyone on this channel that can help." For the next five minutes, we heard the Coast Guard repeatedly broadcast "This is the US Coast Guard to the vessel in distress. Please respond" (or something of the sort). We didn't think much of it until about 10 minutes later the Coast Guard came on with a (not completely verbatim) "Pan Pan Pan... this is an urgent marine broadcast... a distress call was heard in the vicinity of Lake Champlain at 12:29 eastern time... anyone who may have heard this call or may have any further information regarding it is requested to contact the Coast Guard on channel 16..." 

I wasn't sure if they were talking about the earlier transmission so I was hesitant to respond. This broadcast was repeated a couple of more times. I finally called them and asked them if it was indeed relative to the earlier call. They were ambiguous and asked me specifically what I had heard. I repeated the message I had heard earlier. I was somewhat surprised that they asked since I assumed it was recorded. Now I'm thinking that they were trying to figure out if what they heard was just a fragment, and that someone else may have heard additional information. They took a lot of information, including my mast height, my exact lat/long for where I heard the transmission (it was easy since I always record my tracks, including date/time stamps) and information regarding how far I normally receive transmissions from. 

There were NO OTHER RESPONSES from any other vessels. The USCG's Pan Pan continued for the standard three hours at which point they canceled it. 

The only reason I mention this incident is that, at no point in time, did the USCG give any info relative to the content of the original distress call except for the time. They never stated that it was in response to the call we had heard "Is there anyone on this channel that can help." I guaranty that over 100 different boats heard the call. The lake was absolutely packed at that time. Since the original call was not a properly formatted distress call, it was ignored, and since the USCG didn't state that they were issuing their "Pan Pan" in response to the improperly formatted distress call, they received no other assistance. I strongly feel that the USCG must be more specific in their calls for assistance. I also feel that mariners should ask more questions when they hear requests for assistance from the USCG.

I'll also mention that it was a tough day on the lake. While the winds were only blowing 13-15 with gusts south of 20, there were plenty of other problems. Within a one three hour period we heard this call for help, plus a "Mayday" for a boat taking on water and a "Pan Pan" for a boat grounded on a shoal. The USCG sure was busy, and we very much appreciate the hard work they do!!


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Labatt,
That, in my experience, is pretty much s.o.p. on the CG's part. If you think about it, it makes preety good sense. They are only interested in the facts and cannot get tied up with telling every boater what little they know, etc... Anotherwords, what did you hear, where did you hear it, and do you have contact with the vessel. As soon as they get solid info to go on, they may elect to re-contact you, especially if you are in radio contact with the transmitting vessel. Otherwise they get into a game of explaining to every Tom, Dick, and Harry what is going on and most of them are not even close to the area, but have no trouble having a ten minute chat with the CG.

I would have responded to the original caller, my ownself. One of the problems with VHF is that the transmission and receiving of it can be very fickle. The last rescue I made was from a VHF signal that I received that the CG did not hear, with their antenna only a few miles away and higher yet than mine. I never under-estimate the value of a relay station. If the CG has comms with the distressed vessel i stay off the radio unless they broadcast a request for assistance. If I have comms with the distressed vessel, and the CG does not, I get all the info and relay to them.

Another thing I advise, is that if the vessel is genuinely in distress I start heading towards her. On occasion it may take some time for the CG to decide their ability to respond and if they need your help. Face it, they're a beauracracy. When they do make up their mind, I'm that much closer if needed.

Chances are your call was from someone mistaking Ch. 16 for sailnet and wanting to know which lever was the choke on their engine or the like. Usually, calls that begin with that type of improper radio procedure are by a first time radio user with a minor problem. VHF broadcasts, by those unfamiliar with the radio, signalling genuine distress tend to be much more strident than what it seems you heard.(g)


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

Sailaway, you make a good point. As you know I am not a big fan of the way the USCG broadcasts emergency info. via VHF, but in this case I think you are right. They need to gather what info. they can first, and then decide whether to ask for assistance. However, I do think Labatt is right that if the CG had been more specific about which call they were requesting information on they would have gotten more responses. Like Labatt, I heard a similar request for information about a call to the CG a couple of weeks ago (I didn't hear the first call). The CG was asking for anyone that heard the original broadcast to contact them. They must be able to triangulate based on the height of antenna, and your position when you heard the transmission, and others that heard it and come up with a general location. Labatt, what do you have that records the time you were in a particular location(manual?)? I have the chartplotter that shows my track but nothing that would indicate my time, that would really be helpful, and more accurate than my memory (maybe I need a new chartplotter?).


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

jrd22 said:


> Radio communications, especially during an emergency, is too important to be given to a volunteer civilian,


Don't be too quick to judge. I have had, in my life, some 20 to 25 years experience in emergency radio communications, in a variety of venues. All as a civilian. Some of the best operators with whom I have ever had the pleasure of working were, believe-it-or-not, CB operators with an organization called _The Michigan Emergency Patrol._ However, they didn't just take CB'ers off the street and put 'em in charge of the comms center. You had to go through training with existing members that were certified to train. (And to get certified, you had to be able to hold-down the radios [yes, plural--there were two of them], _alone_, during rush hour. No mean feat at the time .)



jrd22 said:


> Whoever is handling the radio duty should be thoroughly trained, and if need be, supervised by an experienced operator until they can remain calm and professional and speak clearly in any situation that might come up. That is not setting the bar too high in my opinion.


Agreed.

There is a trick to handling a comm center during an emergency. You have to speak with authority, clearly (yes, enunciate), in a practiced, calm, measured cadence--_regardless_ of how tense things may really be. Not everybody can do it well. Some can't do it at all, no matter how much practice or instruction is given.

Jim


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

jrd22,
Most people us a chart and a pencil.(g)


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

jrd-
If you have a GPS that keeps a track, you can usually either list the track points (and each one will be annotated with time) or export the track list to a computer, where again each point logged should show a position and a time, sometimes with more data.

WRT communications, a volunteer can still "be professional" even if they are not a "paid professional". (Which is redundant, "professional" can simply mean "paid" it does nto necessarily mean "competent".) There are many USCG stations where experienced civilian radio operators (i.e. ham operators) are asked to join the USCGA as an unpaid volunteer, and man the radio watch at a USCG station. USCGA status takes care of security vetting and several other issues, their radio background provides some expertise, and the USCG station itself is able to send out the SAR boats with a full crew on them.

The alternative is that they don't use "volunteers" and one Coastie stays on radio watch (3 per day) instead of doing something even more important--like repairing the boats, fueling them, or taking them out on duty.

There's an easy way to get rid of the volunteers: Just take Congress hostage and force them to supply a realistic budget for the USCG. They need staff, they need housing allowances, they need equipment...all problems that Congress can solve.


----------



## Goodnewsboy (Nov 4, 2006)

Ditto Hellosailor;

Good radiotelephone operators can wear civilian clothes. All it takes is enough interest to learn how to do it well, just like anything else.

A case can be made that a volunteer who does the job for free is more likely to be motivated and proficient than say, a bored and/or lovesick nineteen year old.


----------



## labatt (Jul 31, 2006)

I use a regular chartplotter at the wheel (Raymarine C-Series), but I have a laptop with Maptech Chart Navigator Pro down below. It records a track at regular time intervals. When you click at points on the track, it will tell you the time/date it recorded that point, and the point's lat/long.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I have a Garmin 276C Plus unit that will record position data automatically at a set time interval, if you ask it to. The automatic logging is one of the "Plus" features, which the standard 276C does not have.



jrd22 said:


> I have the chartplotter that shows my track but nothing that would indicate my time, that would really be helpful, and more accurate than my memory (maybe I need a new chartplotter?).


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

Thanks Labatt and SD, guess I haven't been spending enough time in the electronics section at local boat store


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Sure and it's a problem, but in defense of the Coasties, many times the guy calling in for help has no idea where he is! I sail the Mississippi, which has mile marks posted at intervals and noted on the charts. But I recently heard a call for help because someone had an apparent heart attack on "Bikini Island." There is no such island on the river charts, but we later found out it was actually Iowa Island, which has a large sand bar and consequently a significant population of girls in bikinis. Without a real name and a mile mark number, the coast guard could be no help. There are radio repeaters all along the river, and the Coast Guard monitor was in Keokuk, Iowa, over 150 miles from the problem.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Some years ago Congress, in the their infinite wisdom (cough, cough) decided that they could shut down USCG Governor's Island and a batch of local operations because, heck, NYC is adequately covered by Cape May from the south and Boston from the North. 

The USCG protested that local operators familiar with local waters simply could not be replaced that way, no matter how you figured flight hours and installed communications. 

Perfect case in point, if there had been a USCG station within 20 miles of that island, they would have known darn well which one "Bikini Island" was.


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

Sailaway- Charts? you don't still use charts do you?







I don't generally log time and pos. (on the hundreds of charts I have, and use)when I'm just out daysailing. I think my charplotter is too old to be able to get the time from the track function.

Semijim- I was responding to Hellosailor's post where he said the USCG is soliciting and using unpaid volunteers to man the radios. What I should have said was" ... too important to be given to a volunteer civilian, who, because of budget constraints, was probably not thoroughly trained." Sorry, I'm a big fan of volunteers and all that they contribute.

Hellosailor- Thanks for the plotter info., and I agree with what you say about "professional" and "competent". I don't really care who is manning (can you say manning anymore- or is it "personning" now?) the radio as long as they are competent and can speak clearly and enunciate.

The CG can only work with what information the boater gives them, you hear all kinds of calls like the "Bikini Is." one. Not long ago here in the San Juans there was a distress call and when asked for a Lat. Long. position they responded with a partial pos. somewhere near San Francisco! Turns out they had no clue how to use the chartplotter(or radar, they were lost in fog and had to be towed in)- and this was a 48' boat(power of course). It must be frustrating as hell for the CG radio operators to get emergency calls with bad pos. information, it wastes critical time that could be used to scramble a chopper or request assistance from someone that might be close by. I wonder if they keep statistics on how many lives are lost because of bad information given to them?


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"I wonder if they keep statistics on how many lives are lost because of bad information given to them?"
That's a number no one wants to admit keeping. And also part of the reason why the ISCG is supposedly transitioning (can we say, crawling without resources) to the new whaddayacallit-2000 program, where they are supposed to be getting direction finding equipment--that fisherman have been using for 30 years already. This was partly prompted by the drownings on a (Charleston?) jetty a few year ago, which the USCG failed to respond to because they were overworked, understaffed, etc. and couldn't get a fix on. Big stink in the news--and rightly so. Then everyone forgets...if the money doesn't get released, the equipment can't get bought.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Giving Lat/Long positions in coastal waters for the purpose of distress calling is, in myopinion, foolish other than as aome type of possible backup after you've announced the fact you're five miles NE of Port Angeles. 

Reality is that most of the boaters who will be responding will be close to you and know the local references. Once that has been broadcast, or if no response is received, I fully agree with broadcasting the Lat/Long. But it is better to get help rolling in your direction quickly than it is to nail down your posit to 30 feet. The rationale for this is that, with lat/Long you've got 8, or more, numbers to screw up, thereby sending your rescuers to the Mojave Desert looking for you. Even if they don't hear all of "quarter mile west of Well's Point" they can usually get enough for an idea of where to head towards.
Just my 2 cents


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

Sailaway- For some reason the CG Port Angeles, that we normally hear, always asks for the "GPS" position during the initial contact. Even if the position was given in a clear, concise way such as "1 mile due south of Cattle Pass and just west of Iceberg Point"(which is exceedingly rare). From my observation, less than half accurately report their lat/long positon correctly, or completely, so your point is well taken. If they do get a good position I suppose it is easier for the chopper/boat crews to punch it into their GPS units.


----------



## btrayfors (Aug 25, 2006)

Sailaway21,

I often agree with your experienced and considered opinions, but in this case I don't. Here's why.

1. Many boaters in distress don't know where they are. They often cite erroneous local landmarks.

2. A position, "35 miles East of XYZ Cape" is virtually worthless for SAR purposes. It might be East, it might be NE or SE or even S, and it might or might not be XYZ Cape.

3. GPS positions should always be cited as degrees and minutes. The USCG and others should insist on this. At the very most, ONE DECIMAL POINT (i.e., 1/10th of a NM) is more than close enough. Further, GPS positions should be given in DDMM.m notation, e.g., "3853.4 North, 07821.3 West"

IMO, any other notation is likely to introduce errors and misunderstandings.

A recent example is the tragic loss of the 64' Little Harbour in the May storm off the Atlantic Coast. The yacht, Flying Colours, was said to have activated it's EPIRB "600 miles East of Cape Fear, NC". When I got the actual location of the EPIRB signal from the USCG SAR unit, it turns out the position wasn't there at all, but was considerably further south.

JMO,

Bill


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Thanks Bill,
For irony, i am sure I have argued elsewhere in these forums for the use of Lat/Long over local references. And my use of the word foolish was over-stating the matter.
Let me have another swing at it.

In most distress situations the vessel in distress is going to be in coastal or inland waters and the closest asistance is going to be another boater or merchant ship. In that context, we are perhaps wrong to focus entirelly on the USCG response. While not having the official numbers in front of me it is my impression that other vessels respond to distress calls ahead of and in equal numbers to those dealt with by the CG. This is due to proximity to the distresses vessel for the most part. And the CG performs a valuable function in co-ordinating these efforts.

If you are to be rescued in a timely fashion, and say you are in Lower New York Harbor, I would think that "5 miles North of Sandy Hook" would be of more significance to the sport fisherman who will probably be first on the scene. Certainly Lat/Long would not hurt, but in this type of instance, you are eliminating a large number of potential boaters who basically ignore anything broadcast in Lat/Long as being not of relevence to themselves. It's kind of like listening to the NWS forecast. You kinda listen to what it's doing 300 miles up north, but only really focus in on what your local forecast entails.

If I received no response in the above situation, I'd also be broadcasting my Lat/Long slowly and distinctly. At least initially, you're just interested in anyone at all responding, however you get their attention, right?

If I was, say, 100 miles or more offshore-or maybe less than that, maybe even 50 miles, I'd give my position in Lat/Long without a doubt. There'd have to be a very recognizable, read unmistakable, nav aid for me to use a local reference point in that situation, ie...Ambrose Light is bearing 310 degrees from me at a distance of 48 miles. And, to be of any use, it would need to be of similar precision. Saying I'm about fifty miles SE of Ambrose leaves much to the listener's imagination.

So, i would heartily agree with Bill's point while maintaining that if you've just collided with one of the support columns to the Tappan Zee bridge that your distress signal should first reflect that landmark and then Lat/Long. My apologies for not making such clear previously. As Bill illustrates, it is not a trivial distinction.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Many people just don't realize how poor their estimates of distance and time are. I suspect the USCG knows that.

And then there's direction, come on, let's admit that guys never ask for directions at gas stations because we KNOW the other guy is going to bluff it, and often give us the wrong direction anyway. In the moment of confusion during an emergency call, it is all too easy to think "I'm a half mile east of the point" and SAY "the point is a half mile east of me", &tc. It happens.

So, numbers are a good thing. Just don't ask some of us for the numbers when the reading glasses aren't around.< G >


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

The St.Pete Coast Guard is usually too busy in their barbequeing or a game of volleyball to respond to "real emergencies." If someone calls a Pan-Pan in, they generally respond with, "all vessels in the area are requested to respond..." Two miles away from their "port" and they come in choppy on the mast-mounted VHF- like they are using a hand-held radio (my power boater coworkers have confirmed this, too- yet Port Charlotte, over 30+ miles away comes in clear....) I even responded to a Pan-pan one evening- USCG did not respond, but SeaTow and Boat US did. Which is really jacked up- where was the USCG for an hour? In the event of an emergency, call SeaTow or BoatUS first- you'll have a better response, and they'll actually come rescue you! Maybe the St. Pete USCG would respond and actually friggin do their job if someone took away their grill/volleyball courts/pool. 

Chris


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Chris,
I am going to assume that you really just do not know what you are talking about and do not, in fact, have any deeper motivation.

A "Pan" broadcast is an urgent broadcast. It is not the same as a "Mayday" which denotes imminent danger and a request for immediate assistance. The distinction between the two is that the "Pan" signal is a priority signal over all others, short of the immediacy of Mayday. It denotes an urgent situation but not one of imminent danger or immediate assitance required to person or vessel. A response by a non lifesaving body is appropriate to it's broadcast.

For example, if you are disabled, in no immediate danger but needing a tow before becoming in danger, the "Pan" broadcast would be appropriate. If the situation deteriorates, a "Mayday" would then be appropriate.

Since a CG-Group is staffed on a 24 hour basis it is perfectly appropriate that they have recreational facilities. I presume that you are able to do other things while waiting for an important phone call, other than sitting by the phone. If you are waiting for an important call to pick someone up at the airport, do you sit in your car with the engine running?

It is quite common for VHF signals such as USCG-Group broadcasts to be received better many miles out to sea than in port. Given the height of the tower necessary for long range VHF broadcasts there is a degradation of signal at short range. This is inherent in VHF propagation. Offshore reception is of much higher priority than harbor reception where a simple phone call may suffice for the transmittal of information.

The USCG is tasked with many duties and tow boat service is not one of them. You seem to have the impression that the USCG is responsible for aiding you with your every difficulty and inconvenience. While you may consider it "urgent" that your blender is on the fritz the Coast Guard may be tied up with lowering dewatering pumps onto a heaving deck of a holed ship somewhere offshore. If they are somehow unable to prevent the onslaught of an oil slick from that vessel due to their inability to transfer the pumps, and your pretty white gel-coat get's stained, I'm sure you'll be the first to carp.

Your's is easily the most imbecilic, ignorant, and misguided post I have had the displeasure to read on sailnet. The Coast Guard is not immune from criticism. But that criticism should be made by either those aware of their responsibilities or those who dictate those responsibilities, of which, you are neither.

You should be aware that this post was composed with the goal of being a measured response to your post. It in no way can convey the utter contempt I have for your post as written.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Sailaway 21,

I feel my post is accurate. First of all, let me clarify that I work in Satellite Communications and RF transmission. I also work on a lot of VHF radios, and know that the radio path from less than a 5-mile radius should not be so distorted, as it is an omni-directional system. You need not educate me in how radio waves travel. I am fully aware of the difference of a 2W/5W handheld unit, and a 25W full wavelength antenna. Due to the nature of my job, I have a full understanding of the different RF bands and their propogation due to the earth's curvature, transmission obstacles, and atmospheric conditions. 

Secondly, I am fully aware of what a "Pan" is versus a "Mayday." Let me give you a few examples of the "Pans" that the St. Pete USCG has not responded to- boats taking on water and sinking, people missing in the water, flipped boats, and people with critical first-aid issues. They address these as "Pans" and urge other people to respond. 

Thirdly, I am too a member of the US military- my unit has no recreational facilities as we continually train and do paperwork when we are not on mission. You see, your taxpayer dollars are not utilized for me to have "fun" while at work. I also pay taxes, BTW. Mission readiness in all branches of service is key, and this does not constitute having a volleyball court or barbeque pit to keep me entertained when I should be doing my job. Period.

Lastly, the intention of my post was not to bash the USCG as a whole- they do an incredible job. It was simply to point out the failing of one particular unit. The general boating community of the Tampa-St. Pete area would agree with me. There was no need for you to personally attack me, and I don't appreciate your name calling or accusations. You obviously have some serious issues, and need to be better educated before you make pompous, self-righteous posts.

Chris


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Chris,

Your experience with VHF obviously does not include much exposure to high mounted antennas. While the broadcast pattern is omni-directional it is also polarized and radiates in the horizontal plane from the antenna. Thus it is not uncommon for a small boat alongside a large ship to not receive clearly the ship's VHF traffic. It is generally not such that it hinders communications significantly.

You do seem to have either a mis-understanding of the differences between mayday and pan broadcasts as all of the examples you cite are clearly maydays or you did not state that paragraph as intended.

Your's would be the first military base, foreign or domestic, I have heard of that did not have recreational facilities.

Your original post is not tempered by a later attempt to say that you are not criticizing the USCG as a whole. Being in the military you are aware of the chain of command, and if deficiencies of the nature you cite are present, someone is responsible, ultimately the Guard itself.

Have you written to St Petersburg-Group or even telephoned the CO or PR officer? The one thing I find lacking in your posts are statements of how you, and others, have notified St. Pete Group of your concerns over their VHF capabilities, excessive bbq'ing and volleyball practise, and the response you received from them. The only conclusion that I can make is that you have not done so. Which brings me around to your post on sailnet. What was it's purpose? Is it an informal notice to mariners regarding marine safety in NW Florida or is it an unanswerable screed against Coasties with an interest in volleyball and the odd charred chicken wing? I am quite sure I did not miss the part where you asked for accounts of similar incidents with St Pete-Group and a request for letters and e-mails to CO, St Pete-Group. Yes, i'm sure I did not read any such statements.

As a licensed Master Mariner, Oceans, Steam or Motor, Any Gross Tons with twenty years at sea I am fairly comfortable with my education in the area. I did not call you any names, although i did characterize your post with several. There is no extra charge for the pomposity and if I can be accused of being self-righteous it is only because I feel that I am right, and that you are probably either wrong or mistaken in your impressions.

I believe that, if you re-read your original post, you will find that it is difficult to read and not come away with the impression that it is an attack on the USCG, from their radio installation right down to their personnel. Until such time as i read an amplification or better explanation of that post, i stand by my original post in it's entirety.

Good day to you, sir.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Actually, that is Ma'am. Since I am military, I went the "proper route" and upchanneled the St. Pete info through my chain of command. While you civilians can say whatever you want to whoever you want, it is ironic that while we defend your right to do so, we must follow military protocol, especially when we have issues with another branch of service. I follow the rules.

While my base has MWR (Morale, Welfare, and Recreation) facilities, we do not utilize them during our duty hours NOR does my work compound have these amenities. Like I said, duty hours are to perform your job. Period. We do not use the internet at work for anything other than job use, and government phones are used for just that. Our "fun" consists of a 5-mile run every morning for PT. Sorry, but while you feel another branch is deserving of their goof-off time, I don't. 14+ years of dodging bullets in combat does not make me "soft" in feeling sorry for a sister-branch who makes the military look bad. All I am asking them to do is their JOB. 

VHF? Oh, that is funny. I have personally seen their antenna farm. Don't tell ME I don't know WTF I am talking about, as they have a ground-mounted VHF whip in addition to the tower mounted antenna array. I'm not stupid, and am used to people trying to BS me to to the fact I am female in a male-dominated career-field. They are using a hand-held half the time. Period. Sometimes, they actually come in clearly and there is no change in atmospheric or temperature conditions. You can tell the difference from when they are using the hand-held at the pool.

I stand by my original post, and I really don't give a rat's a** what your opinions of me are. I have seen some of your previous posts on this board, and you seem more inclined to want to start an argument than actually help someone out. The whole gist of my original post is this- if you are in the St. Pete area, and in need while at sea, no matter the emergency, your chances are far better if you contact Sea Tow or Boat US. Sorry, but I actually care about other boaters and want what is best for them. 

Chris


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Ever thought to think that they might be using the handheld because they are doing something other than goofing off or sitting by the radio.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

It would be interesting to hear the opinions of other Tampa area Sailnetters on this.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Review your chain of command, Chris. The USCG is not a military agency, unless Congress made a formal declaration of War overnight AND placed the USCG on military status. 

Unless you've been close up and personal, you have no way to be sure what is going on there, i.e. if those are active-duty personnel breaking their rules or not. 

Even though Congress shut down NAS Bermuda "because" it was just an expensive golf course, it served legitimate purposes. Challenge your assumptions, and if you are certain you are right, you should be filing a protest with the USCG at the District level, and with the local media. And not bothering anyone in your military chain of command. It's not their business dealing with an administrative agency--which is what the USCG is right now.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

hellosailor said:


> Review your chain of command, Chris. The USCG is not a military agency, unless Congress made a formal declaration of War overnight AND placed the USCG on military status.
> 
> It's not their business dealing with an administrative agency--which is what the USCG is right now.


Ok, for about the third time:

The United States Coast Guard (USCG) is a branch of the United States armed forces and is involved in maritime law enforcement, mariner assistance, search and rescue, and national defense. As one of the seven uniformed services of the United States, and the smallest armed service of the United States, its stated mission is to protect the public, the environment, and the United States economic and security interests in any maritime region in which those interests may be at risk, including international waters and America's coasts, ports, and inland waterways.

The Coast Guard is currently a component of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), unlike the other branches of the military which are components of the Department of Defense.

The legal basis for the Coast Guard is 14 U.S.C. § 1 which states: "The Coast Guard as established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times." On February 25, 2003, the Coast Guard was placed under the Department of Homeland Security. The Coast Guard reports directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security. However, under 14 U.S.C. § 3 as amended by section 211 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006, upon the declaration of war and when Congress so directs in the declaration, or when the President directs, the Coast Guard operates under the Department of Defense as a service in the Department of the Navy. 14

As members of a military service, Coast Guardsmen on active and reserve service are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and receive the same pay and allowances as members of the same pay grades in the other four armed services.

If the CG does not respond to an emergency, it's most likely because all their resources are already in operation. Any R & R going on around the station is by (well deserved) off-duty personel. If any shortcomings are noticed, there are channels (of which I have previously posted) to address the situation. Pissin and moaning on sailnet will change nothing.
Most Sincerly,
Mach Tech Senior Chief, USCG Ret.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Mach-
" _On February 25, 2003, the Coast Guard was placed under the Department of Homeland Security. " Keep that in mind. Prior to this year, the Posse Commitatus Act banned the domestic use of military forces for law enforcement duty against US citizens in the US.
The federal government was quite happy to have the USCG in a dual role, serving in peacetime as an ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY under the DOT, because that was a critical factor in allowing the USCG to function "against" civilians. As you may be aware, if an Army or Navy officer says "Sir, please step out of your car" a civilian can say "Sir, go f--- yourself" and ignore them--specifically due to the Posse Comitatus Act, passed as a direct result of abuses after the Civil War.
On the other hand, a civilian must obey legitimate orders from "peace officers" (i.e. police) from administrative agencies. (Your local PD is an administrative agency, as is the FBI.)

Whatever and however they want to redefine the USCG these days...the government CANNOT declare them to be a military agency, because that would prevent them from being able to conduct law enforcement activities within the US against US citizens. Perhaps the full reading of the new laws declares them to be a military agency "demoted" to administrative agency while on loan to the DHS. I don't know, with all the new Hoeland Insecurity games I've lost track of these things. 
The Posse Comitatus Act itself was substantially repealed in the middle of the night (so to speak) by an addendum to the defense appropriations bill back in December--it can now be suspended by a special presidential declaration of emergency. But absent that declaration--it still would prevent the USCG from doing their daily business, if they were on military status.

If the DHS transfer really HAS made the USCG a full time military organization...hoo boy, would that be a classic gummint screwup. I really hope they haven't been that foolish.

Lawyer games that can be debated when someone gets around to writing "The Define and Fall of the American Empire".


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

HS-

Just be aware that Bush recently passed a law that essentially gutted the Posse Comitatus Act, so that may no longer be the case.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

SD-
Bush didn't gut it, Congress did. Section 1042 of the final Defense Appropriations act (and the section number changes depending on which version you look up, but AFAIK it is 102 in the final version that became law) cleverly appears to be an "additional" authorized use of the arms forces referring only to "Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:" without actually mentioning that 10 USC 333 is what is better known as the Posse Comitatus Act. Especially clever because anyone searching for the PCA by name, won't find it at all.
Apparently many things are buried in the last-minute amendments to that bill every year, and this one took a number of people by surprise--including, supposedly, the CongressCritters that voted for it. Still, it requires a formal and express declaration of emergency--with a limited duration. So the USCG is either non-military, or out of business, for now.
Part of this was apparently a response to Katrina, where Bush asked the Justice Department if he could use the Insurrection Act to send in a military response (not just the National Guard, who are allowed to operate domestically in their role as the federal Militia, not the Military) and it took them all day to figure out "riots" is not an insurrection. Duh. I would expect that if Bush asked the Army to go in (the PCA does not prohibit domestic deployment of troops, it only prevents their use in law-enforcement roles) someone would have said "Not without our guns, Sir." so I can see some point in this. Sending in military "assistance" but tying their hands over little things like "Oh, but you can't shoot back" wouldn't go over too well. This new trick allows them to be sent in without worrying, and allows them to shoot back. Gonna be an interesting court case when they do, it was and will be safer to use the Guard.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

DOD, DOT, or DHS...no matter who they work for, they are still military.

From this page: http://www.gocoastguard.com/faq.html

What is the United States Coast Guard?

The U.S. Coast Guard is one of five branches of the US Armed Forces, and falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The Coast Guard is the nation's oldest continuous seagoing service with responsibilities including Search and Rescue (SAR), Maritime Law Enforcement (MLE), Aids to Navigation (ATON), Ice Breaking, Environmental Protection, Port Security and Military Readiness. In order to accomplish these missions the Coast Guard has 38,000 active-duty men and women, 8,000 Reservists, and 35,000 Auxiliary personnel who serve in a variety of job fields ranging from operation specialists and small-boat operators and maintenance specialists to electronic technicians and aviation mechanics. The Coast Guard, during an average day will: 
Save 15 lives 
Assist 114 people in distress 
Protect $4.9 million in property 
Interdict 26 illegal migrants at sea 
Conduct 82 search and rescue cases 
Seize $12.4 million worth of illegal drugs 
Conduct 122 Security boardings 
Conduct 202 Law Enforcement boardings 
Guide 2,557 ships in and out of port


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Being in the middle of the gov't nonsense is not new to the CG.

...but if anybody can scew that up, it'll be Bush!


----------



## okapi3 (Apr 14, 2007)

I have read through the above thread and have had the exact same experience and frustration with CG transmissions. Appreciate the efforts you all are making to try and improve the situation.


----------



## hertfordnc (Sep 10, 2007)

I've read most of this thread and decided to try to reinvigorate it with some comments on the original few pages before it went political and hostile.

First, I agree that the Coasties could do a better job with those broadcasts but some clarification is in order. There are full time professional radio operators at CG Sectors (formerly called Groups) and at com stations. Then there are watchstanders at boat stations. The latter is what we’re often hearing. 

For the most part if these were actual emergencies they would be responding with boats and helos. These pan pan broadcasts are mostly a compromise between the tradition of helping our fellow mariner and SeaTow’s right to not have unfair competition from the Government. 

Imagine you run you car in to the ditch and the state trooper puts out a call that any interested motorist should assist you before you have to call an expensive wrecker. 


That’s often the basis for those broadcasts. The vessel is disabled but not in immediate danger and the owner is expected to use commercial salvage but the CG will ask around if anyone wants to help. 

If the situation changes and it becomes an emergency then they will respond. I was around in the mid 80’s when these things started to grow legs and we hated it. We’d have much rather gotten underway for a routine tow than sit on our hands and let the commercial guys do it. 

Nothing has changed. The Coast Guards role changes with the nation’s needs but the Coasties still live for the SAR case. 

Meawhile, Posse Commitatus is alive and well. This administration or another may push the envelope but under DOT or DHS it is still a CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCENMENT agency. As they put guns on the helicopters they are also adding a spot light to illuminate the CG logo because apparently LAW ENFORCEMNT can not fire on humans without identifying themselves. 


“not respond, but SeaTow and Boat US did. Which is really jacked up- where was the USCG for an hour? “

“In the event of an emergency, call SeaTow or BoatUS first- you'll have a better response, and they'll actually come rescue you! Maybe the St. Pete USCG would respond and actually friggin do their job if someone took away their grill/volleyball courts/pool.”

These are very inflammatory responses from someone who is not clear on the role of government. Boating is either recreational or commercial, in either case the government bears NO responsibility to offset the cost. That’s why SeaTow exists. 

“ Secondly, I am fully aware of what a "Pan" is versus a "Mayday." Let me give you a few examples of the "Pans" that the St. Pete USCG has not responded to- boats taking on water and sinking, people missing in the water, flipped boats, and people with critical first-aid issues. They address these as "Pans" and urge other people to respond.”

Wrong again- When the Coast Guard puts out pan seeking assistance in what is obviously an emergency that does not mean they are not responding themselves. Typically during a search, while boats and aircraft are out searching, there is a broadcast asking all boaters to be on the lookout.

“I don't. 14+ years of dodging bullets in combat does not make me "soft" in feeling sorry for a sister-branch who makes the military look bad. All I am asking them to do is their JOB.”

Again, very inflammatory, as were many of your other comments. When did the Coast Guard EVER make the other branches look bad? Seems to me there was a General in New Orleans after Katrina for a couple days then they turned the whole federal response over to Admiral Allen. We saved over 30,000 lives. 

As for lives lost following garbled communication- again, WHEN? Yes, I remember the deaths in Charleston a few years ago. We all do. That incident rocked the Coast Guard, we investigated and overhauled many internal processes. Any other examples? 

One poor 19 year-old wachstander got up and made coffee in the middle of the night and he will live with that for the rest of his life. We hate to speak ill of the dead but the reality is that the mariner made a whole lot of bad choices before he put himself on the jetty. 

So, is there a problem and what should we do about it? I think to get the CG to research this and really devote the time necessary to overhaul processes is not realistic unless we want to do a lot of legwork ourselves and we’d rather be sailing. 

If you recorded a garbled broadcast and sent a CD, must be a CD, not a tape, not a DVD, it must be a Windows Media Player file, to the Officer in Charge of that unit and told him when exactly you heard it he would take appropriate action to ensure his watch standers put a little more effort into being understood. If you throw in a couple dozen homemade cookies that will help a lot.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

hertfordnc,
It is significant that, when things heated up in this thread, Cam asked for other Tampa/St Pete experiences with CG transmissions. To date there have been no other complaints of lack of service, but then that might be because all the sailors in St Pete play volleyball with the CG. (g) Thanks for a good post.


----------



## sailordave (Jun 26, 2001)

I just read this entire thread and I'll ignore the last few pages debating the CG in the military.... BUT I will state this: I have heard some of the CG announcements, both routine and not routine and it seems to me that in ALL cases the speaker was trying to set a new world record for talking fast. 
What makes this interesting to me personally is I probably make more radio transmissions in a day than any of these Coasties do in a week and I can probably count the number of times I must repeat myself on one hand. Usually because someone else blocks me out. NOT because I speak too fast, or mumble or slur my words. 
I ENUNCIATE. (like that word from one of the posts!) I speak at a normal rate of speech.
And while there are certain formats I must adhere to, I also have a fallback; PLAIN ENGLISH to either cover unforseen situations OR to provide clarification. While I do not know the USCG's procedures, I would find it most unusual that SOMEWHERE in their regs there is not a procedure for just speaking in plain English and clarifying what they just said in the proper format.
Oh, and what do I do? I'm an air traffic controller at one of the busiest facilities in the U.S. (and the world) so I do know a bit about of which I speak.
FWIW I too would like to here some more precise descriptions of the location of a boat in distress. I DON'T know all the local names.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Enunciation....Wow, and here I though me and Tom Brokaw were the only ones who bothered to do that.

Funny thing, when I also slow things down by using ITU phonetics, no one ever asks me to repeat what I've said.

Sailordave, since you are in the ATC business, no doubt you've heard the joke about the Lufthansa pilot stuck on the runway lineup in the civilian side of Rhine-Main Airport? Complaining bitterly after being scolded for using German to the tower, and insisting that since he was a German pilot on a German plane in a German airport, why should he have to use English with the tower?


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

Hertfordnc & Sailordave- Thanks for both of your posts, as the OP I am continuing to try to get somewhere with the CG, but so far about the most encouragment that I have had is that the last guy didn't laugh at me(out loud anyway). I was on this pretty hot and heavy originally, but I've been beaten down by not being able to see the proverbial light. I make a call occaisionally if I get a lead on some new number to call but I haven't done much over the summer. The conclusions that can be drawn from this thread is that it is almost unanimous that the boating community feels there is a problem, and the CG doesn't want to hear about it. Don't get me wrong, I am a BIG supporter of the CG, but I think that without a Senator (or two) behind you the people that can change policy aren't going to listen to you, if you can even get to them. Getting the ear of some gov. official type person should probably be my next move on this. Thanks for rekindling this, it got my juices flowing a bit again. John

ps. I don't really care if the CG is military, police, private, or even human as long as when they are broadcasting information about an emergency they speak clearly and calmly, repeat the location twice(incl. lat & long twice if poss.), and when they have the time give a local reference to where it is if they have this info.


----------



## hertfordnc (Sep 10, 2007)

*What to do*

As much as I love this organization I am not blind the their shortcomings. If you all really think there is a problem may I make some suggestions:

The congressional route is not a magic bullet. The Coast Guard is arguably the best working machine in Government right now. There is NO political gain for an elected official to go pester them. The 'boating community' spreads across the political spectrum so there is no gain there. Admirals don't cower to every congressman who shows up at the gate.

It's not like anyone is going to threaten to hold up Homeland Security funds because some boaters feel the kids with the microphones do not annunciate.

Likewise random contacts throughout the organization won't do much good either. There is a chief of boating safety at headquarters and the districts. That's the guy you have to talk to.

And it has to be a group of people. If a whole yacht club contacted the head boating safety guy and said "we feel strongly about this"., you might get his attention.

The other approach might be the Auxiliary. Those volunteers who were maligned in earlier posts are mostly retired guys who help the Coast Guard for free. In some places they are actually qualified withstanders but I suspect for the most part they would be among the better communicators.

My suggestion would be to get it to the boating media. Publications like Soundings and Offshore and maybe commercial pubs like National Fisherman.

If you can get them to write a story on this problem then people in the CG would take notice.

Personally, I don't see the problem but that's probably because I have a teenage daughter and I am fluent in garbled mumbling.


----------



## sailordave (Jun 26, 2001)

hellosailor said:


> Enunciation....Wow, and here I though me and Tom Brokaw were the only ones who bothered to do that.
> 
> Funny thing, when I also slow things down by using ITU phonetics, no one ever asks me to repeat what I've said.
> 
> Sailordave, since you are in the ATC business, no doubt you've heard the joke about the Lufthansa pilot stuck on the runway lineup in the civilian side of Rhine-Main Airport? Complaining bitterly after being scolded for using German to the tower, and insisting that since he was a German pilot on a German plane in a German airport, why should he have to use English with the tower?


BECAUSE YOU LOST THE WAR!!!

Kinda like the joke (must have been from the 50's...) British Air pilot is questioning Berlin tower and is taxiing real slow, finally the tower says "Vat, Haf you never been here before???!!!"
BAW replies very cooly. "Once. We didn't stop though, we were just dropping something off!"


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

Hertfordnc- thanks for the advice, maybe I'll start with a letter to the local sailing mag. and work up from there. I wasn't implying that the only way to get anything done with the CG was with political power, only that it might help open some doors or help with finding out who to talk to. I have been misdirected, given wrong numbers, sent to the wrong extension, etc, etc, every time I have contacted them. I'm located in the San Juan Islands, WA, so that is the only first hand info. I have, but from other Sailnetters I gather they have the same complaints in other locales. I'm not on a quest to change the system, it just seems like a couple of minor changes in procedure could possibly help save some lives. Thanks for your input, John

Sailordave- Good one, I'm going send that to my father who flew out of England during WWII.


----------



## hertfordnc (Sep 10, 2007)

ahhh.... The San Juan Isalnds. I was stationed at Whidbey in the early 80's (before jumping to the CG) I spent a summer re-fastening a 55' Chriscraft in Anacortes. I wasn't cut out for that kind fo work. THey didn't ask me back. I'd love to get back there.

Anyway, the CG is a pretty linear organization, not hard to find your way around. I think you can find org charts at uscg.mil The Organization is going through another change right now but there will still be a guy responsable for recreational boaters. 

and if you have his full name you have his email address:

john.j.smith at uscg dot mil and if you google his email address you'll probably find his phone number. 

dave


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

Hertfordnc-thanks for the info. on the CG, I'll give it a try. Are you sure you are talking about the same San Juans, it rains here all the time and there's never any wind for sailing, remember ;-). John


----------



## acwest138 (Sep 1, 2001)

*better land names on charts would help*

How many times have you heard a weather broadcast, tornado warnings for XYZ county, for example, thought you were nearby, checked your chart to see and found nothing but a swathe of beige. I'd ask for at least county names, if that's what is used in the local wx broadcast.


----------



## HenryTully (Jul 7, 2004)

jrd22 said:


> I would like to get your opinions about how the CG broadcasts distress call information. Whenever we hear the local CG (Port Angeles, Victoria, or Seattle) broadcasting a Mayday or Pan Pan message we turn the radio up and listen carefully so that we can assist if we are in the area. The problem for us is that after giving a lot of information they only give the location once and quite often we either don't understand it or we don't recognize the name of the location(Doe Cove, Black Bay, etc). If they give the Lat/Long then it is no problem, but this seems to be only about 20% of the calls. The problem is not that we are not familiar with this area, we have been boating here for a long time (30+ years) and probably have more local knowledge than 90% of boaters. We think it would be a good idea for the CG to repeat the location twice and give some sort of reference to the closest well known landmark eg. "in the vicinity of Buckeye Shoal, which is approximately two nautical miles west of the North end of Cypress Island". An immediate broadcast should be made with whatever information they have, but then as soon as possible we would like to hear a followup broadcast with better location info. In the cold water we have here people have a survival window of about 30 minutes, so it's extremely important to get assistance as quickly as possible.


I'm not surprised at all about your email. Last fall and winter we traveled from NJ to Marathon on our boat. We returned back to Jersey in May. Along the way, we always monitored channel 16. Every day we traveled we listened intently to Coast Guard announcements. On more than a few occasions, we were dismayed over the lack of professionalism or exhibited by Coast Guard personnel in delivering their messages whether they were navigation related or emergencies. On one occasion, we heard a dog barking the background while the coastie read an announcement. On another occasion, the coastie identied an incorrect bridge in the ICN near Norfolk that had broke down and couldn't open. We were also struck over their apparent lack of language skills. Their radio skills were in sharpe contrast to Naval vessel personnel making announcements which were always expertly delivered.

The Coast Guard folks were always helpful when we contacted them for minor assistance. They just need a complete overall and training of radio skills for all personnel given the critical duty of manning channel 16.

Hank Tully


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

hertfordnc said:


> I've read most of this thread and decided to try to reinvigorate it with some comments on the original few pages before it went political and hostile.
> 
> First, I agree that the Coasties could do a better job with those broadcasts but some clarification is in order. There are full time professional radio operators at CG Sectors (formerly called Groups) and at com stations. Then there are watchstanders at boat stations. The latter is what we're often hearing.
> 
> ...


 Excellent post. Taking recorded proof of radio babbling to the proper CO should definetely make some changes. The last I knew, most RadSta's recorded traffic 24/7 esp. CH16 if nothing else. So the proof may already be there if you can get them to play it back and listen. Making a complaint in person also carries alot of weight. Unfortunatly, to date, I don't know of any pissin and moaning on sailnet that fixed anything...


----------



## almostasparky (Jul 22, 2006)

Just my .02 worth.
It may take a while to get fully implimented but DSC radio should help this situation, both for the CG and concerned boaters. 
(Taken from West Marine site)

The importance of Digital Selective Calling
This year the Coast Guard is scheduled to complete the upgrade of their coastal Search and Rescue capabilities, known as Rescue 21. In the next few years, Rescue 21 will eliminate gaps in VHF coverage over the entire coastal US, allow accurate, precise tracking of the location of mayday signals within 20 miles of the coast, and allow enhanced digital recording and playback of distress calls.

All fixed VHF radios now are required to include DSC capability. If your DSC-equipped radio is interfaced with a GPS receiver it will be able to transmit crucial vessel information, your position and, with some higher-end radios, the nature of your distress call (undesignated, fire, flooding, collision, grounding, capsize, sinking, adrift, abandoning, piracy, MOB). In an emergency, one push of a button will make your DSC radio send an automated digital distress alert—like a VHF-frequency EPIRB—containing your position and Maritime Mobile Service Identity (MMSI) number to rescue facilities and other DSC-equipped vessels. We think that these automated distress capabilities are the single best reason to consider replacement of your non-DSC radio, even if it is still working like new.

Hope this helps,

Chuck


----------



## Goodnewsboy (Nov 4, 2006)

Aren't you all being a little anal-retentive about the USCG?

1. They draw from the same pool of young talent as everyone else.
2. I think they do their jobs pretty well. The job seems to be law enforcement plus whatever else they have time and resources for.
3. If we all use proper radiotelephone procedure, we can ultimately get the word accurately. Where is it written that we are all entitled to perfectly clear reception from the USCG (or anyone else) on first transmission?
4. There are no guarantees of anything at sea. You'd better be prepared. If someone shows up to help, that's great, but even the USCG can't make a promise to do so every time.


----------



## Iflyka200s (Oct 3, 2007)

I think that since the S/V Morning Dew (google it I can't post a link yet) the USCG has done a great job (as they always have) 

Between calls the guys at the fire station play basketball and I have never seen them miss a call.

BTW I am a pilot and all my exchanges with USCG while circleing over sailors in trouble comming too and from the Bahamas have been professional and concise.

To all our services, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR NATION!


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

Goodnews- I know this thread is fairly long and has had some twists and turns, but as the OP my intent was not to criticize the CG but to suggest a minor change in the way emergencies(pans, maydays) are broadcast so that boaters in the immediate vicinity may respond quicker and hopefully save some lives(see original post). I would like to address each of your four points regarding the thread if I may.

1. They draw from the same pool of young talent as everyone else.

I'm sure they do, but someone responsible for radio communications during an emergency should be adequately trained to remain calm and be able to communicate clearly and calmly in any situation. I have heard many calls where this was not the case.

2. I think they do their jobs pretty well. The job seems to be law enforcement plus whatever else they have time and resources for.

I have the highest respect for the USCG, as well as our other armed services and assist them whenever possible.

3. If we all use proper radiotelephone procedure, we can ultimately get the word accurately. Where is it written that we are all entitled to perfectly clear reception from the USCG (or anyone else) on first transmission?

Ultimately, in my book, isn't good enough when lives may be at stake. I don't think that it would be good enough, for example, for an air traffic controller to "ultimately" make themselves understood. In some cases, such as emergencies, every effort should be made to be clearly understood the first time. 
Reception is a variable based on many factors which are out of the control of the CG.

4. There are no guarantees of anything at sea. You'd better be prepared. If someone shows up to help, that's great, but even the USCG can't make a promise to do so every time.

I agree, but wouldn't it be a good thing if by making minor changes in the radio procedures more people were able to "show up" and assist you if you were in the water or sinking? Two years ago a pilot from our island went down in the water and died of hypothermia within 40 minutes, his younger passenger survived after being pulled from the water by a boater that responded to a call (telephone). There is not a moment to lose in some cases.

John


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Goodnewsboy said:


> Aren't you all being a little anal-retentive about the USCG?
> 
> 1. They draw from the same pool of young talent as everyone else.
> 2. I think they do their jobs pretty well. The job seems to be law enforcement plus whatever else they have time and resources for.
> ...


Great post...Thankyou ( Tango Uniform)


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Iflyka200s said:


> I think that since the S/V Morning Dew (google it I can't post a link yet) the USCG has done a great job (as they always have)
> 
> Between calls the guys at the fire station play basketball and I have never seen them miss a call.
> 
> ...


Tango Uniform!!!


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

The only way to fix a CG problem, is to bring it to the attention of the CO or
the proper folks. The majority of the Coasties are a proud bunch and ready to serve you, Joe Boater...!!


----------



## Iflyka200s (Oct 3, 2007)

Chief (USCGRET)

Too bad we don't have a "beat the dead horse" icon... I was just adding my 2 cents about how good and professional every USCG crew I have ever come across. 

Be well


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Iflyka200s said:


> Chief (USCGRET)
> 
> Too bad we don't have a "beat the dead horse" icon... I was just adding my 2 cents about how good and professional every USCG crew I have ever come across.
> 
> Be well


Thankyou (Tango Uniform) I read your post and was reflecting with it in mind.
What other tax funded program does so much for the American public?
We were rode very hard and put up quite wet, with very little thanks for my 20 years anyway. You will find me very protective of my CG brothers, as I know where they are and where they're fixin to go....In harms way...to the max...


----------

