Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

On 9/7/2013 10:50 AM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 7:43 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 12:11 AM, Steve Crow wrote:


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

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

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


Two things:

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

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

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

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

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


I wasn't talking to you.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.

==================

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

On 9/7/2013 1:22 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 10:50 AM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 7:43 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 12:11 AM, Steve Crow wrote:


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

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

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


Two things:

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

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

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

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

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


I wasn't talking to you.

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

--

Rick

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

On 9/7/2013 2:03 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 1:22 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 10:50 AM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 7:43 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 12:11 AM, Steve Crow wrote:


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

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

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


Two things:

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

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

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

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

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


I wasn't talking to you.

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


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

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

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.

==================

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

On 9/7/2013 2:11 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 2:03 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 1:22 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 10:50 AM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 7:43 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 12:11 AM, Steve Crow wrote:


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

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

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


Two things:

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



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

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


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

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

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

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


I wasn't talking to you.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the good information you have provided.

--

Rick

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

On 9/7/2013 3:19 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 2:11 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 2:03 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 1:22 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 10:50 AM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 7:43 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 12:11 AM, Steve Crow wrote:


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

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

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


Two things:

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



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

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


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

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

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

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


I wasn't talking to you.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the good information you have provided.


You just don't get it, do you?

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

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

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

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

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

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry,AI0K

==================

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

On 9/7/2013 3:31 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 3:19 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 2:11 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 2:03 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 1:22 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 10:50 AM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 7:43 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 12:11 AM, Steve Crow wrote:


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

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

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


Two things:

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



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

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


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

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

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

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


I wasn't talking to you.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the good information you have provided.


You just don't get it, do you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does that make you feel better?

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

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

--

Rick

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

On 9/7/2013 3:37 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 3:31 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 3:19 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 2:11 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 2:03 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 1:22 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 10:50 AM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 7:43 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 12:11 AM, Steve Crow wrote:


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

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

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


Two things:

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



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

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


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

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

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

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


I wasn't talking to you.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the good information you have provided.


You just don't get it, do you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does that make you feel better?

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

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


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

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

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.

==================

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

On 9/5/2013 6:08 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/5/2013 1:47 PM, Michael Black wrote:
On Thu, 5 Sep 2013, rickman wrote:


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

Michael

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

In message , rickman
writes




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

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

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

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

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

On 9/7/2013 3:44 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 3:37 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 3:31 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 3:19 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 2:11 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 2:03 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 1:22 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 10:50 AM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 7:43 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 12:11 AM, Steve Crow wrote:


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

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

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


Two things:

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



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

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


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

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

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

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


I wasn't talking to you.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the good information you have provided.


You just don't get it, do you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does that make you feel better?

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

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


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

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

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


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

After the first few posts, yes, the rest of this conversation *has* been
a waste of time.

--

Rick

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

On 9/7/2013 3:51 PM, Reader wrote:
On 9/5/2013 6:08 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/5/2013 1:47 PM, Michael Black wrote:
On Thu, 5 Sep 2013, rickman wrote:


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



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

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

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


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

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

I fully plan to apply for a license.

Thanks for the support.

--

Rick

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

On 9/7/2013 4:44 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , rickman writes




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

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

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

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

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

--

Rick

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 17:03:14 -0400, rickman wrote:

On 9/7/2013 4:44 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , rickman writes




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

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

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

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

I will be working on this in the coming week. Thanks for your comments.
"in Canada" non commercial vessels do not need a radio licence, but
operators require an operator's certificate..

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

On 9/7/2013 6:47 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 17:03:14 -0400, wrote:

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




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

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

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

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

I will be working on this in the coming week. Thanks for your comments.
"in Canada" non commercial vessels do not need a radio licence, but
operators require an operator's certificate..

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

--

Rick

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

On 9/7/2013 4:03 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 4:44 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , rickman
writes




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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

Michael

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 19:10:14 -0400, rickman wrote:

On 9/7/2013 6:47 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 17:03:14 -0400, wrote:

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




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

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

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

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

I will be working on this in the coming week. Thanks for your comments.
"in Canada" non commercial vessels do not need a radio licence, but
operators require an operator's certificate..

Yeah, I read on the FCC site that I am ok as long as I am in US waters
or *not* communicating with a foreign station. Something like that. I
don't expect to have any issues related to this though. It gets pretty
cold up there near Canada and the water is even colder.
You DO realize that most Canadians live south of Duluth? Kitchener
is just north of the northern border of California - Great beaches on
Georgian bay and Lake Erie.. Great warm water canoeing and kayaking on
the Grand River.

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

On 9/7/2013 4:44 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , rickman writes




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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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



--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.

==================

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

On 9/7/2013 7:50 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 19:10:14 -0400, wrote:

On 9/7/2013 6:47 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 17:03:14 -0400, wrote:

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




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

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

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

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

I will be working on this in the coming week. Thanks for your comments.
"in Canada" non commercial vessels do not need a radio licence, but
operators require an operator's certificate..

Yeah, I read on the FCC site that I am ok as long as I am in US waters
or *not* communicating with a foreign station. Something like that. I
don't expect to have any issues related to this though. It gets pretty
cold up there near Canada and the water is even colder.
You DO realize that most Canadians live south of Duluth? Kitchener
is just north of the northern border of California - Great beaches on
Georgian bay and Lake Erie.. Great warm water canoeing and kayaking on
the Grand River.

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

http://www.coldwatersafety.org/

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

Rick

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

On 9/8/2013 9:48 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 00:07:21 -0400, wrote:

On 9/7/2013 7:50 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 19:10:14 -0400, wrote:

On 9/7/2013 6:47 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 17:03:14 -0400, wrote:

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




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

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

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

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

I will be working on this in the coming week. Thanks for your comments.
"in Canada" non commercial vessels do not need a radio licence, but
operators require an operator's certificate..

Yeah, I read on the FCC site that I am ok as long as I am in US waters
or *not* communicating with a foreign station. Something like that. I
don't expect to have any issues related to this though. It gets pretty
cold up there near Canada and the water is even colder.
You DO realize that most Canadians live south of Duluth? Kitchener
is just north of the northern border of California - Great beaches on
Georgian bay and Lake Erie.. Great warm water canoeing and kayaking on
the Grand River.

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

http://www.coldwatersafety.org/

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

--

Rick

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 00:07:21 -0400, rickman wrote:

On 9/7/2013 7:50 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 19:10:14 -0400, wrote:

On 9/7/2013 6:47 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 17:03:14 -0400, wrote:

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




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

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

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

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

I will be working on this in the coming week. Thanks for your comments.
"in Canada" non commercial vessels do not need a radio licence, but
operators require an operator's certificate..

Yeah, I read on the FCC site that I am ok as long as I am in US waters
or *not* communicating with a foreign station. Something like that. I
don't expect to have any issues related to this though. It gets pretty
cold up there near Canada and the water is even colder.
You DO realize that most Canadians live south of Duluth? Kitchener
is just north of the northern border of California - Great beaches on
Georgian bay and Lake Erie.. Great warm water canoeing and kayaking on
the Grand River.

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

http://www.coldwatersafety.org/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

On 9/8/2013 9:44 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 07:32:19 -0400, wrote:

On 9/8/2013 9:48 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 00:07:21 -0400, wrote:

On 9/7/2013 7:50 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 19:10:14 -0400, wrote:

Yeah, I read on the FCC site that I am ok as long as I am in US waters
or *not* communicating with a foreign station. Something like that. I
don't expect to have any issues related to this though. It gets pretty
cold up there near Canada and the water is even colder.
You DO realize that most Canadians live south of Duluth? Kitchener
is just north of the northern border of California - Great beaches on
Georgian bay and Lake Erie.. Great warm water canoeing and kayaking on
the Grand River.

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

http://www.coldwatersafety.org/

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Did you do any reading of the cold water safety site I mentioned. Most
people don't realize the danger of cold water or just how cold it needs
to be to be dangerous.
The temperatures right now - Sept 1 to 9, 2013 at the bottom of the
shand Dam at Belwood has been a steady 20C. It warms up as it flows
through the Elora Goege down to Brigeport (Kitchener) where it has
gone from 25 down to 20 and back up to 23C over the last 8 days.Down
at Port Maitland where it enters the lake, it has run from 27 to 21C,
and at it's coldest point it has varied between 18 and 15C.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

Rick

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 07:32:19 -0400, rickman wrote:

On 9/8/2013 9:48 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 00:07:21 -0400, wrote:

On 9/7/2013 7:50 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 19:10:14 -0400, wrote:

On 9/7/2013 6:47 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 17:03:14 -0400, wrote:

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




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

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

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

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

I will be working on this in the coming week. Thanks for your comments.
"in Canada" non commercial vessels do not need a radio licence, but
operators require an operator's certificate..

Yeah, I read on the FCC site that I am ok as long as I am in US waters
or *not* communicating with a foreign station. Something like that. I
don't expect to have any issues related to this though. It gets pretty
cold up there near Canada and the water is even colder.
You DO realize that most Canadians live south of Duluth? Kitchener
is just north of the northern border of California - Great beaches on
Georgian bay and Lake Erie.. Great warm water canoeing and kayaking on
the Grand River.

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

http://www.coldwatersafety.org/

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Did you do any reading of the cold water safety site I mentioned. Most
people don't realize the danger of cold water or just how cold it needs
to be to be dangerous.
The temperatures right now - Sept 1 to 9, 2013 at the bottom of the
shand Dam at Belwood has been a steady 20C. It warms up as it flows
through the Elora Goege down to Brigeport (Kitchener) where it has
gone from 25 down to 20 and back up to 23C over the last 8 days.Down
at Port Maitland where it enters the lake, it has run from 27 to 21C,
and at it's coldest point it has varied between 18 and 15C.

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

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

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

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

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

On 9/7/2013 9:46 AM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 12:11 AM, Steve Crow wrote:

On Fri, 6 Sep 2013, rickman wrote:

-- snip --

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

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

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

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

I don't play that game.

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

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


You're quite welcome.


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

Just be careful out there.

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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


Michael

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

On 9/9/2013 12:49 PM, Reader wrote:
On 9/7/2013 9:46 AM, rickman wrote:

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



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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

--

Rick

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

On 9/11/2013 12:46 AM, rickman wrote:
On 9/9/2013 12:49 PM, Reader wrote:
On 9/7/2013 9:46 AM, rickman wrote:

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



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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


Hi Rick

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

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

:-)

Michael

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

In article , rickman
wrote:

I am going to be providing shore monitoring for a kayak trip and will be
using a VHF radio from my pickup. I am thinking of installing a unit
rather than using a handheld. I took a look at what there is available
and it seems like the prices start at just over $100 for the unit itself
running up to $500 for a fancy unit that is mounted somewhere hidden and
all the controls in a hand held mic.

Other than the obvious features like the remote mic unit, what should I
look for in getting a quality unit that will work the best without
breaking the bank. I don't want to pay $500, but I will pay $200 or
more if there is a useful difference with the ~$100 units.

I doubt I'll be mounting this in a boat although that is a possibility
someday, I do have a ski boat. But more likely is that I'll mount it at
my house on a lake to provide some amount of emergency monitoring. So I
expect to mount it in the pickup so it can be easily removed and brought
into the house. I guess that means a second antenna too.

Words of advice?


Have you ever heard the saying that the Usenet has given new life to
the uninformed opinion? Stop arguing with people who don't know what
they are talking about. If you needed a shore-side license for a new
marina or yacht club, your question could be answered easily. It sounds
like you propose to be the equivalent of what a mountain-climbing
expedition would call a "ground man." What you propose is sufficiently
unusual that I will guess that not 50 people in the world could advise
you on it. One category would be the high-priced communications lawyers
that advise the large corporations that own the commercial radio
industry. Another category would be the radio experts at the Coast
Guard's headquarters offices. The last category would be in the depths
of the FCC headquarters offices. You will need to get past a few layers
of call screeners before you reach an expert who can give an informed
answer to a question about an esoteric point of technical regulations,
but you will get a definitive answer at a price you can afford to pay
(zero).
By the way, I hold an Amateur Extra license and a general
radiotelephone operator's license with a radar endorsement and I have no
idea what the answer is.

--
Klystron

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

On 9/11/2013 7:41 PM, Klystron wrote:
In article , rickman
wrote:

I am going to be providing shore monitoring for a kayak trip and will be
using a VHF radio from my pickup. I am thinking of installing a unit
rather than using a handheld. I took a look at what there is available
and it seems like the prices start at just over $100 for the unit itself
running up to $500 for a fancy unit that is mounted somewhere hidden and
all the controls in a hand held mic.

Other than the obvious features like the remote mic unit, what should I
look for in getting a quality unit that will work the best without
breaking the bank. I don't want to pay $500, but I will pay $200 or
more if there is a useful difference with the ~$100 units.

I doubt I'll be mounting this in a boat although that is a possibility
someday, I do have a ski boat. But more likely is that I'll mount it at
my house on a lake to provide some amount of emergency monitoring. So I
expect to mount it in the pickup so it can be easily removed and brought
into the house. I guess that means a second antenna too.

Words of advice?


Have you ever heard the saying that the Usenet has given new life to
the uninformed opinion? Stop arguing with people who don't know what
they are talking about. If you needed a shore-side license for a new
marina or yacht club, your question could be answered easily. It sounds
like you propose to be the equivalent of what a mountain-climbing
expedition would call a "ground man." What you propose is sufficiently
unusual that I will guess that not 50 people in the world could advise
you on it. One category would be the high-priced communications lawyers
that advise the large corporations that own the commercial radio
industry. Another category would be the radio experts at the Coast
Guard's headquarters offices. The last category would be in the depths
of the FCC headquarters offices. You will need to get past a few layers
of call screeners before you reach an expert who can give an informed
answer to a question about an esoteric point of technical regulations,
but you will get a definitive answer at a price you can afford to pay
(zero).
By the way, I hold an Amateur Extra license and a general
radiotelephone operator's license with a radar endorsement and I have no
idea what the answer is.


Klystron,

I also hold an Amateur Extra class license (since 1971) and a General
Radiotelephone Operator's license (grandfathered from a First Class
Radiotelephone Operator's License in 1970) with Ship's Radar Endorsement
(1972). And I have worked in many areas, including land mobile,
maritime and broadcast radio.

Even I know enough to check the FCC Regulations for the law regarding
licensing. And according to the references earlier in this thread, he
doesn't qualify for any shore license.

But you're right - he needs to check with a legal authority - in this
case, it would be an attorney familiar with maritime radio licensing.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

On 9/11/2013 11:03 AM, Reader wrote:
On 9/11/2013 12:46 AM, rickman wrote:
On 9/9/2013 12:49 PM, Reader wrote:
On 9/7/2013 9:46 AM, rickman wrote:

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



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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


Hi Rick

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.coldwatersafety.org/

--

Rick

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

On 9/11/2013 7:41 PM, Klystron wrote:
In ,
wrote:

I am going to be providing shore monitoring for a kayak trip and will be
using a VHF radio from my pickup. I am thinking of installing a unit
rather than using a handheld. I took a look at what there is available
and it seems like the prices start at just over $100 for the unit itself
running up to $500 for a fancy unit that is mounted somewhere hidden and
all the controls in a hand held mic.

Other than the obvious features like the remote mic unit, what should I
look for in getting a quality unit that will work the best without
breaking the bank. I don't want to pay $500, but I will pay $200 or
more if there is a useful difference with the ~$100 units.

I doubt I'll be mounting this in a boat although that is a possibility
someday, I do have a ski boat. But more likely is that I'll mount it at
my house on a lake to provide some amount of emergency monitoring. So I
expect to mount it in the pickup so it can be easily removed and brought
into the house. I guess that means a second antenna too.

Words of advice?


Have you ever heard the saying that the Usenet has given new life to
the uninformed opinion? Stop arguing with people who don't know what
they are talking about. If you needed a shore-side license for a new
marina or yacht club, your question could be answered easily. It sounds
like you propose to be the equivalent of what a mountain-climbing
expedition would call a "ground man." What you propose is sufficiently
unusual that I will guess that not 50 people in the world could advise
you on it. One category would be the high-priced communications lawyers
that advise the large corporations that own the commercial radio
industry. Another category would be the radio experts at the Coast
Guard's headquarters offices. The last category would be in the depths
of the FCC headquarters offices. You will need to get past a few layers
of call screeners before you reach an expert who can give an informed
answer to a question about an esoteric point of technical regulations,
but you will get a definitive answer at a price you can afford to pay
(zero).
By the way, I hold an Amateur Extra license and a general
radiotelephone operator's license with a radar endorsement and I have no
idea what the answer is.

Thanks for your reply. I fully plan to contact the FCC about this.

--

Rick

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

rickman wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geoff.

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

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 04:52:44 -0400, rickman wrote:

On 9/11/2013 11:03 AM, Reader wrote:
On 9/11/2013 12:46 AM, rickman wrote:
On 9/9/2013 12:49 PM, Reader wrote:
On 9/7/2013 9:46 AM, rickman wrote:

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



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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


Hi Rick

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.coldwatersafety.org/
Get a "cartopper" boat and strap it to a ladder rack on your truck -
put the "radio operator" in the boat.

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.coldwatersafety.org/

Hi Rick,

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

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

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

On 9/12/2013 6:24 AM, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
rickman wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

Rick

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

On 9/12/2013 10:33 AM, Reader wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

http://www.coldwatersafety.org/

Hi Rick,

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

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

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

--

Rick

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:14:07 +0000 (UTC), "Geoffrey S. Mendelson"
wrote:

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

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

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

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

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

rickman wrote:

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

Marine VHF Radio for Truck
 

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

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

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

Geoff.

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

Michael