# I took a traffic list today!



## Troppo (Feb 18, 2010)

XSG 12 MHz.

QRJs for 2 chinese (B callsign) ships.

Amazing...!


----------



## sparkie2182 (May 12, 2007)

Isn't it?

A blast from the past for you.


----------



## david.hopcroft (Jun 29, 2005)

Just QSX 12mcs to see what I could hear. Couldn't find XSG anywhere, but did get the call band from HLW2 - Seoul - on 12923kcs

My QTH is East Coast UK, 1849 gmt, dark for just over an hour now.

David
+


----------



## Troppo (Feb 18, 2010)

I did a job at XSG about 9 years ago.

A pic of one of their their tx halls is attached. A real traditional coast station.


----------



## John Briggs (Feb 12, 2006)

Could one of you kind sparkies please explain in simple language what this is all about?


----------



## Cisco (Jan 29, 2007)

They won't do that... it's 'secret sparky business'.... if they let us know what that was all about then us mates would take over and they would all be out of a job


----------



## Bob Murdoch (Dec 11, 2004)

A traffic list is a list of call signs of ships for which the transmitting station has traffic, or messages if you prefer.
Cheers, Bob


----------



## Larry Bennett (Aug 28, 2005)

david.hopcroft said:


> Just QSX 12mcs to see what I could hear. Couldn't find XSG anywhere, but did get the call band from HLW2 - Seoul - on 12923kcs


Signals QSA3 on 17130 and QSA1 on 12923 from HLW this morning.....also receiving RTT signals from XSG (Shanghai) and XSQ (Guangzhou) on 16 MHz too....

The Far East seems to be the place to be for HF commercial working.

Larry +


----------



## King Ratt (Aug 23, 2005)

Good to hear that some nations are maintaining their CW and HF skills. They will come in handy when the next WW starts and all the satellites get EMP zapped.


----------



## John Briggs (Feb 12, 2006)

Bob Murdoch said:


> A traffic list is a list of call signs of ships for which the transmitting station has traffic, or messages if you prefer.
> Cheers, Bob


Thank you Bob. That makes it all a bit clearer.
I assumed that with the advent of GMDSS traffic lists were a thing of the past.


----------



## Cisco (Jan 29, 2007)

King Ratt said:


> Good to hear that some nations are maintaining their CW and HF skills. They will come in handy when the next WW starts and all the satellites get EMP zapped.


Listen just above 7.000 MHz (LSB) and just above 14.000 MHz (USB) ..... CW far from dead.......

73 VK3JFH/VP8DNM


----------



## King Ratt (Aug 23, 2005)

I will,Cisco, ta.


----------



## trotterdotpom (Apr 29, 2005)

John:

QSX ... I am listening to

QTH ... my position is

QRJ ... I have a radio telephone call you ...

QSA ... your signal strength is (1 to 5 with 5 being good).

RTT ... radio teleprinter

XSG ... call sign of Shanghai Radio.

QRK?

John T


----------



## John Briggs (Feb 12, 2006)

Many thanks trotterdot, that is excellent and clears up many mysteries.
I did know what a traffic list was but now I will be able to read sparkie threads with a good deal more understanding.


----------



## sparkie2182 (May 12, 2007)

I see Trotterdot has found his tattered old "Handbook for Wireless Operators".

The "orange" one i presume.


----------



## King Ratt (Aug 23, 2005)

And further to trotterdotpom's Q codes there is the old favourite QRM? - Are you being interfered with?


----------



## spacetracker (Jun 17, 2008)

QSQ? - Do you have a doctor on board? - remembered as Quick Send Quack.


----------



## richardwakeley (Jan 4, 2010)

Several of the PR China stations still have CW listings in ALRS Vol I.
Also, here in Hong Kong we use XSG and XSQ for testing the RTT (NBDP) on
MF/HF when doing radio surveys. It's still in GMDSS, although hardly any ship's crew ever use it.


----------



## Troppo (Feb 18, 2010)

NBDP is a waste of time.


----------



## richardwakeley (Jan 4, 2010)

Troppo, you are exactly right. I don't know why IMO haven't dropped NBDP from GMDSS yet. I can't imagine any ship in distress is going to use it. Anyway, now more and more new build ships are going for the duplicated Inm-C option and not fitting NBDP - only need SSB and DSC on the MF/HF radio.


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

NBDP and DSC are in the GMDSS because IMO was not permitted to adopt an all-satellite comms approach. This was largely political because the USSR, China and India were of the view that since the USA launched and controlled the satellites, it was not acceptable that international distress and safety communications should be dependent on it. 

Prior to the break-up of the USSR in the early 1990s, those countries had a large following (all the Eastern bloc countries plus third world countries) and they were able to swing the votes against satcom and in favour of HF. Ships already had HF and scare stories about the huge cost of adding satcoms and high call charges persuaded shipowners to oppose any change (as if they needed encouragement).

Western owners were only too keen to allow both systems to be adopted by the GMDSS since they didn't care about HF, they wanted to be able to fit satcoms and dump the R/O. Payback for fitting satcoms and dispensing with the R/O was about 8 months.


----------



## Troppo (Feb 18, 2010)

NBDP was actually championed by the Japanese - it was intended for those seafarers who don't have English as a 1st language. 

Such people often can understand written English, rather than spoken.

However, as I like to say when I run GMDSS courses, the practicalities of a distress situation mean than it is far easier for the mates to yell into a microphone than type on a keyboard when the water is coming in the bridge wing doors...

Moreover, NBDP is clunky and difficult to operate for the average GMDSS user. It really is a dog of a system. It could be a lot easier, but, as usual, IMO doesn't have the corporate intestinal fortitude to sort it out.... 

One of the strengths of the GMDSS is the multiplicity of comms links it offers - all your eggs aren't in the one proverbial basket. The satellite proponents and some administrations would just love to get rid of HF all together, and with it DSC and NBDP. 

The GMDSS is being modernised- NBDP will most probably be ditched, BUT MF/HF and DSC will remain. 

Australian shipping companies made a concious decision to go the 2 Inmarsat C option when we introduced GMDSS here. 

A wise move.


----------



## trotterdotpom (Apr 29, 2005)

Oh no, just when it felt safe to step back in the water ....I feel old .... what the hell is NBDP?

John T


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

Troppo said:


> NBDP was actually championed by the Japanese - it was intended for those seafarers who don't have English as a 1st language.


Contrary to what you say, at IMO during the development of the GMDSS, the Japanese were strong supporters of the adoption of satellite comms. Representatives of Japan Radio Corp. (leading manufacturers of INMARSAT equipment at the time) were prominent in the Japanese delegation. 

NBDP and HF comms with their greater demand for skilled users aboard ship, were pushed a) by third world companies and the USSR - to whom the operator costs were minimal and b) by Greek and other FOC shipowners, who automatically oppose all equipment changes. For the West, the fact that the one-off cost of a GMDSS installation was only $40,000 but a skilled radio operator cost _*at least *_$60,000 per annum, made the choice a no-brainer. Japan with wage costs similar to those in the West did not support the retention of HF, whether in NDBP or DSC modes.

By the time of full implementation of the GMDSS in 1996, the USSR had broken up and their wage bills were rising. New INMARSAt services were proving attractive to shipowners and HF DSC & NBDP service were rapid decline. HF maritime services were being withdrawn around the world and today remain in very few locations. So there is little if any interest at IMO in tinkering with redundant HF services in order to improve them. 

Fully automated HF NBDP services were available from Sweden in the 1970s, in the 1980s from Holland and Switzerland but the satellite systems captured the market for ship-shore voice and data services. HF NBDP and DSC looked promising but did not make the grade. They are now some 40 years old and should be allowed to die peacefully.


----------



## Troppo (Feb 18, 2010)

OK, fair enough, but the major supporters of NBDP at IMO these days are the Japanese. 

Yes, NBDP is old hat, BUT HF is still strong in the maritime service. Not as strong as satcom (obviously), but automated HF email systems are used for a surprisingly high amount of traffic still.

The HF DSC channels are very busy, with calls at least every 2 or 3 seconds on 8, 12 and 16 MHz.

Satcom is excellent for commercial comms and ship-shore alerting, but it can not offer direct ship-ship alerting. The calls are always routed via an LES and RCC.

That's why DSC will not die....

73


----------



## Troppo (Feb 18, 2010)

Further to this, I dug up an interesting stat that I saw in a report from CIRM the other day, quote:

“Over 4500 ships are known to use digital (HF) systems which automatically route messages to their destination producing a million messages a month. New, highly efficient technology is being developed which in the next 3 years, is expected to double this use.”

Unquote.


----------



## david.hopcroft (Jun 29, 2005)

This theme has rekindled a little listening around in me. I have a decent Lowe HF235 receiver, but only with a straight long-wire out down the garden. 

Today - 11.10.11 1120gmt - Seoul/HLO on 12843khz call band is a good workable QSA3-4. 

What wouldn't I have given for a Rx like this in the early 60's ! An R50M was as good as it got then.

David
531849N
001633E


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

Troppo said:


> Satcom is excellent for commercial comms and ship-shore alerting, but it can not offer direct ship-ship alerting. The calls are always routed via an LES and RCC.
> 
> That's why DSC will not die....
> 
> 73


Misunderstanding of the basic principles of GMDSS there Troppo.

The greatest weakness of earlier distress and safety alerting systems, from Titanic onwards, was that they depended almost entirely on ship-ship alerting. Fine if there was a ship within communication range and there was someone aboard it listening for your distress call around the clock, but not so good in reality.

So the replacement started with the concept that initial alerts would be from ship-shore. That required ships to carry appropriate equipment that enabled them to alert a shore station from anywhere that they were located at the time. Hence the A1 (within range of a shore VHF DSC station), A2 (within range of a shore MF DSC station), A3 (within coverage of a satellite relay system) and A4 (within range of a shore HF DSC station) categories for the ships radio station carriage requirements.

Once an alert had been received ashore, the appropriate authorities would take on the task of alerting ships in the area and, initially, co-ordinating responses. Similar to the way that SAR is operated by HMCG around the UK coast but on a global scale.

Another original principle was that ships would be able to maintain H24 automatic watch for shore alerts (regardless of their location) and to carry out communications with shore stations following receipt of an alert. Initially it was a requirement that all such communications would be by some means that would automatically produce written messages. The satellite comms service had automated watchkeeping and direct-printing incorporated, so they did not have a problem. For HF-equipped stations, DSC and NBDP were selected. 

HF voice communications were too problematic for distress use and so, for long-ranges, the voice requirement was eventually dropped and only text communication was mandated, allowing INMARSAT-C to be endorsed for that purpose. Conversely at short range, in Area A1, nobody wanted to have NBDP as the main communications method, so the hard-copy requirement was dropped and replaced by voice. So we finished up with voice-only at short ranges and text-only for long ranges. The requirement to provide both voice and text messages was retained only for medium-range communications!

Compromised principles (as always at IMO). That was 30-odd years ago but there is still no intention to change the basic GMDSS principles and move from ship-shore (as opposed to ship-ship) as the prime means of distress alerting.

In my view that is not a bad thing - if you are in distress in the Pacific you are more likely to get a faster response (and a more positive outcome) if you send your distress alert via COSPAS/SARSAT or via one of the long-range ship shore GMDSS routes, to the Falmouth MRCC in the UK, rather than trying to alert a ship like the Rena.


----------



## Larry Bennett (Aug 28, 2005)

david.hopcroft said:


> Today - 11.10.11 1120gmt - Seoul/HLO on 12843khz call band is a good workable QSA3-4.


For further info, email received from Seoul Radio this morning, listing the following active w/t frequencies:

HLG 8484Khz / 09-24/UTC
12935Khz / H24
HLF 12916.5Khz / H24
 22611.5Khz / 00-09/UTC
HLJ 16910Khz / 00-09/UTC
HLO 12843Khz / H24
16990Khz/ 00-09/UTC
HLW 8636Khz / 09-24/UTC
17130Khz / 00-09/UTC
HLW2 12923Khz / H24

Traffic list heard at 0800z with a few 6Mxx callsigns listed. 12 MHz and 16 MHz frequencies open to the UK at around this time.

Larry +


----------



## n. liddell (sparks) (Nov 21, 2008)

*Qrk*

What is the intelligibilty of my signals i.e. 1, bad up to 5, excellent


trotterdotpom said:


> John:
> 
> QSX ... I am listening to
> 
> ...


----------



## sparkie2182 (May 12, 2007)

" NBDP"

Narrow Band Direct Printing. (Telex)


----------



## sparkie2182 (May 12, 2007)

One of the great drawbacks of H.F. D.S.C is the range covered by Distress Alerts (including relays and M.R.C.C. acknowledgements)........A distress alert originating in the Indian Ocean and tx'd on all the H.F. bands caused D.S.C. equipment to alarm on ships throughout the entire world.........and this happened on a regular basis......very regular.

The admission that we "just switch the gear off" was one which i heard on a weekly basis.


----------



## 5TT (May 3, 2008)

> I have a decent Lowe HF235 receiver


That's a decent piece of kit David, I was amazed at how well they perform, but I'm surprised you haven't got at least one EC958 on the dining room table as well, surely there were a few of those made redundant by a previous employer?

= Adrian +


----------



## david.hopcroft (Jun 29, 2005)

They were replaced by Racal 1217's (the slimline one ?)

David
+

+


----------



## Troppo (Feb 18, 2010)

Ron Stringer said:


> Misunderstanding of the basic principles of GMDSS there Troppo.
> 
> The greatest weakness of earlier distress and safety alerting systems, from Titanic onwards, was that they depended almost entirely on ship-ship alerting. Fine if there was a ship within communication range and there was someone aboard it listening for your distress call around the clock, but not so good in reality.
> 
> ...


Ron,

You clearly do not understand the 9 functional requirements of the GMDSS, do you?

Amongst them are the ability to tx and rx ship-shore *AND* *ship-ship distress alerts*.

MF, VHF and HF voice comms are a requirement of the GMDSS, regardless of sea area.....

When a ship sends a DSC alert on VHF, MF or HF, their next action is to come up on the associated R/T channel and send a voice mayday - this is a requirement for _all_ Sea Areas - not just A1 (VHF).

So, there is and will be a requirement for ship-ship alerting in A2/3 for many years to come.


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

Troppo said:


> Ron,
> 
> You clearly do not understand the 9 functional requirements of the GMDSS, do you?


Well I think I just might. At IMO, CCIR and ITU I was an active member of all the technical working groups that were involved in determining the manner in which the operational requirements of the GMDSS could be achieved in practice, during its development from FGMDSS in 1977 to full GMDSS implementation in 1996. I was variously representing the UK and CIRM. I haven't just read about it, I was there and actually wrote several of the reports of the various working parties that were later incorporated in the IMO GMDSS recommendations. 



Troppo said:


> Amongst them are the ability to tx and rx ship-shore *AND* *ship-ship distress alerts*.


You are correct, but the latter is not intended as primary alerting methods. The reason for designating the various GMDSS areas by their distance from suitably-equipped shore stations is so that ships in distress can be confident of alerting those shore stations. If it was intended that the system operated on the basis of ship-ship communications, the required operational alerting range could have been much less. Ship-ship alerting is a nice-to-have side effect, not a basic requirement.

In each of the MF and VHF bands, the use of a single frequency for transmitting alerts from both ship and shore stations means that distress alerts transmitted from ships to shore stations will also be heard by other ships within range. (As far as the station in distress is concerned of course, the only matter of importance is that someone hears it, regardless of who they are).

The typical scenario is that an alert, having been received by a shore station within range of the emergency, is retransmitted by that shore station to ships in the area and the details of the emergency are also broadcast on a Maritime Safety Information (MSI) channel (NAVTEX or SafetyNet) to the area concerned. That is intended to maximise the number of stations vicinity of the emergency being alerted to the situation. Meanwhile the SAR authorities are notified and can set the necessary rescue operations into motion. 

Nearby ships receiving an initial distress alert are required to take no action concerning re-broadcasting that alert (distress relay), unless there is no response from a shore station.



Troppo said:


> MF, VHF and HF voice comms are a requirement of the GMDSS, regardless of sea area.....


Not so. If you remain within Area A1, you need carry only VHF - no need for MF or HF.

If you remain within a declared Area A2 you do not need to carry HF voice comms.

If you sail only within a declared Area A3 you do not need to carry HF voice comms.



Troppo said:


> When a ship sends a DSC alert on VHF, MF or HF, their next action is to come up on the associated R/T channel and send a voice mayday - this is a requirement for _all_ Sea Areas - not just A1 (VHF).


Not so. The distress alerting frequencies are continuously monitored by automatic means by all (ship and shore) stations in the area and should always be used for the transmission of alerting calls. The distress communication frequencies are not so monitored and are provided for subsequent communications exclusively between those stations involved in providing assistance as well as the station in distress.

Of course a ship in distress may transmit on any frequency that it is considered necessary to initiate assistance.


----------



## Troppo (Feb 18, 2010)

Ron, 

Alas, your GMDSS knowledge is not quite up to date.

Ship-ship alerting is a _functional requirement_ under the GMDSS, not a nice to have side effect.

This web site summarises GMDSS quite nicely:

www.gmdss.info

Rgds


----------



## richardwakeley (Jan 4, 2010)

Once again I fully agree with you Troppo. MF/HF DSC and SSB are a very good alternative to Satcom for distress alerting and communication. Note you are teaching GMDSS courses - I just took the GOC last year (in Singapore), because many class societies are now insisting the techs doing radio surveys have GOC, and my old PMG doesn't count. I was the oldest guy on the course!
Last night in HKG I actually used the NBDP, checking an MF/HF rig I was repairing on a container ship. QSO with XSQ on 4MHz and XSV on 12MHz.


----------



## richardwakeley (Jan 4, 2010)

Another "by the way". I think most of the automated NBDP is on the Globe Wireless e-mail system. They use an Icom MF/HF 200W rig connected to the ship's e-mail computer, automatic scanning the shore stations. They use Inmarsat-B or F as a back up and for long messages. But GW seem to be phasing this out now, they are removing the Icoms from many ships and installing both Inmarsat FBB (the smaller radome type) and Iridium Open Port as primary and back up. Of course these are for commercial communication and nothing to do with GMDSS.


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

Troppo said:


> Ron,
> 
> Alas, your GMDSS knowledge is not quite up to date.
> 
> Ship-ship alerting is a _functional requirement_ under the GMDSS, not a nice to have side effect.


I think we are getting into the region of splitting hairs now, Troppo. I fully accept that my experience is not up to date; I have been retired and out of the loop for over a decade now. However I don't believe that in that time there has been significant review of, or change to, the GMDSS principles.

Since the transmission frequencies used are common to both ship-shore and shore-ship alerting, and because all ships are required to be able to receive shore-ship alerts, then it follows that all ships can receive alerts from other ships. 

However in setting up the requirements for the equipment to be provided aboard ship, the defining principle was the distance the ship would travel from a shore station that could receive distress alerts. Hence the establishment of Areas A1 through A4. The distance necessary to broadcast a distress alert in order to contact other ships was not considered since it would mainly be an unknown and in any case such alerting would come about automatically as a consequence of employing mutual transmitting frequencies, as pointed out above.

In the early days of implementation, certainly in European waters, the GMDSS service was almost brought to its knees (and attracted much adverse publicity) as an indirect and unwanted consequence of ship-ship alerting. Those aboard ships, having received an alert, proceeded to re-broadcast them, so interfering with and, in some cases completely blocking, communnications between the vessel in distress and those trying to assist it. As more and more relay broadcasts triggered the alarms on more and more ships they resulted in even more relay broadcasts from those ships.

This problem was much discussed at IMO and eventually resulted in at least one IMO Circular emphasising that ships should not relay received alerts unless there had been no response from any shore station. Member governments were asked to review their training methods to take this into account. Not in itself a weakness of GMDSS or of ship-ship alerting, more the fault of inadequate training and lack of discipline of those using the system. But heavily publicised by the opponents of GMDSS at the time.

Personally, if forced to transmit a distress alert at sea (assuming that the ship's installation only permitted me to use one system at a time), my preference would be to start with a geostationary satellite system followed by the others available in accordance with my location. I would prefer that a professional SAR organisation (however far away) was aware of my situation and had it in hand, rather than be solely dependent upon someone aboard another ship, who might decide that my request for help was inconvenient for commercial or operational reasons. I would rather be in communication with someone skilled in distress communications and rescue coordination than take my chances with someone whose occupation and training did not necessarily cover such matters.

Mind you, when it comes to actually getting me out of the water I would have no such high principle and would accept anyone able to avoid running me down. So I would be happy whoever the MRCC (or equivalent) sent to get me. I can be so gracious at times.

Next year is the centenary of the loss of the liner "Titanic". Argument still continues whether the ship-ship alerting method in use at the time failed (and many lives were lost) because the distress message was not received, or because it was received but ignored, or should have been transmitted on other frequencies. Those designing the GMDSS intended to remove such questions by providing a radio alerting link that, once initiated, removed all possibility of human error from the communications element. 

Whether it has been totally successful is perhaps a matter of debate but we can be fairly confident that if the "Titanic" incident was happening today, a distress alert would be received by at least one shore station and the world would know of the seriousness of the vessel's situation within minutes, not hours. So some progress at least.


----------



## Troppo (Feb 18, 2010)

Yes, indeed, the new system is a major improvement over W/T - that, we are in furious agreement on..



A3 GMDSS ships will use 2 separate systems for ship-shore and ship-ship alerting.

A3 GMDSS ships in distress will send a ship-shore alert via Inmarsat C, and a ship ship alert via VHF DSC and MF DSC (if time permits).

That is the strength of the system - it provides direct alerting to the SAR authorities, and _also_ to ships in your vicinity. 

Rgds


----------



## Troppo (Feb 18, 2010)

richardwakeley said:


> Once again I fully agree with you Troppo. MF/HF DSC and SSB are a very good alternative to Satcom for distress alerting and communication. Note you are teaching GMDSS courses - I just took the GOC last year (in Singapore), because many class societies are now insisting the techs doing radio surveys have GOC, and my old PMG doesn't count. I was the oldest guy on the course!
> Last night in HKG I actually used the NBDP, checking an MF/HF rig I was repairing on a container ship. QSO with XSQ on 4MHz and XSV on 12MHz.


Hello Richard.

99.9% of courses I run these days are for coast station operators, when we install a new system.

Yes, good to see that class wants a GOC for surveyors....about time....(*)) 

I have been to XSQ - like most Chinese stations, they use JRC gear.

Great to see that you could QSO them.

Yes, GW run a great system - it gets round the old bugbear of propagation - there are lots of stations in the network, so you are always in range of at least 1 station....and you can get your traffic from any of them...

Kind of like a modern automated version of the old area scheme...


----------



## Mimcoman (May 18, 2008)

trotterdotpom said:


> Oh no, just when it felt safe to step back in the water ....I feel old .... what the hell is NBDP?
> 
> John T


Narrow Band Direct Printing - ie (basically) RTTY.

I love TLAs (and FLAs)

Bill


----------



## richardwakeley (Jan 4, 2010)

Just received a DNV circular re radio surveys on GMDSS ships. Seems quite a few flag states (e.g. Norway, Denmark, Bahamas) will now give NBDP exemption provided the MF/HF DSC/SSB is in good working order.


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

Exemption is usually easily obtained providing only redundancy is affected and not functionality. I have had as much as three months in cases where suitable replacement kit (and this would have been another Sat C rather than TOR) was on long delivery. 

TOR is already slated for removal from A1-3 safetyradio kit - and restrospectively.

If you are talking about equivalence (outfit accepted as complying without exemption) then, when I last looked, regulators were looking to include the commercial Inmarsat set into the safetyradio outfit.

To me the obvious solution to LRIT (were there to have been a real problem to solve!) was to fit a second Sat C, fully compliant with both GMDSS and LRIT. This allows you to write the TOR out of your safetyradio outfit. Future outfits with two Sat Cs both fully compliant with LRIT and GMDSS then gives you redundancy for LRIT as well (not without some administrative complications I grant).

(Our outfits pre LRIT, despite continuous advice from regulators that very few Sat Cs would fail to meet the latest peformance standard, all those in our fleet did although we did not prove it, as many did, by submitting them for conformance testing). 

Maybe this is also dated comment. In all the emergency exercises we had in the last 8 years or so almost every one relied on the commercial radio kit (despite my observations) - some procedures, indeed, being impossible to carry out using GMDSS kit (compartment damage information for example). Perhaps it would be better to mandate the same broader band systems used for commercial traffic with suitable redundancy and emergency power support.

Whilst I defy any steerable aerial to have survived a Costa Concordia type incline the evolution of such an incident is unlikely to have been arrested by any data exchange. In other cir***stances, having a high functionality wireless link might well allow the incident to be controlled without it progressing to the point where only GMDSS kit would be available.

It was, after all, GMDSS that for the first time required vessels to be able to carry out public correspondence (I know we all did, and that when we did we were regulated, but that is not the same).

I don't like the idea but if people will not use the GMDSS kit (at either end) for real then perhaps it is better to rely on something less secure that they will.


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

Varley said:


> TOR is already slated for removal from A1-3 safetyradio kit - and restrospectively.


NBDP/TOR only got into the GMDSS package because the USSR (and its many hangers-on) would not accept the wholesale adoption of satellite systems. Their objection was that INMARSAT (at that time the only game in town) was a purely Western organisation, scheduled to become a private company. In the strongly-Marxist Soviet of the day, such a possibility could not be entertained.

Those active in the marine comms industry already knew that the time for NBDP and DSC technology had already passed and was of a previous generation. Satellite technology and the comms facilities already available ashore had to be transferred to shipping. But unfortunately political considerations came before progress or safety so we hung on to HF systems for a further couple of decades after they should have disappeared.


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

Ron for many years I supported and specified TOR as being more genuinely an independent system. I still think this is true but with no one willing to use it in normal practice to then claim it is a valid emergency system doesn't hold water.

The last I heard one very well known Japanese maker had rejected my request to change to dual Sat C on a new building saying that this did not comply. Fortunately the supplied C did not comply with LRIT so I got the second one anyway.


----------



## Mayday (May 26, 2009)

"Misunderstanding of the basic principles of GMDSS there Troppo."
Not really! A misunderstanding of the reality of the situation.
In a North Pacific hurricane, force 12+ with salt spray coating your aerial insulators, mains power source out of action and only 500kHz on emergency batteries. Ship rolling +/- 35 degrees and pitching to boot, a sat com could not work.
I know that I was quite relieved to make contact with JCS on 8364kHz as soon as mains power was restored. Otherwise, like the Derbyshire, if the worst had happened, no one would have known.


----------



## richardwakeley (Jan 4, 2010)

What I meant was, they (flag + class) are giving an exemption for NBDP on A3 ships using the "MF/HF option" - i.e. they have MF/HF DSC/SSB as primary equipment and 1 Inmarsat-C as duplication. That's not the same as the "Inmarsat option" with 2 x Inm-C + MF DSC/SSB. Of course, in practice there are no "MF" sets on the ships - all are MF/HF gear without the data terminal for telex.

I think MF/HF DSC and SSB are still useful as an alternative to Inmarsat. It's just the NBDP that will practically never be used. It's not used for day-to-day communication so many ships' officers are unfamiliar with it's operation. And now so few shore stations providing service. Here in Hong Kong when doing radio survey I call the Chinese stations or USCG Guam.


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

Mayday said:


> In a North Pacific hurricane, force 12+ with salt spray coating your aerial insulators, mains power source out of action and only 500kHz on emergency batteries. Ship rolling +/- 35 degrees and pitching to boot, *a sat com could not work*.


Not quite accurate there, Mayday. An IMARSAT Standard-A, or similar high-quality voice + data terminal, would have been of little use in such conditions but such a service was not necessary. There are other satcom terminal standards, more suited (and accepted) for emergency use, which would have performed adequately. Horses for courses.

Always remembering that, in emergency, anything that works will be sufficient (and very acceptable to those in trouble).


----------



## Mayday (May 26, 2009)

Ron Stringer said:


> Not quite accurate there, Mayday. An IMARSAT Standard-A, or similar high-quality voice + data terminal, would have been of little use in such conditions but such a service was not necessary. There are other satcom terminal standards, more suited (and accepted) for emergency use, which would have performed adequately. Horses for courses.
> 
> Always remembering that, in emergency, anything that works will be sufficient (and very acceptable to those in trouble).


Well yes. I am basing my thoughts on my experience in the very early 90's and obviously things change. I did have a conversation with the OM from that fateful voyage just a couple of years ago and he was very dissapointed with the system 'post sparkie'. The OM told me how they were completely without comms on passage Kiwi to Cape Horn for four days. He was not very impressed with the progress made, this was the late nineties.

And another yes, I was most grateful to hear a reply from JCS on 8MHz even though we were fifteen hundred miles from land.

Regards, John.


----------



## Patagualino (Apr 22, 2012)

Hi Cisco: See you with Chilean Flag....I'm down near Concepcion....QTH?
(That's sparky-speak for: "What's your position?"
Regards....Steve.


----------



## rusty1946 (Aug 15, 2008)

Larry Bennett said:


> For further info, email received from Seoul Radio this morning, listing the following active w/t frequencies:
> 
> HLG 8484Khz / 09-24/UTC
> 12935Khz / H24
> ...


Did they by any chance say what power they were using I got
HLW2 on 12923Khz last night around 21:30 QSA 3/4 using
a Yaesu FT1000MP and a Vertical Whip screwed onto my back fence approx 6ft high


----------



## david.hopcroft (Jun 29, 2005)

1815gmt 1st May
Have just had a listen for all of the above H24 frequencies and heard them all to varying degrees. 
Lowe HF235 long wire strung out down the garden East-West orientation.

David
53 18 53.34N
00 16 38.67E
+


----------



## Piecesofeight (Oct 10, 2008)

I always attributed that to Fazilette (Bobby) Khan from our class at MNC but perhaps others thought of it too. I know she gained a lot of respect for coming up with that in our class at college in a flash when QSQ was being explained. [See also Female radio officers thread]


----------

