Impact of USCG termination of 2 MHz distress watch keeping on HF marine radio default

[goboatingnow]

As I recall the USCG stood down as part of an ITU decision to shut down 2182 and that's real old news by now. If you've got the button

2182 went some time ago, WHat is really strange is the delay in the US establishing A1,A2( now abandoned) and A3 sea area support for GMDSS. I mean only now are they making a formal establishment of A1 for example and have abandoned A2.

dave

[svmariane]

A big THANK YOU for all who responded with ideas, links, and other information for the world of HF radio (marine and/or amateur) vis-à-vis who might be monitoring and on what frequencies.

James

[joehersey]

I too wish to thank the many who responded. I was not aware there had been an earlier thread on this topic or would have posted there. I also was not aware the Icom IC-M802 distress DSC defaults to 8414.5 kHz rather than the less effective 2187.5 kHz as is stated in its instruction manual, as stated in another thread. True? If that's confirmed that's very good news.

I would not be too critical of the US Coast Guard's slowness in establishing and declaring Sea Area A1 (VHF DSC w/ch16) nor its decision not to declare Sea Area A2 (MF DSC w/2182 kHz). The USCG has always had its budget squeezed, never more so in recent times than now. Its Rescue21 VHF network is only now nearing completion (except Alaska and Western Rivers), and its MF network has in most areas been little used if used at all. IMO's Safety of Life at Sea Convention, which mandates GMDSS carriage on shipping, does not and could not mandate its installation ashore. Shore installation is a decision each administration must make on its own based on the budget available to it. That's why I'm hoping GMDSS's modernized replacement, now being contemplated by IMO, will be based more upon commonly used and well supported systems such as mobile satellite, VSAT, 406 MHz EPIRBs and AIS rather than single use expensive-to-run shore-based systems such as DSC, radio telex, SSB and Navtex. Or very-low-baud systems such as Inmarsat C.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by joehersey

. . . rather than single use expensive-to-run shore-based systems such as DSC, radio telex, SSB and . . .

Sorry, but none of these are "single use", or necessarily shore-based. DSC has lots of uses besides distress signalling.

[goboatingnow]

That's why I'm hoping GMDSS's modernized replacement, now being contemplated by IMO, will be based more upon commonly used and well supported systems such as mobile satellite, VSAT, 406 MHz EPIRBs and AIS rather than single use expensive-to-run shore-based systems such as DSC, radio telex, SSB and Navtex. Or very-low-baud systems such as Inmarsat C.

Have you links to those deliberations

Dave

[joehersey]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Have you links to those deliberations

Dave

That's a very good question. There are no good public discussion forums that I am aware of for this GMDSS Modernization effort. There ought to be.

The International Maritime Organization's Maritime Safety Committee tasked its newly merged Navigation, Communication and Search & Rescue (NCSR) Subcommittee with a "Review and modernization of the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS)", with a target completion year of 2017. NCSR sponsors an IMO/ITU Expert Group meeting once a year to work on it, and a correspondence group to develop proposals for it between IMO sessions. The correspondence group is chaired by Mr Bob Markle, the president of the US's Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services (RTCM).

IMO limits distribution of its documents to member Administrations (in the USA, US Coast Guard) and to its observer organizations. US citizens can participate in the USCG's federal advisory committee to MSC and NCSR, described and with MSC reports available here: USCG: IMO Maritime Safety Committee (MSC)

RTCM will be discussing the modernization effort at its upcoming national meeting later this month as shown its its website. It also sponsors the National GMDSS Task Force, though most of that effort addresses the existing GMDSS rather than the modernized one. The Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services. The GMDSS TF has a mailing list and regular meetings. TF meetings and mailings may be open to non-RTCM members but you'd have to check: gmdss@comcast.net.

Not sure whether there's much interest in a public forum. Also things at IMO move very slowly (NCSR for example meets only one week each year and is not expected to have much time for GMDSS).

I may have missed some links on the subject, but so far activity is pretty slow. IMO is currently working on a "high level review", looking at such matters as defining general communications, whether four levels of priority are still needed, whether four Sea Areas are still needed, whether its implementing instrument should be a Code or something else, and whether systems should be specifically identified in regulation as they are now or whether "goal based methodologies" (i.e. standards) should be used to define GMDSS instead.

By the way, Iridium is applying to IMO for acceptance into the current GMDSS.