|
Gord,
Yep, taken alone, it's as you say, "an unconventional opinion".
However, (1) it's taken out of context; and (2) it's a bit dated.
Earl Hinz goes on to spend a full page talking up the virtues of ham radio for long-distance cruisers. His point is that ham radio is more useful than marine SSB for the long-distance cruiser, and by "long-distance cruiser" he's talking about the Pacific. There's lots to support that notion, some of which he goes on to describe.
One very important thing he notes is that ham radio is more useful for the Pacific cruiser because of the abundance of ham stations in diverse locations. A ham can communicate with anyone located anywhere, while the marine SSB user is generally constrained to try to contact ONE -- or at best a very few -- shore stations, and radio propagation may not be open over the path to that station. This is even more true since the demise of HF shore stations several years ago other than WLO in New Orleans (and, very recently, its new affiliate facility in the Pacific Northwest). That's actually a very good point, often missed by those considering safety and HF radio.
Two fairly recent phenomena tend to modulate Earl's statement about marine SSB: (1) cruisers tend to be older and more wealthy and on bigger boats than they used to be, so the marine SSB cost isn't such a huge obstacle; and (2) a number of useful NETS have developed on the marine bands, modeled after those on the ham bands. Lots of cruisers participate in these nets.
Bottom line: there was a time and a place where ham radio was the only (real) game in town for the far-ranging cruising sailor. But that time has changed. Now, if anything, a case can be made for carrying BOTH ham and marine SSB aboard! I do, and find them both very useful.
Bill
|