New VHF Numbers Coming

[Lepke]

Story on VHF number changes and new radios in 2017. Story has a link to USCG notice.

https://www.workboat.com/news/gover...tm_campaign=newsletter&utm_content=newsletter

 

[Blissboat]

Absent anything to the contrary in the Workboat article, or on the linked USCG notice, presumably the changes will not affect the use of our existing VHFs. Anyone believe otherwise?

 

[CaptTom]

Absent anything to the contrary in the Workboat article, or on the linked USCG notice, presumably the changes will not affect the use of our existing VHFs. Anyone believe otherwise?

You are correct. Seems the real change is adding the prefix "10" to those channels which are simplex in the US but duplex in the International configuration.

My take on this is that the rest of the world is figuring out that the whole duplex idea, which relies on a shore station, isn't that practical, and they want the option to "add" the functionality we take for granted.

But then again, that's only a wild guess, and I'm biased.

 

[High Wire]

More change for no good reason.

 

[diver dave]

Are there still either HF or VHF marine operators anywhere in the world?

 

[dhays]

More change for no good reason.

What do you say there is no good reason? Do you really think that the USCG would make a change without ANY good reasons for doing it?

 

[bcam]

"Change" is the reason! You can only justify all the time spent staring out the window by producing new regulations or change in some fashion. No organization can admit that things are OK and their jobs no longer needed.

 

[High Wire]

What do you say there is no good reason? Do you really think that the USCG would make a change without ANY good reasons for doing it?

Yes I do. The reason sited in the article was the change was needed by other countries, not us.
Let's see how the USCG handles the hand-off from 16 to the new 1022 when dealing with comms with John Q Public where 99.9% of the radios wont have 1022. "Channel what???" My guess is the CG will TRY then rescind use of "1022" as a channel designation.

 

[CaptTom]

Let's see how the USCG handles the hand-off from 16 to the new 1022 when dealing with comms with John Q Public where 99.9% of the radios wont have 1022.

I'd handle it just like today. Instead of saying "switch and answer channel two-two, that's channel twenty-two", it would be "...one-zero-two-two, that's channel twenty-two." Gives them two chances to receive and understand.

I'd also say it a lot slower than the CG regulars do, if I was talking to a recreational boater who may not be familiar with the lingo and the cadence. I think sometimes they're trained too well, and say their lines so fast that you'd never understand if you didn't already have an idea what they were going to say.

Agree that this will cause far more administrative effort than any real change out on the water.

 

[catalinajack]

"Change" is the reason! You can only justify all the time spent staring out the window by producing new regulations or change in some fashion. No organization can admit that things are OK and their jobs no longer needed.

Baloney.

 

[Capt.Bill11]

Baloney.