Coast Guard

[menzies]

Other than they are both maritime military organizations, there is almost no overlap in their duties. The CG is involved in boating safety, fisheries, drug interdiction, environmental concerns and port security among other things. Where does the Navy come into these? The Navy is primarily a military organization with their main focus on war. They do have some other things but the CG and the Navy have primarily completely different functions.

I don't know why, but there must be an overlap of some kind. There were CG assets in the gulf during Gulf War II.

However, I generally agree - the word "Coast" and "Guard" to me means guarding our coasts and those who sail in it.

 

[Comodave]

I don't know why, but there must be an overlap of some kind. There were CG assets in the gulf during Gulf War II.

However, I generally agree - the word "Coast" and "Guard" to me means guarding our coasts and those who sail in it.

The CG was there doing port security operations. When they have a fleet week, the CG generally does the port security because the Navy doesn’t. I am sure there is some overlap but the Navy by law can’t do the CG law enforcement missions. When the Navy supplies a platform for, say, drug interdiction they must have a CG boarding officer on board to do the boarding.

 

[Comodave]

Wifey B: Why not?

I have....approaching a test zone of some sort. Dude sounded young and had a strong Southern drawl so I could understand him.

Just never had the need to call them.

 

[menzies]

The CG was there doing port security operations.

Not our coast.

 

[Comodave]

Not our coast.

But our warships and personnel were there.

 

[menzies]

But our warships and personnel were there.

Not our coast. They are employed to safeguard our coast. If our warships and people are there, then the navy need to have assets to do that job. Our coasts don't move to where our navy and personnel are.

I just don't agree with sending CG personnel overseas. I still struggle with sending state national guard units overseas.

 

[psneeld]

Even the Marines have a different job than the Army...yet very similat too.


Soe retired general thinks there should be force there...same with aviation across the branches.


Just because something looks the same...it can be quite different.


The USCG is the product of combining the Revenue Cutter Service, the Lighthouse Service, The Life Saving Service, The SteamBoat Inspection Service, Navy Icebreaking, Bureau of Navigation.....and others I can't remember now.


Compared to many government agencies....the taxpayer gets it's moneys worth.


As far as overseas service...it's all part of the USCG mission. I volunteered 2X to be a combat search and rescue specialist during the first Gulf War. I was deemed to be in a critical position in my assignment in Alaska. The Navy wanted that kind of expertise if they could get it....the USCG has it because of our peacetime mission.

 

[Comodave]

I think this is an apples and oranges deal. The CG isn’t a state national guard it is federal. And the CG does what it does and the navy does what it does. Just because you can helm a destroyer doesn’t mean you should coxswain a PSU boat.

 

[Bud]

I think this is an apples and oranges deal. The CG isn’t a state national guard it is federal. And the CG does what it does and the navy does what it does. Just because you can helm a destroyer doesn’t mean you should coxswain a PSU boat.

Thats true but the navy has the infrastructure: Schools to train people to do what ever they need. I went to all Navy schools when I was in the USMC. They have a great MOS training program. The navy has mandatory testing including MOS testing to gain rank, (USMC did not) They also had best chow halls by far. The desert table alone was breathtaking. I had never seen one in a marine corp chow hall.

 

[psneeld]

An example....


The USCG has 3 avation rates.


The Navy has something like 13 or so.


Both services do the same types of missions


Which one is more efficient?


Which one has a higher/lower mishap rate?

 

[dhays]

As someone who has no service experience at all, it seems to be pretty simple (but I am simple minded so....). The primary mission of the Navy is to kill the enemies of the US and blow their sh*t up. Furthermore, it is to be so bad-ass*d that no one messes with our, or our ally’s, shipping around the world.

The USCG has a much different mission. They are there to ensure that we are safe and that all our maritime laws are enforced. Law enforcement and safety at sea are a lot different than killing folks and blowing stuff up. Both use boats, aircraft and weapons, but that is where the similarity ends. Because of these basic differences I think keeping the services separate is important and necessary for each service to better fulfill their missions.

 

[Olebird]

FlyWright, there are a number of studies that suggest that ATC performance has suffered over the years. One report presented to congress implied errors were up by 50% 2009 to 2010. It is however a complex issue with few if any fixed points of reference against which meaningfull data can be analyzed. As a user since 1967, my statement was predicated mostly on personal observations more than recorded statistics. It's not all personnel issues - far from it. Antique equipment and infrastructure issues are major contributors to questionable trends. Most VORS still is service are vacuum tube technology - being retired when parts are no longer available - that's a fact - and poor management! (Thanks to space program for large scale integrated circuits and the GPS.)



Over all IMHO ATC does excellent work. The question is what does the trend line look like - and why.



However - I think we were talking about voice over radio communications techniques. The effectiveness of training and discipline at many of the communications intense services and agencies including CG, is/was the issue. Why is that I wonder. The FAA's "human factors" study in ATC errors might offer some explanations. It might also apply to CG.



Lastly, my comments about putting the CG back in the Navy had more to do with the NAVY's strong commitment to "BASIC" training and strong discipline than cost effectiveness, core missions, or historical development of the service. My experience, once you get past the "shave tails" on the radio, they do a great job.



Lets just clean up the radio work guys and gals !!

 

[BruceK]

Sounds like an elocution issue. You need to teach `em to speak proper like.
If my Tom Tom GPS for the car can offer a selection of 20 voices, some male some female some undecided,in the accents of multiple countries, how hard can it be. CG could employ some rappers, to liven up the broadcasts.
We don`t have Coastguard. We had something called Coastguard, a volunteer organization now called Marine Rescue, still volunteer but part funded by tax on boating licenses. I`d never complain about their pronunciation, I can understand them, they are generous volunteers whose service I appreciate. I know they get training in radio skills but doubt it extends to elocution classes.

I think you guys are being a bit hard on CG.

 

[FlyWright]

FlyWright, there are a number of studies that suggest that ATC performance has suffered over the years. One report presented to congress implied errors were up by 50% 2009 to 2010. It is however a complex issue with few if any fixed points of reference against which meaningfull data can be analyzed. As a user since 1967, my statement was predicated mostly on personal observations more than recorded statistics. It's not all personnel issues - far from it. Antique equipment and infrastructure issues are major contributors to questionable trends. Most VORS still is service are vacuum tube technology - being retired when parts are no longer available - that's a fact - and poor management! (Thanks to space program for large scale integrated circuits and the GPS.)

Over all IMHO ATC does excellent work. The question is what does the trend line look like - and why.

However - I think we were talking about voice over radio communications techniques. The effectiveness of training and discipline at many of the communications intense services and agencies including CG, is/was the issue. Why is that I wonder. The FAA's "human factors" study in ATC errors might offer some explanations. It might also apply to CG.

Lastly, my comments about putting the CG back in the Navy had more to do with the NAVY's strong commitment to "BASIC" training and strong discipline than cost effectiveness, core missions, or historical development of the service. My experience, once you get past the "shave tails" on the radio, they do a great job.

Lets just clean up the radio work guys and gals !!

I have no idea what your source of information is on the state of our National Airspace System, and "vacuum tube VORs" but it's seriously dated and incorrect. Please post your reference link. While there may still be a few privately owned and maintained VORs with non-solid-state or digital guts, the FAA maintained sites have all converted over many, many years ago. It was called the 2nd Gen Conversion and IIRC, took place in the 1990s and early 2000s. TACANs and VORTACs have also been converted from spinning drum antennae to digital Low Power TACAN Antennae.

Here's a link to info on the retirement of many of these VORs.

A little background on my experience... 40 years pilot and flight instructor starting in 1973. Aeronautical Engineering degree, FAA Air Traffic controller and ATC trainer, National Airspace System Inspection Pilot for FAA and Flight Inspector trainer until the end of 2012.

As an FAA ATC trainer, there was special emphasis placed on speech delivery rate, inflection, enunciation and the use of standard phraseology. It's almost a religion in some ATC facilities and some carry it to the nth degree. I agree that some USCG radio operators could improve their rate and enunciation but would avoid painting them all with the same brush.

Sometimes the onus falls on the listener to be ready to hear what is being transmitted. It also helps to understand the phraseology and sequence of standard reports. When I was a kid growing up in Westchester, IL, I was the parish bell ringer and had unfettered access to the church steeple. As I was starting to learn to fly as a 16 year old kid, I had a problem understanding the radio so I bought an aviation band radio to listen to the transmissions of the aircraft coming and going at Chicago O'Hare. I found that if I brought my radio to the top of the steeple, I could get better reception and see many of the aircraft being routed for landing sequence. I would sit there for hours watching and listening with my Airman's Information Manual Glossary to figure out what was being transmitted and who might have been doing the talking.

The only word I couldn't find, but almost all pilots ended with, was "g'day". I rifled through my books looking for a clue. I eventually learned that it was a friendly, non-sanctioned "good day" wish before changing frequency to the next controller down the line. I learned that sometimes the simplest, non-official answer is the right one.

 

[Mark P]

I can hear what the Coast Guard is saying, but they don't say enough. Here are two recent examples: On March 20th, I was leaving a dock in the Wilmington River, just south of Savannah, GA to get back to Hilton Head. No sooner than I left the dock, the CG in Charleston comes across CH 16 and announces and security notice - "mariners advised to exercise caution due to navigation hazards in the Wilmington River." What hazard? oil spill, wreck, MOB?? It turns out, as I would soon find out, the wind and tides had lowered water to only two feet in parts of the river where it is usually around 6 to 12 feet depending on tides - thanks to the stern drive I could trim up and avoid damage and pick my way around sand bars. On March 28th, same drill, Coast Guard comes on and states "navigation hazard in Port Royal Sound", on the north side of Hilton Head. Anyone know why they don't state something like "low water hazard" or the specifics of the particular security notice??

 

[CaptTom]

Anyone know why they don't state something like "low water hazard" or the specifics of the particular security notice??

They usually run through the message on 16 pretty quickly, then switch to a working channel like 22A for the details. That's a pretty standard script used service-wide. Listen next time, I bet you hear it now.

 

[Comodave]

My problem with CG broadcasts is that they try to hurry through them so fast that they are usually not understandable. CG teaches to get on and get off the VHF as quickly as possible. That is good to a certain extent, but when they do it so fast that listeners can’t understand then the whole broadcast is useless. The radio watchstanders are mostly young people that have good hearing while their audience is mostly older people that don’t have good hearing. I have spoken to several commanding officers at CG Sectors but it doesn’t seem to matter. Oh well...

 

[psneeld]

If you hear a broadcast and don't get the particulars...call them back.

 

[OldDan1943]

If you hear a broadcast and don't get the particulars...call them back.

and or ask them to repeat it until you understand it.
This may result in repeating 2 or 3 times.
There is another option..... an inexpensive tape recorder???

 

[Comodave]

It doesn’t do any good to have them replay the tape of a broadcast that was not understandable in the first place. That is what they do when you tell them that you could not understand, they replay the tape. They also replay the tape periodically and it is still not understandable.

 

[psneeld]

I didn't say replay the tape, I said call and ask for info...if it even applies as in your area....if not, no need to go past the first question.

 

[Olebird]

Just wonder how many folks use the "Dual Watch" function on their VHF??? Radio listens to Ch16 and one other chn of my choosing - say 22A or 68 - almost simultaneously.

 

[rslifkin]

Just wonder how many folks use the "Dual Watch" function on their VHF??? Radio listens to Ch16 and one other chn of my choosing - say 22A or 68 - almost simultaneously.

I do. I have 2 VHFs at my helm, so typically one is on 13, the other is on 9/16 dual watch. If I need to switch to a working channel or want to monitor a VTS channel or anything, I give up the channel 9 watch. So it usually becomes working channel on one, 13/16 on the other.

 

[OldDan1943]

I have the main VHF and 2 hand held VHF.
One can be devoted to 22A the main, 16 and 9 the third.... whatever I feel is necessary for communication as a working channel.

 

[jimdavi]

I use P scan on my standard horizon. It goes back and forth between 16 and all the channels I select, eg VTS, 9, 22 etc.

 

[Mark P]

Thanks Capt Tom for the info, I will work my radios to monitor two channels - this is great - I keep learning!!

 

[markpierce]

I automatically/continually scan several channels, such as 16, 9, 22, and 14. Find the USCG marine traffic-control channel very useful for commercial/ship-traffic awareness.

 

[Oldersalt]

Here in SF Bay I just call them back immediately on Ch 16 and ask for a repeat, usually I just need the location.....like "Coast Guard San Francisco, please repeat location of boat in distress." They have always complied very nicely.
Oldersalt

 

[rsn48]

I gave up reading after the 5th page. Getting back to communications, going by what you folks have said, the communications protocol is just bad, very bad.

If a Mayday, Pan Pan or Securite is announced three times, so should the important part of the message be repeated three times. Once one of these three messages are broadcast, there should be something like a five second delay to issue the message. This gives time for some one to grab pencil, grease pencil, recording device, whatever. And the body of the message, if short should be repeated three times, if a long message, second and third repeat of the message can be shortened.

I'm not American so I don't have an iron in the fire, but if it were me, I'd copy out the pertinent parts of this thread (only the communications issues), indicate how many people responded they had experienced the same problem. Next, since you are civilians you get the opportunity to jump command. Don't dick around with contacting the local CG, instead go to the top honcho where ever he or she may be. And there is more than one top honcho, there is CG one, there is that person's military boss, etc on up the ladder.

 

[BandB]

It's partly the speed but it's also a good bit of how they're positioned to the microphone and how loud. Same thing as drive thru restaurants where it's clear the person speaking has never listened to themselves. Tendency is to get too close to microphone. It would really be worth a little training to achieve understandable messages. Speaking slightly slower also adds very little time.