#11926 - 01/10/03 03:55 AM
Re: Survival Communications
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Matthew:
A radio that covers 2 - 6 MHz in the US would be operatiing on Amateur, marine, and possibly military allocations. To use it on the amateur bands would require you to pass two written tests and a morse code exam. To use it on the marine band would require the purchase of a license but you could only use it while on the water. Luckily though, if it is an emergency our laws allow you to use any frequency "from DC to Daylight" to call for assistance.
Chris N1NIQ
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#11927 - 01/10/03 04:04 AM
Re: Survival Communications
|
Newbie
Registered: 05/31/01
Posts: 47
Loc: Wollongong [ 34.25S 150.52E ] ...
|
Interesting post Matthew. Nice to know that the old country is 'up there' when it comes to backcountry comms.! I have long had an interest in survival comms. and have yet to hear of any integrated, official, public national parks net outside of NZs. [ As a Kiwi, I have tramped many of our national parks, but long before the HF net was available!] Here in Australia, VHF marine radio is probably the 'last vestige' of an officially backed public accessible emergency radio network, and that is what I use for seakayaking. But this has definite shortcomings of terrain, and outright transmission range, as you know. The trend in my sport is towards satellite phones, rentable, or bought for around $2000, and big calls costs, both for the transmitting and receiving parties. But people are paying that, rather than turn to radio, which is a pity. That sort of money should be able to buy you a nice portable HF. And of course, emergency technology is encouraging the use of EPIRBs, with 406s becoming cheaper and smaller. Schwert, I think the world of ham radio is wonderful, but I am put off by the 'technical' side of the pastime. And I think many younger folk are the same [ judging by the letters in the Ham radio mags ]. Why bother when you have email forums and cellphones/ sat phones? I have always believed there are many 'fringe' radio folk out there,like myself, who don't go to the trouble of a ham licence because they are not really interested in all the techo talk of hams, but still have a legitimate use for MF/HF. But the trouble is, short of going to ham gear, and using ham frequencies, there is nothing much PORTABLE on the market for other civilian MF/HF users. I have the relevant marine licence to operate a HF transmitter on marine frequencies, but that doesn't help when you're in a sea kayak! If anyone knows of a handheld MF/HF marine transceiver for sale, please let me know! Something like the Tokyo HyPower ham portable would be nice.
My 0.02c worth, Regards, Peter Rattenbury, Wollongong, NSW
_________________________
"Serve in Love; live by Faith"
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#11929 - 01/10/03 06:54 PM
Re: Survival Communications
|
Old Hand
Registered: 03/13/02
Posts: 905
Loc: Seattle, Washington
|
Lloyd,
cthompson is absolutely correct. There is a fair amount of the 2-6 MHz range available to amateur operators but the higher class licenses are required. I have very limited operating privileges in these HF bands as I have a Technician class license. At the time I got my license a written radio theory and operation exam and 5 WPM Morse Code exam were required. To get more privileges in these HF bands I would need to go to the next step General Class license at the least.
New operators can receive the same Technician class privileges now with only the written exam, no Morse Code. This is excellent for VHF but limited for HF. For me, VHF has worked well, but like you say once you are really "out there"; it is pretty quiet on VHF.
These rules were designed to make amateur operators responsible etc, but make it a pain to get your ticket so fewer and fewer people are doing so. With the proliferation of alternate easy-to-get communication tools I see a near death of the amateur service. Recent FCC changes to allow operators without code were designed to get more people involved who would then be so excited they would advance into the higher operating classes. I have not seen this happening. Our local VHF repeaters which were very busy 10 years ago are getting very quiet. It is not uncommon to find no one else on a system with very wide range coverage. This is making my original use for VHF less and less useful. Repeater operators are getting fewer contributions and are forced to reduce their services like phone patch and and remote transmitters.
I am a member of our local Auxiliary Communication Service which is an amateur service connected to the city of Seattle Emergency Response Center. Most of my colleagues are pushing 50+ years old, (Hey, so am I), and we are having trouble getting new younger members.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#11930 - 01/10/03 07:08 PM
Re: Survival Communications
|
Old Hand
Registered: 03/13/02
Posts: 905
Loc: Seattle, Washington
|
PeterR,
I also was never interested in some of the traditional HAM stuff. Long distance contacts for points, exchanging contact cards, etc. I was primarily interested in emergency backcountry communications. My climbing friend and I were involved in an accident that sparked my interest. A radio would have saved many hours in contacting SAR and let our friends and family know our fate.
The HAM bands are just about the only compreshensive radio frequencies available....the burden of licensing is the major issue with their use.
We have not yet experienced the issues between radio clubs and repeater owners that cthompson notes for the East Coast, but we are seeing fewer and fewer active repeater members.
I think it would be good to have a National HF band(s) for general population emergency use. I could only see these frequencies being allocated from amateur bands, which would probably cause all sorts of complaints from a dying breed. I think involving people would be better.
The FRS radios are used by tons of people from shopping malls to ski hills. The range allows all kinds of operators but is too limited to be of much service in the backcountry. Interference and poor operation of these radios is common, but at least people are interested.
New Zealand's example may be the future for the US....but I doubt it.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#11931 - 01/10/03 08:46 PM
Re: Survival Communications
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Schwert:
It sounds like things are similar on both coasts.
I was recalling this morning that I once saw a reference to a statewide emergency frequency for Alaska. I think it was in the middle of the 10 meter band and was indicated on an ARRL frequency chart as an anomaly. I think it was open to everyone, licensed or not. I'll have to look some more.
Chris
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#11932 - 01/11/03 06:18 AM
Re: Survival Communications
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Is there scope for creating a commercial service to own the licences for the frequencies and hire out the radios to trampers and hunters on an "as required" basis? i.e. reproduce the NZ Mountain Radio Service in the US. This is an idea I've had for a while and would like to discuss further if any business/radio minded person out there is interested (it may not be a suitable topic for this list).
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#11933 - 01/12/03 07:50 AM
Re: Survival Communications
|
Journeyman
Registered: 01/22/02
Posts: 54
Loc: Raleigh, NC
|
You're thinking of 5167.5 KHz USB, the Alaska Emergency Frequency. I'm not sure who is monitoring it, per se, but it's definitely not in the standard amateur bands. Most newer ham HF rigs have this frequency because of the whole "rendering assistance in an emergency" aspect. 73 -Matt KG4MYD
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#11934 - 01/12/03 03:48 PM
Re: Survival Communications
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Thanks Matt. I knew I had seen it on a ARRL allocation chart once but couldn't find it. I wonder what amount of use it gets.
Chris N1NIQ
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#11935 - 01/13/03 03:11 AM
Re: Survival Communications
|
Newbie
Registered: 05/31/01
Posts: 47
Loc: Wollongong [ 34.25S 150.52E ] ...
|
Do I understand it that the impetus for change will have to come from WITHIN the HAM fraternity? I understand the necessity for allocation of HF emergency frequencies from within HAM bands, as Schwert and others point out, but won't that take a lot of goodwill, and good old political lobbying on the part of the HAM community, while they still have the numbers? At the same time I applaud the valuable service 'amateurs' have provided in emergencies - earthquakes, floods etc, in many countries over the years, but to a certain extent even this capability has been short-circuited by the use of satellite telephony. So the world is a-changing... BTW, we do have a privately owned VHF/MF/HF outfit, licensed to the Federal Government, operating on the east coast of Australia. For a reasonable members fee, cruising yachtsmen, and folk driving in the Outback, have access to long distance HF comms. And just repeating my earlier request: has anyone come across a MF/HF marine band portable on the market, anywhere... Alaska, NZ perhaps?
PeterR Wollongong, Australia
_________________________
"Serve in Love; live by Faith"
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
0 registered (),
684
Guests and
11
Spiders online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|