Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com by opus.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.18/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA203383816; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 14:36:56 -0700 Return-Path: <JOHRINER@worldnet.att.net-DeleteThis> Received: from mtigwc03.worldnet.att.net (mailhost.worldnet.att.net) by hplms26.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1S) id AA234153816; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 14:36:56 -0700 Received: from nca ([207.147.240.28]) by mtigwc03.worldnet.att.net (post.office MTA v2.0 0613 ) with SMTP id AAA26155; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 21:30:15 +0000 Message-Id: <3352A15A.691D@worldnet.att.net-DeleteThis> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 14:27:54 -0700 From: JOHRINER@worldnet.att.net-DeleteThis X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-WorldNet (Win95; I) To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis Cc: JOHRINER@worldnet.att.net-DeleteThis Subject: Re: FW: VHF RADIO_AUDIO DISTORTION_SOS References: <199704141158.HAA21027@mailstorm.dot.gov-DeleteThis> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------7F5150B75E9C"
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
FROM: JEFF
fwding replys from both US COASTGUARD & FCC
ABOUT USING VHF MARINE RADIO IN BAG FOR SOS
ALSO POSITIONING WITH RADIO DIRECTION FINDING (VHF AND CELLULAR?)
ALSO EMERGENCY RADIO BEACONS (BEING MORE SUITABLE?)
=============================================================
jhersey@mailstorm.dot.gov-DeleteThis wrote:
>
> Mr Ohriner: Thank you for your questions. They are good ones.
>
> You can operate a portable radio through a plastic bag, and the distortion
> probably depends upon the bag you used and a few other factors. You should,
> however, be able to take the radio out of the bag when you want to use it. In
> fact, unless the weather is so bad that its being submerged, you'd want to take
> it out of the bag.
>
> The CG has a direction finder that can home in on a ch16 or other maritime VHF
> signal on most of its boats, cutters and aircraft. We routinely use those DFs
> to locate a vessel in distress. Few of our shore stations have DF, however.
> The FCC prohibits receivers tunable to the UHF fregs used by cellular
> telephones; they otherwise have no limits on DF's.
>
> Both the Category I and II 406 EPIRBs are available in the US. The CAT I has a
> float free release mechanism; the Cat II (intended for boats and other smaller
> vessels) does not. Most Cat II's are manualy activated; the newer Cat II's are
> also water activated. You need no waiver to get one of these devices (nor no
> license) provided you already have a VHF transceiver.
>
> Hope that helps. If not, please ask.
> JoeH
>
> On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, "Hersey, Joe" <JHersey@comdt.uscg.mil-DeleteThis> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>----------
> >>From: CGComms
> >>Sent: Monday, April 14, 1997 3:22:18 AM
> >>To: Brady, Ed; Hersey, Joe
> >>Subject: FW: VHF RADIO_AUDIO DISTORTION_SOS
> >>Auto forwarded by a Rule
> >>
> >
> >>
> >>----------
> >>From: JOHRINER@worldnet.att.net-DeleteThis
> >>Sent: Monday, April 14, 1997 3:19:55 AM
> >>To: CGComms
> >>Cc: JOHRINER@WORLDNET.ATT.NET-DeleteThis
> >>Subject: VHF RADIO_AUDIO DISTORTION_SOS
> >>Auto forwarded by a Rule
> >>
> >A HANDHELD VHF RADIO IN WATERTIGHT BAG CAN BE USED TO TRANSMIT A SOS
> >REQUEST ON CHANNEL 16?
> >
> >I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THIS BEING TRUE IN ALL CASES.
> >
> >EXAMINE THE FOLLOWING:
> >RADIO CONDITION, BATTERY CONDITION, DISTANCES BETWEEN BOTH TRANCIVERS,
> >SEAL ON WATERTIGHT BAG, ECT.
> >ARE ALL WITHIN LIMITS FOR AN UNDERSTANDABLE SOS COMMUNICATION.
> >
> >EXCEPT THAT
> >1.)
> >THERE IS WIND DISTORTING THE SPEECH THROUGH WATERTIGHT RADIO BAG AND
> >INTO MICROPHONE.
> >2.)
> >THE RADIO ANTENNA IS ONLY JUST ABOVE THE SURFACE OF THE WATER AND THERE
> >ARE LARGE SWELLS ON THE WATER.
> >
> >WITH THESE TWO PARAMETERS PRESENT, I WOULD THINK THAT AN UNDERSTANDABLE
> >SOS COMMUNICATION WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE.
> >
> >EVEN IN THE EVENT THAT IT WAS THOUGHT TO BE AN SOS TRANSMISSION, I FIND
> >THAT IT WOULD PROBABLY BE USELESS SINCE WITHOUT UNDERSTANDABLE LOCATION
> >OF THE SOS REQUESTER, THE SEARCH WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE.
> >
> >IS RADIO DIRECTION FINDING LIMITED BY FCC TO PARTICUALR FREQUENCIES ECT?
> >
> >IF ANY OF THE VHF MARINE TRANCIVER FREQENCIES COULD BE USED FOR THE
> >PURPOSE OF RADIO DIRECTION FINDING OF AN SOS TRASMISSION, COULD AND
> >WOULD THE US COASTGUARD USE THIS PROCEEDURE.
> >
> >OF THE PERSONAL TYPE EPIRB TYPE II ON 406, WHICH I UNDERSTAND IS NOT
> >CURRENTLY AVAILABLE IN THE UNITED STATES, WHAT IS NEEDED TO HAVE USE ON
> >THIS AS AN EXCEPTION IN THE UNITED STATES.
> >
> >I AND MANY OTHER PEOPLE HAVE THOUGH OF USING EITHER A VHF MARINE RADIO
> >OR A CELLULAR PHONE IN A WATERTIGHT BAG FOR SOS REQUEST.
> >
> >I THINK THAT THE USE OF A COMPACT PORTABLE TYPE II 406, THAT IS MANUALLY
> >SWITCHED ON TO SEND AN SOS UNDER THE CONDITIONS OF HIGHWIND AND WAVES,
> >WOULD STAND MUCH BETTER RESULTS OF RECEIVED BY THE US COASTGUARD.
> >
> >COULD YOU PLEASE COMMENT ON MY BELIEFS ON THIS SUBJECT AND THE ANSWER
> >QUESTIONS PRESENTED ABOVE.
> >
> >THANKS YOU
> >JEFFREY OHRINER
> >
> >
> >
> >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="re VHF RADIO AUDIO DISTORTION an FCC ANS.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="re VHF RADIO AUDIO DISTORTION an FCC ANS.txt"
>From - Mon Apr 14 12:43:01 1997
From: MAYDAY <MAYDAY@fcc.gov-DeleteThis>
To: JOHRINER@worldnet.att.net-DeleteThis
Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov ([192.104.54.1])
by mtigwc02.worldnet.att.net (post.office MTA v2.0 0613 )
with ESMTP id AAA18140 for <JOHRINER@worldnet.att.net-DeleteThis>;
Mon, 14 Apr 1997 14:57:12 +0000
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA27160; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 10:57:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail.fcc.gov(165.135.30.12) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
id xma027097; Mon, 14 Apr 97 10:56:50 -0400
Received: from FCCMAIL-Message_Server by fcc.gov
with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 10:57:53 -0400
Message-ID: <s3520db1.007@fcc.gov-DeleteThis>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1
Subject: Re: VHF RADIO_AUDIO DISTORTION_SOS -Reply
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 97 14:55:17 +0000
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 2684
Dear Sir:
You questions answered -- as best we can -- below.
(1) Yes, you MAY use a VHF radio in a watertight bag to send a distress
message. However, as you point out, depending on the radio, the bag,
and your location -- it may not work in practice.
(2) Some ships are required to carry direction finding capability on 500
kHz and/or 2182 kHZ. The Coast Guard and FCC have the capability to
direction find on 156.8 Mhz.
(3) Yes, a 406 Mhz EPIRB can be a reliable means of sending a distress
message, and your approximate position, via satellite, to the Coast
Guard...especially when you are out of VHF radio range.
>>> <JOHRINER@worldnet.att.net-DeleteThis> 04/14/97 04:55am >>>
JOHRINER@worldnet.att.net-DeleteThis wrote: (CC'ed Sent to:
cgcomms@comdt.uscg.mil-DeleteThis)
> > A HANDHELD VHF RADIO IN WATERTIGHT BAG CAN BE USED TO
TRANSMIT A SOS
> REQUEST ON CHANNEL 16?
> > I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THIS BEING TRUE IN ALL CASES.
> > EXAMINE THE FOLLOWING:
> RADIO CONDITION, BATTERY CONDITION, DISTANCES BETWEEN
BOTH TRANCIVERS,
> SEAL ON WATERTIGHT BAG, ECT.
> ARE ALL WITHIN LIMITS FOR AN UNDERSTANDABLE SOS
COMMUNICATION.
> > EXCEPT THAT
> 1.)
> THERE IS WIND DISTORTING THE SPEECH THROUGH WATERTIGHT
RADIO BAG AND
> INTO MICROPHONE.
> 2.)
> THE RADIO ANTENNA IS ONLY JUST ABOVE THE SURFACE OF THE
WATER AND THERE
> ARE LARGE SWELLS ON THE WATER.
> > WITH THESE TWO PARAMETERS PRESENT, I WOULD THINK THAT
AN UNDERSTANDABLE
> SOS COMMUNICATION WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE.
> > EVEN IN THE EVENT THAT IT WAS THOUGHT TO BE AN SOS
TRANSMISSION, I FIND
> THAT IT WOULD PROBABLY BE USELESS SINCE WITHOUT
UNDERSTANDABLE LOCATION
> OF THE SOS REQUESTER, THE SEARCH WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE.
> > IS RADIO DIRECTION FINDING LIMITED BY FCC TO PARTICUALR
FREQUENCIES ECT?
> > IF ANY OF THE VHF MARINE TRANCIVER FREQENCIES COULD BE
USED FOR THE
> PURPOSE OF RADIO DIRECTION FINDING OF AN SOS TRASMISSION,
COULD AND
> WOULD THE US COASTGUARD USE THIS PROCEEDURE.
> > OF THE PERSONAL TYPE EPIRB TYPE II ON 406, WHICH I
UNDERSTAND IS NOT
> CURRENTLY AVAILABLE IN THE UNITED STATES, WHAT IS NEEDED
TO HAVE USE ON
> THIS AS AN EXCEPTION IN THE UNITED STATES.
> > I AND MANY OTHER PEOPLE HAVE THOUGH OF USING EITHER A
VHF MARINE RADIO
> OR A CELLULAR PHONE IN A WATERTIGHT BAG FOR SOS REQUEST.
> > I THINK THAT THE USE OF A COMPACT PORTABLE TYPE II 406,
THAT IS MANUALLY
> SWITCHED ON TO SEND AN SOS UNDER THE CONDITIONS OF
HIGHWIND AND WAVES,
> WOULD STAND MUCH BETTER RESULTS OF RECEIVED BY THE US
COASTGUARD.
> > COULD YOU PLEASE COMMENT ON MY BELIEFS ON THIS SUBJECT
AND THE ANSWER
> QUESTIONS PRESENTED ABOVE.
> > THANKS YOU
> JEFFREY OHRINER
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:31:39 PST