[Fists] Ships no longer carry CW operators

[Cheryl W. Ring]

I received a friendly message from Larry, saying that he didn't say what I
said he did.

I have misquoted Larry in a message I sent out to the FISTS reflector.  I
probably got confused by the quotes of quotes that we often get in emails.

I have searched my messages, and found that the statement I attirbuted to
Larry, YoCoc@aol.com was actually made by
 "Paul Bartlett" <paul@fulking.freeserve.co.uk> in one of his postings.

I am sorry for misquoting and I appologize to Larry and the other members
who received this message.

All the rest of the comments are ok (as far as I know!)

Forgive me - it was unintentonal.

My point, however, was that it wasn't because of any technological "break
through" or the insufficiency of Morse Code but rather economic reasons -
namely getting rid of the Radio Officer (as was repeatedly stated in the UN
committees), and that there are considerable doubts about the effectiveness
of the present system, not to mention the cost of the 98% false alarms it
currently generates.

73

David Ring, N1EA


----- Original Message -----
From: <YoDoc@aol.com>
To: <kb0rqn@qsl.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Fists] Ships no longer carry CW operators


> David:
>
> I did not make the statement you are quoting below and attributing to me.
> Please re-check your work and make the necessary correction on the
> FISTS reflector.  As far as I'm concerned, a CW-qualified radio officer
> should be required on any vessel capable of operating outside the 3-mile
> limit.
>
> 73 de Larry, K3LT
>
> From: "Cheryl W. Ring" <kb0rqn@qsl.net>
> Cc: <fists@mailman.qth.net>
> Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 20:46:00 -0400
> Subject: [Fists] Ships no longer carry CW operators
>
> YoDoc wrote:
>
> Ships no longer need carry a cw proficient radio operator because the
>  technology has moved on.
>
> K3LT de N1EA
>
> Larry, that isn't exactly true.
>
> Radio Officers were eliminated for one reason only:  Money.
>
> That isn't speculaton - that is fact recorded at the International Marine
> Organization (IMO) and International Telecommunications Union (ITU).
>
> The Global Marine Distress and Signaling System (GMDSS) that replaced the
> Morse based system was supposed to be thoroughly tested prior to it's
> implementation - but it wasn't.
>
> On 31 January 1999, the GMDSS went into effect - using a mixture of HF,
VHF
> and satelite communications - a whole basket of communications gear and
> frequencies to replace the paycheck and room and board of the Radio
Officer.
>
> Within a month - and after the majority of the CW stations were
dismantled -
> RadioHolland-BV, one of the largest suppliers of GMDSS equipment in the
> world admitted what we Radio Officers had tried to tell every one.
>
> Radio-Holland said "The Global Marine Distress and Signaling system is a
> failure and it must be COMPLETELY redisigned in order to work."
>
> At the present time, there are thousands of ships on the waters that are
> exempted from GMDSS equipment - they're NOT part of the distress system.
>
> The false alarm rate which was practically ZERO for the Morse System is
near
> 99% false, costing thousands of dollars of search and rescue operations
> dollars.
>
> Ask anyone you know in Civil Air Patrol (CAP) about the number of false
> Emergency Position Indicating Beacons (EPIRBs) (marine) and Emergency
> Locator Transmitters (ELTs) (Aviation) that are false.  CAP is volunteer -
> the free work of many hams.
>
> According to people on the ships, it is common practice to turn off the
> "distress alarm" from the Satellite and automatic navigation warning
system
> (NAVTEX) on ships because it falses so many times.
>
> Likewise, required Safety of Life at Sea (SOLUS) required communications
> logs are NOT kept, nor are predeparture tests made on the majority of
ships.
> (Regulations require that every Distress (and other events) be logged -
the
> mates say they "can't be bothered."
>
> If you think using MF, HF, VHF and Satellite to replace CW is "technology
> moving on", I disagree.
>
> Currently it is impossible to test the Digital Sequential Calling (DSC)
that
> is required for ship Distress alerting by radio because the Coastal Radio
> Stations have shut down.  Previously, a ship could call up a Coast Station
> on SITOR and arrange for a DSC test.  These stations are off the air,
> because of change of revenues.
>
> Even though at least one mate has to have a General Radio Telephone
> Certificate and a Satellite Maintainer and Operator's License, no one used
> the radios because they couldn't figure it out.   They weren't trained -
> even though they had a license.
>
> The licenses were learned from memorization of the answers at Elkins
> Institute, in Texas.,
>
> Revenues changed because no one onboard could "do" radio.
>
> Within THREE months after the Radio Officers were discharged from ships,
the
> three huge American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) coastal stations -
> running over 50 channels of 10 kW SSB were off the air because revenues
had
> dropped to zero.
>
> No one knew how to do radio.
>
> Is this what is going to happen to ham radio?
>
> 73
>
> David J. Ring, Jr., N1EA
> Radio Officer, Chief  (Ret.)
> United States Merchant Marine
>