|
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
Subject: Re: TWL: Re: Bridge to Bridge communications.
From: Michael Maurice (mikem@XXX.XXX)
Date: Sun Nov 24 2002 - 17:19:24 EST
At 05:51 PM 11/24/02 -0600, you wrote:
>Well Bob, I'm only stating facts. Look it up in any cruising guide for
>the area. If they're breaking the law, nobody seems to care.
>
>Bob Austin wrote:
> >
> > I have not cruised West of Galveston recently, however any vessels that are
> > using channel 16 instead of channel 13 for Bridge to Bridge communications
> > are breaking the law as below:
> >
> > SUMMARY OF THE BRIDGE TO BRIDGE COMMUNICATIONS ACT:
><BIG snip>
I looked up the cruising guide since I have a copy. The references that
Keith mentions are so vague that it is not possible to know what the author
meant. And he was an amateur in any event. Just goes to show how some vague
piece of writing can be interpreted to make something not legal into
something "customary".
Even the cruising guide does not suggest using channel 16 to make passing
arrangements only that channel 16 be monitored, most likely the intent was
to clue cruisers into expecting to hear security broadcasts of tows
approaching.
Tow traffic west of Galveston may be a lot less than that near or east of
there.
Might account for using 16 on the assumption that cruisers are not likely
to monitor 13, just as that same assumption is generally the one used
around here, where traffic is low.
That does not make it good practice to also make passing arrangements on 16.
IN warm climates tropospheric ducts are more common than up north. Such
ducts can carry VHF radio transmissions for hundreds of miles. Here in the
NW distress calls are frequent enough that most everybody is reluctant to
clutter up 16 for fear of disrupting such traffic.
Capt. Mike Maurice
Wilsonville, Near Portland Oregon
_______________________________________________
http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/trawler-world-list
|