In an article last week in BoatingOz, my attention was drawn to a paper by the National Marine Safety Committee, proposing that:
"the monitoring of the HF (voice) distress and safety frequencies 4125, 6215 and 8291 kHz by the National Coast Radio Network, be phased out by the year 2010".
In a climate where there is some question about the viability of HF in emergencies (no one might be listening in the future), it is difficult to justify equipping new boats with HF radio to satisfy currently accepted safety standards. For Te Moana, currently considering a trip to Tasmania, renting or purchasing a satellite phone makes much more sense than installing a HF setup which might never see any use "in anger". Satellite phones have much broader application than HF radio and of course VHF radio can still be used in a local emergency setting.
Is this a case where we have a choice of desperately hanging on to something we used to have or should we accept that the world has changed and make the most of it. Any comments here? Also the form for formal comment is below.
Link to the NMSC Media release (pdf)
Link to the NMSC Discussion Paper (pdf)
Download the NMSC HF Public Comment form (Word)
Marius Coomans
Te Moana
I would oppose phasing out HF. A sat phone has the major disadvantage of not being a broadcast. ie. there could be a vessel able to assist you 5 miles away, and they would never know you were sinking. The person you are calling on your sat phone wouldn't know either.
Before anyone comments they should read the discussion paper on nmsc.gov.au. The broadcast ability of radio as against sat phones is the only theoretical advantage of HF.I say theoretical because HF is so annoying it is mostly turned down or off. The proposal is only in relation to
Government Coast Station Monitoring. You would still be able to use it ship to ship or to talk to the volunteer groups. In the last 12 months in all of NSW there were only 6 calls made to the coast stations on the emergency channels and they are staffed 24/7.