Texting? You serious again or just at the wind-up? You honestly think the PLA can send out Texts by the dozen in the time available. One VHF messages reaches all including those who are in the immediate vicinity
I used Bridge Jumper as an example, merely because just such a message went out on VHF and I was able to get to Blackfriars within minutes and get the unconcious guy onto my bathing platform. It could have been anything like the broken down NB adrift above Westminster he called for help on a handheld and I was able to take him in tow. The plain fact is, if one wants to use perilous waters with unsuitable craft then the simple but effective protection of a VHF is a small but necessary price to pay. Jeeze! you can buy a MIDLAND handheld VHF for £30. Furthermore it isn't just a question of their safety, it is imperative that if there is an incident then all available vessels are available. Of course its a bit far fetched but what if there was another Marchioness disaster and an unknowing NB ploughed right on missing survivors or worse yet running them down?
Results 31 to 33 of 33
Thread: Introducing Thamesbank
03-11-06, 19:50 #31
Re: Byron - your first reply to my post
04-11-06, 10:26 #32
Re: Byron - Defeat!
OK Byron, I admit defeat; defeated by your most sensible argument (yet again, drat!)
I will defend the notion of texting for two reasons:-
(1) Phone to phone text is obviously not practical for this purpose and nor are individual phone calls. BUT technology is in place for mass texting from computer systems. All Woolwich would have to do is key in the message.
What is NOT in place is the technology (well equipment anyway) to trap the mobile numbers of users entering and leaving the system.
(2) I have seen comments on these boards about the cessation of monitoring Ch16 and how several folks have said they would use a mobile in preference. This indicates to me that voice VHF is on decline - to be replaced in part by automated systems. In time Marine band (for pleasure use) will go the way of HAM radio - CQ,CQ, anybody there?
The requirement for VHF will hit NarrowBoats hard because "most" of them are over the limit for the regulation, whereas for other types of craft 13.7m is quite a big boat, probably seagoing and would carry VHF anyway. Indeed any craft under that size is in all probability more in need of VHF as they are more likely to get in trouble.
The central issue for me is that the PLA had hitherto deemed that telephone contact was adequate, so why has this changed?
I am very concerned that NBs will be put off cruising the Tideway and the Great London River will be poorer for it.
I won't labour the point any more - as I guess everyone is getting bored with it.
Thank you Byron, for your engaging and intelligent counters, they have helped me clarify my points and I look forward to sparring on future topics if / when the occasion arises!
04-11-06, 11:16 #33
Re: Byron - Defeat!
What I liked was the fact that it was all intelligent reasoned arguements and no one resorted to name calling. Kind of proves that Boaters are a cut above your average human and should be granted special status and granted tax concessions.