Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 143

Thread: Beware of E Bay

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    57,331

    Default Re: So . . .

    Colin,

    This is all getting very complicated - without any good reason.
    The EU have not gone it alone, and GMDSS is a global standard. DSC sets are defined under SOLAS regulations. The only peeps that have gone alone are the US that allowed a cut down version of DSC for pleasure boaters that will not go into international waters called SC-101.

    Everyone seems to be getting confused between DSC standards and CE. CE marking applies to all sorts of goods, and defines certain standards of manufacture for safety reasons.

    <hr width=100% size=1>

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    57,331

    Default Re: So . . .

    &gt;&gt;While I am not familiar with the exact specifications required by EU (and I have no need or desire to, have been down that track for other things and "Oh, my God!") a cursory look at DSC VHF's there appear to have physical requirements beyond the rest of the world, let alone software ones&lt;&lt;

    There are no 'EU' requirements. DSC standards are laid down by Solas, and are global.

    SC-101 standard is a purely american one for use by pleasure boaters that will not use international waters. If they go into international waters they require Solas specified DSC.

    SC-101 radios can be sold in some countries, because those countries have no VHF DSC capability so it doesn't really matter. I believe NZ and Oz fall into this category according to their own government radio authority websites?

    The point about numerical keypads just shows how deficient the SC-101 radios are. Several US experts have pointed out that SC-101 radios are useless in DSC terms for anything other than emergency transmissions (press red button) as you cannot (or only with difficulty) enter an MMSI number to call another boat or station - one of the key features of DSC - which is after all Digital Selective Calling. If you cannot enter an MMSI number, why have selective calling?

    <hr width=100% size=1>

  3. #83

    Default Re: So . . .

    Brendan - sorry this time [img]/forums/images/icons/frown.gif[/img]????

    The USA has not gone it alone, as far as I am aware every other country (if not that then those that do not do not matter) accept the equivalant of SC-101 sets. The rest of the world is different to the EU, not the just the USA.

    The EU does have a requirement - it is that the set be Class D (and maybe some other things which I do not know about). The rest of the world does not have this requirement.

    Regarding MMSI entry for calling another vessel. I think if one thinks it through, it is only on a very rare occasion that one needs to enter an MMSI in the heat of any moment - after all where are you going to get the other vessel's MMSI from. There are SC-101 (using the term to apply to a less than Class D set) sets that have keyboard entry. It is also not that hard, especially with the sets with rotary encoders (IC-M502 for example)

    It is not correct to say that SC-101 sets are only accepted in nations without DSC VHF. That would be to say that the EU is the only place with DSC. We are putting commercial vessels into one nation with DSC and they accept SC-101.

    It is also not correct to say (maybe "infer" if I read you wrong) that USA vessels (or indeed any others out of the EU) can only use SC-101 type sets in their national waters. Most (all?) countries require their own pleasure vessels to be on a register of ships before they will clear (border clearance I mean) them for international voyages. Those vessels in the USA and as far as I know everywhere else, undertaking international voyages, may have SC-101 type radios. Barring any intercountry treaty to the contrary (and I am unaware of any) those vessels, through being flagged outside of the EU, can also enter the EU waters with and operate their SC-101 sets without any concern or interference from the authorities.

    Whew... On a better note, I trust you got my PM regarding South Island?

    John

    <hr width=100% size=1><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by MainlySteam on 12/09/2003 00:14 (server time).</FONT></P>
    <span style="color:blue">www.sailroom.co.uk</span>

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    57,331

    Default Re: So . . .

    John,
    Yes, got your pm

    Gonna hafta disagree on this one. Even the US Coast Guard say re SC-101
    <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/marcomms/gmdss/dsc.htm>http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/marcomms/gmdss/dsc.htm</A>

    " This standard, which is recognized by the FCC but is not generally recognized outside of the U.S., should be soon replaced by ITU Class D and E"

    Various US Gov working bodies and FCC have been concerned about restrictions of SC-101 for some time, and is due to be dumped in favour of international Solas DSC standards at some point, so the US won't be manufacturing SC-101 sets for much longer anyway, falling in line with EU and much of the rest of the world

    <hr width=100% size=1>

  5. #85
    kimhollamby's Avatar
    kimhollamby is offline Registered User
    Location : Berkshire, Somerset, Hampshire
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Posts
    3,915

    Default Welcome to the forum

    Jon,

    Hi there. Sorry you have had a bit of a rough ride from a few users here but your comments welcome, albeit obviously a bit puzzling in some regards.

    Perhaps to help clear up the CE side of the debate would it be possible to state types of testing required to get type approval? Also what directives you have to comply with (EMC for sure but others too?).

    My understanding has always been that UK type approval prior to advent of CE was very expensive and served as a barrier to many sets being imported at all. That backs up comments made in this forum about Standard. Another example a few years back was a waterproof set launched by Humminbird...waterproof more old hat now but at the time it would have been a breakthrough, had it passed type approval.

    Posting this from the show so perhaps see you there.

    Kim

    <hr width=100% size=1>

  6. #86

    Default Re: So . . .

    Whatever the USCG site says, the standard, or if I say sets complying with it are generally accepted around the world except in EU. Ask on Icom's, Standard Horizon's etc international (Japan in those cases) sites for example to see what they say about where their markets are. In fact the Icom Japan site will link (used to assume it still does) you to their country sites and from the range offered on each one you can see what is accepted where.

    Also interestingly, the Icom IC-M602, which is claimed to be a Class D complying set and accepted everywhere else, still was not acceptable to EU and had to metamorphise (with some troubles?) into the M601.

    What I understand is happening (and I am no authority on what the ITU is doing) is that the ITU are revising the DSC Recommendation to try to eliminate the difficulties found from experience to date. I understand it is the USA's intention to follow the new Class D recommendation, but I do not think the general public know what that new Class D is yet. I have not paid a great deal of attention to this as whatever is installed now eg SC-101 will not be superceded or crippled. There is some confusion I think among some people that SC-101 is like Class F (does not permit routine calls) but although I do not have a copy of SC-101 to check, I can at least say I am unaware of any SC-101 set that does not permit routine calls. My understanding is that Class F is likely to disappear from the Recommendation.

    What I know is that whatever comes out of the review the Recommendation will protect the status and interoperability of existing DSC sets. I have just had a look at my copy of ITU-R.M.493 which covered ("covered" because I think it is in limbo at the moment and I think there were some minor edits a couple of years ago) the requirements for DSC. The technical requirements for DSC equipment Class D are described and I suspect that most SC-101 sets actually basically comply to the intent.

    I do not know what is coming out of the review but I do have a copy of the reviewing sub-committee's original agenda and keeping in mind the essence is towards SOLAS when they talk among other things that "Intended benefits include: .....Simpler operation. Numerous unused and uneeded functions have been removed. ....Consistency amongst models of DSC equipment. The revised recommendation would more precisely define equipment requirements."

    One of the great difficulties is the disparity of the user interfaces and operability of sets, and I understand this is one area they intend trying to harmonise more. Probably also related to this is the intention to limit the high number of false alerts which are currently experienced.

    It may be that someone knows what the outcome is going to be, I don't think the revisions are due until next year, but not sure on that. It may be that Class D will be lightened in its requirements and one would assume that the FCC will have quite a weighty say on what the outcome is. The outcome may be that if the EU accepts the new recommendations, that you may be able to use sets similar to those the rest of the world does now. It may also mean, given that the user interface seems to be part of the review, that existing Class D sets will not meet the new standard either. A wild guess on my part is that it may be something like the mid range international SC-101 sets currently on the market (eg Icom IC-m502) - maybe someone has some definite information as to where it is heading.

    You mention NZ and Australia. Australia has just gone through a year of restructuring their service and I am not quite sure where they are at, but I think that the official service is in fact now mf/hf only (and that is DSC). In NZ the Maritime Safety Service is VHF non DSC, mf/hf is DSC. The last time I asked the local authorities what their intentions were for VHF I was told that they were going to implement "the next version" which I took to mean that they were waiting for the outcome of the ITU review.

    Jeeze these are long Brendan - I am going to get a beer out of you somehow!!!!

    John

    <hr width=100% size=1><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by MainlySteam on 12/09/2003 04:31 (server time).</FONT></P>
    <span style="color:blue">www.sailroom.co.uk</span>

  7. #87
    Guest

    Default Re: No, Nigel... !!

    I don't remark on that - Jon's or Class F / D etc. - I was remarking that I and many like me don't like the differentials between UK / US markets. the sooner we get parity the better.

    Some say that the US is a bigger market - but as ICOM and many actually have gear made in Japan etc. then surely this argument loses credibility .... as shipping to US or UK from Japan must be similar rates .....
    I don't accept that US should get cheaper than us - I go further I am sick of the US having different standards etc. ..... look at Navigational Buoys ...... the world has Cardinal sytsem A ...... the US refused to ratify A and insisted on Cardinal System B - then imposed it on Philipines etc. to increase the apparent validity of it. I was 17 yrs at sea and had to learn two systems .... plus all the other **** !!

    Marine Radio with all those US Alpha channels ...... no-one else needs them - so why ???? I used to work on Siesmic ships in USA .... we had a situation of possible MOB from a Rig in Gulf of Mexico ...... we found the Lifebuoy ..... I called USCG and they INSISTED I use Ch. 22 alpha ......... in the end they reluctantly ----- YES reluctantly agreed to talk on an International ch.

    Can someone please explain why ???????????


    <hr width=100% size=1>Nigel ...
    Bilge Keelers get up further ! I only came - cos they said there was FREE Guinness !

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    57,331

    Default Re: So . . .

    The thing I love about threads like this is how much I learn.

    I'll let you know in a month or so about travel plans in NZ. No plans to stop off in Oz, and I'll be purely South Island, but I'm sure we can find a way to share a beer or two!

    <hr width=100% size=1>

  9. #89

    Default Re: So . . .

    Fine Brendan - the whole thing is a bit of a mess really, and I think whatever others views are on the thread it all indicates probable agreement with that at least! Thing I wonder about is there are a lot of dayboats (especially in USA, but also elsewhere of course) which are just say 15-18 foot or so, used for very casual day fishing, etc, and if things get too complicated and/or expensive access to vhf is going to become difficult for them unless they go to a non DSC handheld.

    Would be great if we can meet. Can't vouch for the quaility of the beer out here, but at least it is wet and does the job!

    John

    <hr width=100% size=1>
    <span style="color:blue">www.sailroom.co.uk</span>

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    57,331

    Default Re: So . . .

    All the DSC sets are coming down in price, even in EU. Once they become mass market (which they are, as that's pretty much all they can sell now) the price will drop further

    Useability does seem to be an issue, and this is particularly true of SC-101 type sets - imagine trying to use a phone with no keypad...... I know SC-101 sets can make routine calls, it's just too awkward, so users revert to normal voice calling.

    The beer was fine last time I was there!!

    <hr width=100% size=1>

Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •