Why is the CG Unintelligible When They are on the Radio?

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by Macblaze

And this is insulting: "... or better yet turn down that ride based on lack of [radio] competency if you needed it?" i.e "...are you really that stupid?"

That's generally good feedback, thanks. I probably shouldn't stoop to the level of the close to 100 "millenials have no attention span" posts I've read here.

I would point out there is some requirement to actually read what's written in order to avoid finding an insult that simply isn't there. I was explaining that a professional civilian certification isn't what makes someone competent at their Coast Guard jobs. By way of example, I pointed out that CG pilots don't have a professional civilian pilot's certification but that doesn't make them incompetent at their job of being Coast Guard pilots and certainly no-one would ever turn down a ride when they needed on simply because they didn't hold a civilian certification. In response to someone claiming that a professional civilian radio certification was necessary to make someone competent at being a Coast Guard radio operator. Nothing to do with pilots having a radio certification to be competent at being pilots, I actually wrote "The two 3,000 hour helicopter pilots that save you wouldn't even have a private pilot's license unless they went out to get it on their own.", so I'm not clear how that could be read to replace the explicit "pilots licence" with a non-existent "[radio]"? And certainly nothing to indicate the person I was responding to was in any way stupid. I think it's eminently reasonable in a discussion about requiring professional civilian certifications for military personnel to explain to folks who might not have served in the U.S. military that the U.S. military generally does their own certifications and doesn't require civilian certification, why that is, and provide examples of why that system works?

I do have to admit on the taking things personally side, I still am waiting for BlackHeron to provide his examples of how "The USCG is a hot mess, and like the USPS they are well past their good-by date.". It seemed a calm, reasonable and I think pretty non-insulted request I think to someone who throws up something that was clearly meant to be deeply insulting?

[wsmurdoch]

Originally Posted by osprey877

Is there any way to post an audio file on the forum? Those concerned about the quality of CG broadcasts could record a sample of what they are talking about and the rest of us could judge for ourselves. ... Any ideas?

There should be way to post short sound files as maybe .wav or .mp3 in order to post not only radio speech but also engine sounds, Hella fan sounds, hull creaking sounds, and that sort of thing. It would be helpful in explaining a problem.

I routinely record the VHF and HF audio signals going to my speaker on a small voice recorder with a VOX, and wish I had a way to record my side of the conversation as well.

Bill

[Creedence]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

That's generally good feedback, thanks. I probably shouldn't stoop to the level of the close to 100 "millenials have no attention span" posts I've read here.

I would point out there is some requirement to actually read what's written in order to avoid finding an insult that simply isn't there. I was explaining that a professional civilian certification isn't what makes someone competent at their Coast Guard jobs. By way of example, I pointed out that CG pilots don't have a professional civilian pilot's certification but that doesn't make them incompetent at their job of being Coast Guard pilots and certainly no-one would ever turn down a ride when they needed on simply because they didn't hold a civilian certification. In response to someone claiming that a professional civilian radio certification was necessary to make someone competent at being a Coast Guard radio operator. Nothing to do with pilots having a radio certification to be competent at being pilots, I actually wrote "The two 3,000 hour helicopter pilots that save you wouldn't even have a private pilot's license unless they went out to get it on their own.", so I'm not clear how that could be read to replace the explicit "pilots licence" with a non-existent "[radio]"? And certainly nothing to indicate the person I was responding to was in any way stupid. I think it's eminently reasonable in a discussion about requiring professional civilian certifications for military personnel to explain to folks who might not have served in the U.S. military that the U.S. military generally does their own certifications and doesn't require civilian certification, why that is, and provide examples of why that system works?

I do have to admit on the taking things personally side, I still am waiting for BlackHeron to provide his examples of how "The USCG is a hot mess, and like the USPS they are well past their good-by date.". It seemed a calm, reasonable and I think pretty non-insulted request I think to someone who throws up something that was clearly meant to be deeply insulting?

I see you're still fighting the good fight. Good on ya' Rob.

Thought for those who cannot hear their radios over engine noise... rethink the radio installation!

I've still yet to learn where Pickle Island is. And I'm now calling dibs on Momma Floda for a new band name.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by osprey877

Is there any way to post an audio file on the forum? Those concerned about the quality of CG broadcasts could record a sample of what they are talking about and the rest of us could judge for ourselves. ......... Any ideas?

Are you aware that posting an audio file of a CG broadcast would be in contravention of the ITU regulations.

To wit 18.4 § 2 The holder of a licence is required to preserve the secrecy of telecommunications, as provided in the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Convention. Moreover, the licence shall mention, specifically or by reference, that if the station includes a receiver, the interception of radiocommunication correspondence, other than that which the station is authorized to receive, is forbidden, and that in cases where such correspondence is involuntarily received, it shall not be reproduced, nor communicated to third parties, nor used for any purpose, and even its existence shall not be disclosed

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Are you aware that posting an audio file of a CG broadcast would be in contravention of the ITU regulations.

To wit 18.4 § 2 The holder of a licence is required to preserve the secrecy of telecommunications, as provided in the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Convention. Moreover, the licence shall mention, specifically or by reference, that if the station includes a receiver, the interception of radiocommunication correspondence, other than that which the station is authorized to receive, is forbidden, and that in cases where such correspondence is involuntarily received, it shall not be reproduced, nor communicated to third parties, nor used for any purpose, and even its existence shall not be disclosed

I don't think that's an issue. A public USCG broadcast is something you're authorized to receive.

[flyingfin]

USCG operators must have been trained by gate agents at airports, who rattle off the flight number and boarding instructions so quick nobody can understand what they say. Worse yet, this seems to be common problem at international terminals in the US. Apparently nobody knows their target audience.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by flyingfin

USCG operators must have been trained by gate agents at airports, who rattle off the flight number and boarding instructions so quick nobody can understand what they say. Worse yet, this seems to be common problem at international terminals in the US. Apparently nobody knows their target audience.

I think a big part of the problem is that both USCG radio operators and gate agents hear the announcements all day long so when said super fast they can still understand it just fine, so they assume you can too. That’s just human nature and a problem that’s not going away.

I was a USAF fighter pilot and flew commercially for 35 years so I’m pretty accustomed to communicating via radios. I have no problem with most ATC or military controllers but that’s probably because I’m very familiar with their terminology and the range of things they might be saying. Ive flown all over the world and even in foreign countries with heavily accented controllers, we manage to communicate just fine (except for Great Britain where most controllers are unintelligible) because with few exceptions they scrupulously use standard terminology and they also know that if the pilot doesn’t understand them, he/she will ask them to say it again so it’s in their own self interest to speak clearly. I get the feeling that communicating clearly is something they take pride in, as it should be.

But I hardly ever can understand USCG securite or pan pan transmissions here in Maine. By the time I figure out that maybe I should be listening carefully to it, they’re halfway through the longitude and we’re all looking at each other saying “huh, where was that and what was the problem?” So, as has been mentioned by others in prior posts, since the USCG is NOT just addressing trained pros sitting at a desk instantly ready to copy transmissions, if they actually want to communicate rather than just ‘fill a square’ they need to slow WAY down and repeat the last/long at the end of each transmission so listeners have time to grab a pen/pencil. I’m sure the USCG is aware of this but apparently it’s never become a real high priority item for it to change, so if we really want them to do a better job of communicating with US, we need to ask them to repeat everything we don’t understand just like airline pilots do. About the 3rd or 4th time a radio operator is asked to repeat the same pan pan it will likely dawn on him/her that it’s not a race and speaking very clearly and slowly and only having to say it once is a lot better than speed talking but having to repeat it multiple times. So, I think all of us who have heard USCG securite or pan pans that we didn’t really understand, but just shrugged it off rather than asking for clarification are partly to blame. From the USCG radio operators perspective, if they rattle off lat/longs and locations so fast that only their fellow radio operators can understand, but nobody queries them about what they just said, how are they to know that they haven’t communicated effectively with all of the rest of us? So I suggest that rather than just discussing this amongst ourselves on this forum and shrugging it off when we don’t understand a transmission, we start asking USCG radio operators to repeat it until we do understand what’s being said. If I were in trouble at sea and there’s a chance a nearby vessel could render me the assistance I need, I’d hate to miss out on it because my location was announced so quickly that nearby vessels didn’t understand and didn’t go to the trouble of doing whatever it takes to understand where I was and what sort of help I needed.

[J. LaFitte]

For all the sorry individuals bad mouthing the men and women in the USGC... May your boat sink in a school of sharks.

My son is fourth generation Coast Guard and the young people he serves with are some of the finest individuals I have ever met. As were the people I served with, and the people my father served with, and my grandfather served with... to the poster that stated “these are the best people they could find” I ask what have you done to serve your fellow human?

[Auspicious]

I'm all in for Pickle Island. I have a video projector I can bring for Captain Ron.

There are some things I know, some things I think I know, and some things I just think.

I know that things changed a lot over the last fifteen to five years as Rescue 21 rolled out. Radio operations are run out of Sectors throughout the Sector. I think I know that most of the radio operators in Sector radio rooms are a combination of non-rates straight out of basic and CGAUX watchstanders. I know that almost all the Securite and Pan-Pan announcements are spoken too fast. I know most of the radio operators have no local knowledge.

I share the posted irritation at "break" without releasing the mic button. I write to the Sector Baltimore CO every couple of years. Things get better for a while and then deteriorate.

All of my one-to-one communications with Sectors and stations have been good. We get the adult supervision and things go well. It really is the Securite and Pan-Pan messages that are a problem.

Story: a friend of mine was single-handing his Tartan 37 northbound just above the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. We were several hours behind him and had been chatting off and on the radio off and on. We heard him come up on 16 calling the CG. He's crewed for me a lot and his radio demeanor is pretty good. Declared people in the water, gave position both narratively ("North of Bay Bridge between channel and Sandy Point Light") and lat/lon repeated. A little more back and forth with CG as he got closer. Then he went off the air. Increasingly panicked CG who seemed to running through flip charts. After a few minutes my friend came back on the air with one of the best lines ever: "I'm a little busy right now." Under sail and single-handed he pulled four children and one adult from the water before SAR showed up. A second adult was never found. CG did fine, except for the brief radio room panic. The case should have been escalated to someone more senior or command transferred to one of the small boats on the way. After action.

ETA: Auspicious on one-six, one-three, and one-four

[KneadingWater]

Great conversation.


I am a relative new sailor, but have 15K M of coastal (FL and MI) paddling in a sea kayak; radio always tuned to 16 (and 9 and 69).



I think there is a presumption that PanPans are obligatory, and nobody listens. If in doubt, call and ask for clarification (and I have on a number of occasions). Many stories. And, I kayak towed the USCG Auxiliary once in Venice when they had a break down, made the paper.



Like all swaths of people, most of them are great, and here to serve.


Good stuff, I thank you all for this forum and letting me learn from you.



Steve
s/v Erige

[bluepearl54]

I completely agree and have often planned to drop them a note about this but have never got around to doing it. As you suggest radio training (or improved training) would be the answer. The distinct impression I always get is “the faster, the better” which obviously is an erroneous assumption.

I have found that in person to person communication the CG operators I have talked to have been easy to understand and responsive.

Glad you raised the issue. Maybe the “Forum” can have a chat with them.

[GetAway2]

Originally Posted by carstenb

WE now sailing in the US and we frequently hear the USCG on the radio. Despite being a European, I am a native english (american) speaker. The USCG broadcasts are unintelligible.

1 - They are speedtalkers like I've never heard before - they literally are talking so fast that even I can't follow what they say.

2- They almost all hold the mike much too close to their mouths and that also makes the speech impossible to decipher.

Don't they get radio training? When I went to radio school I was taught (and tested in) speaking in a normal voice and speed, enunciating clearly and making sure I finished enunciating each word correctly. I was also taught to hold the mike away from my mouth so my breath didn't sound in the mike and finally I was taught to speak slowly.

I was also taught that vitally important information, such as position, should be repeated to ensure that it was correctly understood - the USCG never does this


Yesterday, sailing in the San Juans, the USCG put out a PAN PAN. The Guardsman was speedtalking so fast that there was no way to understand and be able to jot down the position he was giving where there were persons in the water. We were in the vicinity, but because he was so unclear, we couldn't determine if we were close enough to help.


Does anyone know why they are incompetent to use a radio? It must be a lack of training - but why no training?

By the way - we had this experience with virtually every CG radio signal we heard and we've heard lots

They are a bunch of teenagers and that's how they talk. As for radio training it's here's the mike, press this button and talk, let it go to listen, now get on watch!

I can't understand half of them either. I do understand 'like, like, like, every sentence. Just have them repeat what they said and ask them to slow it down, you're an old man and your ears can't catch up!!

[smacksman]

We are talking about two different transmissions here.
1. The regular, default, CG transmissions every hour from every station which are speed talking gibberish and a waste of Ch16 time.
2. Calling up the local CG and having a clear conversation with good voice procedure.

[grube]

USCG “regular” messaging and its repetition including who they are(!) is annoying (do you really have to say “This is USCG” 3 times?). However I find what they say is clear as a bell and was the other day in the middle of a mayday event.

[ditechspain]

Tarian:

Never had any trouble understanding French coastal radio transmissions. Almost all important transmissions are in English. And about as comprehensible as the UK Coastguard. I just don't think the UK Coastguard would have been as tolerant of the continuous stream of obscentities and insults I heard being transmitted from a commercial vessel.

With reference to other comments about MilSpec English this would explain why I can never understand a word of the RAF Red Arrows display team communications, nor almost every other recording of military or commercial aviation transmission, irrespective of nationality.