Codan vs Sat Phone???

[86mud]

Hi all

What the advantages/disadvantages of each?

From what I have read, the Codan 9350 with matching autotune antenna seems to be popular, at about $1200 second hand. but there are expensive licence fees. Not sure if there are call costs, or if there is a lag time when transmittind/receiving

Sat phones - about $600 second hand, and I see you can get pre paid accounts, but calls are still expensive. How the's reception on these in say Cape York (remote areas - like parts of the east coast north of Lockhart region)

Cheers
Andrew

[scarry]

Don't know about a Codan,but i had a sat phone for the last few weeks,with an external antenna that was magnetised & was on the roof of the D4. What a PITA.Cuts in,cuts out,etc,etc.

I was in western Qld,would have been better with a mobile and an external antenna,that seems to be what the locals use,they have given sat phones away.

I used one on the Cape a few years ago,and it was very painful,cutting in & out,couldn't get a line out ,etc,etc.

I would hate to have to use one in an emergency.

[justinc]

I have an HF radio for the very reasons stated above, sat phones just haven't the coverage, all the time, in all the places.

I have heard stories of even losing sat phone reception just north of Weipa, yet HF can communicate anywhere on the tip with as far away as Adelaide, or Charters towers etc. From there, emergency services or urgent messages can be relayed. Also, most late model HF units have GPS locator beacons installed, press 1 button and your location is continually transmited like an Epirb.

JC

[juddy]

The last Sat phone I used worked fine, if you add the on board dome receiver/transmitter and fit it correctly then you can achieve 100% coverage.

[strangy]

Now I am going top upset the HF fans again.

A decent portable Satphone that you know how to use wins every time.

I dont state my occupation too often, however, this may give you an idea where my thoughts come from. I fly for RFDS in Central Oz.
We are equipped with fully tuneable HF Radios, UHF, VHF, fixed satphone and a portable unit. All radios are set up as good as can be had in this day and age, they are the latest and greatest. Codans are common.
I use a HF radio a minimum of 5 times in any shift day and night and have been using the HF system for more than 15 years daily.
The HF is a mandatory requirement for our operational communications with Air Services as we are out of VHF coverage for a portion of every flight stage. Despite controllers expecting our calls the reception is often poor or non existent with a regular frequency surf required to communicate and many times a call on the Satphone required to advise our arrival or departure.

The preference for all crew to communicate with our base is the satphone despite having Company HF frequencies available.

I will never fit a HF radio to my rig in preference to satphone fixed or portable. The cost and benefit isnt worth it for me.

I have had it suggested previously by some, that I insult the HF system and the good work of the VKS volunteers.
Sorry some feel this way as it isnt the case.
Each system has its shortfalls, however if you want emergency comms then HF has the most. If you want a social network associated with your comms then maybe HF is more your thing.

As with all things quality, installation etc play a significant role.

The 4 wheelers in our crews regularly laugh at the mags advocating the HF as the best means of communications in remote locations today.


cheers

[roverrescue]

Strangy - I tend to agree
The cape was mentioned:
Pretty well everywhere north of Cooktown and out to Osprey/Shark Reef (120nm to sea)
an iridium sat phone has worked and worked well??? Sure you get lag when talking but not enough to limit communications

or buy an unlocked Thuraya (sp) and just chuck your moby sim card in when you need comms? Have a mate who do this

For emergency use a sat phone in a small pelican case
= too easy a solution

S

[RangieBit]

Both SatPhone and HF radio have their good and bad points.

I have a HF radio but then I've always been a bit of a radio nerd so I'm kinda biased about that.

If I were starting anew I'd opt for the SatPhone. Make sure it is an InMarSat system unit. Anything else is just junk IMHO.

Know the limitations of using a SatPhone. DON'T try to use it while mobile. They are communicating with satellites. There are a lot fewer of them and they are much farther away than cell towers. Acquiring a signal may take a minute or so but once acquired it should be solid UNLESS YOU MOVE THE PHONE. This is why modern SatPhones have Bluetooth. Acquire a signal with the phone and leave where it is and wander around talking with a bluetooth headset. There is a noticeable lag when using a SatPhone. This is not huge and after a short while you get used to it and adjust your conversation accordingly.

Calls can be expensive but most suppliers have plans that allow you to purchase a plan that can get calls down around $1/min (or less). Don't plan on using it like your normal mobile phone or it WILL be expensive.

Don't know if the government is still running the subsidy but if you travel enough you could get the startup cost down to around $500 through an authorised dealer.

SatPhones don't take up a lot of room but the auxiliary paraphernalia like chargers and spare batteries can. I find that external antenna units are not particularly good for SatPhones unless they are part of a permanently installed car kit for example.

If you want to go HF then the startup cost could be high but the running costs are relatively cheap. You need to be licensed. This is usually achieved by joining a network like HFOz or VKS737 and subscribing to their relay services. Telephone calls can be made from your radio for an additional cost which is similar to the cost of a SatPhone call. This is achieved by connection to a service like Radtel. Radio performance varies. Mostly it is good and you can communicate clearly over the continent. Sometimes it is crap and you're lucky to get 100km.

The equipment is large and power hungry. The Codan 9350 autotune unit is nearly 1m tall without the antenna whip! The main unit is about the size of a ream of A4 paper. You need to think about where you would install these things. Current legislation means you can no longer install your autotune unit on the front of your vehicle, for example.

Someone above mentioned GPS co-ordinate transmission. Yes the modern Codan and Barrett units can do this with the appropriate gear. Not all of the HF service providers are licensed to transmit or deal with this info as it is data transmission so do some research. The latest Codan NGTs and Barrett 2050s can also send/receive short text messages similar to SMS on the cellular phone networks. Great stuff but you need to know who you're sending it to and your HF provider may not be licensed as these are data transmissions.

So, if you want to communicate with folks back home and other travellers on a regular basis and get updates on road conditions and such then the HF networks are a great resource.

If you want to have emergency assist insurance then carry a Satphone and an EPIRB (or like) device.

Anyway that's my 5c worth. Sorry for the long-ish post.

Cheers,
Iain

[justinc]

Strangy, thanks for the from the horses mouth info, and you guys are an invaluable asset to outback Australia, :)

. I do agree with what you say, either system has its shortfalls, I am with the HF side of things primarily due to the fact that at MOST times, you SHOULD be able to contact SOMEONE, on the appropriate channel for that time of day etc. whereas from my understanding that isn't always possible with a sSat phone, BUT it has been quite a while since I looked at this scenario so many new products have been released and networks enlarged etc so maybe I am being a little hasty until I have revisited the question again.

Hope you guys keep up in the air for a ong time to come, I for one am happy to contribute financially :)


JC

[Rok_Dr]

Thanks Strangy

I also have to agree with you 100%. After working over 30 years in all sorts of remote parts of Australia and Africa, I am a total convert to Satphone from a safety perspective and do not miss HF radio and all.

Keep up the good work the flying doc is an awesome institution!

In addition almost all the vehicle accidents in the bush that I have been involved with, have been roll-overs and without exception the HF antenna was always wrecked. A sat phone in a small pelican case behind the seat will always survive.

Yes Iain an EPIRB is a good investment. I also carry one of the SPOT communicators, which for a couple of hundred bucks and a yearly subscription allows you to send All OK messages with location to family and also facebook.

Cheers Steve

[Lotz-A-Landies]

One aspect of HF not mentioned is the availability of local assistance. Particularly when the issue is not an emergency to life or limb.

When using a Sat phone you call a single recipient or emergency service and deal directly with them for the response.

On the HF services others can listen in on your comms and you may find assistance for that broken thingo is one sandhill or camp site away. The daily scheds give you the chance to record your location and a record of where you were at a particular time/day should you fail to arrive at your final desitination.

AS others have said, all systems have problems, the best safety planning will involve a combination of Sat Phone, EPIRB and HF dispersed through a group travelling together.

[RangieBit]

Strangy, thanks for your real world advice and experience. It's invaluable to get this sort of feedback. As to your job mate, keep up the good work. Rev Flynn would be most gratified to see the great work you do under often extreme circumstances.

I've met a few of your peers over many long years and to a one they are all unassuming folk about the vital role they fulfill. You are living up to the image. Thank you.

Yep Steve, I certainly take your point about the survivability of the HF vs Satphone in some sort of vehicle accident.

As to having it in a Pelican (or similar bomb proof) case that too I agree with.

Having it in the passenger cabin with me in the case of an accident, definitely NOT. As a first responder I have attended lots of vehicle accidents (though many years ago certainly) where loose items, even ones thought adequately restrained, have done horrific damage to the occupants.

I'm a firm believer in only keeping me and my loved ones in the passenger cabin. The odd packet of crisps, maybe some sweets and some soft clothing too, but nothing more that might become a flailing weapon in the event of an accident. That's why there's a cargo barrier. Put it back there BEHIND it.

Yep, I was alluding to Spot when I said "or like device". The newer ones can even do satellite connectivity using Bluetooth on the device so you can use your smart phone outside normal cellular range. Pretty amazing technology these days.

JC, I've been a believer in the InMarSat satellite system for many years. It was set up to support international shipping and they rely on it to be operational anywhere on the high seas. It has served them well and now continues to do so for many land based users. Other systems such as Iridium and Thuraya do have their pluses but lack the long term robustness of the above, IMHO. I recommend you check out some of the features available for satphones these days if you haven't done so for a while. You'll be pleasantly surprised I'm sure.

My vote too goes to the SatPhone.

Was going to add some thoughts about mixing various technology and devices within the convoy, but Di beat me too it :D

Cheers,
Iain

[DeanoH]

Hi all

What the advantages/disadvantages of each?

From what I have read, the Codan 9350 with matching autotune antenna seems to be popular, at about $1200 second hand...........................

Sat phones - about $600 second hand, and I see you can get pre paid accounts, but calls are still expensive...................................
Cheers
Andrew

Strangy just about nailed it I reckon.

What best suits you depends on what you want to use it (Sat vs. HF) for.

Kaye and I have been travelling remotely in Australia for the past 30 years and we've had both Sat and HF. The reason we carry it is for emergency comms. For this reason I dont see any sense in having a vehicle mounted HF or Sat. set up. When your vehicle is burning or upside down the pretty and expensive mobile rig is just another piece of broken or smouldering junk.

For this reason a portable unit (for us) is the only answer.
For outback comms Sat phones give the most reliable service. Flat terrain, visible horizon and few obstructions (trees).

I've used three types of sat phone. Immarsat, Globalstar and Irridium.

The Immarsat uses geo synchronous satellites which orbit 350,000+ Km above the equator and are stationary in relation to the earth. To use on of these portable sets you need to have some idea of where the satellite is so you can point the antenna correctly. Not hard once you know how. As the round trip for the signal is 700,00 Km+ the associated delay and echo can drive you nuts. It also makes it difficult to have a conversation if the person on the other end is not used to this. Depending where you are in Australia also determines which satellite you use. Very reliable but a bit of 'satellite' knowlege required.

The Globalstar satellite network I tried to use several years ago was an absolute shambles. Poor coverage, dropouts and totally unreliable. At the time there was a satellite 'down' or being replaced and the whole system was badly affected. This didn't stop retailers selling the sets cheap as Globalstar was dumping sets at reduced prices at the time. Also used Geosync satellites. May have come good by now, but still Geosync with its inherent delay.

Motorolas irridium service is the pick of the crop. A very different system. It uses LEO (low earth orbit) satellites a couple of hundred Km's up which have a Polar orbit. What this means is insignificant delay/echo and with a non directional antenna you don't have to point it at anything. Just keep the antenna vertical (don't swap ears as you talk as the antenna then points all over the place) and stand in a clear area. No special knowlege required, simple to use and VERY reliable. As simple to use as a mobile.

As I said before I'm not in love with vehicle mounted HF's but have used Codans 'lunch box' set which is a portable unit with a built in antenna tuner, just thow a piece of wire over a bush or something and away you go. Simple and effective but nowhere as reliable as Sat for emergency comms. Good fun though if you want to be sociable and chat with like minded travellers but very prone to atmospheric issues and definitely not a reliable 'I need to speak to somebody right now' communications medium.

For those not familiar with remote comms, UHF is not an option as its range is too limited. With a legal set 25Km maximum under good conditions IF there is someone sensible to talk to at the other end.:o

My two bobs worth.

Deano:)

[Don 130]

Thanks al for an informative discussion.
Don.

[86mud]

Wow...what a great overview of both systems.....now I am stumped!!. I have some time to think about it before I venture on a trip.

Thanks heaps

Cheers
Andrew

[Marty110]

I too have used both systems over the years but now only have an iridium sat phone. All the arguments have been covered so I'll only add a couple of extra points - apart from emergency use, the phones ability to send and receive SMS is very useful - when traveling our kids can send us an SMS to give them a call and we can then do so - for their emergencies (Dad I need some money). The kids cant call us on an HF. The total buy in and run cost is now cheaper for the phone than HF IMHO. Also, you can chuck the phone in your back pack when you go bush walking - great to either cover emergency uses or just to call the kids from the top of a very impressive hill to let them know that you are there (and they're not!!). I work in remote locations (from the mobile phone net) and the sat phone is better for my emergency usage as I need to call the farmer for a tow or to check details - again HF cant do this for me. OK, I miss out on the social and other staed aspects but I really don't miss it for my use - and that's what it comes down to - what your use is likely to be. But don't forget the already stated arguments re safely - the phone will survive and accident better, go on bushwalks with you and if you choose the right system give you reliable coverage.

[goingbush]

I used to work for Telstra, amongst other things I occasionally installed Sattelite telephone systems for payphones or properties that were not fesable to connect to the copper or mobile network, We used the inmarst satellite system,

I have to disagree with the comment of time delay /lag , as far as the customer was concerned it was usually good as talking on a landline, in fact a normal house phone / fax or payphone would plug into the box Delay was meybe 5% of the time, just hang up & make another call.

I used to use the same inmarsat mini-m in a breifcase when I went on remote trips, yes you do need to know where the satellite is, but it never moves and you can find it in a few seconds if you know where north is.

Telstra have since moved on from inmarsat to a more convenient but technically inferior system.

I now use a Inmarsat Isatphone pro, handheld, can text, send rec emails & talk crystal clear, the phone was $600 at this years Wandin field day and $100 credit will last 2 years easy. Very cheap & so much easier to find the satellite, You just cant use it whilst driving - why would you want to, but you can get a proper mobile omni antenna if you so inclined for about $1500

Far as Im concerned when you go remote (I'm talking solo) apart from water you need a Telstra blue tick phone with RF port & Broomstick Antenna, A Sat Phone, UHF CB and a Spot tracker.

[FFR]

The Immarsat uses geo synchronous satellites which orbit 350,000+ Km above the equator and are stationary in relation to the earth. To use on of these portable sets you need to have some idea of where the satellite is so you can point the antenna correctly. Not hard once you know how. As the round trip for the signal is 700,00 Km+ the associated delay and echo can drive you nuts.

Deano:)

Hi,

Geosync orbit is about 35.700 Km, not 350.000

Yes, Iridium provides a much better service than Inmarsat, mainly because there are fewer users per satellite (especially when the Iridium satellite flies over low density populated areas, like Australia). On the other hand, Iridium terminals are dearer. The main user is the US DoD, as they bought the network from Motorola as it was a multi-million commercial failure.

I haven't tried Thuraya, it uses geo-sync birds, but with sector antennas (it means that there is "allocated hardware" for Australia, not shared with other high density places where hundreds of users might be fighting for a timeslot). I think that Thuraya belongs to some middle-east family, or it is related with the oil business in this area.

Remember that, as it happens with the HF traffic, there is no guarantee of privacy in the satcom.

Carlos.

[DeanoH]

Hi,

Geosync orbit is about 35.700 Km, not 350.000............................

Carlos.


oops........................:wasntme: one too many 0's. That would put the 'magic' geosync orbital zone straight through the centre of the moons orbit. :o:eek:

Had a look last night and Motorola Iridium 9595 price second hand was around $300 which I thought was pretty good value.:D

Deano :)

[RangieBit]

Last I heard they were phasing out the public Iridium service. Not sure when but it has a definite end date.

Of course, I could be wrong. It has been known to happen. Occasionally :wasntme:

Cheers,
Iain

[DeanoH]

Last I heard they were phasing out the public Iridium service. Not sure when but it has a definite end date.

Of course, I could be wrong. It has been known to happen. Occasionally :wasntme:

Cheers,
Iain


As Carlos pointed out the Iridium service went bust and the satellites were slated for de-orbit when the US military took it over.

Why would the US military wan't to stop its potential 'opposition' from using a comms system it controls and monitors ? Great little intelligence source I would have thought.

It is an expensive system to run as the Low Earth Orbit satellites have a lot shorter 'life' than the geosync satellites but on the other hand cheaper to put into orbit. I would have thought the more 'paying' users the better.


Deano :)

[RangieBit]

Fair point about the intelligence gathering possibilities there Deano.

There are lots of reasons why the military would NOT want to have civilian users on its satellites. I'm sure if you think for a while a few might occur to you.

Yes, you're right. The military bought the network from Motorola cheap and putting LEO satellites up is not cheap. It's even more expensive now because there is no shuttle to just drop one off on it's way through to other things anymore. It has to be a specifically tasked mission to get a satellite up there and that's a civilian contractor job now.

They have the money and I'm sure would be happy to spend it but my guess is that they're making use of an existing system, instead of setting up/upgrading their own, until it expires.

All conjecture I agree but who the hell knows what goes through the minds of the U.S. military most of the time.

Another 2c worth.

Cheers,
Iain