brianrunyard
New member
There's a live AIS here. Well worth a look, you need to register, it's free.
AIS & ARPA ...
- Thread starter ParaHandy
- Start date
brianrunyard
New member
Superstrath
New member
[ QUOTE ]
for close quarters stuff - like within a few miles collision avoidance - could you ignore the spheriod .
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, plane sailing is generally used up to about 600 miles - the spheroid is utterly irrelevent in this situation. Should make it easier.
Alistair
for close quarters stuff - like within a few miles collision avoidance - could you ignore the spheriod .
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, plane sailing is generally used up to about 600 miles - the spheroid is utterly irrelevent in this situation. Should make it easier.
Alistair
ParaHandy
Active member
are there many vessels carrying radioactive waste, subject to them coming to the attention of greenpeace, and ships liable to terrorist attack? I do recall that the RNLI + MCA are fitting fishing boats with something that sounds like AIS so that there position can be known at all times ......
ParaHandy
Active member
Would the outcome of events on the 28 May 2003 been different today if Wahkuna had AIS with ARPA? It could have bought them more time ....
[ QUOTE ]
may be allowed to have it switched off. I believe that applies (at least) to Navy vessels, presumably Customs & Excise vessels and those who wish to remain anonymous for reasons of their cargo such as a radioactive material carrier
[/ QUOTE ]
We can expect the above to maintain above average standards of watch keeping, it is the overworked zombies on other commercial ships that worry me.
may be allowed to have it switched off. I believe that applies (at least) to Navy vessels, presumably Customs & Excise vessels and those who wish to remain anonymous for reasons of their cargo such as a radioactive material carrier
[/ QUOTE ]
We can expect the above to maintain above average standards of watch keeping, it is the overworked zombies on other commercial ships that worry me.
Robin
Well-known member
[ QUOTE ]
Would the outcome of events on the 28 May 2003 been different today if Wahkuna had AIS with ARPA? It could have bought them more time ....
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe not any different. Wahkuna was not in a blind situation, they Knew where the ship was from their radar but they did not know how to use this information correctly either with their MARPA on the radar set or manually. The ship in it's turn accepted too small a CPA and was further confused by the subsequent course changes from Wahkuna. AIS would simply give them the same positional information as the radar did (and which they apparently couldn't interpret correctly) but plus the ship name. They would need still IMO to get out of the way PDQ and not mess around making VHF calls to the ship.
Would the outcome of events on the 28 May 2003 been different today if Wahkuna had AIS with ARPA? It could have bought them more time ....
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe not any different. Wahkuna was not in a blind situation, they Knew where the ship was from their radar but they did not know how to use this information correctly either with their MARPA on the radar set or manually. The ship in it's turn accepted too small a CPA and was further confused by the subsequent course changes from Wahkuna. AIS would simply give them the same positional information as the radar did (and which they apparently couldn't interpret correctly) but plus the ship name. They would need still IMO to get out of the way PDQ and not mess around making VHF calls to the ship.
Superstrath
New member
[ QUOTE ]
We can expect the above to maintain above average standards of watch keeping, .
[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't bank on it. I declined a move from Merchant to Royal Navy after sailing from Middlesborough to Rosyth on a frigate - and I was appalled at the poor level of lookout, the total lack of use of bridge radar (in poor vis) and the almost total lack of col regs knowledge of the watch keeping officer. Of the six bods on the bridge (OOW, midshipman doing decca positions ad-infinitum, messenger, two lookouts and me, I was the only one that looked in the radar. The oow relied on info from the ops room regarding "targets" - and called them to announce "visual contact" on a fishing fleet some ten minutes after I had first spied them, having been aware of their presence via radar for some time. The lookouts looked at their feet most of the time. Later, a simple decision to alter to starboard to go round the back of a crossing ship required consultation with the captain who had to be called to the bridge in a panic.
FWIW, I don't for one moment doubt the ability of the RN to fight their ships, and I have every respect for them - except for what I saw on the bridge through the eyes of a trained, qualified and experienced navigator.
Of course, these days I have my doubts about some commercial shipping, although I expect most will be very good.
Alistair
We can expect the above to maintain above average standards of watch keeping, .
[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't bank on it. I declined a move from Merchant to Royal Navy after sailing from Middlesborough to Rosyth on a frigate - and I was appalled at the poor level of lookout, the total lack of use of bridge radar (in poor vis) and the almost total lack of col regs knowledge of the watch keeping officer. Of the six bods on the bridge (OOW, midshipman doing decca positions ad-infinitum, messenger, two lookouts and me, I was the only one that looked in the radar. The oow relied on info from the ops room regarding "targets" - and called them to announce "visual contact" on a fishing fleet some ten minutes after I had first spied them, having been aware of their presence via radar for some time. The lookouts looked at their feet most of the time. Later, a simple decision to alter to starboard to go round the back of a crossing ship required consultation with the captain who had to be called to the bridge in a panic.
FWIW, I don't for one moment doubt the ability of the RN to fight their ships, and I have every respect for them - except for what I saw on the bridge through the eyes of a trained, qualified and experienced navigator.
Of course, these days I have my doubts about some commercial shipping, although I expect most will be very good.
Alistair
Robin
Well-known member
[ QUOTE ]
are there many vessels carrying radioactive waste, subject to them coming to the attention of greenpeace, and ships liable to terrorist attack?
[/ QUOTE ]
Do you need more than one to hit you to sink your boat? /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
I was being a bit flippant, but the point is that there are bona fide reasons that some vessels are allowed to turn off their AIS. This means that there are some big boats as well as those below 300tons (quite big anyway) and fishing/pleasure boats that will be out and about but not visible on AIS. IMHO, AIS is a useful additional aid but first priority if you are at all concerned about collision avoidance in poor visibility MUST be radar. If I had neither, I would rather fit a secondhand radar for the price of an AIS. Battery power is not a consideration as if necessary the engine can be running whilst radar is operating, and there are plenty of small radars around these days and well under £1000 even new.
BTW I have looked quite often at the AIS website 'live' data and have yet to see a navy vessel showing yet they must be out there surely and that includes Royal Fleet Auxilliary vessels too.
[ QUOTE ]
I do recall that the RNLI + MCA are fitting fishing boats with something that sounds like AIS so that there position can be known at all times
[/ QUOTE ]
I doubt the RNLI and MCA themselves are fitting them although they may be recommending that AIS is installed even though the fishing vessel would be below the minimum tonnage to make fitting compulsory.
are there many vessels carrying radioactive waste, subject to them coming to the attention of greenpeace, and ships liable to terrorist attack?
[/ QUOTE ]
Do you need more than one to hit you to sink your boat? /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
I was being a bit flippant, but the point is that there are bona fide reasons that some vessels are allowed to turn off their AIS. This means that there are some big boats as well as those below 300tons (quite big anyway) and fishing/pleasure boats that will be out and about but not visible on AIS. IMHO, AIS is a useful additional aid but first priority if you are at all concerned about collision avoidance in poor visibility MUST be radar. If I had neither, I would rather fit a secondhand radar for the price of an AIS. Battery power is not a consideration as if necessary the engine can be running whilst radar is operating, and there are plenty of small radars around these days and well under £1000 even new.
BTW I have looked quite often at the AIS website 'live' data and have yet to see a navy vessel showing yet they must be out there surely and that includes Royal Fleet Auxilliary vessels too.
[ QUOTE ]
I do recall that the RNLI + MCA are fitting fishing boats with something that sounds like AIS so that there position can be known at all times
[/ QUOTE ]
I doubt the RNLI and MCA themselves are fitting them although they may be recommending that AIS is installed even though the fishing vessel would be below the minimum tonnage to make fitting compulsory.
Robin
Well-known member
PS Re AIS Live and the blind looking for the invisible!
[ QUOTE ]
BTW I have looked quite often at the AIS website 'live' data and have yet to see a navy vessel showing yet they must be out there surely and that includes Royal Fleet Auxilliary vessels too.
[/ QUOTE ]
I looked again just now and in the whole of the AIS Live coverage of the English Channel and including Portsmouth Harbour, there is not one single Royal Navy or Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel showing an AIS position. Nor are there any Customs & Excise vessels or even any fishing vessels. So a) now would be a good time for Alky Aida to attack b) now would be a good time to do a booze cruise special and c) Don't plan on fish 'n chips tomorrow 'cos nobody is fishing today!
On the other hand they might just not have their thingies switched on, just to fool us.
[ QUOTE ]
BTW I have looked quite often at the AIS website 'live' data and have yet to see a navy vessel showing yet they must be out there surely and that includes Royal Fleet Auxilliary vessels too.
[/ QUOTE ]
I looked again just now and in the whole of the AIS Live coverage of the English Channel and including Portsmouth Harbour, there is not one single Royal Navy or Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel showing an AIS position. Nor are there any Customs & Excise vessels or even any fishing vessels. So a) now would be a good time for Alky Aida to attack b) now would be a good time to do a booze cruise special and c) Don't plan on fish 'n chips tomorrow 'cos nobody is fishing today!
On the other hand they might just not have their thingies switched on, just to fool us.
ParaHandy
Active member
If I may say so, I don't think your argument stands close examination.
Each and every MAIB collision case has both vessels using radar at a range of <8m. You need to ask why this is so. Is it a matter of capability - probably? This was also the case with Wahkuna where the time interval between the first sighting and impact was approximately 12minutes. It would take me somewhere between 2 and 3 minutes watching the radar track of an approaching vessel before I could reasonably plot a track and determine if a collision possibility existed. At that point I would be less than 1 m from the track of the approaching vessel and given the approach angle between the vessels, accurate determination of the track becomes, mathematically, uncertain for the same reason that taking position fixes at objects separated by acute angles is inaccurate.
However if the approaching vessel had AIS and I had some way of automatically calculating its CPA, I would have been aware that the vessel would pass behind me fully 3 minutes earlier than with radar and it could have been a lot longer. Time is of the essence when you have vessels with this sort of disparity in speed approaching each other ...
As far as the vessel size is concerned, I don't recall ever seeing such a small merchant vessel in the channel but no doubt .....
I have seen one RN vessel on the AIS website. Hopefully our taxes have paid for decent radar sets and the RN wish to avoid damaging the few ships they have left ....
Each and every MAIB collision case has both vessels using radar at a range of <8m. You need to ask why this is so. Is it a matter of capability - probably? This was also the case with Wahkuna where the time interval between the first sighting and impact was approximately 12minutes. It would take me somewhere between 2 and 3 minutes watching the radar track of an approaching vessel before I could reasonably plot a track and determine if a collision possibility existed. At that point I would be less than 1 m from the track of the approaching vessel and given the approach angle between the vessels, accurate determination of the track becomes, mathematically, uncertain for the same reason that taking position fixes at objects separated by acute angles is inaccurate.
However if the approaching vessel had AIS and I had some way of automatically calculating its CPA, I would have been aware that the vessel would pass behind me fully 3 minutes earlier than with radar and it could have been a lot longer. Time is of the essence when you have vessels with this sort of disparity in speed approaching each other ...
As far as the vessel size is concerned, I don't recall ever seeing such a small merchant vessel in the channel but no doubt .....
I have seen one RN vessel on the AIS website. Hopefully our taxes have paid for decent radar sets and the RN wish to avoid damaging the few ships they have left ....
Rowana
Two steps lower than the ships' cat
[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully our taxes have paid for decent radar sets and the RN wish to avoid damaging the few ships they have left ....
[/ QUOTE ]
Not so sure about that. They have been known to bump into hard bits down Oz way, and cost us poor bloody taxpayers a fortune to get "Our" boat back and patched up.
I always try to keep WELL out of the way of Grey Funnel Line boaties !
/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
Hopefully our taxes have paid for decent radar sets and the RN wish to avoid damaging the few ships they have left ....
[/ QUOTE ]
Not so sure about that. They have been known to bump into hard bits down Oz way, and cost us poor bloody taxpayers a fortune to get "Our" boat back and patched up.
I always try to keep WELL out of the way of Grey Funnel Line boaties !
/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
Talbot
Active member
RN unlikely to use AIS at any time. They may not even have any radar on or lights even in the channel, depending on what they are doing.
It can be quite good for the adrenaline factor to be steaming along at speed in a grey war canoe with no radar and no lights on a dark night! /forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
It can be quite good for the adrenaline factor to be steaming along at speed in a grey war canoe with no radar and no lights on a dark night! /forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
Talbot
Active member
[ QUOTE ]
We can expect the RN to maintain above average standards of watch keeping, - I wouldn't bank on it. I declined a move from Merchant to Royal Navy after sailing from Middlesborough to Rosyth on a frigate - and I was appalled at the poor level of lookout, the total lack of use of bridge radar (in poor vis) and the almost total lack of col regs knowledge of the watch keeping officer.
Alistair
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry that your one experience should have been soured by one below standard officer. This attitude did not reflect the situation experienced by me in thousands of hours of watchkeeping on a grey war canoe.
We can expect the RN to maintain above average standards of watch keeping, - I wouldn't bank on it. I declined a move from Merchant to Royal Navy after sailing from Middlesborough to Rosyth on a frigate - and I was appalled at the poor level of lookout, the total lack of use of bridge radar (in poor vis) and the almost total lack of col regs knowledge of the watch keeping officer.
Alistair
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry that your one experience should have been soured by one below standard officer. This attitude did not reflect the situation experienced by me in thousands of hours of watchkeeping on a grey war canoe.
Robin
Well-known member
[ QUOTE ]
Each and every MAIB collision case has both vessels using radar at a range of <8m. You need to ask why this is so. Is it a matter of capability - probably?
[/ QUOTE ]
There isn't going to be a lot of difference I suspect between a radar assisted collision and an AIS assisted one!
[ QUOTE ]
This was also the case with Wahkuna where the time interval between the first sighting and impact was approximately 12 minutes. It would take me somewhere between 2 and 3 minutes watching the radar track of an approaching vessel before I could reasonably plot a track and determine if a collision possibility existed. At that point I would be less than 1 m from the track of the approaching vessel and given the approach angle between the vessels, accurate determination of the track becomes, mathematically, uncertain for the same reason that taking position fixes at objects separated by acute angles is inaccurate.
[/ QUOTE ]
Acute angles are a real pain that is for sure. We have crossed from Dartmouth to Ushant many times and experienced thick fog and the acute angle is very much a feature of this when crossing the lanes NE of Ushant. It isn't usually possible either visually or by radar (because of yawing) to determine if the relative bearing is changing until maybe the other vessel is not much more than a mile off, which means holding a steady course rather longer than might otherwise be the case BUT being prepared to get out of the way very quickly if required. It isn't always possible to keep well out of the way of the first vessel because that can then cause problems with the second/third. I can't see how obtaining the data from AIS rather than radar would make the acute angle problem less? The plot is surely much the same, the difference being the source of the positional data, one coming from radar range/bearing the other from AIS received GPS data, isn't plotting the track the same calculation more or less? What happens if the ships GPS is on a different chart datum?
[ QUOTE ]
As far as the vessel size is concerned, I don't recall ever seeing such a small merchant vessel in the channel but no doubt .....
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know whata 300 ton vessel would look like but I wouldn't want it to hit me!
[ QUOTE ]
I have seen one RN vessel on the AIS website. Hopefully our taxes have paid for decent radar sets and the RN wish to avoid damaging the few ships they have left ....
[/ QUOTE ]
Over many years of playing dodgems in poor vis or good vis I used to say the big guys were always the most courteous and repectful of the Col Regs and the worst were the RN and RFA. Nowadays it seems nobody gives way or they have very accurate MARPA and are happy enough to pass much closer than I would like them to, as was the case with the Wahkuna collision where it was always going to be a close call even without Wahkuna changing course at the last minute.
Truth is though that you apparently already have radar and AIS in your case would be an additional piece of information which is obviously good. My concern with AIS for us pleasure users however is that it is being seen as a substitute for radar, because despite many protestations to the contrary posts still pop up that show that some people still do not appreciate the limitations of AIS. I have to say that I am happier with plotting big ships on the radar if the vis is bad than I am the small stuff like fishing boats and so on, simply because the big commercial ones are generally on a predictable straight line course whereas the others (including the Navy) will turn/stop/accelerate/slow to suit a different agenda and these guys probably will not have AIS or may have it switched off.
Each and every MAIB collision case has both vessels using radar at a range of <8m. You need to ask why this is so. Is it a matter of capability - probably?
[/ QUOTE ]
There isn't going to be a lot of difference I suspect between a radar assisted collision and an AIS assisted one!
[ QUOTE ]
This was also the case with Wahkuna where the time interval between the first sighting and impact was approximately 12 minutes. It would take me somewhere between 2 and 3 minutes watching the radar track of an approaching vessel before I could reasonably plot a track and determine if a collision possibility existed. At that point I would be less than 1 m from the track of the approaching vessel and given the approach angle between the vessels, accurate determination of the track becomes, mathematically, uncertain for the same reason that taking position fixes at objects separated by acute angles is inaccurate.
[/ QUOTE ]
Acute angles are a real pain that is for sure. We have crossed from Dartmouth to Ushant many times and experienced thick fog and the acute angle is very much a feature of this when crossing the lanes NE of Ushant. It isn't usually possible either visually or by radar (because of yawing) to determine if the relative bearing is changing until maybe the other vessel is not much more than a mile off, which means holding a steady course rather longer than might otherwise be the case BUT being prepared to get out of the way very quickly if required. It isn't always possible to keep well out of the way of the first vessel because that can then cause problems with the second/third. I can't see how obtaining the data from AIS rather than radar would make the acute angle problem less? The plot is surely much the same, the difference being the source of the positional data, one coming from radar range/bearing the other from AIS received GPS data, isn't plotting the track the same calculation more or less? What happens if the ships GPS is on a different chart datum?
[ QUOTE ]
As far as the vessel size is concerned, I don't recall ever seeing such a small merchant vessel in the channel but no doubt .....
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know whata 300 ton vessel would look like but I wouldn't want it to hit me!
[ QUOTE ]
I have seen one RN vessel on the AIS website. Hopefully our taxes have paid for decent radar sets and the RN wish to avoid damaging the few ships they have left ....
[/ QUOTE ]
Over many years of playing dodgems in poor vis or good vis I used to say the big guys were always the most courteous and repectful of the Col Regs and the worst were the RN and RFA. Nowadays it seems nobody gives way or they have very accurate MARPA and are happy enough to pass much closer than I would like them to, as was the case with the Wahkuna collision where it was always going to be a close call even without Wahkuna changing course at the last minute.
Truth is though that you apparently already have radar and AIS in your case would be an additional piece of information which is obviously good. My concern with AIS for us pleasure users however is that it is being seen as a substitute for radar, because despite many protestations to the contrary posts still pop up that show that some people still do not appreciate the limitations of AIS. I have to say that I am happier with plotting big ships on the radar if the vis is bad than I am the small stuff like fishing boats and so on, simply because the big commercial ones are generally on a predictable straight line course whereas the others (including the Navy) will turn/stop/accelerate/slow to suit a different agenda and these guys probably will not have AIS or may have it switched off.
Superstrath
New member
I like all the gadget qualities of AIS, and any information is worth having, at any time, but I think that all the above posts really boil down to an awareness by all of us that there is a risk of some people using AIS in poor vis as a radar, and assuming that the AIS gives the full picture.
This could have terrible consequences. I think NASA should drop the word "radar" from their unit, for starters. It is really only going to give useful information if used with a radar, so that certain targets and their properties can be identified - you will still have to plot any others that do not have an AIS tag - but you will be aware of them.
I suppose what I am saying is that they should not be available except as part of a radar installation.
Alistair
This could have terrible consequences. I think NASA should drop the word "radar" from their unit, for starters. It is really only going to give useful information if used with a radar, so that certain targets and their properties can be identified - you will still have to plot any others that do not have an AIS tag - but you will be aware of them.
I suppose what I am saying is that they should not be available except as part of a radar installation.
Alistair
ghostwriter
New member
"very few have or use" ... that can only be used as an argument to warn people AIS is not the ultimate weapon, but it's certainly no argument either to reject the potential advantages, if the early GPS users would have said the same and acted on that argument, where would you be ?
maybe I'm thinking too techie, but this crowded area argument is a technicality for which there must be solutions, surely better solutions than that utterly criminal way the Dover coastguard solved their "little clutter problem" (see note below).
You might consider using colours for types of vessels, restricting yourself in use to nearby scales etc... loads of possibilities
"current AIS is not entirely compatible..." if it ain't now, it can be tomorrow.
seems to me all of your arguments are the likes of "gee, the water is cold I'm not going to jump in just now"....AIS has tremendous potential, it needs some development for yottie use IF people don't react too much in that same traditionalistic way.
note on Dover's "little clutter problem" : I still am mystified by the fact that nobody picked up the note your thenwhile Dover reporter (Lynn W. ) made on how Dover Coastguard solved their all too cluttered shiny brand new radar system by detuning it so that yachts are not even seen on their screens...that's downright criminal, but it seems to go unnoticed.
maybe I'm thinking too techie, but this crowded area argument is a technicality for which there must be solutions, surely better solutions than that utterly criminal way the Dover coastguard solved their "little clutter problem" (see note below).
You might consider using colours for types of vessels, restricting yourself in use to nearby scales etc... loads of possibilities
"current AIS is not entirely compatible..." if it ain't now, it can be tomorrow.
seems to me all of your arguments are the likes of "gee, the water is cold I'm not going to jump in just now"....AIS has tremendous potential, it needs some development for yottie use IF people don't react too much in that same traditionalistic way.
note on Dover's "little clutter problem" : I still am mystified by the fact that nobody picked up the note your thenwhile Dover reporter (Lynn W. ) made on how Dover Coastguard solved their all too cluttered shiny brand new radar system by detuning it so that yachts are not even seen on their screens...that's downright criminal, but it seems to go unnoticed.
Gunfleet
New member
Re: AIS & ARPA ...
<< It can be quite good for the adrenaline factor to be steaming along at speed in a grey war canoe with no radar and no lights on a dark night! >> I bet. Presumably we can rely on them looking out the window while they are doing it though! Seriously, Superstrath said his OOW was in contact with the ops rooms, so someone was watching radar somewhere, even if he wasn't.
<< It can be quite good for the adrenaline factor to be steaming along at speed in a grey war canoe with no radar and no lights on a dark night! >> I bet. Presumably we can rely on them looking out the window while they are doing it though! Seriously, Superstrath said his OOW was in contact with the ops rooms, so someone was watching radar somewhere, even if he wasn't.
Robin
Well-known member
[ QUOTE ]
suppose what I am saying is that they should not be available except as part of a radar installation.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I would go that far or not, but certainly there needs to be some kind of health warning on these sets and especially in their advertising! Over the years we have had a few near misses in fog, like when headed SW from Guernsey when we went suddenly into a dense fog bank and boats came at us from every direction, people arriving from other islands/France and those ahead who had now turned back and not to mention speedboats/fast mobos still going in figure of eights flat out. For some reason too all the biggest and tastiest fish are found under our boat it seems because all fishing boats are convinced that is exactly where they should drop their nets! At least with radar we could see our attackers even if predicting their next move was pretty well impossible... Big ships generally IMO are less of a problem, they tend to be in known areas, stick to their courses fairly predictably, show as a good radar echo and have themselves big radars/ARPA working from stable platforms.
Robin
suppose what I am saying is that they should not be available except as part of a radar installation.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I would go that far or not, but certainly there needs to be some kind of health warning on these sets and especially in their advertising! Over the years we have had a few near misses in fog, like when headed SW from Guernsey when we went suddenly into a dense fog bank and boats came at us from every direction, people arriving from other islands/France and those ahead who had now turned back and not to mention speedboats/fast mobos still going in figure of eights flat out. For some reason too all the biggest and tastiest fish are found under our boat it seems because all fishing boats are convinced that is exactly where they should drop their nets! At least with radar we could see our attackers even if predicting their next move was pretty well impossible... Big ships generally IMO are less of a problem, they tend to be in known areas, stick to their courses fairly predictably, show as a good radar echo and have themselves big radars/ARPA working from stable platforms.
Robin
ParaHandy
Active member
[ QUOTE ]
BUT being prepared to get out of the way very quickly if required.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you're a mile off, in fog, on a collision course, you are 2 minutes away from that collision. You haven't a prayer with such tactics. Commercial shipping will not slow down and comply with the col regs, period ....
Something is needed to even the odds and AIS generated CPA's might do so ...
ps I don't know why you mentioned fishing boats and the RN .. we've no fishing fleet left as no fish and bu**er all navy left ...
BUT being prepared to get out of the way very quickly if required.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you're a mile off, in fog, on a collision course, you are 2 minutes away from that collision. You haven't a prayer with such tactics. Commercial shipping will not slow down and comply with the col regs, period ....
Something is needed to even the odds and AIS generated CPA's might do so ...
ps I don't know why you mentioned fishing boats and the RN .. we've no fishing fleet left as no fish and bu**er all navy left ...