AIS thread drift.

[Resolution]

I agree, however . . . .
For those whose memory of that incident may have dimmed in the intervening 14 years, the yacht Ouzo, a lifting keel Sailfish 25, was sunk with the loss of all three of the crew by a possible close encounter with what was judged to have been the ferry ship Pride of Bilboa, for which the second officer, on watch at the time, stood trial for manslaughter but was found not guilty due to lack of sufficient evidence that the yacht involved in a near-miss at the time of the Ouzo's loss, was indeed the Ouzo.

In my agreement with your statement we both would be taking issue with a very important conclusion in the MAIB report that AIS would not have influenced the outcome: "AIS is being carried by an increasing number of yachts, partly to assist in their being more visible. Had Ouzo carried AIS it would have made no difference to the outcome as AIS information was not displayed on the radar of Pride of Bilbao. This situation should improve as AIS is being integrated into more ship systems in the future"

For me, this statement raises more questions than it answers. Firstly, the report fails to inform just what the Pride of Bilbao had installed for AIS receiver processing but if it was the least sophisticated system merely to comply with the SOLAS regulations then she possibly had a MKD (Minimum Keyboard and Display) device, the display screen of which is so small that it is not much use as a CPA warning unit, having only a line of text data for each target received.

But the report fails to consider that the Ouzo could have taken some other action had their crew been better informed, which would have been the case with just an AIS receiver and no transponder. With the call sign, name, position and course of the Pride of Bilbao, including the final and lethal change of course that the CPA would have given, the crew may have had warning and data enough to have made a lifesaving change of course and/or VHF call on channel 16 to warn the Pride of Bilbao directly of their presence and position.

Included in the MAIB report was also some very revelatory information: "In the course of the investigation, the MAIB accident database was searched for relevant similar cases. In the last 10 years, there had been 87 hazardous incidents between yachts and merchant vessels in open sea conditions, and 14 collisions."

"On 28 August 2000, at about 2200, in moderate to good visibility, Pride of Bilbao was involved with a near collision with the yacht Aliniel (Moody 30) south of the Isle of Wight. Pride of Bilbao, when less than a mile from the yacht, changed her course and headed directly towards her. The crew only had enough time to put the engines full ahead and to shine a powerful light onto the sails; there was no time to use flares despite them being readily accessible by the chart table. On this occasion, Pride of Bilbao did take effective emergency action and eventually passed less than a cable away." The Pride of Bilbao again and south of the Isle of Wight!

View attachment 85597​

Brian
This sad case was a real eye-opener for me and, I suspect, many of us who have sailed small craft in the Channel. Like others on these forums, it spurred me into making some changes to the kit on my boat - AIS, new LED Nav. Lights, and more white flares.
And I really cannot understand how the guys on the Pride of Bilbao got off Scot free.

 

[Roberto]

In my agreement with your statement we both would be taking issue with a very important conclusion in the MAIB report that AIS would not have influenced the outcome: "AIS is being carried by an increasing number of yachts, partly to assist in their being more visible. Had Ouzo carried AIS it would have made no difference to the outcome as AIS information was not displayed on the radar of Pride of Bilbao.

+1

In general terms, I do not believe AIS transmit and ships changing course have biunivocal correspondence, at least in my experience I have countless examples of ships having changed course even when I had no AIS transceiver.
In cases with a lot of merchant vessels at different speeds and overtaking each other, I heard them talking to each other on the radio "manoeuvering for the small vessel ahead".
From what I have experienced, one can be "seen" thanks to AIS, but also without AIS, not really sure if AIS changes much.
Even with AIS, when cargo ships, military vessels or planes have hailed me on VHF, or answered my calls, no one has *ever* referred to my MMSI, or as Sailing Vessel, or to the boat name as displayed by AIS, they always used "small vessel in position XX North YY West, which is obviously a radar derived position.
Besides what can be read about AIS potential dangers, from ship captains talk to IMO recommendations, in my experience I have a lot of doubts as to whether ships consistently use their AIS reception for target detection and collision avoidance.

edit
Mainly referring to offshore sailing.

 

[Star-Lord]

AIS should be mandatory and switched on at night or in low visibility. Travelling at night without AIS and Radar is not recommended imho. Radar will save your life if the AIS does not.

AIS has never failed to give me the details of a boat that I can hail on the VHF. Sometimes they have seen you and sometimes not but when you give your position everything becomes clear.

 

[Uricanejack]

I can’t recall having read the OUZO MAIB report until today. After reading this thread. Using google. In addition to the MAIB report. I found an article written in 2014 by the lead defence council.
Really comes down to rules of evidence and if the jury found the prosecution had met their burden of proof.
The article and presumably the evidence presented by the defence, questions the accuracy of the prosecution assumptions and of course points the finger at another possible vessel.

The MAIB report clearly states its not evidence.

One thing would have been different. If a yacht had an AIS transmitter. AIS would have clarified the yachts position up until it ceased to transmit.
Perhaps you may find comfort in the possibility, AIS will provide better evidence if you do become a casualty.

 

[BrianH]

Brian
This sad case was a real eye-opener for me and, I suspect, many of us who have sailed small craft in the Channel. Like others on these forums, it spurred me into making some changes to the kit on my boat - AIS, new LED Nav. Lights, and more white flares.
And I really cannot understand how the guys on the Pride of Bilbao got off Scot free.

It made an enormous impression on me too. AIS equipment was still expensive in those days but the year after, in 2007, I went to the CeBIT technical exhibition in Hannover and scoured the small vendors' stalls and from a Taiwanese one picked up a Class B receiver for $200 after some haggling. I then fitted it to my boat in Italy and it worked well, although not synchronous dual channel, but switching the single receiver alternately between the two A and B channels. I fed the signal to a laptop on the chart table running OziExplorer that had an AIS display function, although at that stage, without CPA and TCPA calculations, which was still a work in progress. Eventually, after upgrading to a transmit and full synchronous, 2-channel receive unit, I moved on to the excellent OpenCPN.

The next year, 2008, it was a revelation to my Adriatic cruising. For example, in the below screenshot (posted before so apologies) - one of the fast ferries that infest Croatia, was coming straight at me with a closing speed of 38 knots, wavering about and only 1.1 nm away. It had made a complete change of course towards me at 2 nm, giving me only a minute or two to be warned and decide a course of action at such a closing speed. I used VHF channel 16 with the ship's name from the target list to ask intentions. He immediately swerved to starboard the instant I released the TX button and passed me by a cable, with no radio response.

​

 

[RupertW]

AIS should be mandatory and switched on at night or in low visibility. Travelling at night without AIS and Radar is not recommended imho. Radar will save your life if the AIS does not.

AIS has never failed to give me the details of a boat that I can hail on the VHF. Sometimes they have seen you and sometimes not but when you give your position everything becomes clear.

What a load of tosh. Just because you are not confident in your ability to do what tens of thousands of ordinary sailors have done over the decades doesn’t mean they all suddenly need extra gear they have never needed before.

At night with lights ship movements are much more obvious than during the day and ships travel much slower than they used to a decade or two ago. I can’t remember a time in hundreds of nights sailing that I’ve even been tempted to even switch on the VHF to hear what’s happening.

Fog is the only and major concern, night is easy and has become easier.

 

[Daydream believer]

At night with lights ship movements are much more obvious than during the day and ships travel much slower than they used to a decade or two ago. I can’t remember a time in hundreds of nights sailing that I’ve even been tempted to even switch on the VHF to hear what’s happening.

As a regular sailor in the Channel with a lot of crossings and a fair bit of night sailing under my belt, particularly in the roundabout to the east of the Dover Strait, I would suggest that not having the VHF switched on is a little - shall we say- irresponsible.
I have been called up by shipping at least 3 times each year, over the past 6 years that I have had AIS & twice the hailing vessel has been out of sight & asked me to maintain my course as they were changing theirs. I have also been asked to change course ,because they cannot due to other constraints, ie other ships .That includes within shipping lanes. I have also been called up by coast guards on both sides of the Dover Strait numerous times & if I do not call them first, by Dover port control.

As for how obvious a ship can be at night - try a cable laying ship dead ahead in F6 & a big residual choppy sea& heavy rain,, going in reverse on the edge of a shipping lane, whilst laying a cable & NOT showing anything to indicate their limited ability to maneuver.-
It was able to hail me on VHF- because I had it on

 

[johnalison]

As a regular sailor in the Channel with a lot of crossings and a fair bit of night sailing under my belt, particularly in the roundabout to the east of the Dover Strait, I would suggest that not having the VHF switched on is a little - shall we say- irresponsible.
I have been called up by shipping at least 3 times each year, over the past 6 years that I have had AIS & twice the hailing vessel has been out of sight & asked me to maintain my course as they were changing theirs. I have also been asked to change course ,because they cannot due to other constraints, ie other ships .That includes within shipping lanes. I have also been called up by coast guards on both sides of the Dover Strait numerous times & if I do not call them first, by Dover port control.

As for how obvious a ship can be at night - try a cable laying ship dead ahead in F6 & a big residual choppy sea& heavy rain,, going in reverse on the edge of a shipping lane, whilst laying a cable & NOT showing anything to indicate their limited ability to maneuver.-
It was able to hail me on VHF- because I had it on

You must have a guilty look because I have never been called up by a ship in over thirty years of crossing with VHF. One exception was a call by Immigration, plus the odd one from a nervous resident of a gas rig, the last 8 or 9 years being with Class B in use.

I agree with the respondent above that no-one should feel concerned about crossing without AIS or radar, providing they do this within suitable conditions and within their ability. Even passive AIS can make a crossing more pleasurable though.

 

[Stemar]

I agree, however . . . .
For those whose memory of that incident may have dimmed in the intervening 14 years, the yacht Ouzo, a lifting keel Sailfish 25, was sunk with the loss of all three of the crew by a possible close encounter with what was judged to have been the ferry ship Pride of Bilboa, for which the second officer, on watch at the time, stood trial for manslaughter but was found not guilty due to lack of sufficient evidence that the yacht involved in a near-miss at the time of the Ouzo's loss, was indeed the Ouzo.

In my agreement with your statement we both would be taking issue with a very important conclusion in the MAIB report that AIS would not have influenced the outcome: "AIS is being carried by an increasing number of yachts, partly to assist in their being more visible. Had Ouzo carried AIS it would have made no difference to the outcome as AIS information was not displayed on the radar of Pride of Bilbao. This situation should improve as AIS is being integrated into more ship systems in the future"

For me, this statement raises more questions than it answers. Firstly, the report fails to inform just what the Pride of Bilbao had installed for AIS receiver processing but if it was the least sophisticated system merely to comply with the SOLAS regulations then she possibly had a MKD (Minimum Keyboard and Display) device, the display screen of which is so small that it is not much use as a CPA warning unit, having only a line of text data for each target received.

But the report fails to consider that the Ouzo could have taken some other action had their crew been better informed, which would have been the case with just an AIS receiver and no transponder. With the call sign, name, position and course of the Pride of Bilbao, including the final and lethal change of course that the CPA would have given, the crew may have had warning and data enough to have made a lifesaving change of course and/or VHF call on channel 16 to warn the Pride of Bilbao directly of their presence and position.

Included in the MAIB report was also some very revelatory information: "In the course of the investigation, the MAIB accident database was searched for relevant similar cases. In the last 10 years, there had been 87 hazardous incidents between yachts and merchant vessels in open sea conditions, and 14 collisions."

"On 28 August 2000, at about 2200, in moderate to good visibility, Pride of Bilbao was involved with a near collision with the yacht Aliniel (Moody 30) south of the Isle of Wight. Pride of Bilbao, when less than a mile from the yacht, changed her course and headed directly towards her. The crew only had enough time to put the engines full ahead and to shine a powerful light onto the sails; there was no time to use flares despite them being readily accessible by the chart table. On this occasion, Pride of Bilbao did take effective emergency action and eventually passed less than a cable away." The Pride of Bilbao again and south of the Isle of Wight!

View attachment 85597​

IIRC, a lot of ships had AIS as a completely different system, tucked away in the corner of the bridge, presumably because they already had expensive plotters and new ones with integrated AIS would be even more expensive. Safety comes a long way second to cost. I'm reminded of the Herald of Free Enterprise, whose captain had requested a warning light on the bridge to tell him is the bow doors were open, as he couldn't see them. Someone (an accountant?) said no. Had that light been installed, the disaster very probably wouldn't have happened.

However, looking back from where we are now, and with all the 20/20 hindsight of an armchair analyst, even a receive-only AIS on Ouzo would have warned the crew that a ship was bearing down on them. OTOH, so would a look over their shoulders, assuming reasonable visibility, which seems to be the case, though the AIS would probably have given more warning of the impending collision, though how much is open to debate, since Ouzo was a small boat and it was probably a bit bumpy with F4-5, gusting 6, so her heading was probably wandering a bit.

 

[lw395]

I suspect that a good lookout astern and a ferry timetable would have worked just as well?

AIS is great, a real nice to have aid, but it's neither a magic solution nor essential IMHO.
Sometimes it is another thing you're looking at instead of checking 360deg of horizon.

 

[Uricanejack]

I expect sometime in the not very distant future. AIS May become a requirement for pleasure vessels. I suspect the driving force behind such a requirement will be the paranoia and BS which comes from security, drug enforcement and people smuggling rather than safety.

The tragic case of the Ouzo, highlights two primary lessons, For those of us who choose to sail small vessels particularly at night. One clearly, to keep your own good lookout.
The other, to ensure your vessel is visible, well lite, with good bright navigation lights.

Will AIS help? Certainly won’t hurt.
To be “seen ” you need to transmit. It’s not intended as a replacement for a good lookout on all vessels or as a replacement for good navigation lights and radar reflectors regardless of how effective or ineffective radar reflectors may be.

I don’t have AIS, on my boat or a plan to install AIS. I do have good Nav lights. Which I ensure are working before I set of at night. In addition I carry a good reasonably priced set of battery operated emergency Nav lights. Along with the traditional rain catching, radar reflector permanently attached to the back stay.

I prefer my anonymity.

 

[lw395]

'To be seen, you need to transmit'. You also need someone to be looking at the received data. And for your data to tell them what they need to know.
The problem with AIS data from sailing boats in seas is that their heading is never constant and hence calculated CPAs are often nonsense.

 

[Star-Lord]

It is logical, for so many reasons, for most every vessel to have AIS. It has nothing to do with paranoia. It has nothing to to with anyones confidence or ability. It everything to do with common sense.

If someone can give me a good reason not to use AIS at night (or in Galician fog) I will obviously be open to change my opinion! But Just having a huff and a puff and declaring AIS is not necessary because our forethathers of yesteryear did not need this technology is not going to alter my opinion.

The problem is so many people only think of themselves. If someone was in distress - and you were in range to help - we would all help if at all possible - because we are sailors and boaters and we look after our own. But if your VHF was not switched on you would be none the wiser!

What about a crew member falling overboard on their watch? They may have to wait quite a few hours, bobbing about in their lifejacket, before you discovered they were missing. If they had AIS in their lifejacket they would be a lot easier to find. My crew have AIS in the lifejackets and a PLB in their pocket.

 

[Daydream believer]

In 2018 Diver CG contacted me because they had a report of a vessel in difficulty just off N Foreland. They asked if I could see it. I could not. 30 mins later they called again & said another source had reported the same thing . Could I check again. After some discussion it turned out that it was me & i was OK. Now if I had not got AIS one might wonder if they would have had to send the lifeboat to go & look.

In 2019 Griz Nez did an almost identical thing when they had a report of a vessel possibly in difficulty, off Cap Griz Nez. They contacted me to see if I was OK, Having confirmed that I was, they said that they would follow my track across the Strait as I headed to Ramsgate.- .
In both cases the wind was well into F8. & pretty rough for a 31 ft boat.
Without AIS they would not have been able to contact me very easily. It was nice to know that someone had their eyes on me.

On that trip a ship on the north side altered course for me and asked me to hold my course as he did so. There was a fair bit of shipping that day.

I am in favour of AIS as an AID to navigation

 

[Habebty]

Very understandable. What do the team think could be the next on this list of essentials?

Tillerpilot.

 

[[163233]]

In my agreement with your statement we both would be taking issue with a very important conclusion in the MAIB report that AIS would not have influenced the outcome: "AIS is being carried by an increasing number of yachts, partly to assist in their being more visible. Had Ouzo carried AIS it would have made no difference to the outcome as AIS information was not displayed on the radar of Pride of Bilbao. This situation should improve as AIS is being integrated into more ship systems in the future"

An interesting interpretation of "all available means".
I think these days, it would be a blatant breach of the colregs if a vessel had an AIS receiver and wasn't using it.

Presumably the radar is considered the be-all and end-all on merchant ships because of radar recorders, that they risk getting caught on that one.
They can always pretend they didn't see the men drowning.

'To be seen, you need to transmit'. You also need someone to be looking at the received data. And for your data to tell them what they need to know.
The problem with AIS data from sailing boats in seas is that their heading is never constant and hence calculated CPAs are often nonsense.

Not saying they don't vary a lot, but CPA's aren't calculated using the heading data, they do it the same way as a radar plot.

 

[RupertW]

It is logical, for so many reasons, for most every vessel to have AIS. It has nothing to do with paranoia. It has nothing to to with anyones confidence or ability. It everything to do with common sense.

If someone can give me a good reason not to use AIS at night (or in Galician fog) I will obviously be open to change my opinion! But Just having a huff and a puff and declaring AIS is not necessary because our forethathers of yesteryear did not need this technology is not going to alter my opinion.

The problem is so many people only think of themselves. If someone was in distress - and you were in range to help - we would all help if at all possible - because we are sailors and boaters and we look after our own. But if your VHF was not switched on you would be none the wiser!

What about a crew member falling overboard on their watch? They may have to wait quite a few hours, bobbing about in their lifejacket, before you discovered they were missing. If they had AIS in their lifejacket they would be a lot easier to find. My crew have AIS in the lifejackets and a PLB in their pocket.

Still not needed except in foggy areas so fair enough if that’s where you sail. - you are just wasting sentences if you keep banging on about how the world changes into a place full of monsters at night. It’s simply easier and either experience has taught you that or you need somebody to give you a bit of help to get over your phobia.

 

[Star-Lord]

AIS makes life easy for everyone. It also saves lives and time and money... all these points have been pointed out to you very reasonably in this thread.
Instead of engaging in debate you are huffing and puffing about monsters at night! What a Joker ?

 

[capnsensible]

AIS makes life easy for everyone. It also saves lives and time and money... all these points have been pointed out to you very reasonably in this thread.
Instead of engaging in debate you are huffing and puffing about monsters at night! What a Joker ?

What if you havent got AIS?

 

[Roberto]

If someone can give me a good reason not to use AIS at night (or in Galician fog)

Talking about Galicia Round Finisterre/Camarinas area, a lot of Class A transmitters probably over 50-60, my Class B (non SOTDMA) and other class B could not find a slot to transmit during several minutes.
I have both a transponder and a receiver-only AIS machines; totally separated.
Screen copy of my last available transmission (green target) as made possibly 3-4 minutes earlier, together with my actual (red target) position. One could see the transmission delay of the green target only by clicking over it, opening the description window and reading the "position received xxx sec ago" data, which I doubt people do every time they look at a target, I would not want others to believe I am in the green location while I am in the red one instead.
I made a huge number of checks by myself and also crosschecks with other fellow boaters transponders, same occasional delay effects for anyone, significant enough for me to decide to turn off my AIS transmissions when there are more than 40-50 Class A. Don't want to convince anyone, but I won't be convinced to do any different, at least until I get a SOTDMA transponder