How much use is AIS

[pmagowan]

I recieve AIS on my garmin plotter (through the VHF) and I have to say it is very useful. It often finds boats that have not been visible to me in the haze and immediately gives me an idea of what they are up to. It is particularly good when crossing Belfast port and the fast ferry is coming. The AIS tells you about it well before you can see it and alows you to make adjustments as neccessary. We also have radar which we only turn on in limited visability normally when under steam. I don't see that any of these things does anything other than to give you more information and of a greater accuracy. What you choose to do with the information is up to you. All I know is I would no longer want to be without it.

 

[johnalison]

Yes, one of the things it does best is see round corners. Seeing ferries coming and going can be very reassuring.

 

[KAL]

I recieve AIS on my garmin plotter (through the VHF) and I have to say it is very useful. It often finds boats that have not been visible to me in the haze and immediately gives me an idea of what they are up to. It is particularly good when crossing Belfast port and the fast ferry is coming. The AIS tells you about it well before you can see it and alows you to make adjustments as neccessary. We also have radar which we only turn on in limited visability normally when under steam. I don't see that any of these things does anything other than to give you more information and of a greater accuracy. What you choose to do with the information is up to you. All I know is I would no longer want to be without it.

+1

 

[savageseadog]

I used AIS on the Fastnet race last year for the first time. We had a transponder installed to comply with the race rules. We plotted the output onto a Garmin plotter and very good it was too. We could tell what type of ships were around us and what speed and course they were making. I noticed some of the other yachts calling ships ahead at night asking what their intentions were and advising them of what they were doing, there were a number of very amusing VHF exchanges with fishing boat skippers who were being asked to move out of the way. The real benefit came in as we crossed the edge of the shipping lanes at the East side of the Fastnet rock in thick fog at night, the Fastnet light itself wasn't visible until we were a couple of hundred yards away. There were no ships around and it was a nice thing to know. I was very pleased with the unit, a Digital Yacht AIT1000.

 

[Cruiser2B]

Clear what the mistake was - question is, why did he do it?

One possibility is he made an early incorrect decision that they were going to pass starboard to starboard, and became confused by the radar picture caused by his own course alterations.

Another was that he was drunk. Who knows ...

Do we know he wasn't fishing?

 

[franksingleton]

Do we know he wasn't fishing?

A fair point; she may have been. But rules are made for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of the rest of us. In my yacht, I would not insist on my stand on vessel status if there were the chance of collision with a large ship.

If the fisherman was taking the view that he was fishing and therefore the other vessel should take avoiding action then he was being an idiot given their relative sizes. I have not got the Col Regs to hand but it does say something along the lines that notwithstanding the letter of the rules you should avoid a collision if at all possible. Clearly he was wrong to turn in front of another vessel and put himself in unnecessary danger.

 

[Cruiser2B]

Possible. But I didn't get from the video clips or news articles whether or not her AIS status showed if she was fishing, nor what her actual speed was. If she was hampered by her trawls, getting out of the way may not have been so easy. The armchair experts seem to concentrate on rule 14, which may have been the case, but IMO the CC didn't make a large course alteration and certainly didn't seem to have checked the effectiveness of that meagre action until much later, when a collision was inevitable.

 

[GHA]

A fair point; she may have been. But rules are made for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of the rest of us. In my yacht, I would not insist on my stand on vessel status if there were the chance of collision with a large ship.

If the fisherman was taking the view that he was fishing and therefore the other vessel should take avoiding action then he was being an idiot given their relative sizes. I have not got the Col Regs to hand but it does say something along the lines that notwithstanding the letter of the rules you should avoid a collision if at all possible. Clearly he was wrong to turn in front of another vessel and put himself in unnecessary danger.

Trying to guess the speeds from the video it looks far too fast to have nets down.

 

[franksingleton]

Possible. But I didn't get from the video clips or news articles whether or not her AIS status showed if she was fishing, nor what her actual speed was. If she was hampered by her trawls, getting out of the way may not have been so easy. The armchair experts seem to concentrate on rule 14, which may have been the case, but IMO the CC didn't make a large course alteration and certainly didn't seem to have checked the effectiveness of that meagre action until much later, when a collision was inevitable.

I am not a fisherman so it is difficult to put myself in the skipper’s position. I make no claim to be an expert, armchair or otherwise. I am a fairly experienced yachtsman and have had fairly close encounters with fishing boats over some 30+ years in the Channel, Biscay and the Med. Like many of us, I have been near enough to larger vessels to be all too aware of their ability, or lack of it, to adapt to changes in my course.

 

[franksingleton]

Trying to guess the speeds from the video it looks far too fast to have nets down.

If he did not have gear down, he was clearly in the wrong by turning towards another on-coming vessel. . If he did have gear down, he may formally have been the stand on vessel. However, it is not at all clear that he gave the ship time and opportunity to adapt to adapt to its new situation as give way vessel and take avoiding action.

The Col Regs confer no right of way; they really only require all vessels to take all reasonable action in order to avoid collision. The fishing boat seems not to have done that. It is not clear to me whether the ship did take such action as was possible. On the face of it it does not look as though it had the time to do so.

 

[LadyInBed]

However, it is not at all clear that he gave the ship time and opportunity to adapt to adapt to its new situation as give way vessel and take avoiding action.

As I posted way up the thread, its a pity that we aren't privy to any VHF comms that may have taken place.

 

[LadyInBed]

I dont preach very often, but if this thread causes anyone to seriously consider buying an AIS Receiver it will have done a good job.

 

[john_morris_uk]

A fair point; she may have been. But rules are made for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of the rest of us. In my yacht, I would not insist on my stand on vessel status if there were the chance of collision with a large ship.

I am confused by a possible interpretation of 'not insisting on my stand on vessel status...'

The rules 'require you to stand on' but also 'require you to take action to avoid collision.' For me, the only question is the point at which having stood on, when you decide that the other vessel isn't taking avoiding action.

In response to `some other people's comments:

There is nothing in the rules about requiring vessels to hail each other on VHF. Where AIS has helped is in giving one the ability to positively identify another vessel. In the past there have been too many radar and VHF assisted collisions for my money. Apply the rules with some modicum of seamanship and we should all get around without collisions at all... Personally I am very reluctant to start reaching for the VHF microphone when faced with a potential risk of collision.

 

[franksingleton]

I am confused by a possible interpretation of 'not insisting on my stand on vessel status...'

..........

Here lies the body of William Jay
Who died maintaining his right of way -
He was right, dead right, as he sped along,
But he's just as dead as if he were wrong.

 

[Cruiser2B]

John made a valid point about the responsibility of being 'stand on'. The youtube of the AIS tracks does not seem to give a sense of scale or the relative speed of the vessels. I would guess Baltic Breeze would have been 2 to 3 times faster than MdM, and at the start of the video MdM is clearly on the stbd bow of BB. Perhaps MdM saw this as a crossing situation where she was stand on, and chose to not maintain her "right of way", hence the alteration to port. Maybe this is an example of a situation where the stand on vessel should have stood on, rather than making some random effort to "avoid the big ship."

 

[pmagowan]

Here lies the body of William Jay
Who died maintaining his right of way -
He was right, dead right, as he sped along,
But he's just as dead as if he were wrong.

Which might make sense if the colregs did not have a caveat, such as John highlighted, for the circumstance where the other vessel does not act to avoid collision. If everyone obeys the rules then there is minimal risk of collison. If you are stand on then you stand on. At the point that it is clear that the other vessel has failed to take timely action, and only then, you should act to avoid collision. Nowhere does it talk about blindly ramming another vessel simply because you are 'right'.

 

[franksingleton]

..............
maintain her "right of way", hence the alteration to port. Maybe this is an example of a situation where the stand on vessel should have stood on, rather than making some random effort to "avoid the big ship."

The Col Regs do not recognize "Right of Way." That is a racing term. Even in racing, you have to give the other vessel ample time and opportunity to fullfil its obligations. Viewing the clip, we do not know whether or not the fishing vessel did give the ship time to take avoiding action. It did not look as though it did but we cannot be sure.

 

[Cruiser2B]

The Col Regs do not recognize "Right of Way."

I'm well aware of that, thank you. I used the term as that was in your limerick; the double quotation marks were supposed to convey that.

 

[franksingleton]

Which might make sense if the colregs did not have a caveat, such as John highlighted, for the circumstance where the other vessel does not act to avoid collision. If everyone obeys the rules then there is minimal risk of collison. If you are stand on then you stand on. At the point that it is clear that the other vessel has failed to take timely action, and only then, you should act to avoid collision. Nowhere does it talk about blindly ramming another vessel simply because you are 'right'.

The Col Regs are pretty clear. They define the stand on vessel and the give way vessel. But, they then say, basically, use your commonsense to avoid collision. In both the Channel and the Gibraltar Strait I have heard VHF calls from one large ship to another repeatedly asking for intentions and getting no reply. A typical blood curdling example heard more than once along these lines - "Container ship on my port side, we are now 1/4 mile apart. What are your intentions?"

In mid-Channel when I am sailing I know that I am the stand on vessel when on collision course with a supertanker. Commonsense says that it is only sensible to make a small course alteration and pass astern.

 

[pmagowan]

The Col Regs are pretty clear. They define the stand on vessel and the give way vessel. But, they then say, basically, use your commonsense to avoid collision. In both the Channel and the Gibraltar Strait I have heard VHF calls from one large ship to another repeatedly asking for intentions and getting no reply. A typical blood curdling example heard more than once along these lines - "Container ship on my port side, we are now 1/4 mile apart. What are your intentions?"

In mid-Channel when I am sailing I know that I am the stand on vessel when on collision course with a supertanker. Commonsense says that it is only sensible to make a small course alteration and pass astern.

It is surprising how often the large ships have already clocked you and the 'collision course' is actually not going to result in a collision. The rules are quite strict with regards to the expected actions of both vessels with the interpretation being on when a potential collision course has been entered into and when you should decide that the 'give way' vessel has failed to take appropriate action. If you decide, while pottering around, to avoid ever entering a situation where the colregs come into play then that is fine. If, however, you do enter such a situation then your expected actions are clearly laid out and varying from them is likely to cause confusion. Following the colregs will not increase your risk of collision. I am not sure how much 'common sense' comes into it as it seems that most people that apply it seem to get it wrong.