Merchantmen and AIS ...

[ParaHandy]

There's little snippets appearing here and there suggesting that the more confident bridge crew become with AIS, the less likely are they to maintain in good working order (including operator training) radar sets. Which is bad news for those without ... ?

 

[Mirelle]

I seriously doubt that.

Anyone who has used AIS on a ship's bridge will come immediately to the OPPOSITE conclusion - it is amazing how man ships forget to update their AIS so their ship appears to be heading in the wrong direction, to take one example.

Besides, you are overlooking the navigational use of radar.

But more generally it is contrary to the instincts of a bridge watchkeeper to rely on any data that has been generated off the ship, unless the source is impeccable -such as the US and UK Governments (GPS and Admiralty charts!)

 

[landaftaf]

not sure where you got that from either, many ais sets are plumbed into the radar anyway so a radar echo can now display the info about the return at the touch of a switch.
besides it may be little known but in many areas of the world the ais is switched off to avoid unwanted attention from ppl intent on being up to no good ........ /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

 

[ParaHandy]

well, take a look at the MAIB report on the near collision of two cargo ships. Both had AIS, both had radar with arpa and both could and should have known exactly where each other was. One of them was crossing at right angles the shipping lane south west of dover whilst the other was in the shipping lane. The one crossing tried to get the other to give way. The two chewed the fat over VHF whilst getting ever closer .....

I would, of course, like to believe what you say but nothing I've seen suggests that shipowners instinctively trust the intuitive judgement of deck crew. Why is it that shipowners feel it necessary to remind masters of the most basic requirements?

 

[Mirelle]

Why is it that shipowners feel it necessary to remind Masters...

THAT we can answer very quickly. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

You need to look up the Judgement of Mr (as he then was, now Lord) Justice Sir Henry Brandon, in the case of the LADY GWENDOLEN, concerning the right to limit liability for damage done by a ship and the owners loss of that right in the event that they were privy to incorrect conduct on board the ship.

Ever since then owners have found it necessary to remind their people which side to get out of bed on, at the request of their P&I Clubs and hull underwriters. /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif

OBTW the LADY GWENDOLEN was a tanker full of Guiness, trading between the Liffey and the Mersey - maintained full speed in fog and had a collision.

 

[Mirelle]

Abuse of colregs

Sorry; used to teach this.

The Colregs are intended to cover vessels in sight of one another or aware of each others presence by other means such as radar (or indeed AIS).

They are not intended to cover vessels chatting to each other. Yakking on VHF is a bad plan, as there is a very good chance that one party will misunderstand the other, espescially if one party suggests a deviation from colregs.

Happens all the time, though. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

[gandy]

[ QUOTE ]
well, take a look at the MAIB report on the near collision of two cargo ships. Both had AIS, both had radar with arpa and both could and should have known exactly where each other was. One of them was crossing at right angles the shipping lane south west of dover whilst the other was in the shipping lane. The one crossing tried to get the other to give way. The two chewed the fat over VHF whilst getting ever closer .....

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a URL or reference for that? Cheers.

Tony S