The Other Side of AIS...this deserves a thread of its own

[NOHOH]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by maxi77
AIS is certainly not a con, yes many small craft including ours do not transmit, and yes most rocks don't transmit either, but for those vessels that do the info is very usefull, and helps in sensible descision making. It is certainly not a replacement for radar, but neither is radar a substitiute for AIS. It is another tool and a potentially useful one too.<End of Quote>

AIS can be seen as the very thin end of a very long wedge.... It is being `soft sold`to yachties as "the info is very usefull, and helps in sensible descision making." "It is another tool and a potentially useful one too."....

How long do you think it will be before the scheme is extended to include first SOLAS vessels (45`and over) and then all yachts?
How long before somebody says "well the system will only work properly if every vessel is included"....and how long before somebody comes up with the bright idea ...for example..."only vessels transmitting AIS can cross a TSS"....and then somebody will decide, after looking at your track that you were not quite close enough (70, 80, 85, 89?) to the required 90 degrees and the computer sends out the penalty notice to the vessel`s registered address....or...more topically, how long before somebody says "you were anchored in a Marine Conservation Area"....and issues a penalty notice.

AIS is essentially a mechanism for Monitoring and Control and the best way to get people to accept restrictions is to "educate" them into some of the benefits that such a system can bring..but without mentioning any possible `disbenefits`..until AFTER the system is fully up and running. ..for example seat belts in cars were voluntary to begin with, so were crash helmets on motorbikes..just as lifejackets are on boats at present.

Don`t get me wrong... I don`t think..er... Ihope..I`m not so paranoid as to think that there should be NO monitoring and control of the seas......but we are in danger of being taken in by the `soft sell` (aided by the complicit equipment manufacturers and distributors)of AIS to us boaters...and effectively `sleepwalking` into accepting a potentially very wide ranging and Orwellian state of affairs that we really WILL NOT like.

AIS in cars will be next (if its not there in some form already)

 

[Bilgediver]

AIS in cars will be next (if its not there in some form already)

It has been in cars for many many years...APRS as used by radio hams. In fact some web sites combine AIS and APRS tracking so you can not only follow someone around as he drives across the USA but can also see what ships are at anchor in the bay beneath your lounge.


This is an example:

http://aprs.fi/

 

[NickiCrutchfield]

Whilst thinking that AIS is pretty useful, i would be very happy if it were to suddenly not exist for all the reasons in your post. We are tracked by our phones and places we use debit/credit cards, but we can take out a lump of cash and then spend that pretty anonymously or turn off our phones. Compulsory AIS would be a constant tracking device and not something I would like at all.

 

[PeterC]

There is an analogy with aviation.

Commercial aircraft are required to install and use transponders - infact at least two.

It may surprise people who are not pilots that there is no such requirment for aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace to install transponders. A majority probably do not if you include homebuilts, microlights etc.

The debate has raged about whether or not it should be mandatory. Proposals for it to become mandatory have already been shouted down.

There are a number of reasons given. The gliding fraternity argue they cant install the required power source and weight is an issue. Others argue the cost is prohibitive. Belgium attempted to make use mandatory for part of their airspace, only to find ground based radar was overloaded and could not cope.

Aircraft of course go a lot faster than yachts (typically between 80 and 200 knots in the case of ligth aircraft). Vast areas of airspace have no ground based radar cover so pilots rely on see and avoid. At a closing speed of between 160 and 400 knots in reality see and avoid doesnt work. It definitely doesnt work in cloud (equivalent to fog).

There is a similair debate between those who say it is an unnecessary luxury and those that consider it essential.

I am in the second camp. I believe if the technology exists, use it, but I also accept in yachts because speeds are slower assuming you are not in fog see and avoid works.

 

[Seajet]

I agree with the OP, I'm concerned.

Also, I would struggle to power it all the time ( I have radar but only to use in short bursts ) and it must be said that from the onboard end, the cheaper AIS units are difficult to read compared to the luxury of colour displays on a PC monitor at home.

There's also the point that Military and such things as lifeboats etc can tyrn off their AIS, indeed in places such as where the Chandlers strolled into their ambush, the sailing directions say 'turn off AIS'.

This definitely needs keeping an eye on.

 

[Coaster]

I understand the OP's concern. There is of course a natural desire for those in some form of authority (governent, RNLI, traffic wardens, YBW forum administrators etc.) to want to increase control. No doubt this has been the case since prehistoric times. Such control is often justified as being in the public interest.

However, the increases in control are to some extent offset by new freedoms. For example, a few decades ago the idea of people being able to communicate instantaneously with large numbers of like minded individuals, at almost no cost, would have been laughable. A few decades before that the majority of YBW forum members would not have been able to afford to buy proper seagoing boats.

No doubt there will be a gradual increase in the proportion of vessels required to transmit an AIS signal. But it would clearly be impractical for some to do this, at least with today's technology - for example kayaks, tenders, sailing dinghies etc. I think it will be a long time before it will be mandatory for the average 20' to 35' leisure boat to transmit an AIS signal. And by that time other freedoms will have redressed the balance between authorities and individuals.

Does this make sense?

 

[NOHOH]

Freedoms once lost are hard to regain

I understand the OP's concern. There is of course a natural desire for those in some form of authority (governent, RNLI, traffic wardens, YBW forum administrators etc.) to want to increase control. No doubt this has been the case since prehistoric times. Such control is often justified as being in the public interest.

. I think it will be a long time before it will be mandatory for the average 20' to 35' leisure boat to transmit an AIS signal. And by that time other freedoms will have redressed the balance between authorities and individuals.

Does this make sense?

Not a lot....what kind of freedoms did you have in mind that would compensate for the kinds of scenarios I indicated?

 

[Joker]

We hear all sorts of jeremiahs telling us: 'What if ...'?

Well, there's no requirement on leisure craft to carry anything at all, and I think if some items did come mandatory, then AIS would be a long way down the road.

 

[VO5]

Not a lot....what kind of freedoms did you have in mind that would compensate for the kinds of scenarios I indicated?

I for one, agree with you.
We live in the era of the nanny state.
People need to wake up and see things for what they really are and the hidden intent that the majority somehow overlook.

 

[webcraft]

I for one, agree with you.
We live in the era of the nanny state.
People need to wake up and see things for what they really are and the hidden intent that the majority somehow overlook.

Yes. Just because you are paranoid it doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

Likelihood of AIS becoming compulsory on small leisure vessels - approaching zero. As has been pointed out above, they haven't managed to make it compulsory on aircraft yet, so what chance yachts? (And the marine industry don't want it in any case as screens wil be too cluttered to read).

We have a NASA AIS engine and it has proved very useful on the infrequent occasions we have used it. It still doesn't make it possible to see very far with your head in the sand though.

- W

 

[Bilgediver]

Belgium attempted to make use mandatory for part of their airspace, only to find ground based radar was overloaded and could not cope.


.

Just imagine the problem reading AIS screens in some parts of the country of every ship,tug,fishing boat,yacht and dug out canoe was bleeping

 

[NOHOH]

Just imagine the problem reading AIS screens in some parts of the country of every ship,tug,fishing boat,yacht and dug out canoe was bleeping

It would be rather funny........but.....to be slightly serious ...for a moment...they would find a way round that..you can already `filter out` certain types of vessel (on the websites at least)....and I expect thats what would happen.

 

[BlueSkyNick]

Yes. Just because you are paranoid it doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

Likelihood of AIS becoming compulsory on small leisure vessels - approaching zero. As has been pointed out above, they haven't managed to make it compulsory on aircraft yet, so what chance yachts? (And the marine industry don't want it in any case as screens wil be too cluttered to read).

We have a NASA AIS engine and it has proved very useful on the infrequent occasions we have used it. It still doesn't make it possible to see very far with your head in the sand though.

- W

'They' havent managed to enforce DSC calling either.
With AIS, just turn transponder turned off and 'they' wont know the boat is on the water.

 

[myquest]

I for one, agree with you.
We live in the era of the nanny state.
People need to wake up and see things for what they really are and the hidden intent that the majority somehow overlook.

I am definitely one of that majority that cannot see the bad side of AIS. What I can see is that it is relatively useless as an aid to navigation until most objects afloat are transmitting their position, course and speed. You would only not want others to know where you were if you were up to no good so what's the problem? I await to be woken up!

 

[maxi77]

My answer to this is in the original thread if the OP wishes to answer it could he have the courtesy to answer it there where his answer belongs.

 

[BrianH]

Likelihood of AIS becoming compulsory on small leisure vessels - approaching zero.

Perhaps true for the UK but Singapore stipulates that ALL vessels of ANY size must have an active transponder - so it is starting. For any visiting yacht entering without one there are units for rent available. Of course, as many will rush to testify, Singapore is a fascist state with an iron grip on its populace - still a great place to visit or even, as I once did, live there.

For anyone who has flown into Changi and passed over the hundreds of anchored ships waiting for entrance to the docks there, it is easy to understand the thinking behind the regulation - see here.

As for vehicles being so equipped - tracking is big. It started, if memory serves, many years ago in South Africa where trucks with valuable cargoes were stolen daily and expensive vehicles car-jacked everywhere. With the present advance of criminality I can see such installations in Europe taking off when insurance companies start to reduce premiums for tracking-enabled vehicles.

 

[Bilgediver]

Compulsory AIS would be a constant tracking device and not something I would like at all.

Yep....already ships are turning it off at times for security reasons...This will upset Obama's mates as they are trying to go for 27/7 AIS being mandatory on ships heading for the US as they want to monitor the AIS VHF from low flying satellites.. Be interesting to see how reliable the comms are between ship and bird.

 

[Shorn100]

What's wrong with the Nanny State

I for one, agree with you.
We live in the era of the nanny state.
People need to wake up and see things for what they really are and the hidden intent that the majority somehow overlook.

Hi VO5
Can I just get it clear on what you mean when you say Nanny State?

Is the nanny state the one which brought in laws to protect drivers by insisting on sea belts being worn?

Is the nanny state the one which brought in laws to protect motorcyclists from brain damage and death by bringing in laws insisting on crash helmets?

Is the nanny state the one which brought in laws to redice my chances of dying from cancer (and smelling like an ash tray) due to others smoking around me.

Is the nanny state the one which brought in a National Health Service to make sure nobody in the UK needs to go without healthcare?

Is the nanny state the one which brought in social security so that those who unfortuante enough to become unemployed have sufficient funds to eat?

Is the nanny state the one which brought disability allowances for those who are disabled don't have to live as beggars?

Is the nanny state the one which provides armed services to protect us from those that wish to harm us?

Is the nanny state the one which has a controlled airspace to ensure aircraft don't crash into each other?

Is the nanny state the one which brought in speed limits on the roads to reduce the chances of those travelling at excessive speed from running you over?

Is the nanny state the one which brought in parking restrictions so that our roads are safer?

Is the nanny state the one which brought in a minimum wage to prevent employers from abusing employees?

Is the nanny state the one which brought in health and safety laws to protect employees from being forced to use unsafe equipment?

Is the nanny state the one which banned dangerous substances such as asbestos?

Is the nanny state the one which provides emergency services such as police, ambulance, fire and coastguard to help us in our moments of distress?

Is the nanny state the one which has a secret service constantly protecting us from terrorists?

Is the nanny state the one which provides protection for the low tax haven called Gibralter?

Do you mean that Nanny State? You know, the one that makes living in the UK or a UK dependency worth while?

It's not perfect but I quite like it. In fact, I'm proud to be living in what has to be one of the best countries in the World. But, of course, you still have you freedom to leave and live somewhere that doesn't want to look after its citizens.

Shorn

 

[NOHOH]

The Best Country in the World

......yes, its probably a lot better than most in many respects (apart from the weather)..and we could probably debate your individual points until next christmas....but I hope we won`t ...because you are providing a distraction from the topic. We are concerned about a system which is being `sold` to us for use in one way...and discussing the other ways it could be used , but which we are not being told about.

 

[Joker]

... the other ways it could be used , but which we are not being told about.

Frankly, you are beginning to sound a little demented.