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

[fireball]

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!

Take a look at a chart overlayed with AIS data - usually great big triangles for targets - fine for big ships as they are quite spread apart - now put on a big triangle for every leisure vessel - it will quickly obliterate the chart.

Your choice for AIS display is on/off and sometimes a range restriction depending on chart plotter - you don't get the choice for AIS A only - which means the boats that you usually avoid by sight now must appear on your CP as well - even if you just want to see the big boats on it.

Basically if all leisure vessels were compelled to have AIS B transmitters it would cause information overload on current (at least leisure) chart plotter sets.

Luckily for me my CP chart plotter has not been updated so does not display class B (leisure) boats... I don't intend to update it ... until a filter is available.

 

[NOHOH]

Really?

Frankly, you are beginning to sound a little demented.

How imperceptive of you...

I do hope youre not going to be really boring and try to start some kind of slanging match..

If you`ve got nothing interesting or constructive to say..and are just descending into rudeness , then just keep quiet, ok?

 

[Joker]

Not intended as rudeness - merely as an observation.

 

[NOHOH]

Your Apology

Not intended as rudeness - merely as an observation.

I accept your apology.

 

[Joker]

No apology intended.

 

[NOHOH]

Then you are beginning to sound Boring

No apology intended.

...and your "observation" is completely wrong.

Lets move on...... the correspondence with you, Joker, is now closed.

 

[Joker]

On the contrary, sir, to an outside observer comments like 'effectively 'sleepwalking' into accepting a potentially very wide ranging and Orwellian state of affairs that we really WILL NOT like' and 'discussing the other ways it could be used , but which we are not being told about' do sound demented.

 

[BrianH]

Take a look at a chart overlayed with AIS data - usually great big triangles for targets - fine for big ships as they are quite spread apart - now put on a big triangle for every leisure vessel - it will quickly obliterate the chart.
Your choice for AIS display is on/off and sometimes a range restriction depending on chart plotter - you don't get the choice for AIS A only - which means the boats that you usually avoid by sight now must appear on your CP as well - even if you just want to see the big boats on it.
Basically if all leisure vessels were compelled to have AIS B transmitters it would cause information overload on current (at least leisure) chart plotter sets.
Luckily for me my CP chart plotter has not been updated so does not display class B (leisure) boats... I don't intend to update it ... until a filter is available.

I agree. I have always believed that the proliferation of class B transponders could be self-defeating and swamp displays and CPA warnings in congested waters.

Since its inception I have always believed in AIS as a valuable aid to safety - but as a receiver only. I have had one now for seven years. It has been invaluable in providing precise CPAs for fast commercial ships - especially the many 30-40 knot ferries that ply the Adriatic where I sail and a close encounter with one once is why I originally invested in AIS.

The targets are displayed on a notebook PC running on the chart table and I am always alert to the proximity alarms it produces. Class B targets are displayed but the software is not updated to decode the static data so the name and dimensions are not included - I can live with that. In fact I could live with not displaying leisure craft at all - they are not the threat that worries me and they may well be causing my system to cry wolf too often so that I could miss a really large and dangerous target.

It is time to consider that all display software offers a filter for class B signals - there are already too many.

 

[SailBobSquarePants]

Perhaps true for the UK but Singapore stipulates that ALL vessels of ANY size must have an active transponder - so it is starting.

Yes, but as you point out, and I can confirm having done business in Singapore, there is NO sea area in the UK, not even Southhampton, that has the navigational density of Singapore. I remember the first morning I awoke in my hotel, and throwing back the blinds...to see the most incredible array of commercial shipping I have ever witnessed riding at anchor. Absolutely incredible.

Singapore requiring AIS is like the airspace around JFK and LaGuardia requiring all planes in their airspace to have transponders - which I believe they do. It is a basic safety issue, not a control issue, at least that is how I interpret it.

Class A AIS is basically "over the horizon" warning for large, fast shipping, which we yachties should be grateful for, especially on bluewater passages. Even the basic NASA AIS all-in-one units can be set for a guard zone to make sure you have some warning of these incoming missiles.

Class B AIS I don't take as a nanny-state item. In fact, I look at the people that I know who have installed it, and it is usually people that are afraid on the water. No insult intended to anyone who has it installed, I am just speaking about those that I know. They are the people that will put on ANY safety feature that can be bought at a chandler, because in their hearts they really don't want to die on the water, and they see danger at every turn. Having Class B for them is, in their mind, just the same as a really, really big radar reflector that can be seen by commercial boats, in any weather.

To be fair, with the new X&S band active radar reflectors, I am not sure that AIS Class B is the right way to accomplish this, but it is strictly an issue of what works best, not what is more or less of a nanny-state item.

And frankly, given the range of active radar reflection, you can also make the same case for THAT being used to track you - it may not have your ship name on it, but track you and announce your path it certainly does.

I take great comfort knowing that active transponders still haven't filtered down to leisure airplanes...so I think that this is mostly a storm in a teacup.

 

[Coaster]

I take great comfort knowing that active transponders still haven't filtered down to leisure airplanes...so I think that this is mostly a storm in a teacup.

Hear hear. Well put.

 

[NOHOH]

Storm...what storm?

I think that this is mostly a storm in a teacup.

Of course it is.... I can`t tell what will happen in the future ..and neither can you......This thread is ENTIRELY speculative......and only time will tell......but that doesn`t mean we should complacently sit back and not think and talk about these things.

 

[Shorn100]

Sorry, my little rant on what's wrong with the nanny state was not to change the basis of this thread. However, as usual on this forum, almost every suggestion towards improving safety afloat is considered to be an attack on our civil liberties. My point was to convey that safety items are not an attack on civil liberties. Far from it - the biggest civil liberty is to ensure your citizens stay alive. The paranoia here is totally amazing - the hidden agendas simply are not there!

AIS has got to be good and I would be concerned with the ability to filter out Class B sets since boats are difficult for OOW to spot and avoid, even with radar. It's essential that the big boys are able to see us on their chart plotters so that they can take appropriate action (and vice versa). Of course, that assumes they have the technology to display class B targets on their CPs.

Would the Ouzo have been run down if it had had a Class B transponder?

 

[Ricd]

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.

Somebody talking common sense - there are so many paranoid conspiracy theorists out there. We still are not even required to carry VHF.,,,,

 

[BrianH]

It's essential that the big boys are able to see us on their chart plotters so that they can take appropriate action (and vice versa). Of course, that assumes they have the technology to display class B targets on their CPs.

Far, far better to not rely on someone else to avoid you. Have you really been in the path of a large ship at 20 knots and above and expected it to avoid you? Get real. And get an AIS receiver and know well in advance that you will be in its path and act accordingly.

Would the Ouzo have been run down if it had had a Class B transponder?

More to the point: Would the Ouzo have been run down if it had had a much cheaper AIS receiver?
With the information that the Pride of Bilbao's changing course would give a CPA collision point the crew may have had time and sea room to get out of the way.

The MAIB report into the accident clearly stated that: "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."

 

[fireball]

<snip> My point was to convey that safety items are not an attack on civil liberties. Far from it - the biggest civel liberty is to ensure your citizens stay alive. The paranoia here is totally amazing - the hidden agendas simply are not there!

Hidden agendas or not I don't care (too much) - although pretty much guaranteed that any system that involves passing data in an easy to read format will get used for something other than it's initially intended use - that is the nature of it.

It is one thing to ensure your citizens stay alive, quite another to live their lives for them. In the UK we have a Health & Safety Executive - the ideal is good - the practice isn't. What we've moved to is a state where any accident is someone else's fault, and policies and practices put in place that overrule common sense ...
Example of the latter for you - I used to volunteer at a sailing centre - take a few kids on the water for a sail and/or lessons ... having had a gap for several years I went back for a one off and took my kit into the changing room and changed ... after emerging I was (nicely) pulled aside and told that only teachers/group leaders were allowed to change in the changing room - centre staff must change elsewhere - this is so we cannot be accused of any crime ...
meanwhile the kids get an often adult free environment where they could quite easily get into trouble (boys + water + showers = trouble!) ...

AIS has got to be good and I would be concerned with the ability to filter out Class B sets since boats are difficult for OOW to spot and avoid, even with radar. It's essential that the big boys are able to see us on their chart plotters so that they can take appropriate action (and vice versa). Of course, that assumes they have the technology to display class B targets on their CPs.

Ok in open sea - but not you get 000's of class B targets in one area ... ?

 

[Allan]

I recently sailed, for the first time, on a yacht which sent and recieved AIS. In the Bristol channel I found it a help to know what was around by veiwing their AIS information on the CP. Beefore we left Falmouth we contacted the coastguard with our passage plan, when got into a bit of a blow it was reassuring to know they could get an instant update of our position.
I think this is another case of "not a problem for me, I have nothing to hide". I have a transponder on my wishlish, only the lack of beer tokens stops me buying one. When I go further afield it will be good for friends and family to see how I am doing.
Allan

 

[dt4134]

More to the point: Would the Ouzo have been run down if it had had a much cheaper AIS receiver?
With the information that the Pride of Bilbao's changing course would give a CPA collision point the crew may have had time and sea room to get out of the way.

The MAIB report into the accident clearly stated that: "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."

Glad to see you read the report, but I'm surprised at your question. The running down of the Ouzo hinged on the moment when the Pride of Bilbao stopped turning. Any emergency collision avoidance action by Ouzo was dependent upon that. In fact without knowing when Pride of Bilbao would resume a steady course they were more likely to cause a collision than avoid it by altering course. Any AIS information, which by its very nature is historic, on the rate of turn would have been irrelevent.

 

[BrianH]

Glad to see you read the report, but I'm surprised at your question. The running down of the Ouzo hinged on the moment when the Pride of Bilbao stopped turning. Any emergency collision avoidance action by Ouzo was dependent upon that. In fact without knowing when Pride of Bilbao would resume a steady course they were more likely to cause a collision than avoid it by altering course. Any AIS information, which by its very nature is historic, on the rate of turn would have been irrelevent.

You are perfectly correct, but the full details were never properly established - even to if the mast that passed down the side of the Pride of Bilboa was that of the Ouzo.

What I meant was that Ouzo's crew would have become increasingly aware that the slow turn of the Pride of Bilboa could have become a threat if either extrapolated or curtailed. At least they would have had some information that, in the event, they lacked. I did write that they "may have had time and sea room to get out of the way", not that it could have saved them. Whatever they may have done with the data, the result couldn't have been worse than what they did, probably nothing and get rolled by the bow wave (my supposition).

I have always thought that the MAIB statement about AIS rather begged the question of what the Ouzo may have done with such data and not concentrate solely on what the Pride of Bilbao would have done with it.

 

[dt4134]

You are perfectly correct, but the full details were never properly established - even to if the mast that passed down the side of the Pride of Bilboa was that of the Ouzo.

What I meant was that Ouzo's crew would have become increasingly aware that the slow turn of the Pride of Bilboa could have become a threat if either extrapolated or curtailed. At least they would have had some information that, in the event, they lacked. I did write that they "may have had time and sea room to get out of the way", not that it could have saved them. Whatever they may have done with the data, the result couldn't have been worse than what they did, probably nothing and get rolled by the bow wave (my supposition).

I have always thought that the MAIB statement about AIS rather begged the question of what the Ouzo may have done with such data and not concentrate solely on what the Pride of Bilbao would have done with it.

It's not certain. certainly wasn't certain enough for a criminal conviction with the master of a German coaster saying he did it, but I reckon MAIB got reasonably close to the truth.

I rather suspect they did tack, which would've made them far more vulnerable to being swamped by the bow wave. I presume the wash board were out (if they'd woken up the third crew member and were up and down the companionway getting flares and searchlight - some light was seen even through the shades of the watchkeeper - I suspect they'd been too rushed to put the washboards back in).

Anyway, this is major thread drift. I really just wanted to say that I don't believe AIS would've helped at all with the Ouzo case.

 

[Shorn100]

I have always thought that the MAIB statement about AIS rather begged the question of what the Ouzo may have done with such data and not concentrate solely on what the Pride of Bilbao would have done with it.

Thank you Barnac1e - I should have gone back to the report to check the detail about the Pride of Bilbao - not that I am saying that the PoB was the craft involved in the Ouzo incident.

So the question is - and we will never know the answer - if the Ouzo had a class B transponder and if the vessel with which it had a close encounter had had a AIS receiver would it have altered its course to make sure it didn't run quite so close.

Remember, the transponder does identify the vessel as a sail craft. I'm sure a prudent OOW would take the option that a sail craft was under sail and therefore give it a sufficiently wide berth.

In short, I would say that the collison would very likely not have happened if the vessels involved had been equipped with AIS.

So to include the OP, it would be better to ignore the spurious facts of your track being recorded and concern oneself more with the benefits of avoiding live threatening situations.