AIS thoughts
Gordon
A friend has a 55 foot power boat on which he installed an AIS
transceiver. Obviously, he didn't purchase it in the US.
To start with, he had it improperly programmed. It wasn't broadcasting
what he was. (Pleasure boat)
The Coast Guard was warning him (vhf) that he was out of the shipping
lanes, he was crossing the lanes illegally, he was about to go aground,
yada yada because they thought he was a big cargo ship. They were less
than happy when he told them what he was.
He has rectified that problem.
He reports now that he is refining his routes too much now do to
having too much info. Where, he used to just cross the straits using his
eyes and radar as we all do, he is now taking into account all the added
stuff that comes from AIS. The result is that he is beginning to ignore
the AIS data.
Now, if the above examples are valid, what would happen if there was
several hundred small craft putting out AIS sigs?
Would the big guys pay any attention? Would the Coasties pay
attention? Would anybody pay attention? Would everyone just program the
pleasure boats out of their system?
Maybe the US should limit pleasure boat usage to offshore only, which
is really where it is now.
Gordon
Steve Lusardi
function at will and use the unit as a receiver only.
Steve
"Gordon" <gaz...@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:6JKdnYDse7VqQDTV...@wavecable.com...
Wayne.B
Good questions and real issues. I'm sure that the delay in approval
for recreational trancievers is related to others raising the very
same questions. It's hard to imagine that having hundreds or
thousands of pleasure boats with AIS trancievers would add much value
to the system for for anyone.
Armond Perretta
> A friend has a 55 foot power boat on which he installed an AIS
> transceiver. Obviously, he didn't purchase it in the US.
If you are implying that he has a Class B unit, this statement is true.
Otherwise it is not.
> To start with, he had it improperly programmed. It wasn't
> broadcasting what he was. (Pleasure boat)
> The Coast Guard was warning him (vhf) that he was out of the shipping
> lanes, he was crossing the lanes illegally, he was about to go
> aground, yada yada because they thought he was a big cargo ship. They
> were less than happy when he told them what he was ...
I read this to say that the user does not have the ability to use the device
correctly. Is it therefore surprising that he is getting less than optimal
results, while at the same time causing significant confusion?
> Now, if the above examples are valid, what would happen if there was
> several hundred small craft putting out AIS sigs?
> Would the big guys pay any attention? Would the Coasties pay
> attention? Would anybody pay attention? Would everyone just program
> the pleasure boats out of their system?
> Maybe the US should limit pleasure boat usage to offshore only,
> which is really where it is now.
In this hypothetical situation you seem to be asking what might happen if
commercial shipping ignored small craft vessels in the majority of cases.
Would you be surprised to learn that this is essentially what happens
offshore now?
Further, when was the last time the USCG ignored a distress call, even when
it might be bogus?
--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://home.comcast.net/~kerrydeare
Larry
news:6JKdnYDse7VqQDTV...@wavecable.com:
> Obviously, he didn't purchase it in the US.
>
And, if he has a ship license, he can be fined $10,000/day/occurance for
using it, as it is not FCC type accepted or approved on a US flag vessel,
under FCC jurisdiction.
I'm sure even someone who owns a 55' yacht can be impressed by a
$10,000/day fine at some point. USCG has already reported him, I assume,
because of his arrogant, ignorant behavior.
Boaters all think USCG is the law on the radio. They are not. FCC is the
law. Ask Bruce. It was his job for years.
Larry
news:c_mdnRh33sdqZDTV...@comcast.com:
> Further, when was the last time the USCG ignored a distress call, even
> when it might be bogus?
>
>
http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/1999/M99_2_16.pdf
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQK/is_1_5/ai_61555336
http://www.apg.army.mil/SIBO/wgtkwya.htm#NTSB
http://www.powerandmotoryacht.com/features/0201coastguard/index1.aspx
When reading this article blaming a lack of money for the lack of response
by Adm Loy, please be informed that USCG Charleston spent vast sums of
money on a new front gate to pretty up the base for the brass and other
spit and polish projects to make itself feel great....instead of taking
less than 1% of that budget and diverting it into a REMOTE VHF monitoring
station with Microwave link back to the comm center and a REMOTELY
CONTROLLED VHF RADIO DIRECTION FINDER, which, if located in the USCG
controlled Charleston Lighthouse on Sullivan's Island would have been
OVERWHELMED by the signal from the Morning Dew or any VHF walkie talkie,
because it would have been only 1.2 miles away....not on the other end of
the harbor with LESS VHF antenna than 90% of Charleston's Marinas use.
The Comm system trashed by Hurricane Hugo in 1989 was never replaced....
The front gate is much more important than the MISSION.
Armond Perretta
> "Armond Perretta" <newsgro...@REMOVEbigfoot.com> wrote ...
>>
>> Further, when was the last time the USCG ignored a distress call,
>> even when it might be bogus?
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/1999/M99_2_16.pdf
>
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQK/is_1_5/ai_61555336
>
> http://www.apg.army.mil/SIBO/wgtkwya.htm#NTSB
Good one, Larry. I remembered the "Morning Dew" incident right after I hit
"Send." I am hardly in a position to assign blame in the "Morning Dew"
case, except to suggest that, based on my experiences transiting Winyah Bay
and the Winyah Bay Entrance in several instances, the operator of "Morning
Dew" was an accident seeking a location. However the USCG error was not a
policy error, which is what was suggested by the original poster The watch
stander at USCG Charleston committed errors albeit in circumstances where
errors were easy to commit. The yachtsman committed errors in piloting, and
then definitely compounded his original errors further along the way.
Larry
> The watch
> stander at USCG Charleston committed errors albeit in circumstances
> where errors were easy to commit. The yachtsman committed errors in
> piloting, and then definitely compounded his original errors further
> along the way.
>
We were more blunt. We called it "dereliction of duty", here.
Boaters native to Charleston are used to being ignored.
Two meter troll
we don't pay attention now what makes you think a 55' yatchet is going
to get noticed?
I dont care who you are, to me you are a ping on my radar screen and i
will avoid you.