AIS, Receiver or Transmitter

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by hoppy

This thread makes me believe that receive only AIS units should be made illegal and banned from the waterways. Some of the attitudes here are very reflective of the me, me me culture of people who want things for free without giving anything back.

"Give me your position, speed and course, but I'm not going to give you anything"

Banning AIS receivers would be a great benefit to those people who do not yet have AIS and those who want to upgrade to transceivers. Increased production and sales of AIS transceivers will drive down the costs.

Thank You!

[hoppy]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Wrong.

As soon as you make one thing banned the price of a substitute good goes up, not down.

b.

wrong...

If receive only were banned and the price of transceivers were to rise due to price gouging, then people will chose to go without. This would not happen because AIS is not a closed market due to patents preventing new players into the market.

[MarkJ]

Originally Posted by conachair

Slight drift, but crossing the English Channel I've had ships alter course around me to give a CPA of almost exactly 1nm, and heard stories from others with the same. Wonder if that's on their standing orders?

Yes!! Believe they are company rules. Most companies seem to go with the 1nm and a very few go 2nms.

I believe after that cruise ship with the captain showing the ballerina some rock a lot of companies do NOT leave this stuff totally up to the captains. When the CPA is under 1nm an automatic email is sent to the company office.

I understand when the Costa Concordia went off course, before the grounding, 2 emails were received back on the ship from the owners telling the ship that it was off course. I cant find a reference to this.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

.......... But the absolute best thing is to not get into these situations. I try and act early. Makes 'common' sense to me .........

And that's the point that's getting lost on these "follow the rules" people.

Don't get into a situation where you have to challenge the QE II for the right of way (and don't complain about my use of the term "right of way", you know what I mean).

[weavis]

I think you just negated your position when you asked: "Why no use of common sense for this question?"

In my hospital wing, We had to install alcohol gel hand cleaners for staff and public. I did not agree that alcohol gel was superior to water and soap. For 3 years I insisted that my staff WASHED their hands with soap instead of the hand gel. in 2009, my wing was the ONLY faculty to never have a staff caused bacterial infection. Then, surprise surprise...

RESULTS:
Under the whole-hand protocol, the greatest adjusted mean reductions were achieved by warm water with plain soap (2.14 log(10) CFU/mL [95% credible interval (CrI), 1.74-2.54 log(10) CFU/mL]), cold water with plain soap (1.88 log(10) CFU/mL [95% CrI, 1.48-2.28 log(10) CFU/mL), and warm water with antibacterial soap (1.51 log(10) CFU/mL [95% CrI, 1.12-1.91 log(10) CFU/mL]), followed by antiseptic hand wipes (0.57 log(10) CFU/mL [95% CrI, 0.17-0.96 log(10) CFU/mL]). Alcohol-based handrub (0.06 log(10) CFU/mL [95% CrI, -0.34 to 0.45 log(10) CFU/mL]) was equivalent to no intervention. Under the palmar surface protocol, warm water with plain soap, cold water with plain soap, and warm water with antibacterial soap again yielded the greatest mean reductions, followed by antiseptic hand wipes (26.6, 26.6, 26.6, and 21.9 CFUs per plate, respectively), when compared with alcohol-based handrub. Hypothenar (odds ratio, 10.98 [95% CrI, 1.96-37.65]) and thenar (odds ratio, 6.99 [95% CrI, 1.25-23.41]) surfaces were more likely than fingertips to remain heavily contaminated after handwashing.
CONCLUSIONS:
Handwashing with soap and water showed the greatest efficacy in removing C. difficile and should be performed preferentially over the use of alcohol-based handrubs when contact with C. difficile is suspected or likely.

So I see Mikes question of PROVEN evidence as valid. He is not saying that the system is ineffective, he is asking if has been PROVEN to be superior and is a contributor to increased safety. One would think it would but is it a fact?

Originally Posted by DotDun

So, to further your position, you propose a strawman that equates to a 'fool's errand' looking for positive evidence of AIS worthiness before acknowledging it's value. Why no use of common sense for this question?

I suggest that the data you are asking for sits next to the data on how many lives are saved by jacklines, harnesses, and tethers. Would that tethered crew member have gone overboard without the tether? Would that near miss have been a collision without AIS? Neither answer is recorded anywhere. It is certainly a fool's errand to go searching for such data, and you know that.

There is no data telling us the percentage of collisions per vessel mile of passage. Passages by pleasure vessels don't get recorded. What we do know is there are more vessels on the water this year than last year and the year before.

I'll state it again - Collision avoidance is a multiplayer activity and the more pertinent information each player has, the better the chances are to avoid a collision. Anyone with a half-ounce of common sense realizes this. Allowing a vessel to see/know your intentions within it's 'ability to maneuver scope' always works best for all involved. Do you not agree????

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by hoppy

This thread makes me believe that receive only AIS units should be made illegal and banned from the waterways. Some of the attitudes here are very reflective of the me, me me culture of people who want things for free without giving anything back.

"Give me your position, speed and course, but I'm not going to give you anything"

Banning AIS receivers would be a great benefit to those people who do not yet have AIS and those who want to upgrade to transceivers. Increased production and sales of AIS transceivers will drive down the costs.

This post is mind boggling.

Since when is transmitting your position giving someone something? Huh?

How do you make something illegal when you are dealing with hundreds of independent countries, each with their own laws?

Why is it not OK for a person to decide that for his or her boating area and style, he or she would feel safer knowing where the commercial ships are but doesn't need to spend the additional money to transmit because by knowing where the ships are, he or she will simply stay out of their way?

And what about the people who might buy a receiver but decide to buy nothing because they can only buy the more expensive transceiver because the laws you suggested were passed. They are now less safe than they could be.

And lastly, anyone who wants to hide his or her position can simply turn off the transmit function.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I'm currently cruising the Thousand Islands. There are innumerable passenger tourisy boats moving very fast through restricted waters. Like most large vessels I encounter, they do not move out of the way of smaller, slower craft; COLREGS be damned. AIS should be great here so I could time my sailing passages to avoid coming close to these large vessels in some of the very tight waters.

But despite there being a legal requirement, and despite operating in some very busy waters, almost none of these passenger boats broadcast an AIS signal. They're supposed to, but if you relied on this fact, you'd be putting yourself and your vessel at risk.

AIS is a useful tool. I like it. Like my chartplotter(s), it gives me useful information. But I don't depend on it as my sole, even most important collision avoidance tool. If I did, I'd be dead

This is the reality of boating in the real world, not from behind a computer keyboard.

You are responsible for your own safety. Don't hand it over to someone who may not care.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by weavis

I think you just negated your position when you asked: "Why no use of common sense for this question?"

You're going to have to provide more context. I've taken 2 positions in this thread:

1) Following the ColRegs ("the rules") is the activity that makes 'common sense' (vs. I'm responsible for my boat, you don't need to know my intentions).

2) Receive-only AIS devices should have never been made.

Originally Posted by weavis

In my hospital wing, We had to install alcohol gel hand cleaners for staff and public. I did not agree that alcohol gel was superior to water and soap. For 3 years I insisted that my staff WASHED their hands with soap instead of the hand gel. in 2009, my wing was the ONLY faculty to never have a staff caused bacterial infection. Then, surprise surprise...

RESULTS:
Under the whole-hand protocol, the greatest adjusted mean reductions were achieved by warm water with plain soap (2.14 log(10) CFU/mL [95% credible interval (CrI), 1.74-2.54 log(10) CFU/mL]), cold water with plain soap (1.88 log(10) CFU/mL [95% CrI, 1.48-2.28 log(10) CFU/mL), and warm water with antibacterial soap (1.51 log(10) CFU/mL [95% CrI, 1.12-1.91 log(10) CFU/mL]), followed by antiseptic hand wipes (0.57 log(10) CFU/mL [95% CrI, 0.17-0.96 log(10) CFU/mL]). Alcohol-based handrub (0.06 log(10) CFU/mL [95% CrI, -0.34 to 0.45 log(10) CFU/mL]) was equivalent to no intervention. Under the palmar surface protocol, warm water with plain soap, cold water with plain soap, and warm water with antibacterial soap again yielded the greatest mean reductions, followed by antiseptic hand wipes (26.6, 26.6, 26.6, and 21.9 CFUs per plate, respectively), when compared with alcohol-based handrub. Hypothenar (odds ratio, 10.98 [95% CrI, 1.96-37.65]) and thenar (odds ratio, 6.99 [95% CrI, 1.25-23.41]) surfaces were more likely than fingertips to remain heavily contaminated after handwashing.
CONCLUSIONS:
Handwashing with soap and water showed the greatest efficacy in removing C. difficile and should be performed preferentially over the use of alcohol-based handrubs when contact with C. difficile is suspected or likely.

So I see Mikes question of PROVEN evidence as valid. He is not saying that the system is ineffective, he is asking if has been PROVEN to be superior and is a contributor to increased safety. One would think it would but is it a fact?

Please provide the location of the statistical data to PROVE either position on AIS.

Your analogy doesn't match, hand-washing efficacy data in a controlled environment is easily trackable, pleasure vessel passage miles not so much.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by weavis

...
So I see Mikes question of PROVEN evidence as valid. He is not saying that the system is ineffective, he is asking if has been PROVEN to be superior and is a contributor to increased safety. One would think it would but is it a fact?

Thanks Weavis. Exactly. And perfect example of a technology-driven "solution" (those gels that were 'no-brainers') that turn out to be no better, and by some measure worse, than the old solution.

Why are the advocates here so insistent on blind faith? The data is clearly measurable. It is not like jacklines harnesses or tethers. You don't have to measure sea miles . There was a clear legal mandate imposed. There is a clear before and after to be studied. The accident data is available in many countries. If the benefits of AIS are so apparent, why are some of you (not DH I don't believe) so afraid to ask the question?

I would be thrilled to demonstrated a benefit to having AIS. Who wouldn't? I'm not an anarchist. Most know me here as that crazy socialist guy. I'm simply daring to question, and looking critically at the information I see (or don't see).

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by rwidman

And that's the point that's getting lost on these "follow the rules" people.

Don't get into a situation where you have to challenge the QE II for the right of way (and don't complain about my use of the term "right of way", you know what I mean).

And the "follow the rules" advocates continue to explain to you that outside of the big-vessel industry accepted 'collision is imminent' circle, there are no rules, you are free to turn your boat in circles, upside down, go in reverse, or even sink it if you want. But once inside that circle, that big ship is watching you and expecting you to maneuver per the rules, if you don't you are elevating the danger to both vessels.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by rwidman

This is the reality of boating in the real world, not from behind a computer keyboard.

You are responsible for your own safety. Don't hand it over to someone who may not care.

Absolutely, which is why the col regs cover everything, there is no reason not to follow them to the letter, though they are actually quite vague in some matters. Everything you need to keep yourself safe and others safe in there.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

. I'm simply daring to question, and looking critically at the information I see (or don't see).

Given the small number of incidents and the fact that the incidents there are tend to have very complex variables, multiple cause never black and white, it's probably a question which is impossible to have a clearly defined answer.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

With equal respect DH, your entire response here is predicated on the assumption that AIS has been a great boon to safety at sea for the recreational mariner. I'm saying there has been enough time with AIS to show whether this is a true statement or not. I'm suggesting the lack of such evidence, or indeed any impact in the one area you'd expect to respond quickly, that of insurance, is highly suggestive that AIS has not made much of a positive impact.

Before we go bananas over this new tool, and start claiming its the best thing since sliced bread, don't you think reasonable to ask for actual evidence as to its efficacy?

And just to be clear, I did not disparage AIS as some screen-driven shortcut. My comment is to suggest this technology's uptake (much like chartplotters) is related to our increasing screen-driven world. It's a technology that fits the times.

As I've said, I agree with everything you say regarding COLREGS, and the proper application of these rules. I also agree with you when you say (quoting skipmac) "COLREGS do NOT contradict common sense. On the contrary, they are the embodiment of centuries of wisdom and experience." The vast, vast majority of mariners, even if they can't quote chapter and verse of the specific COLREG involved, manage just fine. It's unfair and unsupported for you to say "it generally works out ok because the other vessel just deals with it." You keep assuming sailors aren't participating in collision avoidance, and I guess haven't done so up till now? This is a hugely disparaging remark on the generations of people who have gone to sea before AIS. It deserves actual evidence.

Let's start with my "disparagement" of recreational sailors and collision avoidance procedure.

Guilty as charged. I have a very low opinion of the abilities of the average recreational sailor in collision avoidance. This is based on studying the subject and learning about my own pathetic abilities some years ago, when I started sailing in the English Channel and had to deal with heavy shipping traffic for the first time. I had been sailing for decades and thought I knew everything, but quickly realized how clueless I was, the first time I tried to cross the Channel.

In many conversations with commercial mariners, I learned that they really do consider us to be idiots, that they wish we would not maneuver at all, whether or not we are stand-on or give-way, and that when they steer around us, they try to leave enough distance so that our typical last minute panic maneuver cannot put us under their bows.

What they complain about as typical of us is the following:

1. We have much shorter horizons of awareness and decision making than they do. We do not typically even notice them until 5 miles or even less, and very often start maneuvering at a mile or two, when the crossing should have long since been set up.

2. We are not able to distinguish a collision course from a safe pass. So all their work to set up a safe pass -- which they've done at 10 miles or so -- is nullified when we wake up at 4 or 5 miles, and then make a hard turn in a panic, which in 50% of cases puts us under their bows and requires a hard maneuver of theirs to save the situation.

3. We don't know which way to turn because we are not able to discern when the ship is passing ahead or passing behind. So we maneuver erratically.

4. We don't follow the rules.

5. We get in their way in channels and fairways which we could easily sail outside of.



Notice that a common theme here is lack of information. We don't know --

1. Is it a collision course, or a safe pass?

2. Is he passing ahead, or passing behind?

3. How far away is he?

4. How fast is he going?


But worst of all -- we don't know, what we don't know. And some of us aggressively guard our own ignorance, and aggressively resist learning anything.


Therefore, since we don't have powerful radar and effective ARPA, AIS is the only really efficient way to have the basic information you need, to do this properly.

You don't need statistics, to see what an obvious improvement it is in effective collision avoidance, to know these things, versus not knowing them. It's like driving at night with your headlights off, versus someone suddenly discovered the headlight. Even if people weren't getting killed every day, driving without headlights, it is obvious.

As to your waters and your tour boat drivers and so forth -- the job is different in crowded inshore waters, especially dealing with 500 ton masters who don't actually know more than we do. As I've said -- in crowded inshore waters, stay out of channels and fairways and there's really not much more to it than that. But don't universalize this experience to cover the rest of the world's oceans -- come sail with me in the English Channel just one weekend, and it will be very obvious to you, what I'm talking about.

[donradcliffe]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I've asked twice, so I'll try again. Where is the data that shows AIS has improved collision rates? It's been around for long enough, and we certainly have the historic data to do a good comparison. I've looked for the obvious studies, and can't find them.

http://www.worldshipping.org/industr...eview-2015.pdf

Look at the Table on page 10 which shows the annual ship losses by cause. There has been nearly a ten-fold drop in collision losses since 2005 when AIS was made mandatory for ships.

[donradcliffe]

Originally Posted by Abgreenbank

Great believer of AIS transponders, however one must not forget the limitations of the class B units. They have low powered (2w) transmitters so have a theoretical max range of 5 to 10 miles, whereas class A units are 12.5 w transmitters and a much larger theoretical range. So you may see a large ship at 20 miles but he probably won't see you, this is assuming no base stations involved.
Maybe we should be contemplating installing class A systems, with all the added benefits such as messaging.

Regards

Ab


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

The difference in range is actually a good thing. Because I can see the ship before the ship sees me, many times I can maneuver during that time so that when (not if) the ship sees me he does not have to make a course adjustment. That makes us both happy.