Please turn your AIS off when docked/moored/anchored

[IslandHopper]

Originally Posted by Paul Elliott

Can you explain what problem Class-B's would be creating for you, and exactly how you would filter them? I'm honestly curious on both points. There's been a lot of speculation as to how big ships would "ignore Class-B", but I've seen few (if any?) examples of a true ignore capability.

As i said i have had no problems with Class B targets yet...

The one popular Myth? (to my work colleagues and i at least) is the supposed "ignore" button on Class A units, at least on the Furuno units we use there is no such thing and i am yet to see a unit that does have this ability, we can mute the unit but if a target is in range it will still show up, just no audible alarm.....

But....on our Radar and ECDIS units we do have the ability to filter Class B and Class A targets.....

Explained >>> http://gcaptain.com/class-filtering-targets-ships/

IMO Resolution MSC.192 (79) see 5.26 >>> http://www.imo.org/blast/blastDataHelper.asp?data_id=15568&filename=192(79) .pdf

Apologies for taking so long to get back, it's my turn to do the laundry....

[estarzinger]

just a purely factual post on two subjects tangential to my OP that have come up:

1. Regarding class B filtering on (an IMO approved) commercial ECDIS systems (eg their plotter, which is typically what they are looking at) . .

Here are screen shots of the two relevant set-up functions:

This one will filter out class B targets from the screen (eg they will not display). But doing this alone they will reappear and alarm if they meet the alarm requirements.



However, this one will then prevent the class B targets from 'waking' when they meet the alarm requirement, so they will never show and never alarm.



If you don't think that there is a potential 'clutter/noise' safety problem, you have to ask yourself why Furuno included these functions, and IMO approves them.

2. The actual IMO requirement for AIS operation is in fact NOT 7 x 24. It is "which entails the continuous operation of AIS and the accurate input and upkeep of AIS data fields during all times that the vessel is navigating."

[nigel1]

Originally Posted by Paul Elliott

Can you explain what problem Class-B's would be creating for you, and exactly how you would filter them? I'm honestly curious on both points. There's been a lot of speculation as to how big ships would "ignore Class-B", but I've seen few (if any?) examples of a true ignore capability.

Hi Paul

AIS unit we use is a Furuno FA-1501 Transponder connected to a FA-1501 display unit. The display unit is pretty similar to the display units you see on those combined VHF/AIS sets, its small, difficult to see, and scrolling through menu's is a PITA.
The transponder is also connected to our two ECDIS units and to the two radars. Both radar and ECDIS have the facility to display AIS targets from the transponder.
My preference is to use the radars as a radar (rarely use it to display AIS targets), but the ECDIS units are our primary means of displaying AIS targets.
Seems to me that a lot of the Class B AIS units under discussion have far more filtering options than the unit I am using.
I can set a minimum range at which AIS targets are displayed, I can set CPA and TCPA limits to activate the target as a dangerous target, and the only other filter is "Hide Class B". Once that filter is active, all Class B Ais targets are removed from the display.
Only time I used it was heading up the Nieuwe Waterweg towards Rotterdam on a sunny Saturday afternoon towing 20000 tonne of rig behind us and the pilot asked if we could turn off the Class B targets as the constant alarms they were generating was a real distraction.

At the momemt, in general, Class B targets are not a big problem, not that many boats are fitted with transponders, but as the price comes down, more will be fitted. My own feeling is that when it does start to be a big distraction to commercial traffic, there may be a call for restrictions on its use. This will come from shipmaster's, vessel traffic services, pilots etc.

It would be a big help if a boat with a Class B unit is safely tied up at the dock that is AIS unit is turned off, at least turn off the transmit function. It would be shame if the authorities stepped in at some future date and impose restrictions on Class B units

Have attached a page from the ECDIS manual showing the filter options this particular unit has.
BTW, the alarm sound generated by the ECDIS is head splitting, and it really is a huge distraction.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

Good one! Or leaving the key on, parking in their garage and leaving the blinkers or flashers on, too.

Yep, the USCG and the other twenty or so ships in Charleston leave their keys on.

Why are people here trying to make a law when they have no authority to do so and no means of enforcing it? Turn it on, turn it off, it's an individual choice. There's no right or wrong way.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

If you don't think that there is a potential 'clutter/noise' safety problem, you have to ask yourself why Furuno included these functions, and IMO approves them.

I consider they were added because of clutter/noise. For example, I can imagine a commercial ship in the Houston ship channel with dozens of other commercial ships and 50-100 recreational boats under active use with AIS. In this case, the recreational boats would be a clutter problem, but they must keep clear without the commercial ship worrying about them, so there is no problem filtering them out.

You never explained how you would approach your original problem when AIS is widespread and you find yourself in active navigation with 50 other boats within your original alarm situation.

Again, you are mentally stuck on this "polluting the commons" paradigm instead of understanding that the basic issue is learning how to operate in the environment you are complaining about.

Yes, 50 docked boats could certainly turn off their transmissions, but you will have the exact same problem when there are 50 active boats with AIS, many of them slow or not moving. In fact, your "problem" will be far greater then.

Yes, I agree with you that docked boats have little good reasons to have their AIS active. But that is not the problem.

Mark

[conachair]

Originally Posted by rwidman

Yep, the USCG and the other twenty or so ships in Charleston leave their keys on.

Why are people here trying to make a law when they have no authority to do so and no means of enforcing it? Turn it on, turn it off, it's an individual choice. There's no right or wrong way.

Class A & class B are different animals with legal & technical reasons for leaving class A booted up as has been pointed out already, wiki has a fairly detailed overview. ..

Automatic Identification System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Didn't see any posts trying to make a law, but some good reasons to turn off your class B when tied up for any length of time.

[Kettlewell]

Yes, 50 docked boats could certainly turn off their transmissions, but you will have the exact same problem when there are 50 active boats with AIS, many of them slow or not moving. In fact, your "problem" will be far greater then.

Yes, but if you have 50 docked boats with active AIS and 50 slow-moving boats with AIS (maybe a regatta), you now have 100 targets.

To me it is simple commonsense--there is no valid reason to leave AIS on when docked, moored, or anchored, so why cause problems for people who are actually using AIS? Even if you could care less about your fellow yachty, think of the poor commercial mariner trying to sort it all out. Is courtesy obsolete?

[colemj]

You missed my point. Let's assume all docked boats have their AIS off and there are 50 actively used boats with AIS operating within the OP's alarm parameters. How has his problem changed?

I have not argued the merits of leaving the AIS active when docked. The OP stated that 50 targets ringing alarms on his AIS was too much and onerous when navigating. Whether that number is 50 or 100 is not the point when it gets over 10 or so - his "problem" still exists. Only now, one cannot put the solution back into the laps of those causing the "problem", because they are actively navigating also. One must take responsibility for the solution onto themselves.

So the point never really was about docked boats, common sense or "polluting the commons" - it was about targets ringing alarms.

Yes, one can go on forever tilting at the windmills of active AIS on docked boats, but the immediate future will have non-docked boats causing the same "problem".

Yes, it would be courteous to the same extent as not wanting everyone on the dock operating their radar and causing potential interference (another "problem" with easy solutions). However, the "polluting the commons" argument is way off base and several here have provided the data showing that. In the face of those data, several still stick to their gut feeling about it and not the facts.

Mark

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by rwidman

Yep, the USCG and the other twenty or so ships in Charleston leave their keys on.

Why are people here trying to make a law when they have no authority to do so and no means of enforcing it? Turn it on, turn it off, it's an individual choice. There's no right or wrong way.

Who is "trying to make a law"? In my opinion, this is a completely inappropriate reaction. Some people are making a suggestion for a way to use AIS in a way which is more courteous and which makes it easier for other mariners to use the system. There might very well be a right or wrong way -- it's a subject for discussion. You have every right to politely disagree, and to politely state your arguments and attempt to persuade other people of your point of view. But making such a suggestion, and arguing for it, does not amount to "trying to make a law", and to suggest that is really inappropriate.

It's an "individual choice" to blast loud rap music at 02:00 in a crowded anchorage on a hot night, or not. There's no law against it (in most places). But I think every reasonable human being would agree that it is just wrong, and indeed, very wrong. So it's a perfectly reasonable subject of discussion, if anyone has any doubt about it.


A point of order [now I am taking off my ordinary cruiser hat, and putting my moderator hat on]: This is a perfectly valid subject of discussion, and a valuable one. Why are some people finding it hard to discuss it in a polite and respectful way? There is plenty of room for all kinds of different opinions here, like just about anything. This thread has attracted the attention of the moderators and I strongly suggest that people chill out a bit.

[colemj]

Folks, the "common sense" and "courtesy" arguments are all fine and dandy, and they speak to one emotionally and are easy to rally around.

However, keep in mind that the OP's stated problem was too many targets ringing alarms on his AIS.

This is a completely separate issue from "courtesy" and "common sense". Yes, in this particular and specific instance, if the docked boats did not have their AIS transmitting the OP would have been happy. However, this is not a general case.

The problem (and point) here is how to adapt to this type of situation, short of broadcasting "Hawk is coming into the harbor, everyone please turn off all but the 10 AIS transponders we are interested in because it bothers us".

Mark

[tartansail]

This discussion reminds me of the early days of the Web. Pre-Netscape, when Mosaic was the commonly used browser (Think Class A), there were a limited number of sites and most had so little data (or were "Under Construction") that it felt like the Web was understandable and the information manageable and accessible. Over a very short time after Netscape was released (Think Class B), the Web became an overwhelming cacophony. Over time, the tools of accessing, subscribing and filtering have made it possible for my 90 year old father to find his way around without having to cope with the petabytes of data that are available for access.

It's hard to envision that we're not going to see a similar, though more modest, explosion in AIS data transmission. Hopefully, in the same way, tools to filter and present relevant information will follow.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by colemj

Folks, the "common sense" and "courtesy" arguments are all fine and dandy, and they speak to one emotionally and are easy to rally around.

However, keep in mind that the OP's stated problem was too many targets ringing alarms on his AIS.

This is a completely separate issue from "courtesy" and "common sense". Yes, in this particular and specific instance, if the docked boats did not have their AIS transmitting the OP would have been happy. However, this is not a general case.

The problem (and point) here is how to adapt to this type of situation, short of broadcasting "Hawk is coming into the harbor, everyone please turn off all but the 10 AIS transponders we are interested in because it bothers us".

Mark

+1

I'm afraid we're past the point of trying to make sense on a technical level and it has now become about choosing sides where you and me are not willing to take either of those two sides as we consider that irrelevant to the issue at hand. I have tried, but find my attempts are futile, like if the Borg are moving and can't be stopped. So, I will just not make any choice and step aside for the hordes to have the field

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by nigel1

At the momemt, in general, Class B targets are not a big problem, not that many boats are fitted with transponders, but as the price comes down, more will be fitted. My own feeling is that when it does start to be a big distraction to commercial traffic, there may be a call for restrictions on its use. This will come from shipmaster's, vessel traffic services, pilots etc.

. . .

BTW, the alarm sound generated by the ECDIS is head splitting, and it really is a huge distraction.

This from my respected friend Nigel has persuaded me that it is better to switch it off, so I will endeavor to do so.

I have made a "silent running" switch at my nav table which turns off the transmit function of my AIS. So I can shut down the transmitter while leaving the AIS running and displaying targets.

I have my new electronics divided into two networks -- one with all the helm and cockpit gear, plus engine room sensors, and the other the nav table displays and basic sensors including wind, heading, depth, speed, etc. The idea is that I will leave the second network running most of the time since I like to keep an eye on the weather and wind and so forth at anchor or on my mooring. The AIS power supply is wired with the second network, so it is always on when the basic network is on.

The only problem with using the "silent running" switch is forgetting to turn it back on. I am sure this is going to be problem in my case. Maybe what I'll do is wire a relay so that switching on the first network, which is only used when I'm underway, will automatically open the "silent running" switch. Hmmm.


A bit of thread drift: this discussion has reminded me of my struggle to decide whether to install a Class A or Class B AIS with my new electronics. I eventually went with Class B, for the simple reason that I didn't want to program voyage details into the system every time I cast off -- what a PITA -- which is required by Class A. When I raised the question over on YBW, I was aggressively attacked for even thinking about installing Class A -- I thought that was weird. The "tragedy of the commons" was brought up over and over -- how dare I install a system which gave my boat priority over other recreational boats, etc., etc. But after reading this thread, I actually think it would be nice to have both. Class B for running up and down the coast, and Class A for more serious cross-Channel and open ocean passages -- for anytime when the passage is serious enough to file a passage plan. For the sake of avoiding [yet more] overcomplication and clutter, I will not do that, of course, but functionally, it would seem ideal to me. It would be great if someone would combine both in one unit, so you could switch between them, now THAT I would do.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

This thread has attracted the attention of the moderators and I strongly suggest that people chill out a bit.

That is too bad. I just looked back over this whole thread and for the most part found it very calm with reasoned debate. Given the potential of this topic to draw hard lines, it has been one of the most reasonable threads on this forum. There were a few minor instances of ad hominem attacks and mild nastiness, but most of those came from the OP and people struck with the OP's "fame". The others were from a single poster.

It should take much more than that to attract the attention of the moderators. Please tell me this isn't a case of "favored" members.

Should I start an anchor thread to keep you busy elsewhere?

Mark

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

It would be great if someone would combine both in one unit, so you could switch between them, now THAT I would do.

When you remembered to, you mean...

Mark