Masthead Tricolor or Inhull/Pulpits Running Lights

[CarlF]

I continued to be surprised at the detailed discussion about lights but not of the need for the OP to have AIS. AIS is a much better anti-collision system than any combination of lightbulbs (assuming, of course, both vessels have AIS).

With the cost of an AIS Transponder now under $700, the cost argument isn't convincing for any boat large enough to be taken offshore.

And if we must tie everything back to COLREGS, then I expect it is only a matter of time before the failure to use an AIS transponder in waters where most vessels have AIS is determined to be a violation of COLREGS Rule 2 Responsibility "or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen"

[Snowpetrel]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Another reason why I like to use the tricolor when offshore.

The real danger of collision is not offshore, its around the coast, where you are likely as not to often be motoring. Fix the backscatter problem first, because you need to use that sternlight anytime you motor.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

The real danger of collision is not offshore, its around the coast, where you are likely as not to often be motoring. Fix the backscatter problem first, because you need to use that sternlight anytime you motor.

The sternlight is also used while sailing -- as long as the tricolor is not in use.


I am not more likely to be motoring near the coast -- I sail probably 75% of my miles. But it doesn't matter, because I don't use the tricolor in coastal waters anyway.

But the "backscatter problem" is pretty intractable on my boat -- davits, ensign.

I could raise the stern light further on a pole, but I don't really want a pole back there.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Of course.

Lights, signals, and shapes don't mean anything, without the COLREGS. What they mean, has to be defined by some code, which we all have access to. Otherwise, they are meaningless, and communication will not take place.

Any discussion of lights will not just "refer to the COLREGS to some extent" -- it will be a discussion OF the COLREGS.

Unfortunately, this IS the case.

We should rewrite all and any regulations that are stupid. Otherwise us and our children will live in a world as imagined by a mad administrator.

Inhull running lights should be banned for any small craft. They are next to invisible.

COLREGS give us choice between the 'remain invisible' option and 'get visible' option.

We want the lights to be high and bright.

Flick on that tri, Dolly!

b.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

......
But the "backscatter problem" is pretty intractable on my boat -- davits, ensign.

I could raise the stern light further on a pole, but I don't really want a pole back there.

Paint everything down the back matt black... and take down the ensign...

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by CarlF

I continued to be surprised at the detailed discussion about lights but not of the need for the OP to have AIS. AIS is a much better anti-collision system than any combination of lightbulbs (assuming, of course, both vessels have AIS).

With the cost of an AIS Transponder now under $700, the cost argument isn't convincing for any boat large enough to be taken offshore.

And if we must tie everything back to COLREGS, then I expect it is only a matter of time before the failure to use an AIS transponder in waters where most vessels have AIS is determined to be a violation of COLREGS Rule 2 Responsibility "or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen"

There is already an AIS argument, ummm thread, we don't need to recreate that here.

I assume you made the comment about AIS costs as a joke. If not you are lacking in imagination.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

... and take down the ensign...

Get real, he's British.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Adelie

There is already an AIS argument, ummm thread, we don't need to recreate that here.

I assume you made the comment about AIS costs as a joke. If not you are lacking in imagination.

Priced a quality LED tricolor lately?? A bit less than an entry level AIS, but not by all that much. Then add wiring, etc...

Jim

[JPA Cate]

Spotting other vessels' tricolor lights is enhanced at night because the wave action makes the tricolor appear to be moving, side to side, or up and down a bit. Our eyes are specially adapted to catching slight motion.

Our general practice, while under sail, is to use the tricolor at sea and coastally. However, when entering an area where there will be small boats, we switch to the deck level nav lights.

Any nav light that is highly deteriorated will fail to show its color brightly.

Ann

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Priced a quality LED tricolor lately?? A bit less than an entry level AIS, but not by all that much. Then add wiring, etc...

Jim

Depends on your definition of quality. The tri-color with anchor light I'm aiming for is about $250 plus wiring, Let's call it $350 with wiring, deck fitting, etc. An Aquasignal fixture would be about the same.

For a similar Lopolight I'd need to drop $900 including extras.


The marginal cost to get a VHF with AIS-RX is about $150 over a similar VHF without the AIS.

If you want AIS-TX then you are looking at $800 for an Icom with built-in screen, cabling and deck fitting for say $50 plus a low end antennea splitter for $150. Net $1000.

Don't talk to me about getting a non-display model and networking it to an existing display. Not going to happen. I installed networks as a student in college. I don't do networks now if I can help it. I want to go cruising, not trouble shoot my electronics that don't like to get along with each other. Also I'm not interested in to doing the analysis of how much to apportion the display cost to each use.

But if were comparing apples to at least pears instead of oranges then we would compare a high end AIS to the Lopolight. Let's say a Furuno $1350, same $50 wiring plus a top of the line splitter at $350 and now we're up to $1750. Not quite double the Lopolight.

Currently navigation lights are required and AIS is not. I will plunk the money down on the lights first then work my way up the food chain from needs to wants like an AIS-TX. Actually it is unlikely I will get an AIS-TX on the current boat, space is too precious, that's why I'll go for the VHF with built in AIS-RX.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Depends on your definition of quality. The tri-color with anchor light I'm aiming for is about $250 plus wiring, Let's call it $350 with wiring, deck fitting, etc. An Aquasignal fixture would be about the same.

For a similar Lopolight I'd need to drop $900 including extras.


The marginal cost to get a VHF with AIS-RX is about $150 over a similar VHF without the AIS.

If you want AIS-TX then you are looking at $800 for an Icom with built-in screen, cabling and deck fitting for say $50 plus a low end antennea splitter for $150. Net $1000.

Don't talk to me about getting a non-display model and networking it to an existing display. Not going to happen. I installed networks as a student in college. I don't do networks now if I can help it. I want to go cruising, not trouble shoot my electronics that don't like to get along with each other. Also I'm not interested in to doing the analysis of how much to apportion the display cost to each use.

But if were comparing apples to at least pears instead of oranges then we would compare a high end AIS to the Lopolight. Let's say a Furuno $1350, same $50 wiring plus a top of the line splitter at $350 and now we're up to $1750. Not quite double the Lopolight.

Currently navigation lights are required and AIS is not. I will plunk the money down on the lights first then work my way up the food chain from needs to wants like an AIS-TX. Actually it is unlikely I will get an AIS-TX on the current boat, space is too precious, that's why I'll go for the VHF with built in AIS-RX.

OK, you've built an argument that works for you and your boat,but there are functional AIS systems for less money than you postulate. YOU may not be willing to use a "black box" system,but lots of folks do, and enjoy the benefits of AIS for well less than the cost of the Lopolight.

So, to me the suggestion that CarlF made ("With the cost of an AIS Transponder now under $700, the cost argument isn't convincing for any boat large enough to be taken offshore.") does not rate being called a joke.

You may not like or want AIS on your boat. Many of us have found it to be a good addition, especially offshore, and I reckon it does indeed provide a very useful function for your safety at sea.

Jim

[Adelie]

I do want AIS, and would even prefer AIS-Tx.

I was being sarcastic with Carl for:
A. For bringing up AIS as if it were almost as important as nav lights
B. For trying to steer a nav lights thread into AIS, a bit hypocritical of me given my earlier comment in this thread about trying to control a thread.
C. Laying out the $700 figure in a way that implies that if you can't afford that much for this gadget well they you don't have enough money to be a cruiser or you don't have your priorities straight.




A house is but a boat so poorly built and so firmly run aground you would never try to refloat it.

Even with an entry level black box system you are still going to be 2-3x the price of an entry level tri-color with anchor light to boot.

[Olddave]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

It won't hurt to post this again....
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...5/mair/mair12/
A number of issues raised ... one being misjudgement of distance due to height.

I would have thought that the Watchkeeper should have been very concerned about being unable to see the other vessel on his radar, and applied an extra safety margin. They are not taught to judge distance off another vessel by looking at its Nav lights, as far as I know.
Dave

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Olddave

I would have thought that the Watchkeeper should have been very concerned about being unable to see the other vessel on his radar, and applied an extra safety margin. They are not taught to judge distance off another vessel by looking at its Nav lights, as far as I know.
Dave

Not really.... a white light sitting on the horizon..... he wouldn't have been expecting to see it on radar.

Judging distance by eye? SOP . Until quite recently ( well 'recent' to some of us) radar wasn't run offshore and all collision avoidance was done by watching bearing, estimating aspect, and judging distance by eye.

[Snowpetrel]

Originally Posted by Olddave

I would have thought that the Watchkeeper should have been very concerned about being unable to see the other vessel on his radar, and applied an extra safety margin. They are not taught to judge distance off another vessel by looking at its Nav lights, as far as I know.
Dave

Thats the danger, a dim light sitting near the horizon level is pretty normal for a very distant vessel as seen from the bridge. It won't show up on radar often for a fair while. If the bearing is steady it is easy to think the vessel is a ways off and thats why there is little bearing change, intil a weak intermittent echo apears on the radar a mile or so away giving you about 3 mins before collision at 20 knots!

A lower level light immediately alerts you that the vessel is small and close. From the bridge of a ship often 20 or meters up there is a lot of horizon out there. It is easy enough normally to get a good handle on approximate distances by the position relative to the horizon, which is usually approximately visible as a smudge even on a black night. And the brightness and type of light visible. Tricolors screw this judgement up badly and potentially add a layer of confusion.

Judging distance by eye from a ships bridge isn't taught because it is so intuitive that it doesn't need to be.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app