Matsutec HP-528A AIS transponder (compliance with international standards?)

[nuku34]

I’m using this class B AIS unit. It works fine, but I’m concerned to know if is compliant with all the international regulations which cover AIS equmeant.
There is no compliance statement in the user manual, and I have so far not been able to see such a statement. Would anyone knowwhere on the web I could view a compliance statement for the HP-528A unit?



The potential problem with non-compliant AIS units iw that their signals will interefere and/or confuse transmissions from other units.

The more expensive units such as Vesper and Icom do have compliance statements in their user manuals.

[Manateeman]

I have a Matsutec and have never had another vessel complain about us. Is there any other reason besides the lack of certification?
If that bothers you, why not buy another unit?
Have you asked Matsutec?
Don’t mean to be dismissive but I just never noticed this issue...Is it an issue ?
I mean, have you been asked by anyone ...any authority? or do you believe it’s illegal to operate without it? Sorry, I’m confused. I’ve been through a lot of inspections but never have been asked to provide this sort of information on navigation or radio equipment. Honestly...never.
Captain Mark

[DefinitelyMe]

We also have the same unit. I don't know the answer to your question but I suspect it has never been assessed by the powers that be on account of the manufacturer having to pay for the compliance certifications and Matsutec not caring to do so.

We've been asked for our radio license and I've listed it under the items that are included in that license. Nobody has ever asked us for any sort of compliance certification.

[Hartleyg]

The unit does not appear to be certified in any way - and it does not bear an FCC compliance notice, so not legal for use in the US.

Mannatee man, it would take sophisticated tools to determine if this unit was interfering with AIS in a given area - tools no vessel is likely to have aboard - and interference would be of an intermittent nature, so hard to track.


Hartley
S/V Atsa

[Manateeman]

I don’t see any notice from the USCG about this instrument. Did you see one?
Certainly US Warships should have the ability to detect any “illegal” signal. I’ve talked to them with my AIS on and they didn’t mention anything.
Maybe Matsutec has done all the certification stuff. I kinda doubt any corporation would build an illegal device, ship it to the US and set up a sales network.
One might post : I just don’t like the device, or I think it’s too expensive, or I don’t think it is for me...but once you go online and state possession or use of this particular device is “illegal”...well that goes a bit far unless you have proof.
I wouldn’t want to get a letter from the attorney representing them.
Moreover ...posts on the forum are suppose to be respectful.
Before causing this corporation harm by claiming they have failed to meet their legal obligations, I’d contact them and see what they say. Next, I’d contact the proper government departments. Maybe they did not fully comply initially with the paperwork but are now in the process to do so.
I know this about sailing in Japan. The paperwork is complex but sailors on private yachts are treated with respect and patience by all the local authorities.
It’s just such a polite society. Their kindness to sailors is remarkable.
I don’t think it’s correct to post such a serious accusation about a specific product without substantial proof.
I do highly recommend sailing in Japan. Beautiful country and kind people.
Happy trails to you.
Captain Mark and his Manatee crew who thoroughly enjoyed their visit there.

[goboatingnow]

Matsutec are Chinese of course

[Hartleyg]

Manateeman, I invite your attention to the following:


1. 47CFR80.231 Requires that AIS Type B devices be approved by the FCC, and they will not be approved without USCG approval. This section also requires the equipment to be marked with (at a minimum) the FCC Identifier and (preferably) the certification number.
2. 47CFR15.19 requires that "receivers associated with a licensed service... must bear this statement: This device complies with part 15 of the
FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the condition
that this device does not cause harmful
interference." This would apply if the device were receive-only.
3. 47CFR2.925 and 2.926 both require labeling for authorized equipment - this paragraph is specifically cited in 47CFR80.231 referenced above.


The unit in question bears NONE of these markings, ergo, it is not authorized in the United States.


I am quite sure that Japan is a very nice country. China is as well, but just because they are nice people does not make their equipment legal for use here. If you are somewhere else in the world, however, other rules apply.


Hartley
S/V Atsa

[Manateeman]

My error. LOL... I’ll have my crew proof read my posts for accuracy...once they stop working on the beer fermentation system.
I guess I’ll have to stand in the corner now.
I’ve sailed in south and west Taiwan. Very beautiful, nice people as well.
I really enjoyed Japan and China. It’s really super easy to make a social faux pas in Japan but they never get snarky or snooty about it...just the opposite. Making fun of someone or someone’s error is never condoned. One of the many wonderful things about sailing there.
Been to mainland, but never sailed in mainland waters.
I really like the Matsutec. I think it’s a good unit, maybe there are better but I’m not worried about it because I think this “issue” is an unproven, unsubstantiated and hurtful accusation.
It works according to the vessels who have contacted me and I never heard any complaints from US Warships or the Coast Guard...so what’s the point of the original post. We get to post some “potential “ problem anytime we feel like it? I don’t think it’s fair to the company to say it’s “illegal” or does not have certification without proof. The moderators should pull this whole thread.
Mark

[Manateeman]

So that’s the proof. It’s not marked properly. Got it.
My father, who was an attorney certified in Maritime and Admirality would point out how jurors and sometimes the judge, would fall asleep when some attorney went deep into the minutiae of some piece of evidence. For example, the police wrote the date illegibly. The judge would wake up and try to set justice back upright again with lectures about how the jury should ignore what clearly they had heard. Actually saw an attorney drop a pile of photos in front of the jury because he could not get them admitted as evidence.
So the “proof” is undisputed. What we have is worse than a ghost gun.
It’s a ghost AIS.
Good grief...I stand corrected. My manatee crew is rolling on the floor toasting my dad in heaven. I’m laughing so hard it hurts.
Mark

[nuku34]

Hello All,

I’m the OP of this thread.
To clarify and cut through all the irrelevant B.S. that others has posted please note:
1) I live and sail in New Zealand; US regulations are not my concern.
2) AIS units are supposed to comply with international regulations with regard not only to the VHF frequencies used but also to the protocol for transmissions. Simple AIS receivers don’t have to comply because they do NOT transmit any signals or data.
3) The “protocol” for transmitting is quite complex. Its partly a matter of the unit “listening“ to the traffic on the frequency and finding an empty time slot in which to transmit. Without the protocol, there would be chaos which many AIS stations transmiting at the same time. If you really want to know the details, look up AIS on Wikipedia.

4) I have not had any trouble with local authorities, the NZ radio spectrum people, or with any local AIS stations reporting a problem with my unit’s transmissions. I have no problem with the unit and use it all the time. However, it MAY be that some very cheap and nasty AIS units do not comply and COULD be a source of problems.


With the above in mind and noting that my HP-528A does not have any indication of official compliance either on the unit or in the owners manual, while other units (such as Vesper‘s) do have compliance plaques on the units, detail the various regulations in their owner’s manuals and show a certificate of compliance, I simply wanted to see if others on this forum had any idea if the HP-528A was in fact officially compliant. I have in fact contacted Matsutec with that question last week, and so far have not got a reply.


My sincere apologies for somehow inadvertently spawning all the extraneous comments about Japan and China which really don’t have anything to do with my original question.



As an aside,

Its always a hoot to see what people come up with here. Sort of like the “Chinese whispers“ game...


If I do eventually hear from Matsutec, I’ll post it here.

[nuku34]

Hey Mark,
Your quote:

“I really like the Matsutec. I think it’s a good unit, maybe there are better but I’m not worried about it because I think this “issue” is an unproven, unsubstantiated and hurtful accusation.
It works according to the vessels who have contacted me and I never heard any complaints from US Warships or the Coast Guard...so what’s the point of the original post. We get to post some “potential “ problem anytime we feel like it? I don’t think it’s fair to the company to say it’s “illegal” or does not have certification without proof. The moderators should pull this whole thread.“ My underlines



So here we have a perfect example of “cancel culture”.

You accuse me of “hurtful accusation”. I didn’t accuse Matsutec of anything; I simply asked if their HP-528A unit was compliant with international regulations governing AIS transmissions. I said nothing about the unit being “illegal”. At this point, I am waiting to hear if Matsutec can provide a certificate of compliance, and there is no “proof“ either that they do or don’t.

Your opinions about how good the unit is are not relevant to my question, nor are your completely off-track ramblings about your various trips, your lawyer daddy, etc. WTF.


Then you want this thread cancelled because I raised a “potential problem”. The problem mate is that you open your mouth without engaging your brain. You really do need an editor. My wife reads my posts before I post them just to make sure I don’t say silly things. Suggest you get your “crew” to do the same.

Sincerely,
Nuku

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by DefinitelyMe

We also have the same unit. I don't know the answer to your question but I suspect it has never been assessed by the powers that be on account of the manufacturer having to pay for the compliance certifications and Matsutec not caring to do so.

We've been asked for our radio license and I've listed it under the items that are included in that license. Nobody has ever asked us for any sort of compliance certification.

Same for us in Australia

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Matsutec are Chinese of course

So???

[Manateeman]

I was responding to another poster who did use the word “illegal”.
I’m sorry if you feel offended but I wonder why you posted anything before you received an answer from Matsutec.
It’s almost impossible to figure out how someone might interpret a written post.
On one level, you asked a simple question. But to me, it contained another message and that was the unit was...let’s say...maybe flawed.
Then another posted inserted all the Federal regulation stuff and did state it’s use in the US, without being marked properly...was illegal.
Sorry, I kinda laughed at this tempest in a teapot. Sorry if my travel logs put you to sleep but they tried to have a point to them...that in Japan and to a lesser degree in China..no one would directly point out an error on paperwork or social protocol. It’s a great deal different from the by the book authorities you sometimes meet sailing. Sorry for the ramblings about Admirality law but my point was that an inference is not evidence. Isn’t it just possible I read your post as...what’s the new phrase..”.throwing shade” on Matsutec?
I first thought the entire matter was silly and I apologize if I was perceived as poking fun at it. I remember a USCG case in which a fellow Merchant Mariner received a ticket because he painted over the required markings which certified a life ring as being approved by the USCG. Kinda reminded me of that nit picking which can have serious consequences.
Sorry..rambling again. But please try to see things from my side.
My crew never reviews my posts, neither do I, nor do I intend to. I enjoy the threads that get way off track and all the looney stories.
No personal criticism is intended. My sincere apology extended to you as I meant no offense.
Happy trails to you.
Captain Mark and his manatee crew obviously derelict in their editorial duties and will be put on short pizza rations forthwith. LOL.

[nuku34]

Mark,
Appology accepted,

I originally posted because a friend, who is extremely knowledgible about radio transmissions (he’s a long-time cruiser, a ham, and IT guy) mentioned the possibiity that some AIS (very cheap and nasty) units might not be complying with international regulations and might cause intereference in the transmission protocol. I’ve studied the protocol, and this is not an impossibility. So, I was prompted to ask the question, since my unit has no evidence of compliance, unlike top of the line units like Vesper and Icom.
I still haven’t heard from Matsutec (not that it really matters).
Cheers,
Nuku