Illegal AIS Fish Beacons: Another Hazard to Navigation

[Cadence]

High fliers have used radar pingers for years. Sounds like the same argument.

[Empty Pockets]

Could it not be as simple as using the AIS transmitter vessel name slot to put in “fishing gear” , or “fishing net” , or “fishing gear attached to F/V ****? A distinct symbol would be great, but until then? I’m of the opinion that marking them any way you can, is better than nothing...

[hellosailor]

There have been a few discussions at major hacker conventions about AIS and other systems that were implemented with no provision for authentication or security or encryption. Yes, you too can pretend to be an airliner descending into any major airport.
Ooopsie.

I think the ITU regulations on MMSIs were changed this or last year, and in fact for some classes of devices there's a new "portable" indicator (prefix 9?) where the device can be pre-coded with a string indicating the type (intended to be used by a man overboard, for example, and not a vessel) the manufacturer number, the year, and a four-digit serial number. So, the pre-coded MMSI may be entirely legal--just not for the purpose of tagging fishing floats. Could also be a problem on older AIS receivers, which never were programmed to recognize the prefix and properly display the device.

But off Hatteras, you're in US waters. Between the USCG and the FCC, you should be able to get clarification on the *current* rules, and if those are illegal transmitters? Yeah, the FCC is very generous with citations and penalties. Call 'em up, remind them how their budget can rise.

[JPA Cate]

The markers broadcast a MMSI number that begin 914, which is not an allowed prefix.

The signal from them displays as if it were an additional ship to avoid.

It is a different hazard from poorly lit or flagged nets, in the sense that they pretend to be ships.

Of course, we have to avoid fishing based hazards, and if the markers said "net marker" all would be well, except for overloading the band. No, it is a bad situation.

Ann

[Cadence]

I'm curious? How far can these AIS markers transmit? Being at water level and with limited power, it sounds like making a mountain out of a mole hill.

[jstevens]

I knew I saw this (from USCG Navcen}:

"Craft Associated with a Parent Ship
AIS and DSC equipment used on craft associated with a parent ship, such as a launch, uses the format 9182M3I4D5X6X7X8X9 where the digits 3, 4 and 5 represent the MID and X is any figure from 0 to 9. No provision currently exists for using these identities in the United States. For this reason, U.S. craft associated with a parent ship (i.e. daughter vessels) may use the MMSI format for ships. Class B AIS devices used on such vessels using the MMSI format for ships must not have the parent ship's MMSI encoded onto AIS Message 24 Part B. Instead, ship dimensions should be entered here."

Not valid in the US, and doesn't really fit the issue.
Anyway it wasn't a figment of my wine-induced imagination.

John

[LongRange]

Compared to the "official" marker in the Med, which consists of an empty milk jug with a line tied to its handle, this seems like a vast improvement.

[hellosailor]

Your right, Ann. Since China is an ITU member...in theory they probably need to spank some boys in Shenzhen. Or simply shoot them. I think that's what they did to the guy selling toxic milk or toothpaste, wasn't it?

When it would appear to be SO easy to just comply with the new recommendations....

[atoll]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

The markers broadcast a MMSI number that begin 914, which is not an allowed prefix.

The signal from them displays as if it were an additional ship to avoid.

It is a different hazard from poorly lit or flagged nets, in the sense that they pretend to be ships.

Of course, we have to avoid fishing based hazards, and if the markers said "net marker" all would be well, except for overloading the band. No, it is a bad situation.

Ann

i would agree that if every fish pot had an AIS device attached to it, this would be un nessasary, as generally they pose little threat to a small vessel unless there is a pick up bouy on a line that floats in between.

also nets that are anchored at either end and sink to the seabed with floaters and sinkers to hold them up at seabed level..

however purse seine nets whilst being deployed that can be quite a few thousand meters long would be great if they had an AIS at at least one end,as well as fish holding pens that are generally just lit would benefit as well.

tuna nets led out from the shore would also benefit smaller vessels from running into them.

if you have ever sailed through a squid fleet or sardine fleet only equipped with bright lights ,AIS on high zoom on a plotter would be an inprovement if they all had AIS IMHO

[AussieCat]

Anyone who has had a float attached to a pot or net suddenly appear 2 meters off your beam knows the sick feeling you get thinking how close to potential disaster your were. These things are hard enough to see in moderate seas in daylight and impossible to see at night. They have been, many times the cause of major damage or total disabling of a vessels. Any device (yes even confusing illegal ones) that at least indicate that there is SOMETHING out there is preferable to a plastic bottle attached to a bit of rope. If you see a few AIS targets show up on your plotter and can't see any vessels alarm bells should be going off in you head if not on the plotter!! Basic seamanship( and bloody common sense) would dictate given the whole area a very wide berth. I for one would be very nervous sailing with anyone who would just plow ahead into an area lit up with unidentified AIS targets and hope to hell he doesn't hit some thing. Yes better identification needs to be legislated world wide so we know what these targets are. Reality is this will take years to even be agreed to let along put into practice and become enforceable. ANYTHING and I do mean ANYTHING that can make it easier to know these is some sort of hazard in the area for my money can only have a positive result. (yes you would have to actually do something) Any one who has sailed inshore East Australian coast in the night I think would agree with me. On watch at night the thought is always there. What If!! To go one step further I'd like to see them made compulserary on all nets, traps, recreational crab pots etc. Anyhow, thats my 2 bobs worth.

[atoll]

Originally Posted by AussieCat

Anyone who has had a float attached to a pot or net suddenly appear 2 meters off your beam knows the sick feeling you get thinking how close to potential disaster your were. These things are hard enough to see in moderate seas in daylight and impossible to see at night. They have been, many times the cause of major damage or total disabling of a vessels. Any device (yes even confusing illegal ones) that at least indicate that there is SOMETHING out there is preferable to a plastic bottle attached to a bit of rope. If you see a few AIS targets show up on your plotter and can't see any vessels alarm bells should be going off in you head if not on the plotter!! Basic seamanship( and bloody common sense) would dictate given the whole area a very wide berth. I for one would be very nervous sailing with anyone who would just plow ahead into an area lit up with unidentified AIS targets and hope to hell he doesn't hit some thing. Yes better identification needs to be legislated world wide so we know what these targets are. Reality is this will take years to even be agreed to let along put into practice and become enforceable. ANYTHING and I do mean ANYTHING that can make it easier to know these is some sort of hazard in the area for my money can only have a positive result. (yes you would have to actually do something) Any one who has sailed inshore East Australian coast in the night I think would agree with me. On watch at night the thought is always there. What If!! To go one step further I'd like to see them made compulserary on all nets, traps, recreational crab pots etc. Anyhow, thats my 2 bobs worth.

with weighted fish trap or net bouys IE commonly know as a Dan buoy on a weighted pole and float with a flag on top you are unlikely to pick these up in your prop or rudder due to their design where the line to the pot or net is held straight down to the seabed due to wind or current holding the line taught.

[Eder]

If anything I would rather fine people (mostly from a certain country) if they do not turn off their AIS broadcast while tied to a dock.

[Paul L]

I saw a couple of these fish net AIS signals about 20 miles south of Fiji. They had Chinese MMSI numbers. Nothing visible by radar or binocs.

Confusing be cause there is no AIS vessel type of free floating net. If the nets or lines are any hazard I'd much prefer to.see them AIS marked.

[NotCook]

Originally Posted by waterman46

OP saw aircraft carrier AIS? That's good - around San Diego the carriers and several other large fast Navy ships do manouvres just outside the harbor sometimes at high speed, and never did they activate AIS transmitters at least when we were there.

Maybe around obvious Naval facilities, but otherwise, wouldn't it be rather inappropriate to identify your Naval vessels on AIS? They invest massive amounts to make vessels stealthy and silent. OK, maybe nowdays, with the sensor technology so ubiquitous that you aren't going to be able to sneak up on anyone with an aircraft carrier, but still...

What I still wonder about is how bad an idea it would be to broadcast on AIS along the Somali coast. IF I were a pirate, I'd be using AIS to track my potential prey.

Oh, that criminals would obey the laws...

[Nicholson58]

We have seen many navigation marks equipped with AIS. They are noted for what they are if you ask for details. This would be good if applied to other obstacles