"A" versus "B" AIS - worth transmitting?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

There's about 90 degrees of arc in heading that is unusable to me in those conditions. Designating your vessel as "restricted in ability to maneuver" is at the skipper's discretion, and in those conditions, setting the AIS navigation status accordingly is useful.

There's about 90 degrees of arc that is unusable to almost every sailboat whenever they are under sail.



By your logic every vessel under sail should be signalling RAM at all times.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

It has nothing to do with "nature of the work." RAM regards maneuverability. And it's only fair to let vessels around me know that: no I'm not going to adopt a heading that will roll my vessel in these swells.

Read the International Navigation Rules for the definition of RAM.

Perhaps you should heed your own advice.


But you won't find anything called "the International Navigation Rules".


Try:



"INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA "


Rule 3 (g):
The term “vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre” means a vessel which from the nature of her work is restricted in her ability to manoeuvre as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. ...

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by StuM

There's about 90 degrees of arc that is unusable to almost every sailboat whenever they are under sail.



By your logic every vessel under sail should be signalling RAM at all times.

Wow. We are an argumentative bunch. Such a legalistic outlook. Is everyone here on this Cruiser's Forum a lawyer? If so, I should just stay on sailnet.


OK, I'll spell it out in simpler terms. Besides the no-go zone beyond which you can not sail to windward (it varies by vessel, I've been on some like USA-1 that could sail to windward +/- 17 degrees), even a caveman on his log knew not to get sideways to the swells. That's about 45 degrees either side, minimum, in heavy swell, for my vessel. But we all knew that already, right?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

The "nature of her work" for my vessel is sailing. There is no mention of the rule being restricted to commercial vessels. Get used to the odd 19th century wording and history in those rules.

I take that to mean that you accept you were totaly incorrect in stating It has nothing to do with "nature of the work."



As for this latest claim that sailing is "nature of work", that is ludicrous.



You clearly have not read the full Rule 3(g) in the 1972 (not 19th Century) COLREGs.

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by StuM

Perhaps you should heed your own advice.


But you won't find anything called "the International Navigation Rules".


Try:



"INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA "


Rule 3 (g):
The term “vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre” means a vessel which from the nature of her work is restricted in her ability to manoeuvre as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. ...

The "nature of her work" for my vessel is sailing. There is no mention of the rule being restricted to commercial vessels. Get used to the odd 19th century wording and history in those rules. A good professional navigation instructor in a classroom setting should be able to clear up the meanings for you.

But if you don't like my using the features provided on a Class A AIS transponder, report me to the Coast Guard. I've asked them about the use of RAM, and they didn't have any problems with my using it under extraordinary circumstances.

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by StuM

I take that to mean that you accept you were totaly incorrect in stating It has nothing to do with "nature of the work."



As for this latest claim that sailing is "nature of work", that is ludicrous.



You clearly have not read the full Rule 3(g) in the 1972 (not 19th Century) COLREGs.

I've read the COLREGs forwards and backwards, and I have had to pass the CG exam pertaining to them with a score better than 90% every 5 years to renew my Master's license. Your assertion that I "clearly" haven't read them is offensive.

The WORDING in the 1972 COLGREGs is in many places archaic. Yes, I am referring to the most recent regulations codified in the United States Code.

And, "nature of her work" means "what the boat is doing," not limited to only commercial operations. "Work" means "operation" -- not "commercial activity." And what my boat is doing is sailing. Could this possibly get more tedious?

If it makes you feel better, just imagine you won the argument. If you don't like my posts, let me know and I'll refund everything you paid me for them. Better yet, if you don't like them, block my posts in you profile configuration. That would be good for us both.

And if you have any curiosity, and the capacity to entertain the possibility that you can learn something from it, call the Coast Guard and ask them yourself. Like I did.

Unless the OP has more questions about AIS, I'm out of this thread now. This thread has devolved to have nothing to do with the OP's questions (and I dislike talking to lawyers.)

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

Wow. We are an argumentative bunch. Such a legalistic outlook. Is everyone here on this Cruiser's Forum a lawyer? If so, I should just stay on sailnet.


OK, I'll spell it out in simpler terms. Besides the no-go zone beyond which you can not sail to windward (it varies by vessel, I've been on some like USA-1 that could sail to windward +/- 17 degrees), even a caveman on his log knew not to get sideways to the swells. That's about 45 degrees either side, minimum, in heavy swell, for my vessel. But we all knew that already, right?

Nope, not legalistic, just logical. It's called "reductio ad absurdem". We have two situation where there is a "90° no-go direction". If your conclusion is relevant to one of them, it must also apply to the other.

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by StuM

Nope, not legalistic, just logical. It's called "reductio ad absurdem". We have two situation where there is a "90° no-go direction". If your conclusion is relevant to one of them, it must also apply to the other.

Yes, I agree: your argument HAS been reduced to the absurd. That's a common tactic with lawyers conducting a cross-examination. This isn't a courtroom.


Have you ever sailed in 19 foot swells? Were you restricted in your ability to maneuver in those swells? Did you feel that you could not sail in some directions -- such as directly abeam those swells?


I rest my case, your honor.


(Yes, I got baited into responding one more time. I'm human. Sorry.)

[Watermann]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

I've read the COLREGs forwards and backwards, and I have had to pass the CG exam pertaining to them with a score better than 90% every 5 years to renew my Master's license. Your assertion that I "clearly" haven't read them is offensive.

The WORDING in the 1972 COLGREGs is in many places archaic. Yes, I am referring to the most recent regulations codified in the United States Code.

And, "nature of her work" means "what the boat is doing," not limited to only commercial operations. "Work" means "operation" -- not "commercial activity." And what my boat is doing is sailing. Could this possibly get more tedious?

If it makes you feel better, just imagine you won the argument. If you don't like my posts, let me know and I'll refund everything you paid me for them. Better yet, if you don't like them, block my posts in you profile configuration. That would be good for us both.

And if you have any curiosity, and the capacity to entertain the possibility that you can learn something from it, call the Coast Guard and ask them yourself. Like I did.

Unless the OP has more questions about AIS, I'm out of this thread now. This thread has devolved to have nothing to do with the OP's questions (and I dislike talking to lawyers.)

Cpt Pat,


Not to throw myself into this fire, but as someone who has also taken a Nav Rules exam to obtain a very large license, your assertion in this goes against everything I've ever learned about RAM. From day one, I was always taught it was claimed by a vessel "due to the nature of her work" ie: dredges, buoy tending, launching aircraft, some towing ops etc. Every single book or instance I've read about it (Farwells, Farnsworth, plus my own professors) coincide with this. The rule itself clearly says so. I'm not aware of any court's interpretation, but if there was a significant legal opinion deviation to that which is already published and taught in every maritime academy, I'm quite certain those of us who do this for a living would have heard about it.



That being said, sailing in heavy weather you would probably more justified claiming NUC. You have a better case to make with "unable to maneuver in accordance with these rules due to unusual circumstances" although that still is somewhat dubious.


Lastly, AIS navigational status carries absolutely no legal bearing. Unless you are also displaying the proper lights or signals, nobody is probably going to pay much attention to the AIS if in contradiction.





My .02...

[Cpt Pat]

Yes, yet another lawyer. In the real world, with real cargo ships floating around nearby, it helps to let them know you have a navigational issue. We are not in a courtroom. The legal status of an AIS nav status is not my concern. Not getting run over is.


I'm not surprised if your academy didn't teach you anything about traffic considerations regarding sailing vessels. Many think all boats get around with engines.


This is straight off the USCG site:

Rule 3

• The term "vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver" means a vessel which from the nature of her work is restricted in her ability to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. The term [Int] "vessels restricted in their ability to maneuver" shall [Int] include but not be limited to:
  • A vessel engaged in laying, servicing, or picking up a navigational mark, submarine cable or pipeline;
  • A vessel engaged in dredging, surveying or underwater operations;
  • A vessel engaged in replenishment or transferring persons, provisions or cargo while underway;
  • A vessel engaged in the launching or recovery of aircraft;
  • A vessel engaged in mine clearance operations;
  • A vessel engaged in a towing operation such as severely restricts the towing vessel and her tow in their ability to deviate from their course.
  https://navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=def3g_RAM
  

Those are just example situations. Notice the wording: "...shall include but not be limited to."


Read more closely the next time.

RAM status is entirely at the captain's discretion. THERE ARE NO LIMITATIONS! Didn't your academy teach you that?

If I am only able to sail a limited range of headings because of sea state, those conditions have restricted my ability to maneuver.

Wow! Everyone's an expert and I suppose they're all mad about spending Saturday night at their keyboard - so they all want an argument. Call your Coast Guard and ask them. If you don't like the rules, write your congressman. I'm not here to give navigation lessons. Not my job.

But what does any of this have to do with the topic of the thread? Start a new thread.


Post all the legalistic lawyer-ly challenges you want. I am now ignoring this thread. I came here to answer the OP, not to jump into a den of trolls. I've wasted too much of my time answering you people.

[mitiempo]

Originally Posted by Comix Bay

My Grandson operates a commercial vessel and his AIS is controlled by the ignition switch. When he turns the key on his AIS is on, when he shuts her down at night the AIS goes down. IMHO this is the way all should be installed.

That doesn't work very well on a sailboat.

[MultiCountryDon]

Capt. Pat-
Please,Please ignore this thread and get some anger management treatment.
Geez-

Don

[scallowayuk]

Hi.just an opinion as a singlehander .as sailing gets more reliant on electronics perhaps the criticism of singlehanders as far as keeping 24hr watch will stop.my ais alarm always wakes me up and if everyone had it cruising would be much safer. Ive had a reciever for years.hopefully will get my transponder soon .will col regs as far as keeping watch need changing.especially as regarding crewless ships.i believe i read somewhere the usa has 2 already.i presume their steering is connected to ais so if you dont have it they dont see you.how does that comply with col regs?.i have nearly been run down by ships that didnt even respond to me caling them.do they bother keeping watch anymore or just wait for the alarm to sound.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Pizzazz

I agree that AIS is super helpful both in crowded harbors and ocean crossings. However, 1) it is an aid to safe navigation and 2) the user interface on most chartplotters is very hard to use.

I think small vessels have no need for class A transmit at all as it is unfair to expect a large ship to alter course for a small sailboat (I just completed the ARC and can tell you that you cannot expect a large tanker or a container ship to alter course for you, even if you have the right of way, even if you tell them on VHF that you have the chute up. Some are polite, some yell at you.). Next, small vessels are not required to transmit so you cannot count on all of them transmitting. Racing boats do not (you can figure out when they gybe), fishing boats do not and military ships obviously play tricks.

If you want to be seen, carry a good size radar reflector. If you want extra security, then transmit B, but if you are a small vessel (say a 12V system vs 24V) do not transmit A. It is not designed for you.

SV Pizzazz

I generally do what I consider both sensible and polite and hail a ship with a CPA of less than 1km to ask if they would like me to alter course to pass their stern.
Invariably they come back to say they are altering course to passs my stern.. followed by a change of 2 or 3 degrees.
Sometimes they are aware of my presence and sometimes not.. but they do appreciate the polite request for confirmation of intent.

[Watermann]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

Yes, yet another lawyer. In the real world, with real cargo ships floating around nearby, it helps to let them know you have a navigational issue. We are not in a courtroom. The legal status of an AIS nav status is not my concern. Not getting run over is.


I'm not surprised if your academy didn't teach you anything about traffic considerations regarding sailing vessels. Many think all boats get around with engines.


This is straight off the USCG site:

Rule 3

• The term "vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver" means a vessel which from the nature of her work is restricted in her ability to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. The term [Int] "vessels restricted in their ability to maneuver" shall [Int] include but not be limited to:
  • A vessel engaged in laying, servicing, or picking up a navigational mark, submarine cable or pipeline;
  • A vessel engaged in dredging, surveying or underwater operations;
  • A vessel engaged in replenishment or transferring persons, provisions or cargo while underway;
  • A vessel engaged in the launching or recovery of aircraft;
  • A vessel engaged in mine clearance operations;
  • A vessel engaged in a towing operation such as severely restricts the towing vessel and her tow in their ability to deviate from their course.
  https://navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=def3g_RAM
  

Those are just example situations. Notice the wording: "...shall include but not be limited to."


Read more closely the next time.

RAM status is entirely at the captain's discretion. THERE ARE NO LIMITATIONS! Didn't your academy teach you that?

If I am only able to sail a limited range of headings because of sea state, those conditions have restricted my ability to maneuver.

Wow! Everyone's an expert and I suppose they're all mad about spending Saturday night at their keyboard - so they all want an argument. Call your Coast Guard and ask them. If you don't like the rules, write your congressman. I'm not here to give navigation lessons. Not my job.

But what does any of this have to do with the topic of the thread? Start a new thread.


Post all the legalistic lawyer-ly challenges you want. I am now ignoring this thread. I came here to answer the OP, not to jump into a den of trolls. I've wasted too much of my time answering you people.

First of all, this shouldn’t be a personal thing. Lighten up a bit!!

In the “real world” I am the guy on watch on one of those cargo ships or tugs. Legalities aside, from my perspective, a sailing vessel claiming RAM through AIS nav status without the associated lights and day shapes will be ignored as to having such status. AIS nav status doesn’t mean squat. Yes, it’s unprofessional to not update it but rarely is nav status brought up by watchstanders anyways. We’re generally looking at name and CPA. That’s it 99% of the time.

Everyone at my academy took basic sailing in dinghies and our waterfront program consisted of one of the best college sailing fleets in both dinghies and keelboats. I myself have sailed all my life and have owned multiple boats over the years. I haven’t done much blue water but can certainly appreciate when someone is in a crappy weather situation.

A captain’s discretion must still be justified. I still maintain that is not a RAM situation. It goes against everything I’ve ever read, experienced and have been taught. At best, you’re maybe NUC.

But it’s not worth arguing anymore.