Radar is now redundant ?

[aqfishing]

Even if every single vessel in the world had AIS I still would not forgo radar for AIS.

I cannot believe this is even a conversation.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by aqfishing

Even if every single vessel in the world had AIS I still would not forgo radar for AIS.



I cannot believe this is even a conversation.

For many people that are budget conscious it is indeed. Also in many areas ( like around me) fog is almost unheard of. Radar is quite frankly unnecessary , nice to have and many do, but merely a nice to have.

[aqfishing]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

For many people that are budget conscious it is indeed. Also in many areas ( like around me) fog is almost unheard of. Radar is quite frankly unnecessary , nice to have and many do, but merely a nice to have.

So you saying the sun never sets there either??

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by aqfishing

So you saying the sun never sets there either??

You don’t need radar at night the mk1 eyeball is more then adequate

[sail sfbay]

Originally Posted by BB7

With a large screen displaying GPS location on a super detailed chart, and AIS streaming from every other vessel, I wonder if Radar is now an outdated and redundant technology?...........

Radar can detect boats that AIS cannot pick up PLUS it augments GPS to show land masses, etc. Valuable instrument at night and in the fog. Would not boat without it.

[Mickeyrouse]

AIS is a wonderful thing. We have used ours for about 12 years now. In that time, I have replaced the GPS antenna for the AIS three times- they seem to be good for about 3-4 years. It is a Furuno, which presents itself as quality gear. No doubt we are not the only vessel that occasionally is not transmitting data. In addition from time to time we encounter a tug in the ICW that is not showing on our AIS screen. Clearly sometimes the equipment fails. I don’t want to count on all defective AIS units being somewhere far away.

[Randy]

Having sailed commercially worldwide on ships of various sizes, I will say that a transmitting AIS unit for small craft such as sailboats are one of the most useful tools a sailboat in open water can use for collision avoidance. Ship traffic management in open water often commences at a distance of 10 miles. Sailboats become exponentially more visible when broadcasting an AIS signal
AIS was developed as a communication and identification tool enabling ship maneuvers in accordance with COLREGS easier and safer. If a sailor wants to avoid drama with large ships, I'd install one and don't be afraid to broadcast.
Equating AIS as an alternative to radar is like saying a vhf radio can replace GPS unit.

[Stu Jackson]

I posted this on the AIS for experienced... thread this morning, same question, same answer:


What I have (repeatedly) learned from these conversations is rather simple: WHERE you sail a lot locally has a TREMENDOUS affect on your critical thinking and analysis of the importance of AIS (BOTH receive AND send) to you. And form the basis of your recommendation to others in these "either or" discussions.

There is no doubt in my mind that s&r AIS is superior to receive only.
There is no doubt in my mind that AIS is a superior safety device.
There is no doubt in my mind that AIS is a superior tool to be used in conjunction with radar.
There is no doubt in my mind that the decision of whether AIS or radar is "better" is a meaningless exercise; WHERE you sail may well determine which choice, if you must make one, is most appropriate.

As examples:
If you're sailing during the daytime in areas without fog, radar may be less important.
If you sail a lot at night, fog or not, the choices change.

But experiences of WHERE you sail regardless of fog or night also seem to be prevalent.
Those who respond to these "choices" who sail off the eastern coast of Australia repeatedly have different input than those who sail off the coast of Northern California.
Those who respond who sail off the coast of Southern California repeatedly have different input than those who sail off the coast of Northern California.
Those who respond who sail in Long Island Sound or the Chesapeake repeatedly have different input than those who sail off the coast of Northern California.

I believe there is a reason for this, coming from a guy who lake sailed as a kid but did most of his sailing on SF Bay and its tributaries, and who then sailed his boat from SF to British Columbia, and now five seasons in around the Southern Gulf Islands and the San Juan Islands.

San Fransisco Bay is almost unique in that the shipping channels are clearly defined both inside The Bay and the shipping channel outside the Golden Gate to the N & S shipping channels BECAUSE of the proximity of large ships to a huge volume of recreational boats. Compared to other places, almost anywhere else, SF Bay is rather small. Lots of sailboats cruising and racing with lots of commercial traffic. In addition, in my experience (1983 to 2016) the fishing fleet tends to use the northern side of The Gate when coming and going, and they usually do so in the mornings before any wind comes up. Therefore, sailors KNOW where NOT to go. It is simple, and was that way well before radar and AIS became useful tools for the recreational boater.

Also, in coming up the coast in 2016, the shipping channel was well offshore compared to the six miles off I used motoring up with daily stops in harbors or anchorages. The anchorages had lots of commercial fishing boats but they all left at dawn. The routes into all harbor bars are clearly defined. The Columbia River entrance is clearly defined, as was Greys Harbor (Aberdeen has huge car carriers). Juan de Fuca has its own traffic lanes, as does Georgia and Rosario Straits, and the local large ferry traffic here is predictable in the Gulf and San Juan Islands.

We do get "down on the deck" fog here. I don't go out in it. Period. If I am out at anchor or in a harbor and it rolls in, I stay put. Weather reports are easily available and I simply keep an eye on the dewpoint, it's easy to do.

However, it is vastly different in other parts of the US and abroad. LIS is different. The east coast of Australia is different because of the proximity of the heavily trafficked shipping lanes close to the coast, similarly Southern California.

Those personal experiences are simply bound to affect the recommendations. That's all.

[Shaneesprit]

Originally Posted by GrowleyMonster

The "direction you are going" is not the same as your heading. Accurate heading is essential to milking the greatest possible accuracy out of a stabilized display. Your course made good and your heading can differ by several degrees, easily. Your GPS calculates course made good, from comparing two or more recorded positions and calculating the true bearing from one to the other.

Ships use gyrocompasses as the primary heading measurement device, which are very accurate. A large high quality compensated magnetic compass is also very accurate, once the magnetic heading or bearing or course is corrected with variation and deviation. The big problem with magnetic compasses is on the user end. Most recreational boaters do not know how do do a compass check, and so cannot construct a deviation table, and they won't pay a compass adjuster to come do it for them. (another strong case for learning the rudiments of celestial navigation!) Fluxgate electronic compasses are not so very precise, and you are still working with a heading derived magnetically. And so your radar's stabilized display and target plotting can have significant error. That doesn't mean the data is worthless, only that there is a margin of error for you to consider and include when determining your best option for collision avoidance.

Even on ships, I have seen a significant distance between a radar generated target overlaid on the ECDIS or ARPA, and the same vessel's AIS target superimposed on the same display. Of course this is due in part to the location of the antennae of both vessels. You have to have some healthy scepticism regarding ALL of your data, and understand its degree of relevance and in what matter it might be inaccurate or subject to misinterpretation. None of this invalidates the use of radar or AIS. The difference between the position , speed made good or relative speed, course made good or relative, CPA, TCPA, etc should not be seen as confusing, but as one verifying the other within a certain allowance. None of this can replace the Mk 1 eyeball and your ability to watch a visual contact falling off or coming on while you hold a course, but it helps to validate, and gives you a heads up before you can actually see the other vessel.

Exactly, accept I think AIS the biggest benefit, is that bigger ships can see you at night, and you can see them, for a minimal power consumption.
Hope to have mine working in the next few weeks.

[Shaneesprit]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

I posted this on the AIS for experienced... thread this morning, same question, same answer:


What I have (repeatedly) learned from these conversations is rather simple: WHERE you sail a lot locally has a TREMENDOUS affect on your critical thinking and analysis of the importance of AIS (BOTH receive AND send) to you. And form the basis of your recommendation to others in these "either or" discussions.

There is no doubt in my mind that s&r AIS is superior to receive only.
There is no doubt in my mind that AIS is a superior safety device.
There is no doubt in my mind that AIS is a superior tool to be used in conjunction with radar.
There is no doubt in my mind that the decision of whether AIS or radar is "better" is a meaningless exercise; WHERE you sail may well determine which choice, if you must make one, is most appropriate.

As examples:
If you're sailing during the daytime in areas without fog, radar may be less important.
If you sail a lot at night, fog or not, the choices change.

But experiences of WHERE you sail regardless of fog or night also seem to be prevalent.
Those who respond to these "choices" who sail off the eastern coast of Australia repeatedly have different input than those who sail off the coast of Northern California.
Those who respond who sail off the coast of Southern California repeatedly have different input than those who sail off the coast of Northern California.
Those who respond who sail in Long Island Sound or the Chesapeake repeatedly have different input than those who sail off the coast of Northern California.

I believe there is a reason for this, coming from a guy who lake sailed as a kid but did most of his sailing on SF Bay and its tributaries, and who then sailed his boat from SF to British Columbia, and now five seasons in around the Southern Gulf Islands and the San Juan Islands.

San Fransisco Bay is almost unique in that the shipping channels are clearly defined both inside The Bay and the shipping channel outside the Golden Gate to the N & S shipping channels BECAUSE of the proximity of large ships to a huge volume of recreational boats. Compared to other places, almost anywhere else, SF Bay is rather small. Lots of sailboats cruising and racing with lots of commercial traffic. In addition, in my experience (1983 to 2016) the fishing fleet tends to use the northern side of The Gate when coming and going, and they usually do so in the mornings before any wind comes up. Therefore, sailors KNOW where NOT to go. It is simple, and was that way well before radar and AIS became useful tools for the recreational boater.

Also, in coming up the coast in 2016, the shipping channel was well offshore compared to the six miles off I used motoring up with daily stops in harbors or anchorages. The anchorages had lots of commercial fishing boats but they all left at dawn. The routes into all harbor bars are clearly defined. The Columbia River entrance is clearly defined, as was Greys Harbor (Aberdeen has huge car carriers). Juan de Fuca has its own traffic lanes, as does Georgia and Rosario Straits, and the local large ferry traffic here is predictable in the Gulf and San Juan Islands.

We do get "down on the deck" fog here. I don't go out in it. Period. If I am out at anchor or in a harbor and it rolls in, I stay put. Weather reports are easily available and I simply keep an eye on the dewpoint, it's easy to do.

However, it is vastly different in other parts of the US and abroad. LIS is different. The east coast of Australia is different because of the proximity of the heavily trafficked shipping lanes close to the coast, similarly Southern California.

Those personal experiences are simply bound to affect the recommendations. That's all.

I did once have to radio in, arriving at a shipping channel and thick fog on the entrance, I called the port and asked, they used their Radar and confirmed the shipping channel I was using was empty, I then went in on the GPS alone, couldn’t see a bloody thing.
There was no fog in the harbour which is several miles long and none outside of it,

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by Mickeyrouse

Sailing in the Gulf of Mexico one encounters thousands of offshore oil platforms. None have AIS. While many are charted, not all are. A heart-stopping moment is passing a stand-pipe at night ( the remnant of the well casing) which briefly blinks out the moon- or not on moonless nights. It is scary to realize how many platforms may have lights that don’t burn. In Texas waters alone, something close to 40,000 wells have been drilled, many with still above-water structure. Offshore Louisiana is just about as intensely exploited, with an even less rigorous enforcement of abandoned or orphaned drilling structure. If I could be sure that 100% of all offshore structure was charted and lit, I might contemplate removing my radar. But it’s not possible to be 100% sure, so my radar is staying.

Yep, the oil patch can be a heart stopping area for sure where RADAR is a great resource.