Radar or Not ?

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by xymotic

Why all the hostility? In an AIS thread no less.

Hostility? against whom? AIS thread? it' called "Radar or Not?" which sounds more like radar than AIS to me

You have a list of stuff that are dealbreakers for you, do your own damned research.

What's wrong with you; pls. keep your cool. You asked "what more is needed?" so I write the list like you requested. Sorry if you don't like it, but those words aren't needed.

Why do you assume their range figures are off, or any more off than any other mfr?

Actually, they claim way better range measurement. But in all their demo's they are playing with pieces of plastic pipe and never demonstrate the accuracy of the product. It's a bit too populist way of marketing for my taste.
All the conventional radars have been tested many times. By independent authorities. I do not assume that their figures are off, I just want to see them confirmed like for the other radar sets. Especially with that magic beam sharpening etc... they should demonstrate a better than 5 degree angle discrimination then, like 2 echo's for 2 close targets on screen where a 5 degree set shows me just one big echo. Easy to do for them if their claims are true.

Compared to the furuno, it's not a case of what's missing, it's just a fact that the simrad is BETTER.

And I asked "why is it better?". The radar image from the Furuno looks better than the one from the 4G unit IMO so I call on that supposedly "fact" that the Simrad "is just better". I do agree that the 4G looks better than that 4' scanner on Raymarine, but the ' scanner of the Furuno beats them both. That is what I see when I compare the pictures on Panbo. The whole image resolution thing is where the 4G is supposed to win hands down and that is exactly where it's not convincing compared to Furuno (I don't say it's bad, both are good compared to Raymarine).

it has a more discriminating beam width and sharper resolution. And the FURUNO has a significant physical size advantage in the antenna. 2' is wider than 18", right? It SHOULD be BETTER than the smaller simrad, not 'lacking'

Ehrm.. FYI, a bigger beam width is worse, not better. Resolution can be higher, not sharper. What they claim is that they "sharpen the beam" to make it less than the 5 degrees of the scanner. They supposedly demonstrate that by comparing with a 4' Raymarine scanner that looks plain ugly in comparison. The only problem with that is that we all know that the Raymarine (and I don't love them) performs way better than shown there. This quickly makes the whole demo a weak sales droid show in my eyes. Let the independent experts repeat that comparison. The 2' Furuno scanner picture puts that back in perspective because really... the Raymarine 4' open array outperforms that Furuno dome scanner.

From what I read the 4G beam width is 5 degrees but they claim secret beam sharpening tech to reduce that electronically to a secret figure. The Furuno is "just" 3.9 degrees. Sure the 4G scanner is 6" smaller so if you would agree that the short range performance as demonstrated is comparable to the Furuno, then I'm quick to give them the #1 spot on that considering the 6" smaller scanner. But that means you get a 6" smaller scanner, not a better radar image !!

Oh, and it has instant on and uses very little power. 20w transmit and 2.9 standby.
I actually can't FIND the power consumption on the Furuno.

20W power consumption is unreal. My guess is that this is for just the scanner, without the display. The Furuno used in that last Panbo picture consumes 92W on transmit including 8" display unit (99W with 12" display). I guesstimate the 4kW scanner uses 40-50W so at least double power consumption. But this also provides a much stronger (4 kW) signal of course, which is a big point in the comparison (performance in rain, range etc.)

But I find it most interesting that you bag on Simrad and question their honesty for a claimed feature. They claim low power and instant on, and back it up with numbers and a demo.

I'd wish they did that. I didn't see any amp-meters, distance verifications, discrimination tests and comparisons with other radar sets etc. The instant-on is something available on conventional radars ever since they invented the magnetron pre-heating so I find that a strange point to make anyway (other than probably more energy consumption in stand-by for conventional radar, but that point was already made).
Also, I like Simrad, don't mistake me as someone that has something against Simrad. (unlike Raymarine...)

Oh, and while you're at it doing all the research, go ahead and show me where Furuno has demonstrated their 17 mile rain superiority.

I don't need to research that... ask anybody, Furuno rules there; I don't believe Simrad will contest that, do they? It's been tested many times by about everybody. Proven track record etc.

You're right that they don't work with active radar tech, they also don't have a magnetron. I guess that's important if you are relying upon others to avoid colliding with you.

huh? It means you do not see the Racon buoys on your screen, you don't see the life raft with people struggling to survive. SART is SOLAS requirement so every life raft from SOLAS ships has that. Yachts with a radar direction finder (I agree that is old, disappearing tech) don't see you so they can't use that tool to steer clear of you. All that has nothing to do with relying upon others to avoid colliding with you. The boats with active radar reflectors are trying to present a better/bigger echo on your radar screen... they spend money to make your life easier... how can you hold that against them?!

The whole point I'm making is that we get broadband, 3G, 4G and next week something even better probably. They show plastic pipes floating about etc. which is all nice to catch attention; sure I'll give them that. But now it's time for independent tests and comparisons. Because really, as others will agree with me, that Raymarine can do way better than the image they produced in that comparison on Panbo... I would sue them if I were Raymarine because apparently, many believe it.

What I also would love to see is if they managed to fix the interference problems with other radar sets.

cheers,
Nick.

[zeehag]

"Mariners are required, by law, to use ALL available means, which includes Radar & ais if you have it."

finish the sentence, not just use part of it-- the rest of that sentence is:
"to avoid collision."

WHEN you ARE to a place wherein there is little or no commercial traffic, nor private traffic in the area, there is no need to use the tool . is perfectly acceptable and within the law to not use unnecessary tools for no reason, as is NOT illegal to not use one's radar if is on the boat---UNLESS THAT IS THE EXACT REASON FOR THE IMMEDIATE COLLISION. --i HAVE a a radar reflector and i make sure i am in NO shipping lanes. how can my method of sailing be of concern to this statement when i KEEP WATCH.

there is no law REQUIRING radar in use if you have it.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by zeehag

there is no law REQUIRING radar in use if you have it.

Exactly. You're only required to use it when the circumstances/conditions require it.

ciao!
Nick.

[svWindfall]

It's the same principle as having a motorcycle...if you have a $10 head then get the $10 helmet. My crew and safety is worth all the "tools" I can afford and have aboard, radar and AIS is just part of those tools.

[Bash]

Originally Posted by zeehag

there is no law REQUIRING radar in use if you have it.

Here's COLREGS Rule 5, which defines a proper watch and which is identical for both inland and international waters:

Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision.

I understand this to mean that if radar use is "appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions," you are required to use it if you have it, since it is considered part of "all available means...."

[xymotic]

Originally Posted by zeehag

"Mariners are required, by law, to use ALL available means, which includes Radar & ais if you have it."

finish the sentence, not just use part of it-- the rest of that sentence is:
"to avoid collision."

WHEN you ARE to a place wherein there is little or no commercial traffic, nor private traffic in the area, there is no need to use the tool . is perfectly acceptable and within the law to not use unnecessary tools for no reason, as is NOT illegal to not use one's radar if is on the boat---UNLESS THAT IS THE EXACT REASON FOR THE IMMEDIATE COLLISION. --i HAVE a a radar reflector and i make sure i am in NO shipping lanes. how can my method of sailing be of concern to this statement when i KEEP WATCH.

there is no law REQUIRING radar in use if you have it.

You're right. Until you get into a collision in broad daylight and the other attorney asks why you weren't using every available means to see his client's valiant efforts to avoid you. My eyes are infallible you say... Lemme know how that works out for you.

You also said you only used it 3x. Did you only sail at dusk or dark 3x? Again, I trust my eyes, a lot, but I can't see in the dark, or into the sun, and I can't see everything, all the time. Again I will give you a hypothetical: if you hit a black, illegally unlit boat at night, who's at fault? You would be if you had radar and didn't use it.

[svWindfall]

But again, if you're an armchair sailor who never leaves the dock, you don't need radar, chartplotter, sonar, GPS, AIS, VHF radio, life jackets, or even an anchor.

Boats without Radar is one reason I HAVE Radar...and use it!

[VIRover]

RULE 7: RISK OF COLLISION
(a) Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine if risk of collision exists. If there is any doubt such risk shall be deemed to exist.

(b) Proper use shall be made of radar equipment if fitted and operational, including long-range scanning to obtain early warning of risk of collision and radar plotting or equivalent systematic observation of detected objects.

(c) Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information, especially scanty radar information.

(d) In determining if risk of collision exists the following considerations shall be among those taken into account:

Such risk shall be deemed to exist if the compass bearing of an approaching vessel does not appreciably change.
Such risk may sometimes exist even when an appreciable bearing change is evident, particularly when approaching a very large vessel or a tow or when approaching a vessel at close range.
<-- Previous Rule --- Next Rule -->

Rule 7 of the COLREGS above is interpreted by many mariners, including me, that if you have radar it is required to be on. I know this is one of those "what if" situations, but I would hate to find myself arguing with a lawyer over what this meant in the event that I was involved in a collision. I'm of the opinion that if you've got it use it. You've invested a lot of money in buying and installing it. It's useless turned off. Who are you saving it for the next owner?

I appreciate that I'm not in a sailboat and don't have the visibility that I would have in a sailboat cockpit, but I have to rely on radar to see what's behind me in my trawler.

While on my friend's IP38 on a passage from San Diego to Puerto Vallarta we used radar all the time primarily to track boats that might be approaching us or make sure we were going to steer well clear of boats well in advance of being within clear visual range.

Cheers
VIRover

[ViribusUnitis]

Why would you be worried about getting into a collission on a perfectly clear day? I know it happens, but surely it can't happen so commonly that people worry about it much. After all, if there is no collision, then your collision avoidence will never be tested in court. (And if there is a collision, someone didn't do their collision avoidance properly.)

I find it hard to belive that you'd be at fault for running over an unlight boat in a sea way, simply because you weren't using the installed radar. That seems a bit absurd. Are there any precidents for this?

As far as why to keep it off, in smaller sail boats, the draw of a radar might not be insigificant. In order to keep power avalible for everything else, one might want to keep as much of the electronics off in order to maintain power for use later.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by ViribusUnitis

Why would you be worried about getting into a collission on a perfectly clear day? I know it happens, but surely it can't happen so commonly that people worry about it much. After all, if there is no collision, then your collision avoidence will never be tested in court. (And if there is a collision, someone didn't do their collision avoidance properly.)

I find it hard to belive that you'd be at fault for running over an unlight boat in a sea way, simply because you weren't using the installed radar. That seems a bit absurd. Are there any precidents for this?

As far as why to keep it off, in smaller sail boats, the draw of a radar might not be insigificant. In order to keep power avalible for everything else, one might want to keep as much of the electronics off in order to maintain power for use later.

Indeed. Seems in the real world jusification for NO Radar is lack of power or money.

Thats it nothing to do with the capability or benefits of Radar.

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by ViribusUnitis

Why would you be worried about getting into a collission on a perfectly clear day? I know it happens, but surely it can't happen so commonly that people worry about it much. After all, if there is no collision, then your collision avoidence will never be tested in court. (And if there is a collision, someone didn't do their collision avoidance properly.)

I find it hard to belive that you'd be at fault for running over an unlight boat in a sea way, simply because you weren't using the installed radar. That seems a bit absurd. Are there any precidents for this?

As far as why to keep it off, in smaller sail boats, the draw of a radar might not be insigificant. In order to keep power avalible for everything else, one might want to keep as much of the electronics off in order to maintain power for use later.

You could make the arguement but I don't hink you would win. If you ran over an unlit boat...had a radar onboard turned off...I don't think you would get off lightly. You could argue power savings...but again the people who preside over those hearings see only from their own reference...the law and what's possible...not necessarity what is "common practice"...

For whatever reason the "common man" theory of law seems to not hold much water in the maritime hearing findings I've read. Maybe because the ancient maritime theory on collisions that both vessels are at fault and it's only what you DID to prevent the collision that slowly lets you farther off the hook...not totally..but farther.

[ViribusUnitis]

Originally Posted by psneeld

You could make the arguement but I don't hink you would win. If you ran over an unlit boat...had a radar onboard turned off...I don't think you would get off lightly. You could argue power savings...but again the people who preside over those hearings see only from their own reference...the law and what's possible...not necessarity what is "common practice"...

For whatever reason the "common man" theory of law seems to not hold much water in the maritime hearing findings I've read. Maybe because the ancient maritime theory on collisions that both vessels are at fault and it's only what you DID to prevent the collision that slowly lets you farther off the hook...not totally..but farther.

Are there any court cases where that ruling was made?

Color me skeptical, but usualy people like rules to be "reasonable". That doesn't seem all that reasonable.

[downunder]

Courts would take Matitime law to the letter of the law I suspect. reasonable i doubt is in their language.

[Sailor g]

Most who sail anywhere of great distance realize they aren't going to use radar every night- unless in conditions like fog. Even in dark night, you should be able to see an unlit fishing boat or any other object. We have never had any problems-even in a new moon. We can turn on radar if we see anything suspicious but it is not kept on unless needed or coming into a new cove.

[markpierce]

A lot depends on how high the radome is, as far as range goes. The typical sailboat's six-foot radar mini-mast is going to have limited range regardless of its power. Not the typical: