Why buy the expensive MMSI for your AIS and EPIB

[continuouswave]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

...If you enter my MMSI at MarineTraffic.com you'll instantly get my last [position] (if you've paid for satellite data)...

Organizations that collect AIS data by satellites generally don't make that data available at no cost, as someone has to pay for those satellites.

Does SARSAT have access to any satellite AIS data?

And is satellite AIS data available to all rescue coordination centers?

[Dsanduril]

Originally Posted by continuouswave

....If the cost to a person who wants to use the SARSAT system is going to be $1,500 in administrative fees in order to acquire an MMSI or callsign, I don't see that expense as being justified in order to get that data encoded into the beacon. SARSAT will still try to rescue you without your beacon sending an MMSI or callsign. As their history shows, they seem to be rather good at that.

Couldn't agree more, with one caveat - the law in Bermuda requires a vessel registered there and carrying an EPIRB to have a Class 5 or Class 9 radio license and to code their EPIRB with either the callsign or the MMSI. So, the OP has to first determine if he wants to flout the law. No amount of internet advice can help with that, it's a very personal decision. Could be that it's enough of a deterrent that he chooses to register the vessel elsewhere.

As for whether or not MRCCs have access to satellite data, I know for sure that MRCCs in the US, Australia, Japan, Canada, India, and South Africa currently use satellite AIS data as part of their SAR repertoire.

The standards for the next generation of EPIRBs are set to be finalized soon, and they will most likely include (possibly as optional, maybe as required) an AIS transmitter in the EPIRB. At which point the MMSI will be required. Why? Because recent SAR efforts have found that the last-mile communications are the most difficult. The 406 system is one-way (although that may change too), ships don't carry 406 receivers, and 121.5 locator beacons and the corresponding receivers are also dead. So, an MRCC can easily get position data from the EPIRB (albeit infrequently) but then has to relay that information to rescue ships; the ships cannot get the information directly. If next-gen EPIRBS have AIS built in the nearly every potential rescue ship will have a built in receiver and display for up-to-date position information of the party to be rescued.

[continuouswave]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

If next-gen EPIRBS have AIS built in the nearly every potential rescue ship will have a built in receiver and display for up-to-date position information of the party to be rescued.

The McMurdo EPIRB model SmartFind G8 AIS is available with an AIS transmitter as an integral component. Here is an excerpt from the owner's manual regarding the AIS signal:

For EPIRB models equipped with AIS (SmartFind G8 AIS), an
additional transmission operates at 162 MHz. The AIS message
includes the unit ID, GPS position and a simple text message and is
repeated 8 times per minute using an ‘Impolite AIS Protocol’ giving it
priority over other AIS signals in the vicinity. This signal will typically be
received by vessels with VHF AIS antennae out to a four-mile range
(typical).

From that information, the "the unit ID" sent in the AIS message is it not specifically described. More clarity about "the unit ID" sent in the AIS message is found in another publication, "EPIRB-AIS ID ISSUE", from NOAA-SARSAT. See

https://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/BMW%2020...Issue_ARIB.pdf

The above presentation discusses the problem of using a non-unique EPIRB AIS ID that currently exists, and proposes some remedies.

[continuouswave]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

The 406 system is one-way (although that may change too)...

My understanding is that the GALILEO satellites in orbit now of the FOC series already have facilities for providing the RETURN LINK SERVICE to an EPIRB beacon device, but, from what I can find, there are no EPIRB beacon devices currently available that can received the return link service message.

Also the return message that GALILEO is currently providing is just an automatically generated message created in the satellite itself that acknowledges that the 406-MHz distress message has been received by the satellite. It is not, as sometimes described in various literature, a messages that confirms "that help is on the way." It just confirms a satellite received the distress alert.

For some more about the 406-MHz facilities on GALILEO, see my article:

SARSAT MEO 406-MHz System of GALILEO FOC Satellites
SARSAT MEO 406-MHz System on GALILEO FOC Satellites - CONTINUOUSWAVE

[ka4wja]

Privilege,
Sorry to read of your troubles....as others have stated, $1500 for an MMSI# is ridiculous...and others have given you to answers to your questions....

But, I'd like to add something further to this discussion, that some might find useful??


1) First off, everyone should please read this thread (and the links found there)...where you'll find a lot of useful info on EPIRB's, their registration, and exactly how Search And Rescue (SAR) activities are considered/conducted....and it will surprise many...

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ds-146617.html



2) Secondly...some more info (fairly on-point of this discussion) that some might find helpful...or not...
(please note that I'm staying away from the vitriolic parts of this discussion....not the least of which is because it is of no help to the original poster, nor anyone else that I can see...)

By happenstance my EPIRB registration just came up for renewal....and thought some would like to see the US EPIRB registration form....
And fyi, yes I have had both my radio callsign and MMSI# on this form (and associated with my EPIRB hex #, in the US database at least) since installing DSC radios in early 2004...{I was boat-shopping for a few years, when the GMDSS was being implemented, or I would've had an MMSI# earlier... }



I redacted the names/phone numbers of my emergency contacts, 'cuz I'd rather not subject them to telemarketers....
But, other than that, although here in the US the beacons themselves haven't been encoded with vessel MMSI# nor callsign, this is what the US has been doing for many years now...





3) Third...regarding the "last mile" issue, etc....
{I'm hesitant to add this info here, 'cuz most will not actually read the factual info (from COSPAS-SARSAT) in the above mentioned thread and its links....so...please read that info before commenting on my further info below...}

BTW, this is not true....all 406mhz EPIRB's include a low-power 121.5mhz homing signal and all SAR aircraft / vessels still use their 121.5mhz receivers / DF equipment...

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

..and 121.5 locator beacons and the corresponding receivers are also dead..

The confusion comes from the fact that yes the old 121.5 beacons are no longer used, but the new 406mhz beacons do have a low-power 121.5mhz homing signal...(and fyi, commercial aircraft still have 121.5 receivers running all the time....just 2 years ago there was a 121.5 signal, from a 406mhz beacon somewhere in Georgia???, that its 406mhz signal was too weak / attenuated to be received by the satellites, but the 121.5mhz signal was picked up by many commercial aircraft and was DF'ed by SAR aircraft and found....) so.... while the old 121.5 beacons are gone, the 406mhz beacons have a low-power 121.5mhz homing signal in them!!



We need to remember three or four (edit: or five) important points here...

a) All 406mhz EPIRB's include a 121.5mhz low-power "homing signal" that is specifically designed to allow all SAR aircraft / vessels to "home-in" on the beacon no matter the weather/sea-state, etc. no matter whether the beacon can still receive/calculate its own GPS position, nor whether the beacon can still connect to the GEOSAR satellites and send its position info to the satellites (which of course takes the majority of the electrical power of the beacon and with rough sea state, and/or a beacon possibly inside a raft, it's doubtful its reported GPS-position will be its current/real-time position)
{of course most private vessels do not have 121.5 direction finding equipment, etc....but the SAR aircraft/vessels do...as do many SOLAS-grade GMDSS-equipped merchant vessels...and I have personally spoken with SAR aircraft crews who say have they never flown to the "reported GPS position" of a beacon and found it, ever...unless they have spotted the distressed vessel visually...they always use the 121.5mhz homing signal...}


b) Only the GEOSAR satellites receive the GPS position data from 406mhz EPIRB's...these are geostationary satellites that orbit 22,300 miles above the equator....so, it can take some minutes before the EPIRB's data is actually received by the GEOSAR satellite (and of course, there are also issues with the beacon's ability to acquire and maintain a GPS position, in heavy sea state, especially if inside a life raft...which is why COSPAS-SARSAT specifically recommend allowing the EPIRB to float on its own, in the open....and further shows another reason PLB's are not a good substitute for an EPIRB)
{of course, the new MEOSAR satellites will (should) allow this to be done much more reliably and attain more accurate fix locations of EPIRB's...but, they're not finished deploying/testing, yet??...and of course, there will still be a need for the 121.5mhz "homing signal"...}


c) Current 406mhz EPIRB data (and AIS data) is sent in short bursts, that prohibit the use of those signals for "homing in" on a beacon's position...
And, of course that position data is calculated by the beacon's GPS receiver, so it needs to be able to attain and maintain a GPS fix, the whole time it is On...
Yes, while having an AIS signal bursting data out at about every 12 to 30 seconds is much better for other pleasure boaters to actually find a beacon, SAR aircraft and SAR vessels will still use the 121.5mhz homing signal, as will some SOLAS-grade merchant ships...

Lest we forget that this "last mile" problem....isn't really a problem for professional SAR crews (as they've been doing fine with the 121.5mhz "homing signal" for decades now)....it is actually only the non-professionals / pleasure boaters / non-SOLAS vessels (few, or none, having a 121.5mhz receiver, let alone a 121.5mhz DF unit) that have had an issue with the "last mile"...


d) Please understand that whatever data the EPIRB sends out (hex ID, MMSI#, Callsign, etc.), to wherever it is being sent (GEOSAR, MEOSAR, etc.), we should remember that the good 'ole LEOSAR's are still working and still picking up EPIRB and PLB signals, even in compromised situations where the alert might not get through to a GEOSAR / MEOSAR,


e) Also, remember, if the beacon cannot receive / calculate its own position, then whatever other data it is sending out isn't very helpful in finding the beacon...and again, this is where both the LEOSAR doppler DF and the beacon's 121.5mhz homing signal will still work...

This is why EPIRB's need out in the open, in the clear....and to be set-off and left turned on, until directed by a RCC or rescuer, to turn it off...






Hope this helps some....but, for certain, being asked to spend $1500 for an MMSI# (in Bermuda) would make me walk right into the gov't offices and not only ask "WHY", but also volunteer to explain to everyone there why this is ridiculous!!


Fair winds to all...

John

[continuouswave]

Originally Posted by ka4wja

...First off, everyone should please read this thread (and the links found there)...

Sorry, that is much too much to ask anyone to do before making a comment on your later remarks. I will read your later remarks as sui generis.

Originally Posted by ka4wja

...Only the GEOSAR satellites receive the GPS position data from 406mhz EPIRB's...

I think you are trying to say that receivers for a 406-MHz beacon signal are found ONLY on geostationary orbit satellites. That is not true. There are at least two constellation of medium-earth-orbit search and rescue satellites (MEOSAR) already deployed that have 406-MHz receivers:

--the GPS DASS-equipped satellites (20)
--the GALILEO FOC series (about 15) .

Cf:
SARSAT MEO 406-MHz Systems on GPS Satellites
SARSAT MEO 406-MHz Systems on GPS Satellites - CONTINUOUSWAVE

GALILEO Satellites
GALILEO Satellites - CONTINUOUSWAVE

Now, if you meant to say that only certain receivers can receive the encoded position information in a 406-MHz signal, you have me very confused. The satellites are generally working as a "bent pipe" transponder, so if the original signal has certain data in the signal, that data will still be there when it is retransmitted to the ground. The ground terminal will all be able to receive and decode the distress message and get the encoded position data, if the message contains that data.

If you meant neither of those inferences, please explain further what you meant. Thanks.

[ka4wja]

Wow, I was only trying to help some of my fellow sailors....maybe I should've just left well enough alone, huh?

Originally Posted by ka4wja

But, I'd like to add something further to this discussion, that some might find useful??

1) First off, everyone should please read this thread (and the links found there)...where you'll find a lot of useful info on EPIRB's, their registration, and exactly how Search And Rescue (SAR) activities are considered/conducted....and it will surprise many...

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ds-146617.html



2) Secondly...some more info (fairly on-point of this discussion) that some might find helpful...or not...
(please note that I'm staying away from the vitriolic parts of this discussion....not the least of which is because it is of no help to the original poster, nor anyone else that I can see...)

By happenstance my EPIRB registration just came up for renewal....and thought some would like to see the US EPIRB registration form....
And fyi, yes I have had both my radio callsign and MMSI# on this form (and associated with my EPIRB hex #, in the US database at least) since installing DSC radios in early 2004...{I was boat-shopping for a few years, when the GMDSS was being implemented, or I would've had an MMSI# earlier... }



I redacted the names/phone numbers of my emergency contacts, 'cuz I'd rather not subject them to telemarketers....
But, other than that, although here in the US the beacons themselves haven't been encoded with vessel MMSI# nor callsign, this is what the US has been doing for many years now...





3) Third...regarding the "last mile" issue, etc....
{I'm hesitant to add this info here, 'cuz most will not actually read the factual info (from COSPAS-SARSAT) in the above mentioned thread and its links....so...please read that info before commenting on my further info below...}

BTW, this is not true....all 406mhz EPIRB's include a low-power 121.5mhz homing signal and all SAR aircraft / vessels still use their 121.5mhz receivers / DF equipment...

The confusion comes from the fact that yes the old 121.5 beacons are no longer used, but the new 406mhz beacons do have a low-power 121.5mhz homing signal...(and fyi, commercial aircraft still have 121.5 receivers running all the time....just 2 years ago there was a 121.5 signal, from a 406mhz beacon somewhere in Georgia???, that its 406mhz signal was too weak / attenuated to be received by the satellites, but the 121.5mhz signal was picked up by many commercial aircraft and was DF'ed by SAR aircraft and found....) so.... while the old 121.5 beacons are gone, the 406mhz beacons have a low-power 121.5mhz homing signal in them!!



We need to remember three or four (edit: or five) important points here...

a) All 406mhz EPIRB's include a 121.5mhz low-power "homing signal" that is specifically designed to allow all SAR aircraft / vessels to "home-in" on the beacon no matter the weather/sea-state, etc. no matter whether the beacon can still receive/calculate its own GPS position, nor whether the beacon can still connect to the GEOSAR satellites and send its position info to the satellites (which of course takes the majority of the electrical power of the beacon and with rough sea state, and/or a beacon possibly inside a raft, it's doubtful its reported GPS-position will be its current/real-time position)
{of course most private vessels do not have 121.5 direction finding equipment, etc....but the SAR aircraft/vessels do...as do many SOLAS-grade GMDSS-equipped merchant vessels...and I have personally spoken with SAR aircraft crews who say have they never flown to the "reported GPS position" of a beacon and found it, ever...unless they have spotted the distressed vessel visually...they always use the 121.5mhz homing signal...}


b) Only the GEOSAR satellites receive the GPS position data from 406mhz EPIRB's...these are geostationary satellites that orbit 22,300 miles above the equator....so, it can take some minutes before the EPIRB's data is actually received by the GEOSAR satellite (and of course, there are also issues with the beacon's ability to acquire and maintain a GPS position, in heavy sea state, especially if inside a life raft...which is why COSPAS-SARSAT specifically recommend allowing the EPIRB to float on its own, in the open....and further shows another reason PLB's are not a good substitute for an EPIRB)
{of course, the new MEOSAR satellites will (should) allow this to be done much more reliably and attain more accurate fix locations of EPIRB's...but, they're not finished deploying/testing, yet??...and of course, there will still be a need for the 121.5mhz "homing signal"...}


c) Current 406mhz EPIRB data (and AIS data) is sent in short bursts, that prohibit the use of those signals for "homing in" on a beacon's position...
And, of course that position data is calculated by the beacon's GPS receiver, so it needs to be able to attain and maintain a GPS fix, the whole time it is On...
Yes, while having an AIS signal bursting data out at about every 12 to 30 seconds is much better for other pleasure boaters to actually find a beacon, SAR aircraft and SAR vessels will still use the 121.5mhz homing signal, as will some SOLAS-grade merchant ships...

Lest we forget that this "last mile" problem....isn't really a problem for professional SAR crews (as they've been doing fine with the 121.5mhz "homing signal" for decades now)....it is actually only the non-professionals / pleasure boaters / non-SOLAS vessels (few, or none, having a 121.5mhz receiver, let alone a 121.5mhz DF unit) that have had an issue with the "last mile"...


d) Please understand that whatever data the EPIRB sends out (hex ID, MMSI#, Callsign, etc.), to wherever it is being sent (GEOSAR, MEOSAR, etc.), we should remember that the good 'ole LEOSAR's are still working and still picking up EPIRB and PLB signals, even in compromised situations where the alert might not get through to a GEOSAR / MEOSAR,


e) Also, remember, if the beacon cannot receive / calculate its own position, then whatever other data it is sending out isn't very helpful in finding the beacon...and again, this is where both the LEOSAR doppler DF and the beacon's 121.5mhz homing signal will still work...

This is why EPIRB's need out in the open, in the clear....and to be set-off and left turned on, until directed by a RCC or rescuer, to turn it off...






Hope this helps some....but, for certain, being asked to spend $1500 for an MMSI# (in Bermuda) would make me walk right into the gov't offices and not only ask "WHY", but also volunteer to explain to everyone there why this is ridiculous!!


Fair winds to all...

John

So...
First off, my apologies to everyone if my information was a bit out-of-date....but last I had heard the MEOSAR system was not fully deployed and operational....and while that was what I wrote, perhaps I wasn't completely clear?

Originally Posted by ka4wja

{of course, the new MEOSAR satellites will (should) allow this to be done much more reliably and attain more accurate fix locations of EPIRB's...but, they're not finished deploying/testing, yet??...and of course, there will still be a need for the 121.5mhz "homing signal"...}

Perhaps my info on the MEOSAR system is out-of-date??
The latest info I had was that they were not 100% deployed and operational...so, until they are, the GEOSAR sats are the only ones we can be certain ca receive the GPS position data from our EPIRB's....but, even if a MEOSAR sat is in our view / line-of-sight at time of EPIRB deployment, except for the approx 2db advantage in signal link budget, and the obvious that there are more satellites to receive this data, the same issue of the "last mile" still holds...as do the other issues presented fairly concisely (by Beth Leonard, etc.) in the links in the referenced thread...(which is why I asked for some to read it before commenting here....but, alas, that is too much to ask... )
{BTW, I did read the links that continuouswave posted...and while they are nice, they really have nothing to do with the "last mile" issue, nor any of the other points in my referenced thread....and if I'm reading the COSPAS-SARSAT site correctly, they don't show the MEOSAR system as actually 100% deployed / operational...continuouswave I DO thank you for that info....and of course, at least I had the courtesy to read them...}



Second, I took heed of not delving deeply into link budgets, etc....but as there is only a 2db advantage in MEOSAR reception of the 406mhz data in the normal cruising latitudes (less than 60*), many of the same issues of GEOSAR reception that I highlight will still be with us, with MEOSAR, despite what some beacon manufactures have been touting....so regardless of the status of the MEOSAR system, there will still be issues with EPIRB position data getting to the satellites (due to the vagaries of the users, and the increases in background noise, not because of the satellites)



Third, I also took heed of not overwhelming everyone with COSPAS-SARSAT issues with significant increases in "terrestrial-based background noise" over Asia and Europe which has increased the on-orbit noise reception and thereby decreased the overall beacon reception S/N....(although it has yet to have caused loss of life), the IMO / SOLAS, COSPAS-SARSAT, INMARSAT, Iridium, etc., as well as US Dept of Defense, have all been trying to figure out how (if possible) to reduce the plethora of man-made RFI-producing devices being manufactured (mainly in Asia) and sold worldwide...this is another reason the LEOSAR system is not being phased out...


Fourth, the use of the MEOSAR system doesn't have significant improvement in the solving the "last mile" problem, hence really doesn't impact the need for the 121.5mhz homing signal, for SAR assets to find the beacon...



And, finally...I apologize for even trying to help some here understand the way the COSPAS-SARSAT system, and your EPIRB's, actually work...it seems that I was correct that few will actually read the referenced thread, nor the links there...and for that I am sorry...




So...all-in, I might have been a bit out-of-date if the MEOSAR system is up and 100% deployed and operational (I was not aware that had been finished)...and for that I humbly stand corrected...

However, as for everything else...I stand by my recommendations to read the referenced thread and the links therein...

Fair winds..

John

[continuouswave]

Originally Posted by ka4wja

...I did read the links that continuouswave posted...and while they are nice, they really have nothing to do with the "last mile" issue, nor any of the other points in my referenced thread...

John--thank you for the kind words about the articles I wrote and linked to in my earlier reply. Please note the information I linked to was only in regard to correcting your assertion that the only satellites that could receive position data from an EPIRB transmitting that data at 406-MHz were geostationary orbit satellites.

I did not make any comment on your "last mile issue", so to assert that my linked articles do not address that topic is not really a valid criticism of my reply. I don't have any comments on whether or not there exists a problem for rescuers to proceed across the last mile of rescue, as I have no first hand knowledge to offer about that.

As I read you last reply, I believe you are now qualifying your statement on the basis that you were not aware of the present state of MEOSAR 406-MHz reception available today when you made your statement.

In regard to the GPS satellites with DASS, the principle problem with their continued use is the frequency of the downlink. The GPS-II series satellites use an S-band downlink. Because there is not a global deployment of S-band downlink stations in SARSAT, these satellites are considered as experimental.

The SARSAT system has standardized its earth terminal stations to have L-band downlink receivers. The GALILEO FOC series satellites have L-band downlink transmitters.

The next-generation GPS III follow-on series satellites (planned for c.2024 or later) will have L-band downlink transmitters. (I believe the actual hardware for the MEOSAR 406-MHz receiver and L-band downlink will be made by Canada. This is a nice example of the international cooperation being given to this system.)

The SARSAT system is deploying earth stations with L-band receive antennas that will allow each station to track several MEOSAR satellites without having to use a mechanically-steered antenna array. Eliminating the need for a mechanically steered antenna array to received the L-band downlink was probably an important consideration in the design of the earth stations.

Regarding link budgets for the 406-MHz paths, I am certain that the designers of SARSAT have given this very careful consideration, and they have designed the facilities needed in the beacon and the satellites in order to give reliable and useful operation of the system. I don't see it likely that we could uncover an error in their design in this discussion. Considering the cost to put these devices into orbit, I would expect that the link budgets have already been very carefully analyzed by experts.

[ka4wja]

I think we are unfortunately talking past each other, and/or you're reading WAY too much into my words...

So, to be clear we all know that the MEOSAR's will be a great addition to the COSPAS-SARSAT system (having the ability to both receive the position data and track via doppler...as well as having multiple sats in view)...
And, as the MEOSAR's become fully immersed into the system and fully deployed/operational...we will all be better off...

And, yes....I was aware of their progress....but didn't want to hype / over-promise these capabilities until they're 100% operational...(I suspect you and I differ in that opinion / tactic....and there is NO problem with that...at least from my mind, there is no issue with differing points of view..)



But, none of this has anything to do with making sure that my fellow sailors know the "hows" and "whys" of registering their EPIRB's, nor getting them to better understand how the system works....which was the topic of this thread and was my point of steering them to some further info...

My apologies for interfering in your thread....


Fair winds

John

P.S. Hesitant to mention....but, just an fyi....of course COSPAS-SARSAT (as well as INMARSAT, Iridium, etc.) have figured their link budgets correctly....(I used to do this for a living)...and I never meant to imply otherwise!!! I was just pointing out that while the new MEOSAR's will improve things, the fact is EPIRB users will still need to know how to use them!!
{and was also trying to point out that they have actually calculated into their link budgets increases in terrestrial-based noise...but both INMARSAT/Iridium and COSPAS-SARSAT, etc. have been surprised by this increase over the past 5 - 10 years....btw, I've quasi-consulted (non-paid) with the USAF Space Aggressor Squadron on this...so, it is an issue I've been personally involved in for years now...}

Again, my apologies if I offended you or anyone here....and I will unsubscribe...
Take care and fair winds.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

I did one online, paid the $70 and then did the second one. I tried to pay and started getting the message about being shutdown. This was the afternoon of the 3rd. I am not a fan of the FCC website. It shouldn't have taken me so long. Bad timing for the shutdown, but I'm sure others have larger problems than I'm experiencing.

Quoting myself just to update: I was able to pay the $220 and a day or two later get my MMSI number. So it appears they are getting caught up and back to normal, that is until the next shutdown which could be right around the corner.

[joehersey]

Originally Posted by Tugwit

...Following my initial post, I sorted my small sample by MMSI number and discovered that all MMSI below (approximately) 367360000 failed to appear in the ITU database while those above that number consistently do appear. This suggests to me that the FCC was not forwarding MMSI to the ITU for quite some time, and has apparently remedied this practice for more recently-issued MMSI.

The six MMSI in my sample that did not appear in the ITU database range from (approximately) 367050000 to (approximately) 367360000. I again checked each one in the FCC database, and ALL of the MMSI had responded "YES" to the question "Does your vessel travel to foreign ports?".

(One answered "no" to the second question, "Does ship communicate with foreign coast stations?", but the remainder answered this "yes", as well. And the license of another of the sample expired in 2018 and was apparently not renewed while the remainder are "active".)

This is perhaps unsurprising--all the vessels in my sample sail in Puget Sound and likely regularly visit Canada.

Personally, I was issued an RT Operator Permit and Station License in 1978 when my call sign was assigned, and I have renewed the license when necessary ever since. My MMSI was assigned around 2005 when I installed my first VHF/DSC radio. (And yes, a GPS has always been connected and working ;-)

I'm sure that all of us with FCC-issued MMSI expect that their vessel record be available to foreign SAR through the MARS database, and I'm sure we would all be grateful for your efforts to help remedy the situation. Meanwhile, I'm hoping for a response to my inquiry when the FCC resumes regular operations.

Thanks again, Joe.

This topic was raised at today's USCG/FCC Meeting, which pretty much confirmed all that you said. FCC told us they don't believe they can easily batch together those older pre-367360000 MMSIs to send them to ITU (but will confirm that after talking to ITU and get back to us).

FCC also confirmed that only MMSIs from NEW license applications or MODIFIED applications indicating YES on visiting foreign ports will go to ITU. MMSIs from RENEWED licenses will NOT go to ITU (HINT: If your license is up for renewal and you want MMSI data to go to ITU's database, then MODIFY, don't RENEW the license. For example, change "St." to "Street" in the address. The cost is the same at renewal time).

FCC did say they would transfer your MMSI registration information to ITU upon request. If you wish to do that, email their maritime guy Ghassan Khalek at ghassan.khalek(at)fcc.gov. Ghassan gave me permission to give out his address.

By the way, if you are a recreational boater and do not visit foreign ports, you can transfer your FCC-assigned MMSI and to BOAT US, and avoid the FCC license renewal fee.

Hope that's helpful.

-joehersey

[Tugwit]

Thanks, Joe, this news is certainly helpful.

Regarding the FCC not forwarding license renewal data to the ITU--the question is, I suppose, how long does the ITU maintains vessel records in the international MARS database? I imagine that each submitting jurisdiction (country) may have different license renewal (MMSI expiration) periods, and it may be ITU practice to simply retain records regardless of whether or not they're renewed--until some change is processed for a particular MMSI.

Indeed, if there are no changes and a license is merely renewed, there is no compelling reason for the FCC to submit an update--provided the ITU does not purge records of a certain age. I'll see if ITU can provide some information on their record-retention policy.

I did get in touch with Mr. Khalek by e-mail and was successful in getting my FCC-issued MMSI recorded in the ITU MARS database. Perhaps I'll sleep less fitfully the next time I'm working my way down the Mexican coast.

Joe, do you happen to know if the "missing MMSI" that have not been forwarded to the ITU represent only pleasure boats, or may include commercial fishing boats or other commercial/merchant craft?

[joehersey]

I believe ITU is also notified when a license is cancelled or expires, or at least ITU is supposed to be notified. That is another good question. ITU should keep the data they receive indefinitely, until notified by the Administration (FCC) that the license has been withdrawn. I don't believe there are any age-purging going on at ITU.

FCC initially routinely provided ITU MMSIs of all licensed vessels traveling to foreign ports, but apparently at some point for some reason stopped doing so. I have to believe all types of vessels were similarly affected, not just boaters, though its possible those marked YES to compulsory were only notified (also worth checking). Without knowing why the FCC stop notifying ITU its hard to know who was affected and who was not.

It may be another 4-6 months before we meet with them again, but hopefully will learn more then too.

[Tugwit]

Originally Posted by joehersey

I believe ITU is also notified when a license is cancelled or expires, or at least ITU is supposed to be notified. That is another good question. ITU should keep the data they receive indefinitely, until notified by the Administration (FCC) that the license has been withdrawn. I don't believe there are any age-purging going on at ITU....
.

Joe-

I did manage to get in touch with a representative of the ITU, and you are correct--he confirmed that the ITU retains MARS ship records indefinitely, unless or until a National Authority (such as the FCC) submits an amendment pertaining to a specific MARS record (e.g. expiration, change in vessel particulars, etc.)

As a result, once an FCC-issued MMSI is recorded in MARS, it will remain there, even after a simple renewal of the license when the FCC does not forward anything to the ITU. So it is unnecessary (and probably unhelpful) to make a "cosmetic change" to vessel particulars in order to "prompt" the FCC to submit an amendment to the ITU in order to "refresh" a MARS record. After a simple renewal, the original MARS record will remain in the database for use by International SAR authorities as needed.

If, however, a vessel owner allows their license to expire, the FCC may submit an amendment to the ITU that may result in the removal of the MARS record. So keep your license up-to-date and renew it before it expires! That's just common sense.

[joehersey]

Originally Posted by Tugwit

... So it is unnecessary (and probably unhelpful) to make a "cosmetic change" to vessel particulars in order to "prompt" the FCC to submit an amendment to the ITU in order to "refresh" a MARS record. After a simple renewal, the original MARS record will remain in the database for use by International SAR authorities as needed...

Absolutely true. However it seems the FCC lapsed sending in an original record to the ITU for several years. While that lapse has now been corrected, it won't correct the problem for those who obtained licenses during that lapse.

In those cases, where the ITU never received the MMSI record, the only way to get it there is to send Mr Khalek and email and request it be sent in, or to Modify and Renew the license at renewal time rather than simply renew. Modifying the license will get the MMSI submitted to the ITU in those cases where the ITU never received the original record.