Who uses AIS?

Originally Posted by michael pierzga

It is just a tool..a good tool Dont underestimate how difficult it is ,even for an experienced operator, to tune a radar to see thru wet sails, 2 or 3 meter waves and rain squalls. Many times, inshore, the radar ,and we only carry one radar, is optimised on range and tune to sweep very close, 2 to 4 miles, to seek and avoid small inshore fishing craft, rubber ribs, longline buoys..... easy to miss the obvious coming over the horizon at 18 knots. Another good feature of AIS is VTS protocol. I remember this summer listening in on the Rio Rio traffic controler as he struggled to voice communcate with an Albanian tanker to alert of shipping movement ahead. . ... Nice tool. Id suspect commercial guys would prefer that yachts not carry them or else in a few years the AIS system will become so overcrowded with targets that your eyes go cross. Imagine what the AIS display ,when approaching the Kiel Canal ,would like like during Kieler week ?

You can rest assured I do not underestimate it!

I run my vessels with all the commercial stuff available. Because I come from the commercial side of shipping. (although I am building yachts)
And as I said, you would be better informed about our comments and experience if you would read a thread before you contribute!

I am one of the "commercial guys" who does not like transponders on small craft (yachts), that is just counterproductive in terms of safety at sea!

The nightmare you describe in your last sentence is already reality.

Experienced operators have no difficulty to tune radars. Who said that?

Regards
Richard

[dskira]

Since I was edited, this is my post again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by fairbank56
Turns out that this is a brand new ship on it's way to it's commissioning ceremony in Florida next month. The error was probably done by installers at Bath Iron Works Shipyard in Maine and nobody has caught the error yet.
Eric

Thank you for your explanation. I was afraid it was a Navy error.
But you right, the janitor at BIW made it all wrong, and 2 thousand electronics engineers from the Navy are absolutely right.
DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dskira]

It was not intended to glorify the Navy, nor I find courteous to put the blame on a shipyard by a bystander.
I don't like "probably" when the real meaning is: I have no fu*&^% clue!
Daniel

[michael pierzga]

Im just an armature, but according to my knowledge military ships are not required to use AIS.

[fairbank56]

Originally Posted by dskira

It was not intended to glorify the Navy, nor I find courteous to put the blame on a shipyard by a bystander.
I don't like "probably" when the real meaning is: I have no fu*&^% clue!
Daniel

As a civilian Department of the Navy marine electronics technician with 35 years of experience, I DO have a clue. Shipboard Navy personnel do not install nor program ship static data into their AIS equipment. While it is possible that someone could get into the initial static data setup menu and change the first number of the MMSI, it is highly unlikely that this is what happened, and I'm very confident that the error was done by the civilian contractors that did the install and programming.

As far as AIS on Navy ships, in his fiscal year 2006 Global War On Terror Implementation Guidance Memorandum (July 2005), the chief of naval operations (CNO) directed OPNAV [Operational Navy] N6/N7 Warfare Requirements and Programs, in coordination with Fleet Forces Command and OPNAV N8 Warfare Assessments, to develop a plan to procure and install AIS systems for all surface ships by the end of fiscal 2006. AIS is not required on Navy ships by IMO but they do use it. It is the captains discretion as to when and where to use it. The AIS equipment on Navy ships has a secure cloak mode that only other Navy ships with the same equipment can decode.

Eric

[dskira]

Originally Posted by fairbank56

As a civilian Department of the Navy marine electronics technician with 35 years of experience, I DO have a clue. Shipboard Navy personnel do not install nor program ship static data into their AIS equipment. While it is possible that someone could get into the initial static data setup menu and change the first number of the MMSI, it is highly unlikely that this is what happened, and I'm very confident that the error was done by the civilian contractors that did the install and programming.

As far as AIS on Navy ships, in his fiscal year 2006 Global War On Terror Implementation Guidance Memorandum (July 2005), the chief of naval operations (CNO) directed OPNAV [Operational Navy] N6/N7 Warfare Requirements and Programs, in coordination with Fleet Forces Command and OPNAV N8 Warfare Assessments, to develop a plan to procure and install AIS systems for all surface ships by the end of fiscal 2006. AIS is not required on Navy ships by IMO but they do use it. It is the captains discretion as to when and where to use it. The AIS equipment on Navy ships has a secure cloak mode that only other Navy ships with the same equipment can decode.

Eric

My apologies, you know what you are talking.
I am just a little ancy about constant attack on Bath Iron Work, which became the usual suspect or the scapegoat for the screw up of the Navy.
I live not far from it, we had SNAME metting there, and it is a superb operation with a long history of shipbuilding, military and civilian. 5000 people works there.
I think it belongs to General Electric who bought it fifteen years ago.
Daniel

[CatBuilder]

Originally Posted by dskira

My apologies, you know what you are talking.
I am just a little ancy about constant attack on Bath Iron Work, which became the usual suspect or the scapegoat for the screw up of the Navy.
I live not far from it, we had SNAME metting there, and it is a superb operation with a long history of shipbuilding, military and civilian. 5000 people works there.
I think it belongs to General Electric who bought it fifteen years ago.
Daniel

Bath Iron Works is an important part of Maine's economy in that area. As Daniel says, they have a long history and it's a great operation. I agree!

[Stumble]

Richard,

Since I am in the process of evaluating if I should install an AIS transponder on a yacht, I was wondering what size/tonnage you would consider reasonable to install one on? The question is in regards to a 65' power yacht operating mostly on the Gulf Coast of the US in waters frequently busy with the same size shrimp trawls and other smaller commercial boats.

Originally Posted by Stumble

Richard,

Since I am in the process of evaluating if I should install an AIS transponder on a yacht, I was wondering what size/tonnage you would consider reasonable to install one on? The question is in regards to a 65' power yacht operating mostly on the Gulf Coast of the US in waters frequents busy with the same size shrimp trawls and other smaller commercial boats.

You bring me in a dichotomy between giving you the best advice I can, and my preconcption about Professional equipment in the hand of amateurs......

In such busy areas it is of course a safety issue having a AIS transponder, no doubt. And I know you are not the "Joe sixpack" type of boater who would assume being safe, just because everyone now can see him.
So why not (with a sigh). In the end it can make your day safer.

I would not restrict the use on size, but license. A skipper with proper licenses is more aware of the situation and willing to switch such devices off, when running in bright sunshine, not spoiling the area with unnecessary info.
But that is just my opinion.

If you order one of my Passagemakers, you´ll get a class A Furuno AIS in a fully integrated bridge system as standard! yeah.....class A!


Regards
Richard