ATB AIS dimensions

Maritime Topics Tugs & Towing
1

Recently, the Coast Guard had apparently contacted my company and demanded that all their tugs display proper dimensions for only the tug on their AIS. Up until this point, every ATB in the fleet had their AIS set to display the dimensions of the married unit, which the boat is with, only in push mode, for 99% of the time expect for supply and fuel runs. This of course is the size of the unit which is received by all other AIS-fed devices, including the plotter on our own vessel and anyone else’s within range, most significantly, opposing traffic.

This has raised two concerns for us: 1) the AIS data feed on our plotter (we run Coastal Explorer) seems to override the program options input, so that now we have a little tiny icon displayed. Prior, it was useful to have the full unit, especially in close quarters maneuvering, anchoring, etc. Though one obviously wouldn’t rely solely on that data alone (nor that of any single navigational device), it proved helpful in any number of situations. 2) Opposing traffic now sees “just a tug” ahead of them, as opposed to the married unit 5 times its length, twice its draft, and 25 times its GRT. Whether or not this affects decisions by that traffic is yet to be proven (ie., whether a ship that might have moved slightly towards their side of the channel will now barrel down the middle as usual), but I’m sure it does in some respect, and regardless doesn’t realistically relate the vessel ahead of them. Both of these to me are safety concerns.

Now, I’m sure the reasoning behind this stems from regulations about manned/unmanned vessles, tugs, barges, etc. But does it make any sense in the real world?

Interestingly enough I was recently scanning Coast Guard Advisory Notice CGAN-2011-045 regarding the dredging off Bergen Pt in NY/NJ and noticed this: “The barges…will be equipped with AIS and programmed to display the correct equipment size and location to AIS receivers.” While not policy, it contradicts their stance towards us and appropriately errs on the side of safety. Fancy that.

Opinions?

2

I just happened to see this post by accident ! aha I will come again!

3

The barges they are referring to in the advisory are the dredge and drilling units in the zone, not the dump scows. The proper size and aspect of these units is a good thing to see on approach. Those rigs are RAM and would benefit greatly from all traffic being aware of their true size and orientation in the zone. We have not been issued any edicts to adjust our AIS sigs regarding tug size only. It makes little sense to display only the tug when the actual unit is 5 times longer and twice as wide.

4

Also realize that most traffic in your area probably knows you are an atb and assumes you are in the notch until proven otherwise. If you are a company like Bouchard or Reinauer everyone knows you are an atb and never leave the notch. Therefore your ais data does not matter to them.

5

I’d say get that in writing from the USCG and then make your AIS programming decisions based on prudent seamanship, which should be as obvious as your actual dimensions.

6

The one issue I believe that could be raised is in the case of “false advertising” your dimensions potentially forcing another vessel to maneuver to avoid a larger unit than is actually coming and thereby creating a difficult situation unnecessarily. I could understand and agree with adjusting your broadcasted dimensions when
running a light tug and then correcting them once pinned up and underway to reflect the unit’s overall length.

7

Whenever I see “…the Coast Guard” I cringe because there are so many parts and one section may decide one thing, tell your company one thing and then in another port, they decide another and tell you something else. I have gotten to the point now, being on the comm’l side, that if they tell me something I make sure it is recorded or request a copy in writing.

On this issue specifically, I think someone got lazy and did not update their AIS and the USCG noticed it. From reading your post, I think you would naturally err on the side of caution and I would do the same especially since if I was meeting you, I would want your overall size not the size of just the tug.

The director of the VTS in NYC is a close friend. I will ask his opinion which will be just that, not policy and maybe he will tell me why this is becoming an issue.

Which Coast Guard office contacted your company?

8

As I look at three other tows going by this evening, each of them is not showing the correct voyage info ( date, eta, destination). One even has an arrival on June 3rd to new York. So the updating is not a practical way to depend on for correct status.

What a chickenshit thing to bring up! Some dipshit in a blue suit must be bored, wanting something to get promoted about!

Sorry master chief!

9

[QUOTE=wafinator;56224]Recently, the Coast Guard had apparently contacted my company and demanded that all their tugs display proper dimensions for only the tug on their AIS. Up until this point, every ATB in the fleet had their AIS set to display the dimensions of the married unit, which the boat is with, only in push mode, for 99% of the time expect for supply and fuel runs. This of course is the size of the unit which is received by all other AIS-fed devices, including the plotter on our own vessel and anyone else’s within range, most significantly, opposing traffic.

This has raised two concerns for us: 1) the AIS data feed on our plotter (we run Coastal Explorer) seems to override the program options input, so that now we have a little tiny icon displayed. Prior, it was useful to have the full unit, especially in close quarters maneuvering, anchoring, etc. Though one obviously wouldn’t rely solely on that data alone (nor that of any single navigational device), it proved helpful in any number of situations. 2) Opposing traffic now sees “just a tug” ahead of them, as opposed to the married unit 5 times its length, twice its draft, and 25 times its GRT. Whether or not this affects decisions by that traffic is yet to be proven (ie., whether a ship that might have moved slightly towards their side of the channel will now barrel down the middle as usual), but I’m sure it does in some respect, and regardless doesn’t realistically relate the vessel ahead of them. Both of these to me are safety concerns.

Now, I’m sure the reasoning behind this stems from regulations about manned/unmanned vessles, tugs, barges, etc. But does it make any sense in the real world?

Interestingly enough I was recently scanning Coast Guard Advisory Notice CGAN-2011-045 regarding the dredging off Bergen Pt in NY/NJ and noticed this: “The barges…will be equipped with AIS and programmed to display the correct equipment size and location to AIS receivers.” While not policy, it contradicts their stance towards us and appropriately errs on the side of safety. Fancy that.

Opinions?[/QUOTE]

[B]Check here forquick reference guide on programming your vessels parameters. Pay attention to the formula on where the antenna should be installed. If not installed correctly with that formula, you may be read as “on land a few feet” for example, instead of at the dock. So if your system in installed already, Just out of curiosity, use the formula to see if yours is in correct or as close to as possible. Vessels that are in “close quarters maneuvering” can “read” the other being 15 feet off there actual position, because of misplacement of the antenna. So 15 feet “closer/farther” than you thought, can make or break your day.

If you are running light tug, for example, you don’t want anyone in traffic ‘reading’ you as a tug/tow. Although lighting arrangement’s, radio communications etc. should verify. The “type of ship and cargo” is a numeric code ( IMO SOLAS or 46 U.S.C. 2101 ). For example you are a[B]ctually engaged in towing and length of
[/B]the tow exceeds 200 meters (656 ft) or breadth exceeds 25 meters. The up shot is, you are transmitting that you are a tug, but code better reflects your configuration.

As for vessels that different, or not up to date destinations for example, Doug is right. “AIS programming decisions based on prudent seamanship…” you got it, not everyone will participate in taking time to keep [I]everything[/I] up until it is [I]mandated[/I]. After all, if the captain/crew/company care, it reflects.

As far as “[/B]1) the AIS data feed on our plotter… seems to override the program options input, so that now we have a little tiny icon displayed[B]”. Research that with the manufacturer, they can help you, if it’s a new problem to them, they should know about it.[/B]

[U]Capt. Schmitt[/U]“Also realize that most traffic in your area probably knows you are an atb and assumes you are in the notch until proven otherwise. If you are a company like Bouchard or Reinauer everyone knows you are an atb and never leave the notch. Therefore your ais data does not matter to them.”

[B]I do not agree at all, “most” and “probably” are evil adjectives for assumptions, and you should never speak for anyone on which data [I]matters[/I].[/B]

10

I see your point nauticart but I maneuver by eye, not ais picture on my computer and regardless of what picture my computer shows if I see the Stephen Reinauer coming at me I assume they are pinned in the notch until I visually see otherwise.

11

Yeah I got ya Capt.Schmitt, I wasn’t dogging you, I guess I should typed that in a more “positive” manner, I’m tired. But all in all it is only an [I]aid[/I].

12

But they’re still non-self-propelled equipment, I was just pointing out the contradictions if the reasoning for our edict has something to do with the barge. I wholeheartedly agree, its a damn good thing to see. When the Dredge New York was at the top of the Con Hook range for awhile they only displayed the default symbol and usually had a dump scow alongside too.

[QUOTE=BMCSRetired;56288]
Which Coast Guard office contacted your company?[/QUOTE]
Honestly don’t know. We just received a message from the office regarding them having been contacted by the Coast Guard about AIS dimensions. They didn’t specify as to who or which division within the CG it was. I’d be interested to know too. I’d imagine VTS-NY most likely? Would be great to hear opinions from within VTS about this (and a number of things). I’ve always have been meaning to visit their facilities too and see it from their end, I hear its pretty neat. But going home on crew change day takes extreme precedence over chatting with the coasties.

Certainly a good read for anyone with an AIS . Or exact antenna position is inputted correctly, which is usually pretty easy to verify alongside a dock, on a range, etc, (unless the plotter or electronic chart is off, in which case you’re screwed either way, another topic entirely), but believe me, I’m not about trust the thing to be within 15 feet of accuracy even if it is. Like Capt. Schmitt points out, maneuvering is done by eye and feel, but what I was getting at is that its just nice to have a graphical reference of the entire unit in front of you, in addition to what you’re seeing and what info the deckhand is relaying to you; turning around in the Schuylkill River with 30’ to spare and a single screw assist, I’m not about to rely on an AIS symbol.

First thing I did, still awaiting their reply. It’s not a problem with the software per se, but it’d be nice to change without having to change the broadcasted data and therefore remain in compliance with this edict while still seeing the proper unit on our screens. It does make sense to have the AIS input override user program inputs so that you see what you’re broadcasting. I imagine the program input option is there if you have just a standard GPS feed hooked to it w/o AIS, in which case the program needs you to enter separate info to display anything. Not the case when fed by the AIS.

Anyhow, appreciate all the input, fellas. Seems like we’re the exception. I imagine it will be changed back in the near future…

13

Anyone else heard/gotten this message? Curious to know if its from any other mso/mio.

14

[QUOTE=NAUTICART;56298]

“most” and “probably” are evil adjectives for assumptions, and you should never speak for anyone on which data [I]matters[/I].[/B][/INDENT][/QUOTE]

This is a good point. There is a decision making model that uses the concept of a “mismatch” Say you’re landing your vessel on nice day, high slack, no wind, experienced crew. You have three sources of information:

A. Your own senses, what you can see, hear from the wheel house
B. What the mate on the bow is telling you via radio
C. What your electronics is telling you.

So you’re coming in nice, good angle, you’re senses tell you your 50 feet off and down to 4 kts, the mate calls and tell you you’re 50 feet off and coming in slow, you glance down at the gps and it shows 3.8 kts. No mismatch in this case.

Now say the gps is reading 18 kts. You have a mismatch between A and C, no big deal, you don’t need the electronics in this case. You can resolve it later. However if you have a mismatch between A and B that is a bigger deal that needs to be resolved on the fly.

The argument that there is no need to resolve mismatches that involve C because using A and B information is more prudent misses a point. Not every landing is on nice day etc. The day may come when you need C. Or you may have a small A- B mismatch that can be quickly resolved with C.

Say your coming in, the tides running fast, it windy, raining and dark. The chief calls up and he is losing lube oil pressure on the main engine you have 45 more seconds before you damage the engine. You call the mate and tell him you want a head line first then a stern line instead of a spring. Now you’ve lost B and A is for shit…Now you’re going to wish you’d resolved the gps speed data problem on that nice sunny day.

K.C.

15

[QUOTE=cappy208;56292]As I look at three other tows going by this evening, each of them is not showing the correct voyage info ( date, eta, destination). One even has an arrival on June 3rd to new York. So the updating is not a practical way to depend on for correct status.

What a chickenshit thing to bring up! Some dipshit in a blue suit must be bored, wanting something to get promoted about!

Sorry master chief![/QUOTE]

I understand your frustration…

16

…They didn’t specify as to who or which division within the CG it was. I’d be interested to know too. I’d imagine VTS-NY most likely? Would be great to hear opinions from within VTS about this (and a number of things). I’ve always have been meaning to visit their facilities too and see it from their end, I hear its pretty neat. But going home on crew change day takes extreme precedence over chatting with the coasties…"

I know crew change is important, believe, however, while I was in I MADE time to visit pilots, Tug Captains (as Cappy 208 can attest to) and made my subordinates come with in some cases because I think you can do a better job when you understand as much as you can about EVERYTHING out there. While I am no means an expert, I can say that I have seen a lot so I can put myself on someone else’s bridge. If you do decide to get to VTS New York, let me know, I can open some doors for you.

I would be surprised if it was VTS New York telling your company to reprogram your AIS. My experience there tells me it would have been (in my case) switching you to another channel to discuss it. It was very rare we would task units/customers to do things unless they were running blatantly illegal.

17

I was referring to maneuvering distances based on visual observation as opposed to where your plotter says your bow is. I was not saying anything about gps data, especially speed data. The correctness of the gps is not the topic of this thread. The topic is the correctness of the size of your little boat icon on the plotter screen.

18

[QUOTE=Capt. Schmitt;56360] The correctness of the gps is not the topic of this thread. The topic is the correctness of the size of your little boat icon on the plotter screen.[/QUOTE]

Yes, you are correct but more broadly we are talking about situational awareness.

NAUTICART’s point was that we should be putting out good information via AIS if possible because we don’t know how it is going to be used. If we are putting out incorrect information it is possible we might create a mismatch on another vessel seeking to verify information. A mismatch which will require resources to be resolved.

Another way to think about it is the old “for want of a nail” story.

K.C.

19

This morning I tried to go into the set up and change the dimensions. what a PITA!

FURUNO if you are reading… Why not have the ability to have a dimension 1 selection and a dimension 2 selection for us vessels that tow in two modes (or in my case, with a 430’ barge, or just my 125’ tug?

This seems to be a growing problem, especially with the advances in technology and the reduction in conventional towing vessels.

20

A good suggestion but FWIW, FurunoUSA in MD. is deaf to updates and upgrades to software changes without receiving $ for any proprietary programs. We wanted to get them to fix a couple of chart display issues in the MaxSea7 program only to be ignored. If you want a better system, write out and post a card with the process and get used to doing it. I still have to remind myself to update AIS status from time to time. It’s just one more thing to add to the voyage planning phase. Take a minute and update your status and save others the trouble of determining if you’re broadcasting a proper dimension, status and config.
P.S.; A major PITA regarding Furuno’s MaxSea program is that it won’t allow the use of the NOAA ENC catalog, only the RNC catalog is compatible. Furuno wants you to buy their ENC’s for the plotter, of course they only update that catalog every 6 months or so, not very practical IMHO. The ability to download and use the NOAA RNC catalog is its saving grace.