One thing you guys could do to help avoid other ships would be VHF Securite calls broadcasting your position.
[QUOTE=rob;153114]DrSAR, just an fyi, the folks on the gCaptain forum, especially c.captain, don’t sugar-coat anything. Be prepared for a very honest response no matter what it is. [/QUOTE]
not sure what prompted you to write this post Rob but I take it as a nice compliment…thanks
-
-
- Updated - - -
-
[QUOTE=cali deckie;153142]One thing you guys could do to help avoid other ships would be VHF Securite calls broadcasting your position.[/QUOTE]
especially useful if there is a person on the vessel making said securite broadcasts
[QUOTE=c.captain;153154]especially useful if there is a person on the vessel making said securite broadcasts[/QUOTE]
I’m sure they could do something automated for this. Obviously if every ship was running like this the securite calls would be useless. Saving jobs here man roll with it
rob - thanks for the warning, no offense taken (so far). I see where many (and especially CCaptain) are coming from. You ask about the overall goal of it. In the larger sense, quite a few around here argue that there is none. In the narrower sense: The objective is to get an autonomous, wind-powered vessel across the Atlantic either Right to Left (http://www.microtransat.org/tracking/eastwest.html) or the other way (http://www.microtransat.org/tracking/westeast.html). Start and Finish lines are quite a ways off-shore but race entrants are not required to stay offshore before and after the race.
Coming back to the previously raised point that the boat have a self-destruct mechanism should the algorithm determine a beyond-hairy situation: I will float the idea that the team consider pulling the plug should the boat make it to the (off-shore) finish line. It might be emotionally tricky for the team but it would remove the possibility of hitting someone when approaching more densely travelled areas.
ccaptain: 25 grand a day? Easy. They’ll just do another bake sale and then we’ll see for how long they can hire you. Although, crawling across the Atlantic at a pace of 1 to 2 knots with a few erratic tacks thrown in (collision avoidance getting false positive off of wave crests 
) might get your crew to mutiny quite quickly. But the offer is appreciated nevertheless 
On a different note: unless you are talking Jaws I’m not sure what Sesame Street has got to do with it?!
cali deckie: In understand you are joking but who listens to VHF in the middle of the ocean? Radio transmission for that long is out of the question for power reasons I imagine.
[QUOTE=DrSAR;153169]cali deckie: In understand you are joking but who listens to VHF in the middle of the ocean? Radio transmission for that long is out of the question for power reasons I imagine.[/QUOTE]
I’m not a deckie, but I imagine hearing somebody come on the radio is a lot more attention-grabbing in the middle of the Atlantic than at Gibraltar! If you had the power, I think it would be invaluable for vessels in the area to have a complete explanation of what the potential hazard is so they have more information about its maneuvering intentions.
I’m interested in the project and believe that in principle it’s a great exercise in programming and machine autonomy, but I do find it unacceptable to send out an unescorted vessel which is unable to maintain a lookout, unable to make bridge-to-bridge contact, unable to verify the operation of running lights, and unable to render assistance if it does cause damage or injury. One particular point that may cause confusion is that sailing vessels take precedence even over aircraft carriers, according to the COLREGS. If the programming is to be timid, conscientious mariners attempting to give way to it may wind up waiting on a drone that will wait 'til the sun burns out. If the programming is to be bold, that aircraft carrier may invoke the law of tonnage and have a picket ship end your experiment for you. I wish you luck, in any case.
Also, be aware of [I]46 U.S.C. § 2302 - Penalties for negligent operations and interfering with safe operation[/I]
He wasn’t joking. We all listen to VHF in the middle of the ocean. It’s how we communicate - used to make passing arrangements when the rules can’t (i.e. three or more vessels), to request help (mayday) or to warn of hazards (an unmanned boat). All vessels of all countries use the same frequency and officially speak in some form of English. Generally the operator is a radio operator licensed by the country of registry.
[QUOTE=DrSAR;153169]Coming back to the previously raised point that the boat have a self-destruct mechanism should the algorithm determine a beyond-hairy situation: I will float the idea that the team consider pulling the plug should the boat make it to the (off-shore) finish line. It might be emotionally tricky for the team but it would remove the possibility of hitting someone when approaching more densely travelled areas.[/QUOTE]
Then you have MARPOL annex V to contend with…
[QUOTE=DrSAR;153098]…I understand this whole projects appears to be bordering on non-compliance with COLREGS. (we can argue from which direction)[/QUOTE]
Assuming there were a collision with substantial damage, what defense would you offer as to how you were keeping a proper lookout?
[QUOTE=Glaug-Eldare;153171]Also, be aware of [I]46 U.S.C. § 2302 - Penalties for negligent operations and interfering with safe operation[/I][/QUOTE]
And also, for civil liability, “The Pennsylvania Rule.”
[QUOTE=DrSAR;153169]cali deckie: In understand you are joking but who listens to VHF in the middle of the ocean? Radio transmission for that long is out of the question for power reasons I imagine.[/QUOTE]
Not a joke every vessel is required to monitor channel 16. Didnt you say you were from the navy academy? Even you guys should know that. also do not broadcast from 15 to 18 and 45 to 48 after the hour every hour because that is dedicated time for real emergencies. VHF range is just about to the horizion so its decent range for 25 watts and you would only do it twice an hour maybe.
I read this article last year, Rolls Royce is toying with unmanned drone merchant ships, to be controlled by a captain shore side in a control station, but, at least they will be somewhat controlled, they wont be uncontrolled objects zooming across the oceans intent on ramming someone or something. I’m glad I’m nearing retirement age.
[QUOTE=chefedemaquina;153209]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-02-25/rolls-royce-drone-ships-challenge-375-billion-industry-freight
I read this article last year, Rolls Royce is toying with unmanned drone merchant ships, to be controlled by a captain shore side in a control station, but, at least they will be somewhat controlled, they wont be uncontrolled objects zooming across the oceans intent on ramming someone or something. I’m glad I’m nearing retirement age.[/QUOTE]
What a disaster waiting to happen, just from an engineering perspective. A robot is going to have a hard time cleaning sea strainers, testing level switches, changing running lights, overhauling pumps, testing feed water and lube oil, cleaning bilges pre-arrival, &c… It will take some serious money to make PSC accept the arrival of ships that become dilapidated every time they cross an ocean.
Listen to me people…
IF IT IS UNMANNED IT IS NOT A VESSEL PER ANY LEGAL DEFINITION AND NO RULES APPLICABLE TO VESSELS APPLY…ESPECIALLY THE COLREGS!
If it not manned, it is derelict even if somehow being controlled by some onboard computer…FURTHER, IT WOULD BE A MENACE TO NAVIGATION!
I SAY RUN THE FUCKING THINGS DOWN AND BE DONE WITH THIS NONSENSE!
Like it or not this is the wave of the future. There will be unmanned bridges and shoreside navigation sooner then later.
[QUOTE=jdcavo;153184]And also, for civil liability, “The Pennsylvania Rule.”[/QUOTE]
That is some interesting reading! Thanks.
[QUOTE=c.captain;153219]Listen to me people…[SIZE=2]IF IT IS UNMANNED IT IS NOT A VESSEL PER ANY LEGAL DEFINITION…[/SIZE][/QUOTE]
Really? Do you have any authority to support that? As far as I know, no Court has looked at this issue and the legal status of an unmanned “vessel” is still uncertain. Everything I’m aware of that defines or attempts to define “vessel” makes no mention of whether or not it is manned. See1 U.S.C. § 3: [I]The word “vessel” includes every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or [U]capable of being used[/U], as a means of transportation on water.[/I] [emphasis added]
See also, [I]Lozman v. City of Rivera Beach[/I], 568 U.S. ___ (2013); Stewart v. Dutra Constr. Co., 125 S. Ct. 1118 (2005)
It is quite possible an aquatic “robot” or “drone” might be found to not be a vessel. But it appears that determination would be made based on the potential to carry persons and/or cargo, and not as much on whether or not it is manned.
[QUOTE=jdcavo;153246]Really? Do you have any authority to support that? [/QUOTE]
certainly…even a rowboat in the COLREGS is called a human powered craft. All the rules involve human involvement in order to be applied.
as far as USC and CFRs are concerned, tell me where there is one word which refers to unmanned except for a barge undertow by a manned tug
[QUOTE=c.captain;153248]certainly…even a rowboat in the COLREGS is called a human powered craft. All the rules involve human involvement in order to be applied.
as far as USC and CFRs are concerned, tell me where there is one word which refers to unmanned except for a barge undertow by a manned tug[/QUOTE]
You made an authoritative statement (loudly, and with more than a touch of condescension). Can you point to anything that supports it? Can you cite an authority that says something has to be manned to be a vessel, or that an unmanned craft is not a vessel? Not just COLREGS, but maritime law generally. The discussion has not been limited to application of the COLREGs, but liability in general.
c.captain, are you arguing that it’s exempt from the COLREGS and has no obligation to follow any of the rules? That would make a project a lot easier, wouldn’t it!
P.S., if a vessel, this would fit under “sailing vessel under 20m.”
I cannot speak for smaller vessels making ocean passages, but for large merchant vessels AIS with name [unmanned]name would prevent a collision. My CPA tolerance in the middle of the ocean is likely much farther away than you are thinking. I want 2 miles on all craft, although if I knew it was unmanned and fiberglass I would be tolerant of a lot less.