I am a final year Deck Cadet studying at the University of Plymouth. I am undertaking the daunting task of creating a Dissertation, entitled The Use of VHF and AIS as aids to Collision Avoidance.
Whilst there are countless reports of collisions occurring as a direct result of the miss use of VHF and/or AIS, and various legislation warning of the risks involved, both are still integral parts of the navigational bridge.
The purpose of my study is to explore the opinions and experiences, to gain a consensus on the use of VHF and AIS as aids to Collision Avoidance. Therefore, I am happy to invited you to participate in the following questionnaire; as Navigational Officers, be that newly qualified, with many years of experience, or retired, your practical knowledge and understanding is very valuable to the validity and success of my study.
There are no right or wrong answers and completion only takes 5 - 10 minutes. Confidentiality is guaranteed, with no names required. The completion of the questionnaire is entirely voluntary and you are free to withdraw from it at any time.
Your participation would enable me to compile a successful Dissertation and I would be truly thankful!
Further to this, if anybody knows of any relevant documentation, MAIB reports for example or other similar studies, I would be very interested to read them!
If you have any questions about my questionnaire or study, I am more than happy to answer them.
Thank you so much for your post ‘z-drive’ ( I know there is a ‘Thank’ tool but i can’t seem to see it! - if you know the answer to that too that would be great! ).
I have had a quick look at the Tanker Tromedy and already noted some very interesting points… I found this particularly interesting:
‘‘In 1986 the USA passed the Bridge to Bridge Act which requires all sizable vessels in US Effective Economic Zone which extends up to 200 miles from the American coast to have common VHF equipment, maintain radio watch on a common frequency, have a rudimentary English capability, and to communicate in any situation where a collision is possible and agree on a coordinated maneuver. There have been no tanker Rules screw-up collisions in American waters since then.’’
I will definitely be taking a closer look at this book!
Each item on the bridge is a tool. Use each tool for what it is intended for. Nothing substitute’s looking out the window and steering the ship according to the situation at hand. Call me Simple Simon.
Read the IMO document on AIS it lists everything thats wrong with it and hence they say cant be used as a collision avoidance tool but someday might be??
Hopefully your instructors taught you the situations in current where AIS gives you the wrong data as its based on speed over the ground
[QUOTE=yacht_sailor;124238]Well if you go behind the tug you see on AIS, you just might want to figure out how far back the tow is or you end up tacking. Not that I did that…:o[/QUOTE]
I dont get why certain parts of the industry are trying to make it a tool that is clearly isnt - hence what the IMO say in that document
Why has the opinion changed ( for some) from when it was first released and yet the capability of it hasnt changed?
The MAIB has an AIS assisted accident listed quite a few years ago, that was used by my instructors when I did my naras/arpa a few years ago.
It was a ground track versus water track issue and 2 muppets on watch.
So far I have found it great for strategy and not so much for tactics. I was fairly close to several small boats with AIS that were changing course frequently. The time lag had them crossing ahead on the plotter and behind in realitiy or vice versa. OTOH seeing a car carrier downbound for the Bay Bridge 10-20 minutes before they get around Sandy Point into visual range is great
[QUOTE=DredgeBoyThrottleJocky;124402]Ok, I’ve been drinking all day and still can’t figure out What the hell is a “water track?”[/QUOTE]
your motoring at 6kts in 6kts of current so stationary with the ground but your have a water track yes and thats what the rules are based on arent they…underway and making way and all that…
If memory serves, this was more an ARPA/MARPA issue where the radar was suppoed to have a knotmeter input as well as fluxgate input and one ship was set up like that and one was not. AIS is all SOG/COG for everyone from the GPS.
[QUOTE=yacht_sailor;124421]If memory serves, this was more an ARPA/MARPA issue where the radar was suppoed to have a knotmeter ( its IMO requirement they do) input as well as fluxgate input and one ship was set up like that and one was not. AIS is all SOG/COG for everyone from the GPS.[/QUOTE]
For one AIS shows where a vessel is going, not where the bow is pointed. Slow boats and strong currents could give you a false idea who is port or starboard of who. AFAIK the COLREGS go on off my port or starboard bow, not port or starboard of my COG. That said, I would be a fool to get THAT close without a visual or radar confirmation of who is going where.
