AIS
 

Had my first look at an active AIS system today. I can see this becoming
a very useful tool, especially for the offshore cruisers and
single-handed sailors.
All it would need would be a simple receiver that was connected to your
GPS for inputs, to be able to compare and give warnings of potential and
positive close approaches from ships in your area.
The system I saw, gave ship name, position, heading, speed,
draft,destination, and ETA .... there may have been more, but it was
only a quick look.

otn

AIS
 

otnmbrd wrote:

Had my first look at an active AIS system today. I can see this becoming
a very useful tool, especially for the offshore cruisers and
single-handed sailors.


It became a requirement for all commercial vessels on the St. Seaway/Great Lakes
last year. I thought it was kind of a waste of money to install it on the ferry
I ride twice a day, there's a cable ferry not too far from my home (five miles),
they have to install one, the boat holds three cars (small ones at that) and plies
a course of about 300 metres!

Whoever makes these systems is probably fairly happy with the Canadian Government.

Cheers
Marty

AIS
 

Martin Baxter wrote:
otnmbrd wrote:

Had my first look at an active AIS system today. I can see this becoming
a very useful tool, especially for the offshore cruisers and
single-handed sailors.



It became a requirement for all commercial vessels on the St. Seaway/Great Lakes
last year. I thought it was kind of a waste of money to install it on the ferry
I ride twice a day, there's a cable ferry not too far from my home (five miles),
they have to install one, the boat holds three cars (small ones at that) and plies
a course of about 300 metres!

Whoever makes these systems is probably fairly happy with the Canadian Government.

Cheers
Marty


This is an IMO requirement, in the main. Possibly, individual
governments are opting for early implementing of some aspects and I
believe I'm hearing of some concerns regarding cost and need for the
system on some vessels, such as the one you mention.
When it's totally up and running and the cost come down, although I
think it will still be too costly for the average boater, at least they
should have the ability to have a receiver to make use of the info
available.

otn

AIS
 

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
link.net...




This is an IMO requirement, in the main.

Aren't all IMO requirements "in the main"?



Regards


Donal
--

AIS
 

Donal wrote:
"otnmbrd" wrote in message
link.net...



This is an IMO requirement, in the main.


Aren't all IMO requirements "in the main"?

Yes .... and no. The IMO is still a developing body.
The point is, that this is not just a Canadian Gov. issue. Different
"Port States" will tend to argue over various points of implementation
which can and will cause some delays in total implementation, and/or
might change the final way that some vessels may be required or not
required to comply.
Although many of the requirements are in place and equipment is
installed, I don't think we've heard the last as to how this will work
for everyone.
otn

AIS
 

Donal wrote:

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
link.net...



This is an IMO requirement, in the main.


Aren't all IMO requirements "in the main"?


Usually "Upon", unless of course you are "in" a submerged
submarine. ;-)

Cheers
Marty

AIS
 

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
Donal wrote:

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
link.net...



This is an IMO requirement, in the main.


Aren't all IMO requirements "in the main"?


Usually "Upon", unless of course you are "in" a submerged
submarine. ;-)

I stand corrected!


I'm also relieved by the fact that somebody understands the nonsense that I
write.



Regards


Donal
--

AIS
 

Subject: AIS
From: "Donal"
Date: 01/22/2004 14:39 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
Donal wrote:

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
link.net...



This is an IMO requirement, in the main.


Aren't all IMO requirements "in the main"?


Usually "Upon", unless of course you are "in" a submerged
submarine. ;-)

I stand corrected!


I'm also relieved by the fact that somebody understands the nonsense that I
write.



Regards


Donal
--

I refrained from commenting on your post in the "AND" thread, since most of
what you wrote was nonsense.
Now we realize, you really are just another Neal, and most anything you post,
is nonsense.
Thanks, saves wasted future post.

Shen

AIS
 

Donal wrote:



I'm also relieved by the fact that somebody understands the nonsense that I
write.


Some of us actuall read something other than magazines that
review cars, stereos, cameras and anything from J D Powers!

Cheers
Marty

AIS
 

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
hlink.net...


Donal wrote:
"otnmbrd" wrote in message
link.net...



This is an IMO requirement, in the main.


Aren't all IMO requirements "in the main"?

Yes .... and no. The IMO is still a developing body.
The point is, that this is not just a Canadian Gov. issue. Different
"Port States" will tend to argue over various points of implementation
which can and will cause some delays in total implementation, and/or
might change the final way that some vessels may be required or not
required to comply.

[cough cough]
Sorry to interrupt .... but ... "main" means "sea".

"Aren't all IMO requirements "in the main"?" was meant to be a *joke*.


Think about it, "main"="sea"..... Geddit?

No, I thought not.

I give up.... I'm obviously ****ing straight into the wind. There is
absolutely no point whatsoever in posting here. My talents are completely
wasted. None of you understand a bloody word that I write.


What's the point, eh?


Although many of the requirements are in place and equipment is
installed, I don't think we've heard the last as to how this will work
for everyone.


I know,..... I know. [sigh].

Perhaps I can help. In about 4 years, NMEA compatible receivers will be
available for about $100. 4 years after that, the transcievers will only
cost $100.


Regards


Donal
--