Panama Canal requires AIS in all vessels
Here's some AIS information for anyone thinking of using the Panama Canal I
thought you'd like to know. I'm for AIS on all vessels 100%. It should be expanded and replace the stupid GMDSS/DSC abortions. "PANAMA CANAL NOW REQUIRES AIS NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT The Panama Canal Authority has announced the formal implementation of the Automatic Identification System (AIS). AIS is now required equipment for all vessels transiting the waterway. The new AIS system will alleviate many of the challenges of navigating the Canal because Canal pilots will now be able to better view all traffic transiting through the Canal. It is expected to be particularly valuable in narrow passages and low-visibility situations. In addition, the ACP will be able to improve Canal traffic flow and reduce the length of intervals between transiting ships. The AIS works in real time and transmits data to all AIS-equipped ships or shoreside facilities within VHF radio range, providing Canal authorities with a complete and precise view of all traffic in the Panama Canal. Position and other data are distributed instantaneously from the ship's sensors into the AIS system, where it is formatted and transmitted in a short data burst on a dedicated VHF radio channel. The AIS automatically identifies a ship, type, position, course, speed, navigational status and other safety-related information through new software located onboard and onshore. All ships transiting Canal waters that are over 300 net tons or more than 60-feet in length must now be equipped with an AIS system that meets the standards set by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The Canal implementation of AIS is well ahead of the 2004 IMO deadline. According to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), all vessels will be required to carry AIS systems effective on the date of the first safety equipment survey between July 1, 2004 and December 31, 2004. Between Canal's July 1, 2003 implementation date and the dates required by SOLAS, for those vessels not yet carrying AIS, the Canal will provide portable AIS vessel tracking units for a $150 fee. MM&P Wheelhouse Weekly" -- Larry This jerk called my cellphone and was nasty. Continental Warranty -- MCG Enterprises -- Mepco- 24955 Pacific Coast HWY Suite C303 Malibu California 90265 888-244-0925 Fax: 310-456-8844 Email: Read about them he http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp...3&view=printer |
Larry wrote in :
. All ships transiting Canal waters that are over 300 net tons or more than 60-feet in length must now be equipped with an AIS system that meets the standards set by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). -- Geoff |
"Geoff Schultz" wrote in message 6... Larry wrote in : . All ships transiting Canal waters that are over 300 net tons or more than 60-feet in length must now be equipped with an AIS system that meets the standards set by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). -- Geoff Note: IMO requires DGPS to the AIS, not a WAAS GPS. We have had yacht customers (over 60 feet) equipped with WAAS GPS refused transit of the canal. The AIS reports the type of GPS it is using. Doug K7ABX |
"Doug" wrote in
nk.net: Note: IMO requires DGPS to the AIS, not a WAAS GPS. We have had yacht customers (over 60 feet) equipped with WAAS GPS refused transit of the canal. The AIS reports the type of GPS it is using. Doug K7ABX Wonder why WAAS is refused? Maybe it has something to do with the RF view of the sky in the ditch between the mountains obstructing view of the WAAS birds. -- Larry This jerk called my cellphone and was nasty. Continental Warranty -- MCG Enterprises -- Mepco- 24955 Pacific Coast HWY Suite C303 Malibu California 90265 888-244-0925 Fax: 310-456-8844 Email: Read about them he http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp...3&view=printer |
"Doug" wrote in news:vWcBe.2938$dU3.544
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net: "Geoff Schultz" wrote in message 6... Larry wrote in : . All ships transiting Canal waters that are over 300 net tons or more than 60-feet in length must now be equipped with an AIS system that meets the standards set by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). -- Geoff Note: IMO requires DGPS to the AIS, not a WAAS GPS. We have had yacht customers (over 60 feet) equipped with WAAS GPS refused transit of the canal. The AIS reports the type of GPS it is using. Doug K7ABX What's also interesting is that the closest DGPS signal to Panama comes from Puerto Rico and doesn't make it that far... -- Geoff |
Have you gone through the Canal? If so, explain what mountains you noticed.
I didn't see any mountains, but I did see and experience a "Cut". The cut was a bit narrow, but not for a medium sized sailboat. We spent an overnight in the big lake, caught a few fish, had a great dinner and pressed on the following morning. The canal is not a navigational thing, it is nothing more than mere piloting. That said, I'm aware the transit price has gone up considerably since my transit in the mid "90's". |
"FMac" wrote in
: Have you gone through the Canal? If so, explain what mountains you noticed. I didn't see any mountains, but I did see and experience a "Cut". The cut was a bit narrow, but not for a medium sized sailboat. We spent an overnight in the big lake, caught a few fish, had a great dinner and pressed on the following morning. The canal is not a navigational thing, it is nothing more than mere piloting. That said, I'm aware the transit price has gone up considerably since my transit in the mid "90's". Never been through the canal. My post was from a news item I found on a maritime website. The idea was the canyon it's in may cause poor reception of WAAS satellite correction data. -- Larry This jerk called my cellphone and was nasty. Continental Warranty -- MCG Enterprises -- Mepco- 24955 Pacific Coast HWY Suite C303 Malibu California 90265 888-244-0925 Fax: 310-456-8844 Email: Read about them he http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp...3&view=printer |
"FMac" wrote in
: Have you gone through the Canal? If so, explain what mountains you noticed. I didn't see any mountains, but I did see and experience a "Cut". The cut was a bit narrow, but not for a medium sized sailboat. We spent an overnight in the big lake, caught a few fish, had a great dinner and pressed on the following morning. The canal is not a navigational thing, it is nothing more than mere piloting. That said, I'm aware the transit price has gone up considerably since my transit in the mid "90's". I'm not sure if this was addressed to me, but yes, I have. Here are photos for anyone who's interested. http://www.geoffschultz.org/2002_Sai...nal/index.html -- Geoff |
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:02:44 -0400, Larry wrote:
"FMac" wrote in : Have you gone through the Canal? If so, explain what mountains you noticed. I didn't see any mountains, but I did see and experience a "Cut". The cut was a bit narrow, but not for a medium sized sailboat. We spent an overnight in the big lake, caught a few fish, had a great dinner and pressed on the following morning. The canal is not a navigational thing, it is nothing more than mere piloting. That said, I'm aware the transit price has gone up considerably since my transit in the mid "90's". Never been through the canal. My post was from a news item I found on a maritime website. The idea was the canyon it's in may cause poor reception of WAAS satellite correction data. Ideas are fine but modern science dictates one dismisses ideas and rejects theories that do not apply. In this case the idea that the Gatun Cut causes GPS satellite visibility issues is nonsense and the idea must be rejected and deleted from your knowledge base. The cut is far from a canyon with steep walls. There is plenty of sky for the GPS to see satellites. WAAS has nothing to do with it. Our primitive 1995 vintage Garmin 45 pseudo-tracker multiplexed GPS worked just fine when we went through the Gatun Cut in January of 1998. |
"Anchor" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:02:44 -0400, Larry wrote: "FMac" wrote in : Have you gone through the Canal? If so, explain what mountains you noticed. I didn't see any mountains, but I did see and experience a "Cut". The cut was a bit narrow, but not for a medium sized sailboat. We spent an overnight in the big lake, caught a few fish, had a great dinner and pressed on the following morning. The canal is not a navigational thing, it is nothing more than mere piloting. That said, I'm aware the transit price has gone up considerably since my transit in the mid "90's". Never been through the canal. My post was from a news item I found on a maritime website. The idea was the canyon it's in may cause poor reception of WAAS satellite correction data. Ideas are fine but modern science dictates one dismisses ideas and rejects theories that do not apply. In this case the idea that the Gatun Cut causes GPS satellite visibility issues is nonsense and the idea must be rejected and deleted from your knowledge base. The cut is far from a canyon with steep walls. There is plenty of sky for the GPS to see satellites. WAAS has nothing to do with it. Our primitive 1995 vintage Garmin 45 pseudo-tracker multiplexed GPS worked just fine when we went through the Gatun Cut in January of 1998. You don't have to be in a canyon to have WAAS problems. I live in Nanaimo which is on the East side of Vancouver Island. We have high land to the west and my Garmin GPSMap 182 cannot get a WAAS signal in my marina. It receives GPS satellite signals without trouble but the WAAS satellites are low in the south-west and apparently the hills shadow this signal. Further away from shore I can pick up WAAS signals. |
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:39:51 -0400, Anchor
wrote: In this case the idea that the Gatun Cut causes GPS satellite visibility issues is nonsense and the idea must be rejected and deleted from your knowledge base. The cut is far from a canyon with steep walls. There is plenty of sky for the GPS to see satellites. WAAS has nothing to do with it. Our primitive 1995 vintage Garmin 45 pseudo-tracker multiplexed GPS worked just fine when we went through the Gatun Cut in January of 1998. FWIW The only place we have lost GPS reception was during transiting the Corinth Canal in Greece. Peter |
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 22:11:05 +0000, Gordon Wedman wrote:
"Anchor" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:02:44 -0400, Larry wrote: "FMac" wrote in : Have you gone through the Canal? If so, explain what mountains you noticed. I didn't see any mountains, but I did see and experience a "Cut". The cut was a bit narrow, but not for a medium sized sailboat. We spent an overnight in the big lake, caught a few fish, had a great dinner and pressed on the following morning. The canal is not a navigational thing, it is nothing more than mere piloting. That said, I'm aware the transit price has gone up considerably since my transit in the mid "90's". Never been through the canal. My post was from a news item I found on a maritime website. The idea was the canyon it's in may cause poor reception of WAAS satellite correction data. Ideas are fine but modern science dictates one dismisses ideas and rejects theories that do not apply. In this case the idea that the Gatun Cut causes GPS satellite visibility issues is nonsense and the idea must be rejected and deleted from your knowledge base. The cut is far from a canyon with steep walls. There is plenty of sky for the GPS to see satellites. WAAS has nothing to do with it. Our primitive 1995 vintage Garmin 45 pseudo-tracker multiplexed GPS worked just fine when we went through the Gatun Cut in January of 1998. You don't have to be in a canyon to have WAAS problems. I live in Nanaimo which is on the East side of Vancouver Island. We have high land to the west and my Garmin GPSMap 182 cannot get a WAAS signal in my marina. It receives GPS satellite signals without trouble but the WAAS satellites are low in the south-west and apparently the hills shadow this signal. Further away from shore I can pick up WAAS signals. There seems to be some confusion between WAAS and DGPS. WAAS is on on some GPS satellites, not all. If a GPS can see a WAAS equipped satellite, it has WAAS information for that satellite. Clearly if a satellite, WAAS or non WAAS, is in shadow the GPS cannot use that satellite. A WAAS GPS will need 3 or more WAAS satellites to produce a WAAS fix. Three or more satellites but less than 3 WAAS satellites in view generates an ordinary fix. This has nothing to do with whether or not you are in harbor. Satellites are never in shadow in open water. Define open water for GPS satellite viewing purposes to be "nothing on the horizon". Parts of a vessel may shadow a GPS antenna if the antenna is mounted low and below some large vessel component such as a smoke stack. It is clear geometry. If an eye ball at the GPS antenna position can see the horizon, so can the GPS antenna. Some GPS manufactures refer to a WAAS fix as a differential fix. This is a poor choice of nomenclature because a WAAS fix is a WAAS fix, not a differential DGPS fix. DGPS relies on land based LF transmitters to broadcast differential corrections. Poor reception of these DGPS signals will result in loss of DGPS capability. If your harbour is sheltered from DGPS reception, you will not have DGPS capability in that harbor. If the DGPS signal is receivable by AIS equipped vessel in the Gatun Cut, all DGPS equipped vessel can receive it or there is something wrong with the DGPS installation on board vessels that cannot receive it. |
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 08:43:33 -0400, Anchor
wrote: There seems to be some confusion between WAAS and DGPS. Yes, I can see that from your message... WAAS is on on some GPS satellites, not all. If a GPS can see a WAAS equipped satellite, it has WAAS information for that satellite. Clearly if a satellite, WAAS or non WAAS, is in shadow the GPS cannot use that satellite. A WAAS GPS will need 3 or more WAAS satellites to produce a WAAS fix. Three or more satellites but less than 3 WAAS satellites in view generates an ordinary fix. This has nothing to do with whether or not you are in harbor. WAAS correction data is transmitted by two (Inmarsat?) geosynchronous satellites, not by any of the normal GPS satellites. WAAS collects correction data from a network of reference stations in the US, and uploads that data (after some processing) to the satellites for rebroadcast. The correction data is only useful at location inside, or near, the reference station network - if you attempt to use the data in distant locations, you may increase positioning errors, rather than reduce them. Some GPS manufactures refer to a WAAS fix as a differential fix. This is a poor choice of nomenclature because a WAAS fix is a WAAS fix, not a differential DGPS fix. WAAS is a form of differential correction, so I believe it is valid to consider a WAAS-corrected fix a differential corrected fix. -- Peter Bennett, VE7CEI peterbb4 (at) interchange.ubc.ca new newsgroup users info : http://vancouver-webpages.com/nnq GPS and NMEA info: http://vancouver-webpages.com/peter Vancouver Power Squadron: http://vancouver.powersquadron.ca |
"Peter Bennett" wrote in message news.com... On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 08:43:33 -0400, Anchor wrote: There seems to be some confusion between WAAS and DGPS. Yes, I can see that from your message... WAAS is on on some GPS satellites, not all. If a GPS can see a WAAS equipped satellite, it has WAAS information for that satellite. Clearly if a satellite, WAAS or non WAAS, is in shadow the GPS cannot use that satellite. A WAAS GPS will need 3 or more WAAS satellites to produce a WAAS fix. Three or more satellites but less than 3 WAAS satellites in view generates an ordinary fix. This has nothing to do with whether or not you are in harbor. WAAS correction data is transmitted by two (Inmarsat?) geosynchronous satellites, not by any of the normal GPS satellites. WAAS collects correction data from a network of reference stations in the US, and uploads that data (after some processing) to the satellites for rebroadcast. The correction data is only useful at location inside, or near, the reference station network - if you attempt to use the data in distant locations, you may increase positioning errors, rather than reduce them. Some GPS manufactures refer to a WAAS fix as a differential fix. This is a poor choice of nomenclature because a WAAS fix is a WAAS fix, not a differential DGPS fix. WAAS is a form of differential correction, so I believe it is valid to consider a WAAS-corrected fix a differential corrected fix. -- Peter Bennett, VE7CEI peterbb4 (at) interchange.ubc.ca new newsgroup users info : http://vancouver-webpages.com/nnq GPS and NMEA info: http://vancouver-webpages.com/peter Vancouver Power Squadron: http://vancouver.powersquadron.ca Getting down to the basic, WAAS is nothing more than an add-on to GPS by the FAA. The basic function is to correct the GPS CEP from 100 meters to 3 meters and is only functional in some of the Americas. |
Peter Bennett wrote in
news.com: WAAS correction data is transmitted by two (Inmarsat?) geosynchronous satellites, not by any of the normal GPS satellites. I wonder if the reason the Canal is not using them is the canal is below the footprint, probably pointed at the USA?? Geo-birds use very directive antenna arrays to produce a useable signal from 40-50K miles away. They usually have a fixed footprint that looks like an oval over the states with these antennas. Maybe WAAS doesn't work in Panama so well because of this?? -- Larry |
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 19:33:11 -0400, Larry wrote:
Peter Bennett wrote in rnews.com: WAAS correction data is transmitted by two (Inmarsat?) geosynchronous satellites, not by any of the normal GPS satellites. I wonder if the reason the Canal is not using them is the canal is below the footprint, probably pointed at the USA?? Geo-birds use very directive antenna arrays to produce a useable signal from 40-50K miles away. They usually have a fixed footprint that looks like an oval over the states with these antennas. Maybe WAAS doesn't work in Panama so well because of this?? The Panama Canal is likely too far outside the network of reference stations used for creating the WAAS correction data for the data to be considered reliable. -- Peter Bennett, VE7CEI peterbb4 (at) interchange.ubc.ca new newsgroup users info : http://vancouver-webpages.com/nnq GPS and NMEA info: http://vancouver-webpages.com/peter Vancouver Power Squadron: http://vancouver.powersquadron.ca |
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 10:30:26 -0700, Peter Bennett wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 08:43:33 -0400, Anchor wrote: There seems to be some confusion between WAAS and DGPS. Yes, I can see that from your message... WAAS is on on some GPS satellites, not all. If a GPS can see a WAAS equipped satellite, it has WAAS information for that satellite. Clearly if a satellite, WAAS or non WAAS, is in shadow the GPS cannot use that satellite. A WAAS GPS will need 3 or more WAAS satellites to produce a WAAS fix. Three or more satellites but less than 3 WAAS satellites in view generates an ordinary fix. This has nothing to do with whether or not you are in harbor. WAAS correction data is transmitted by two (Inmarsat?) geosynchronous satellites, not by any of the normal GPS satellites. WAAS collects correction data from a network of reference stations in the US, and uploads that data (after some processing) to the satellites for rebroadcast. The correction data is only useful at location inside, or near, the reference station network - if you attempt to use the data in distant locations, you may increase positioning errors, rather than reduce them. Some GPS manufactures refer to a WAAS fix as a differential fix. This is a poor choice of nomenclature because a WAAS fix is a WAAS fix, not a differential DGPS fix. WAAS is a form of differential correction, so I believe it is valid to consider a WAAS-corrected fix a differential corrected fix. Hello Peter, Absolutely but here in is the cause of the confusion: 1. WAAS - satellite based differential 2. DGPS - terrestial based differential WAAS is not DGS and DGPS is not WAAS, but they are both differential. Surveyors survey sub divisions to to 2 cm accuracy by establishing a local DGPS system which consists of o ground station * dual frequency L1/L2 GPS receiver * RTCM differential correction calculating computer * RTCM differential correction transmitter w/antenna (400-500 MHz UHF) o survey station (handheld) * dual frequency L1/L2 DGPS receiver * RTCM differential correction UHF receiver The ground station is set up where the position is known with precision, like right on top of a survey benchmark. Turn it on, enter the lat, lon, elevation and the system is operational. Options include the RF power and directional or uni-directional antennas. My brother in law makes his living doing DGPS surveys. Greg Blair |
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 10:30:26 -0700, Peter Bennett wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 08:43:33 -0400, Anchor wrote: There seems to be some confusion between WAAS and DGPS. Yes, I can see that from your message... WAAS is on on some GPS satellites, not all. If a GPS can see a WAAS equipped satellite, it has WAAS information for that satellite. Clearly if a satellite, WAAS or non WAAS, is in shadow the GPS cannot use that satellite. A WAAS GPS will need 3 or more WAAS satellites to produce a WAAS fix. Three or more satellites but less than 3 WAAS satellites in view generates an ordinary fix. This has nothing to do with whether or not you are in harbor. WAAS correction data is transmitted by two (Inmarsat?) geosynchronous satellites, not by any of the normal GPS satellites. WAAS collects correction data from a network of reference stations in the US, and uploads that data (after some processing) to the satellites for rebroadcast. The correction data is only useful at location inside, or near, the reference station network - if you attempt to use the data in distant locations, you may increase positioning errors, rather than reduce them. Some GPS manufactures refer to a WAAS fix as a differential fix. This is a poor choice of nomenclature because a WAAS fix is a WAAS fix, not a differential DGPS fix. WAAS is a form of differential correction, so I believe it is valid to consider a WAAS-corrected fix a differential corrected fix. I was mistaken about the satellites. WAAS does not use GPS satellites. http://gpsinformation.net/exe/waas.html Our Garmin 76 reported WAAS GPS fixes on the east coast of Australia and New Zealand in late 2002. |
AFAIK there is no absolute law requiring all passage of recreational
vessels to be granted, and we are lucky we may use it with the minor inconvenience of a $150 navaid rental in certain cases. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:25 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com