AIS, Receiver or Transmitter

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by alaskaflyfish

Your position imply s that visual contact is no longer the MOST important part of navigation/collision avoidance but instead AIS contact has become the replacement for visual separation. Personally, I feel visual separation maintains priority and AIS in any form is secondary. A useful tool, but unnecessary. How did people avoid collision before the advent of AIS? Yup, you guessed it, VISUAL. I choose not to have AIS, does that mean I am taking advantage of others generosity or paranoia? Please explain.

You obviously missed my earlier post (#43) in this thread.

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2202813

Originally Posted by DotDun

Not disputing the fact that only a small percentage of vessels have AIS. Only stating the IF one decides that AIS is an important tool, deciding to not participate in the system, is a bad decision. Which, BTW, the topic of this thread is NOT AIS yes or no, but "AIS, Receiver or Transmitter"!

AIS is one of many collision avoidance tools. On my vessel it ranks 3rd priority, behind first human eyes and second radar. In certain conditions, i.e. high traffic areas and/or low visibility AIS is very valuable. As I stated, a receive-only device is a half-assed solution as you are depriving others from seeing you.

All IMO, of course!

All my comments in this thread relate to choices one makes after they decide to equip their arsenal of collision avoidance tools with AIS. Just as with other gear on your boat, it's your choice. If you decide against AIS, I hope to see you with my radar, which BTW, can be more accurate than AIS (much to the dis-belief of others).

[bmz]

This is a plea for those of you who haven't already purchased one, not to purchase an AIS transceiver (unless the transmitter can be independently turned off from the receiver, in which case it is a plea for that).
I am not the kind of guy who buys the maximum amount of insurance, regardless of cost; I do not buy the most expensive brand because it might be better; I do not buy the next size up because it might be stronger, etc.. Yes, bang for the buck is important to me. I sail an Irwin 34 that I purchased new 34 years ago for $54,000. My AIS receiver cost me $200 plus $40 for a separate antenna. I simply would not have spent 700+ dollars for an AIS transceiver.
I am not particularly concerned about a collision with another small boat, we are both maneuverable, can easily see each other, we can hear each other's horns, sailboats travel slowly, and fast powerboats are noisy. Over the last 34 years I have been irritated by some ******** who have failed to yield (including myself), but a horn and an appropriate steering correction is all that has been necessary (also I have never been foolish enough to anchor in sealane).
I sail the Chesapeake near Baltimore, and what I really do fear (especially at night) are the large freighters and tugs pushing large barges. They are the stand on vessels because they cannot maneuver. My crew and I have often discussed what those huge moving masses without lights out on the bay were: secret military cargo, double barges, parallax, etc.; regardless, we have seen them. Near Baltimore harbor they can appear almost out of nowhere. My AIS receiver has been a godsend--and produces the most bang for the buck of any piece of gear I have. I usually solo sail; and it is wonderful not to have to worry anymore. No matter how busy I am, no matter how inattentive, no matter what, my AIS protects me.
The only issue I have with it is all you other guys out there with your AIS transmitters on--you so clutter up my screen--you produce so much unnecessary audible alarms. I don't want to see or hear you on my chart plotter screen; we will be able to see each other just fine when you get closer; the only danger you are to me is interfering with what I consider the appropriate use of my AIS receiver. It is no skin off my nose if you buy too much insurance, have too big an anchor or anchor chain or spend too much money making yourself feel totally secure; unless, you have an AIS transmitter on. Then I consider you to be a pain in the ass.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by bmz

This is a plea for those of you who haven't already purchased one, not to purchase an AIS transceiver (unless the transmitter can be independently turned off from the receiver, in which case it is a plea for that).
I am not the kind of guy who buys the maximum amount of insurance, regardless of cost; I do not buy the most expensive brand because it might be better; I do not buy the next size up because it might be stronger, etc.. Yes, bang for the buck is important to me. I sail an Irwin 34 that I purchased new 34 years ago for $54,000. My AIS receiver cost me $200 plus $40 for a separate antenna. I simply would not have spent 700+ dollars for an AIS transceiver.
I am not particularly concerned about a collision with another small boat, we are both maneuverable, can easily see each other, we can hear each other's horns, sailboats travel slowly, and fast powerboats are noisy. Over the last 34 years I have been irritated by some ******** who have failed to yield (including myself), but a horn and an appropriate steering correction is all that has been necessary (also I have never been foolish enough to anchor in sealane).
I sail the Chesapeake near Baltimore, and what I really do fear (especially at night) are the large freighters and tugs pushing large barges. They are the stand on vessels because they cannot maneuver. My crew and I have often discussed what those huge moving masses without lights out on the bay were: secret military cargo, double barges, parallax, etc.; regardless, we have seen them. Near Baltimore harbor they can appear almost out of nowhere. My AIS receiver has been a godsend--and produces the most bang for the buck of any piece of gear I have. I usually solo sail; and it is wonderful not to have to worry anymore. No matter how busy I am, no matter how inattentive, no matter what, my AIS protects me.
The only issue I have with it is all you other guys out there with your AIS transmitters on--you so clutter up my screen--you produce so much unnecessary audible alarms. I don't want to see or hear you on my chart plotter screen; we will be able to see each other just fine when you get closer; the only danger you are to me is interfering with what I consider the appropriate use of my AIS receiver. It is no skin off my nose if you buy too much insurance, have too big an anchor or anchor chain or spend too much money making yourself feel totally secure; unless, you have an AIS transmitter on. Then I consider you to be a pain in the ass.

Hmmm, ok, so in order to keep from cluttering up your screen we will all agree to turn off our AIS transmitters! Forgive us! How could we have been so rude?

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by bmz

... Then I consider you to be a pain in the ass.

Maybe this is an example of 'you get what you pay for' ???

AIS transmissions aren't the pain in your ass, your system is as it doesn't have the capability to set guard zones and ignore anchored vessels......

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by pcmm

There is more than a small difference in cost! a transponder costs between $600 -2000 and a receive only unit is builtin to most $200 VHF radios.. That 3x the price minimum to transmit! granted I think it's important to transmit but its a big cost difference and needs to be budgeted for!

But hold on.

This is what I found looking up the web:

A transponder costs from USD 399.00 upwards (with display). There is also at least one unit priced at USD 320.00 (no display). Price data from Amazon. Google.

I also know nothing about USD 200 VHF radios having AIS receiver built in on a regular basis. E.g. a SH VHF/AIS RX combo costs 345 at the same source as quoted above.

So.

It is 345 vs. 399 by my web search.

This is 16% - NOT the 200% you found.

Sure, there is a difference. How much of a difference and whether this is much or little I will have to leave open to discussion.

I respect your view 100%. I think we are simply looking up different units in different shops.

Cheers,
b.

[alaskaflyfish]

Originally Posted by DotDun

You obviously missed my earlier post (#43) in this thread.

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2202813



All my comments in this thread relate to choices one makes after they decide to equip their arsenal of collision avoidance tools with AIS. Just as with other gear on your boat, it's your choice. If you decide against AIS, I hope to see you with my radar, which BTW, can be more accurate than AIS (much to the dis-belief of others).

So then, by your own words, if visual is the most important means of collision avoidance, how then does it make somebody "arrogant" and "half assed" if they choose a Rx only devise that is secondary navigational/collision avoidance aid? How does that deprive another vessel equipped with Rx and Tx from simply looking visually out for other traffic which is required for them to do? Please explain the "arrogance" position.

[MarkJ]

Originally Posted by bmz

This is a plea for those of you who haven't already purchased one, not to purchase an AIS transceiver (unless the transmitter can be independently turned off from the receiver, in which case it is a plea for that).
I am not the kind of guy who buys the maximum amount of insurance, regardless of cost; I do not buy the most expensive brand because it might be better; I do not buy the next size up because it might be stronger, etc.. Yes, bang for the buck is important to me. I sail an Irwin 34 that I purchased new 34 years ago for $54,000. My AIS receiver cost me $200 plus $40 for a separate antenna. I simply would not have spent 700+ dollars for an AIS transceiver.
I am not particularly concerned about a collision with another small boat, we are both maneuverable, can easily see each other, we can hear each other's horns, sailboats travel slowly, and fast powerboats are noisy. Over the last 34 years I have been irritated by some ******** who have failed to yield (including myself), but a horn and an appropriate steering correction is all that has been necessary (also I have never been foolish enough to anchor in sealane).
I sail the Chesapeake near Baltimore, and what I really do fear (especially at night) are the large freighters and tugs pushing large barges. They are the stand on vessels because they cannot maneuver. My crew and I have often discussed what those huge moving masses without lights out on the bay were: secret military cargo, double barges, parallax, etc.; regardless, we have seen them. Near Baltimore harbor they can appear almost out of nowhere. My AIS receiver has been a godsend--and produces the most bang for the buck of any piece of gear I have. I usually solo sail; and it is wonderful not to have to worry anymore. No matter
The only issue I have with it is all you other guys out there with your AIS transmitters on--you so clutter up my screen--you produce so much unnecessary audible alarms. I don't want to see or hear you on my chart plotter screen; we will be able to see each other just fine when you get closer; the only danger you are to me is interfering with what I consider the appropriate use of my AIS receiver. It is no skin off my nose if you buy too much insurance, have too big an anchor or anchor chain or spend too much money making yourself feel totally secure; unless, you have an AIS transmitter on. Then I consider you to be a pain in the ass.

All AIS transceivers can have the Tx turned off. All of them.

[uncle stinkybob]

Originally Posted by bmz

This is a plea for those of you who haven't already purchased one, not to purchase an AIS transceiver (unless the transmitter can be independently turned off from the receiver, in which case it is a plea for that).
I am not the kind of guy who buys the maximum amount of insurance, regardless of cost; I do not buy the most expensive brand because it might be better; I do not buy the next size up because it might be stronger, etc.. Yes, bang for the buck is important to me. I sail an Irwin 34 that I purchased new 34 years ago for $54,000. My AIS receiver cost me $200 plus $40 for a separate antenna. I simply would not have spent 700+ dollars for an AIS transceiver.
I am not particularly concerned about a collision with another small boat, we are both maneuverable, can easily see each other, we can hear each other's horns, sailboats travel slowly, and fast powerboats are noisy. Over the last 34 years I have been irritated by some ******** who have failed to yield (including myself), but a horn and an appropriate steering correction is all that has been necessary (also I have never been foolish enough to anchor in sealane).
I sail the Chesapeake near Baltimore, and what I really do fear (especially at night) are the large freighters and tugs pushing large barges. They are the stand on vessels because they cannot maneuver. My crew and I have often discussed what those huge moving masses without lights out on the bay were: secret military cargo, double barges, parallax, etc.; regardless, we have seen them. Near Baltimore harbor they can appear almost out of nowhere. My AIS receiver has been a godsend--and produces the most bang for the buck of any piece of gear I have. I usually solo sail; and it is wonderful not to have to worry anymore. No matter how busy I am, no matter how inattentive, no matter what, my AIS protects me.
The only issue I have with it is all you other guys out there with your AIS transmitters on--you so clutter up my screen--you produce so much unnecessary audible alarms. I don't want to see or hear you on my chart plotter screen; we will be able to see each other just fine when you get closer; the only danger you are to me is interfering with what I consider the appropriate use of my AIS receiver. It is no skin off my nose if you buy too much insurance, have too big an anchor or anchor chain or spend too much money making yourself feel totally secure; unless, you have an AIS transmitter on. Then I consider you to be a pain in the ass.

your $200 of yesteryear is $700 today.

[Minggat]

Depends on where you are sailing. Clearly most of the responses are talking about high commercial traffic encounters.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by DotDun

I accept your choice, I don't accept your justification for your choice. To state that you don't want others to see you, or that others don't need to see you as you are fully capable of acting alone in the game of collision avoidance is ludicrous and arrogant.



Why not tell us the 'real' excuse: You can't or don't want to spend the $$ for a transceiver. That is the only reasonable excuse!



My statement about AIS receive-only units should have never been manufactured comes from the fact that those with receive-only capability hold off buying a transceiver as they believe they have 'enough' collision avoidance tools. Had receive-only capability not been available, a good majority may have put out the $$ for a transceiver.



In the effort of full disclosure to the OP, my goal is to explain that the AIS 'system' relies on transmissions and that having receive-only capability is actually detrimental to that 'system'.

Well, it's nice you admit you're simply here to push your own personal agenda. And thanks for letting me know what my real motivations are. Silly me for thinking I actually knew myself...

AIS, much like chartplotters, are useful devices. Are they essential. No. If you want to transmit your info to all and sundry, be my guest. I've never found any value in the various recreational AIS signals I can read (the very few). It is the fast moving, large commercial traffic that I got it for. For this receive-only is what I need.

It's not my primary, or even secondary collision avoidance tool, but it is useful in certain situations.


Why go fast, when you can go slow

[sck5]

wow. I went to sleep last nite and now it turns into the half brainers vs. the arrogants. AIS has come of age! This reads like some anchor and gun threads! I will stick with my experience though. Never saw the need for AIS until I actually sailed down the Chesapeake at night with one. Still dont NEED it but it is SO much better to have it. No question on either side of the brain I have remaining, arrogant though it apparently is.

Oh and yes, you can turn off the transmitter on every model I ever saw. you can also turn off the annoying sounds on all the ones I ever saw. Kind of nice to have it show you the ones it thinks you are going to bash into. On mine they are red! They blink!

[pcmm]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

But hold on.

This is what I found looking up the web:

A transponder costs from USD 399.00 upwards (with display). There is also at least one unit priced at USD 320.00 (no display). Price data from Amazon. Google.

I also know nothing about USD 200 VHF radios having AIS receiver built in on a regular basis. E.g. a SH VHF/AIS RX combo costs 345 at the same source as quoted above.

So.

It is 345 vs. 399 by my web search.

This is 16% - NOT the 200% you found.

Sure, there is a difference. How much of a difference and whether this is much or little I will have to leave open to discussion.

I respect your view 100%. I think we are simply looking up different units in different shops.

Cheers,
b.

I've done my research. and the $399 unit you are using as a reference is not FCC compliant and therefore not technically legal to operate! so That's not really a fair comparison. I did some research into that Matsutec unit and it's not legal to operate in North America! no FCC compliance. the lext cheapest unit youare looking at for AIS TX is still in the $600 range

[El Pinguino]

RX/TX really is a no brainer...

Lots of interesting 'costs' being thrown around here but this is what the Milltech website ( v good people to deal with) AIS Receivers has on offer.

Cheapest RX is the Amec Cypho 150 at $199, Cheapest RX/TX is the Amec Camino 108 at $489.... $290 diff.
Assuming you already have a display to hook it up to the only other cost ( which is common to both ) is about $100 for a VHF antenna and a length of co-ax. Forget the splitter, forget sticking it up the mast... just stick it on the taffrail. Job done.

Cheapest VHF/AIS combo they list is the Lowrance at $289.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by alaskaflyfish

So then, by your own words, if visual is the most important means of collision avoidance, how then does it make somebody "arrogant" and "half assed" if they choose a Rx only devise that is secondary navigational/collision avoidance aid? How does that deprive another vessel equipped with Rx and Tx from simply looking visually out for other traffic which is required for them to do?

As stated previously, the value of AIS, IMO, is no/low visibility and/or high traffic areas. As I stated, I don't even transmit AIS unless one of those conditions are present. If one never encounters either, the value of AIS goes way down. If you never transit in traffic, dark, or storms, you can probably get by without AIS or radar.

Originally Posted by alaskaflyfish

Please explain the "arrogance" position.

Let's go back to post #68:
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2203059

As I stated in the post (shown below), it's not arrogant to buy a receive-only AIS, but IMO, it's arrogant to state: "I need AIS to see you, but you don't need to see me via AIS as I alone am capable of avoiding a collision with you". That is claiming one never makes mistakes, that is arrogance. And yes, I still believe receive-only AIS devices are half-assed.

Originally Posted by DotDun

I accept your choice, I don't accept your justification for your choice. To state that you don't want others to see you, or that others don't need to see you as you are fully capable of acting alone in the game of collision avoidance is ludicrous and arrogant.

Why not tell us the 'real' excuse: You can't or don't want to spend the $$ for a transceiver. That is the only reasonable excuse!

My statement about AIS receive-only units should have never been manufactured comes from the fact that those with receive-only capability hold off buying a transceiver as they believe they have 'enough' collision avoidance tools. Had receive-only capability not been available, a good majority may have put out the $$ for a transceiver.

In the effort of full disclosure to the OP, my goal is to explain that the AIS 'system' relies on transmissions and that having receive-only capability is actually detrimental to that 'system'.

[Brewgyver]

Originally Posted by Adelie

.... There is an Icom unit with display that uses 0.7amp for RX. That's about 17 amp-hr/day. In TX mode the Icom draws 1.5amps or 36amp-hr/day.

First, why pick a model with a display to make your example? Do you think the average cruiser is going to run an AIS with dedicated display, but not have a chart plotter/MFD/ or computing device of some kind with at least OpenCPN? Of course not. Certainly not if you're trying to minimize your power infrastructure.

Second, "transmit mode" lasts a small fraction of a second (~25 ms, or 1/40th of a second), twice a minute. That's about 75 seconds per 24 hours. But why bother running all that through the mill, then adding the standby (RX) current draw, etc. The manufacturers publish the average power consumption.

I just installed an ACR brand transceiver, it has a published average power consumption of < 2 watts! So two measly watts, that's a hair under 4 amp hours/day. I don't think that's going to break many banks (house banks, that is).

Yes, a transceiver costs on average twice what an RX only unit does, and a $200-$300 powered splitter IS required for a transceiver - unless you run a separate antenna for the AIS, which can be done for a lot less $.

Lastly, I'd like echo that an RX only AIS is better than no AIS at all, and for RX only a much cheaper passive antenna splitter can be used, similar to the kind many boats have for FM radio reception.