Met a cargo ship with no ais?

[chrisr]

not saying it's happened in any of the cases quoted here, however had a case recently where some ships in the anchorage we were passing through showed up on AIS and some did not.

had me scratching my head for a while, until i worked out that when we are in a crowded (port) area we suppress some targets (eg stationary or non-dangerous). we had overlooked to turn back to seagoing when we left port.

happens...

cheers,

[CarlF]

In the US all commercial fishing vessels over 65' have to transmit AIS. To not do so risks fines. Definitely worth a Securite call.

In the last couple of years I've seen most CG and Navy vessels transmitting AIS when they are anywhere near other boats. This happened after the collision of the USS Fitzgerald.

But you really don't have to worry about colliding with a US Naval vessel - especially if you are transmitting AIS. While still miles away you be politely hailed by name and told which way to change course. If you ignore the request, things are likely to get exciting.

[Dsanduril]

You're not the only one. I'm probably more bothered by incorrect nav status from Class A ships than I am by the ships that don't show up. The fishing boats returning to port at full speed with their nav status set to "fishing" or the container ship doing 18 knots with the nav status set to "anchored". It's all human error and we all make mistakes from time to time. Both of those examples make me the give way vessel based on AIS data when I know I'm not from real world observation.

[Greg K]

Originally Posted by Cadence

Nothing like a set of 7X50s.

Preferably with a compass and red night light.

We do a fair bit of night sailing every season here in the western Med and have come across quite a few cargo vessels not running AIS. Lots of fishing boats as well.

Binoculars are your friend.

[JebLostInSpace]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

You're not the only one. I'm probably more bothered by incorrect nav status from Class A ships than I am by the ships that don't show up. The fishing boats returning to port at full speed with their nav status set to "fishing" or the container ship doing 18 knots with the nav status set to "anchored". It's all human error and we all make mistakes from time to time. Both of those examples make me the give way vessel based on AIS data when I know I'm not from real world observation.

Yeah those situations do get annoying. Exciting new York harbor a few days ago, there were lots of tankers anchored just outside the channel. Half of them showed status as dangerous under engine. Had me looking pretty closely for one of them to start moving as I passed through...

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by john simons

Likewise large oil tankers avoid using to maximise secrecy as to where they are taking their oil.

Please don't make stuff up like this. If you have any evidence that this systemically occurs for this reason, I'd love to have it, you can PM me if you don't want to share it publicly. I'm sure you can anecdotally find a case of someone who saw an oil tanker visually but didn't see it on their AIS receiver, but I can tell you that the world's Coast Guard's and terrorist response organizations take the requirement for large vessels and especially oil tankers to use AIS very seriously. To the point that we have satellites tracking them 24/7 and alerts go off when they disappear. I spent more than 20 years as a Coast Guard pilot and a big part of what we did in more recent years with our long range patrol aircraft involved finding ships on radar that weren't transmitting AIS and which where therefore automatically suspicious. The idea that huge multinational firms that own large oil tanker fleets routinely flaunt the AIS rules in order to gain some kind of secrecy advantage is absurd if you actually have any experience in this area (not to mention absurd from a commercial sense given the ship owners just being paid to transport the oil owned by others so they gain nothing by secrecy but expose themselves to loss of licenses, big fines, LE and marine inspection stops, and bad publicity). So again, please stick to talking about what you know and avoid baseless speculation, there's just no justifiable reason for engaging in it.

[wholybee]

Originally Posted by CarlF

In the US all commercial fishing vessels over 65' have to transmit AIS. To not do so risks fines. Definitely worth a Securite call.

In the last couple of years I've seen most CG and Navy vessels transmitting AIS when they are anywhere near other boats. This happened after the collision of the USS Fitzgerald.

But you really don't have to worry about colliding with a US Naval vessel - especially if you are transmitting AIS. While still miles away you be politely hailed by name and told which way to change course. If you ignore the request, things are likely to get exciting.

I have had this happen to me. What was interesting is that the Navy vessel declared that it was "restricted in ability to maneuver" that it would be altering course in front of my, and I was to alter course to avoid.

I'm not about to argue with a US warship, but I am curious by what grounds they believed they were restricted in ability to maneuver.

[wholybee]

Originally Posted by Andreas W

Where I am sailing a lot (SE Asia), I would say 50% of vessels don't have AIS on. Which doesn't bother me, because I don't need AIS to see there's a vessel. When I started sailing AIS did not exist yet, and guess what, I still live.
I am already happy when vessels have proper working nav lights at night

When I was in Indonesia I would guess far fewer than 50% had AIS. Basically only cruising yachts carried AIS, and local boats often were not even lit at night. They also had a habit of crossing, unlit, right across the bow. Apparently some superstition about passing behind another vessel.

Ears were the best way to know if/when they were around.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by wholybee

I have had this happen to me. What was interesting is that the Navy vessel declared that it was "restricted in ability to maneuver" that it would be altering course in front of my, and I was to alter course to avoid.

I'm not about to argue with a US warship, but I am curious by what grounds they believed they were restricted in ability to maneuver.

Typically warships are RAM when they're launching/recovering aircraft/helicopters, or replenishing underway - these they would typically maintain their course and speed. Other possibilities are underwater operations, such as sidescan sonar bottom trace, or possibly minesweeping (that has its own signal, but they would likely just say RAM over the radio).

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by BugzyCan

That should be an immediate Securite warning to all ships and to make coast guard aware.

They had a conversation on VHF ch 13 - VTS was definitely aware of it. Seriously, AIS typically has no redundancy and frequently break down, as most boaty stuff is wont to do. This should reinforce in everyone's mind that AIS is an additional tool, and should not be considered the primary or only means of collision-avoidance.

[SaltyMetals]

Both in Spin and Italy i have had "meetings" with Coastguard vessels at night. One was an extremely powerful cigarette boat. None of them were showing lights and none of them were showing AIS and i dont think they showed up on radar. I heard the noise of v powerful engines and could discern a shadow in the moonlight. I had to shine a searchlight on them to be sure they had seen me. This was S Spain and also S Italy so most probably checking for drugs &/or illegal immigrants but i was showing my AIS identity all the time.

Fishing boats and anything larger are legally required to have AIS installed but i do not think the law requires them to be actually transmitting on AIS which is a stupidity. I have found that the fishing boats who might be wishing to hide their location from their competition will usually turn on their AIS transmit when i am getting close.

As for oil tankers not transmitting i would suspect connections with Iran.

Andrew

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

Please don't make stuff up like this. If you have any evidence that this systemically occurs for this reason, I'd love to have it, you can PM me if you don't want to share it publicly. I'm sure you can anecdotally find a case of someone who saw an oil tanker visually but didn't see it on their AIS receiver, but I can tell you that the world's Coast Guard's and terrorist response organizations take the requirement for large vessels and especially oil tankers to use AIS very seriously. To the point that we have satellites tracking them 24/7 and alerts go off when they disappear. I spent more than 20 years as a Coast Guard pilot and a big part of what we did in more recent years with our long range patrol aircraft involved finding ships on radar that weren't transmitting AIS and which where therefore automatically suspicious. The idea that huge multinational firms that own large oil tanker fleets routinely flaunt the AIS rules in order to gain some kind of secrecy advantage is absurd if you actually have any experience in this area (not to mention absurd from a commercial sense given the ship owners just being paid to transport the oil owned by others so they gain nothing by secrecy but expose themselves to loss of licenses, big fines, LE and marine inspection stops, and bad publicity). So again, please stick to talking about what you know and avoid baseless speculation, there's just no justifiable reason for engaging in it.

I don't know about systematics but if you look up the incident I had in the southern Caribean it happens (in the first page of this thread). My 2c is it's close to Venezuelan coast and they just try to keep "low profile" around there. Thus no navigational lights either in pitch black night..

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

I don't know about systematics but if you look up the incident I had in the southern Caribean it happens (in the first page of this thread). My 2c is it's close to Venezuelan coast and they just try to keep "low profile" around there. Thus no navigational lights either in pitch black night..

This is not surprising. Your thoughts about a low profile make a lot of sense. Also, I recently read an article about five oil tankers heading to Venezuela from Iran. There may be other reasons, but it certainly wouldn't be surprising if security was a reason for it.

[ArmyDaveNY]

I see an interesting parallel here with GPS/SatNav systems. When GPS first came out, people just automatically and blindly followed it because the computer said so. Later, we discovered that it was easily jammed or worse, spoofed. Before long we found out that nefarious individuals and organizations (to include governments) were indeed messing with GPS.

Now we have AIS, and too many blindly view it as some sort of infallible system. We now know that AIS can also be messed with. Does it happen often? No, not yet, but I suspect that problems with it will increase as its use increases.

Here is an interesting article that talks about how it can be messed with. The article is now some seven years old but it nonetheless presents some interesting aspects of AIS that many may not have thought about. https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2013...acking-system/

Edit: Here is another, slightly newer article that offers some additional details on the threats. These threats are not just to on board AIS but to aids to navigation, collision avoidance, MOB, etc. https://web.archive.org/web/20150102...is_acsac14.pdf

This is a brief synopsis of the threats:

https://www.trendmicro.com/en_us/res...g-systems.html

N.B. I am not suggesting that AIS failures and corruption are common place. I am suggesting that it is likely happening in small amounts and we are likely to see more issues as individuals play with it and discover ways to use it, some of which will be unapproved.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by JebLostInSpace

So I was on my way into the Chesapeake-delaware canal this morning. I was keeping a pretty close eye on AIS since I didn't really want to meet a big cargo carrier at the entrance, so I was quite surprised to see one as it rounded reedy island. A close look confirmed they were definitely not broadcasting their position on AIS. That's the first time I've ever seen one not broadcasting, and my understanding is those ships are required to by law.

I hailed them on the radio. No response on 16, but they answered on 13. I asked if they were aware they weren't broadcasting, and captain said they were aware. Didn't get any more info than that, so I'm just super curious about it. Equipment failure maybe? Any other guesses?

The ship was probably about 300 feet, carrying containers, and under way out the delaware Bay

Given the location, I would not consider all of the conspiracy theory's, probably equipment failure.