FLIR vs Radar

[Seevee]

Looking for experience with FLIR vs Radar for avoiding stuff in the water, night or fog running.

I've got a "fair" radar (old C80 kind), that is somewhat useful and considering FLIR to complement it and would like to get some comments.

The entry level prices for FLIR have come down, and even the one with side and up and down scanning are pretty reasonable, in the $3K range.

A good radar is probably a bit less, and my just bite the bullet and get both, but not sure at this point.

Use would mainly be for night operation, but occasional fog. And using it on a loop trip.

 

[Portage_Bay]

I'm old skool, I'd go with radar over FLIR if I had to limit myself to one. A radar will:

• Works in fog, rain and snow. Night or day.
• Excellent collision avoidance tool.
• Can be used for navigation on near coastal and inland waters.
• Range is limited primarily by antenna height.
• Most can be tied in with AIS and chart plotter.

But, then again, I've never used a FLIR.....

 

[ksanders]

Flir is a nice addition, but it will not replace a RADAR.

Flir is also unidirectional, where RADAR detetct objects in all 360 degrees.

Flir also detects heat, where RADAR detects objects that reflect radio waves.

 

[Aquabelle]

If I were starting over and given FLIR current pricing, I'd go FLIR instead of Radar so long as I also had an AIS transponder (which I do). We have fog only very rarely here, so principal use would be at night. I've been v impressed with the FLIR imaging I've seen on others' boats.

 

[k9medic]

I've got a bunch of time operating both the FLIR and RADAR.

Each has their own advantages but the RADAR is the most useful. FLIR cannot "see" through fog or clouds as the thickness of the moisture and changes in temperature can obscure what you are looking at. You also cannot accurately range items with it.

 

[BandB]

They are two very different pieces of equipment and I can't see saying Radar or Flir. The answer is both as preferable. Then it depends on how much night boating you do. I would never be without Radar. If you don't do night boating, you can live without FLIR.

 

[Sealife]

Radar is a longer range tool, flir seems limited in range

 

[MYTraveler]

FLIR will pick up stuff -- day or night (since it operates on temperature differentials) that radar will miss. Ours is always on when we are underway at night, and on during the day when we are fishing (looking for kelp paddies, which may be a west coast thing). Flir will pick up the vast majority of semi-submerged objects, if someone is looking carefully. Scanning sonar also helps, depending on sea conditions.

 

[Seevee]

Good posts and a lot of good ideas.....

My goal for the device is the same.... to avoid objects that I can't see (night or fog), or night and fog. The bulk of the scanning on either unit would be 1/2 mile or less. I have little use for long range radar, and would require a much more expensive unit.

While they are totally different technologies, they do similar jobs. To avoid something.

From what I see, the radar will show things with much better distance accuracy. The radar "may" require a bit more skill to operate, but not a huge deal. FLIR might pick up a few things that radar may not, and easier to identify them.

I would keep my old C80 radar with a new FLIR unit as an option... if I could tweak the radar for a bit better presentation. It works, but has a lot of clutter I don't like. The new radars are really nice, and not that expensive. Might do both, but collecting info for an intelligent (well, maybe) decision.

 

[MYTraveler]

Good posts and a lot of good ideas.....

My goal for the device is the same.... to avoid objects that I can't see (night or fog), or night and fog. The bulk of the scanning on either unit would be 1/2 mile or less.

If I could not have both, I would have radar. BTW, FLIR is no good in fog and doesn't have anywhere near a half mile range for the kind of targets your radar will miss.

 

[SaltyDawg86]

Absolutely radar. As with anything, you get what you pay for, but radar is the better choice all the way around.

 

[cafesport]

Flir doesn't do ranges or bearings so is useless for navigation at night. On our unit I find the display is also too bright on moonless nights to the point that its use actually defeats its purpose with respect to any night vision developed in the pilot house. For a MOB situation I would say it's most helpful other than that stick with radar.

 

[BandB]

Flir doesn't do ranges or bearings so is useless for navigation at night. On our unit I find the display is also too bright on moonless nights to the point that its use actually defeats its purpose with respect to any night vision developed in the pilot house. For a MOB situation I would say it's most helpful other than that stick with radar.

FLIR useless at night? FLIR is extremely helpful at night, especially if approaching a marina or in a narrow area. FLIR allows you to visually navigate at night. Should be a way to dim your display.

We use Radar, FLIR and Sonar and they all provide a benefit, all different.

 

[Codger2]

I'm old skool, I'd go with radar over FLIR if I had to limit myself to one. A radar will:

• Works in fog, rain and snow. Night or day.
• Excellent collision avoidance tool.
• Can be used for navigation on near coastal and inland waters.
• Range is limited primarily by antenna height.
• Most can be tied in with AIS and chart plotter.

But, then again, I've never used a FLIR.....

My thoughts, exactly although I've never used Flir.

 

[Aquabelle]

Given I don't have fog challenges, for me it is all about being able to "see" at night, particularly entering/leaving an anchorage or marina, running through a canal, avoiding fish floats, etc.. It seems to me FLIR is much better for those purposes & a lot easier to use/read. To those posters who have noted radar's range finding ability (FLIR shows bearings) what purpose are you making of range/distance -taking when underway over and above the use you are making of a modern chartplotter? I agree Radar has a big range advantage....but at night in particular I have my quality Furuno 4kw digital radar wound in to under 500m anyway.

 

[Aquabelle]

BTW to the original poster: surely in practice you would go get FLIR and keep your current radar while you evaluate your needs. After a while you would know if you need radar at all; if your current radar is adequate given the additional view FLIR brings; or if a further upgrade, this time to a much better radar, is warranted. Good situation to be in I think!

 

[diver dave]

FLIR useless at night? FLIR is extremely helpful at night, especially if approaching a marina or in a narrow area. FLIR allows you to visually navigate at night. Should be a way to dim your display.

We use Radar, FLIR and Sonar and they all provide a benefit, all different.

agree here. We had to stop all nightime bahamas crossings when the stream became littered with low height Cuban boat/rafts. FLIR, if you really stayed on it, would have been very helpful in those days. A lot of bizzare stuff I've had to avoid. I remember coming up on a huge inverted tree, with just a 1' diameter trunk visible when the waves receded. That would have hurt and not sure about any radar target there.

 

[nodestination]

I do not have any of those as I do not plan to go on "open water" or drive at night. I remeber ( from time when I was a truck driver) we had VORAD. It was mounted on the bumper and alarmed me of any object on the road in 400 feet ahead. It was very helpful at dense fog. I know that 400 feet is not much, but could detect any floating debris.

 

[CDreamer]

If you haven't already, check out the "new" broadband radars. Far lower power requirement. But they will even pick up your own boat's wake...or a small buoy, low dock. I think the close-in images show up around 1/32nd of a mile....less than 200 feet.

 

[SaltyDawg86]

I've had a FLIR on my last 2 ships. Maybe because it is mounted so high, but I don't find them to be useful. My radars paint a better target. Radar with a chart plotter is the way to go.

 

[Pau Hana]

We have both and would not be without them. Prior to FLIR, night running in the PNW was done at very slow speeds to avoid deadheads and crab traps.

Now, when running at night, FLIR is critical for safe passage. Radar is a different tool altogether. What radar (even broadband) picks ups close in cannot be matched by a visual scan.

 

[twistedtree]

I agree with other that if I could only have one, I'd have radar. And I'd probably get a better radar before getting a FLIR. They just offer so much more capability. Ranging, accurate bearings to targets, close in visibility like a FLIR, but also at any range out to the horizon, able to see through fog and rain, 360 deg visibility, and ability to track targets and tell you where they are heading, how fast they are going, and when/how close you will pass.

FLIR adds to that, but only at close range for object avoidance - say up to 100 yards or so. And visibility drops off very quickly as the wave action picks up. You can see a lot in dead calm water, but who is ever out in that? Any most things that you can see with FLIR is calm water will also be picked up by radar.

And don't get sold on the whole broadband radar thing. Their power consumption is insignificantly lower than conventional radar, they really don't show close targets any better, including wakes which don't really matter anyway, and they suck at longer distance targets.

 

[Portage_Bay]

To those posters who have noted radar's range finding ability (FLIR shows bearings) what purpose are you making of range/distance -taking when underway over and above the use you are making of a modern chartplotter?

With radar, even an un-stablized, not tied in to GPS or plotter I can:

• Using range and bearing to a recognizable target navigate to within 25 yards or better. Pre GPS that was damned good. When your GPS decides to not work you will think so too.
• Plot the relative course and speed of targets, easily calculate CPA and best action to avoid a collision.
• I can conquer the geographical horizontal offset puzzle found in some old survey data by using range and bearing, there was quite a thread about that a few days ago. A great example of Horizontal Position Error on charts
• If I know how to tune the set I can in calm water pick up birds or see my wake. I have docked a 125' boat with radar alone. Not because of poor visibility, but because it was a challenge. I kept my face in the radar, one of the old CRT types with a hood, and gave commands to the man at the wheel and throttles.

If the radar is stabilized I do all of the above but it just got a heck of a lot easier.

If the radar is tied into GPS and chart plotter I get constant real time evaluation of potential horizontal offset errors. When the radar and the chart plotter disagree I go on radar.

If the radar is tied into AIS collision avoidance just became a piece of cake.

Why do I trust radar so much? It's better than redundancy. It's another tool not subject to the same potential problems of GPS and chart plotter. Most of the time GPS + chart plotter + AIS do all of the above, with greater ease and higher precision than radar. They are my tools of choice MOST of the time. But not ALL of the time. Radar never lies to me. Ever. If I know how to tune it and read the display I know what I'm seeing. Radar works or it doesn't. Not much in between. GPS and chart plotters as good as they are, are subject to errors and failures that are difficult at times to detect. AIS is great, one of the best additions in recent times to the electronic navigation suite. But the 'other guy' can just turn it off. Or the feeds to his unit may be at fault.

I have noticed a trend for a long time now of making compact radar's human interface difficult to use. Too many "soft" buttons, too many fiddly little menus and choices to achieve simple results. It's too bad. I miss the simple sets that were easy to use.

 

[dvd]

Apples and oranges...

I've got both. FLIR can't do everything radar can and radar can't do everything that FLIR can...

 

[twistedtree]

I did recently find a situation where FLIR really shines, and that's spotting ice. Around glaciers there is a lot of ice that is clear and floating right at the surface, and it can be very difficult to spot visually, especially if the light and chop is working against you. But ice shows up really well on FLIR. You can even see the pool of cold water melting off it. But I don't think a lot of people spend much time in glacial ice.

 

[CDreamer]

I was on a tricked out '69 Bahia Mar earlier this summer on an overnight GoM trip. I only mentioned the Broadband earlier because he had a fairly new SIMRAD 4G (I had to call him and confirm that tonight). But...it was very sharp at 32 nm and he's anal about this stuff. In short he likes it.
Anyway the OP was asking about FLIR vs maybe a new radar or both. Other comments here notwithstanding , this wasn't FLIR level for visuals but as a radar unit it was certainly very good up close on small objects and overall better than many older radars I've seen. Plenty sharp further out. Seems at least worth investigating if you're not satisfied with what you have now. I have no skin in the game...that was just my experience.

 

[JDCAVE]

Good background PB. Thanks! Kevin Monaghan in his text book on radar notes that it is the most important shipboard navigational aid for collision avoidance.

 

[Seevee]

My thoughts, exactly although I've never used Flir.

Codger,
I come from a radar background and have preferred it. FLIR is new to me but the images look pretty good.

And not to be confrontational, but how can you comment if you've never used FLIR?

Also, if that radar/map image is of the same thing, your radar is worse than mine it. Hard to interpret that one.

 

[Seevee]

I did recently find a situation where FLIR really shines, and that's spotting ice. Around glaciers there is a lot of ice that is clear and floating right at the surface, and it can be very difficult to spot visually, especially if the light and chop is working against you. But ice shows up really well on FLIR. You can even see the pool of cold water melting off it. But I don't think a lot of people spend much time in glacial ice.

Ice is for drinks....

 

[Seevee]

With all the comments, I'm tending to just get a new radar and continue to explore FLIR, which I'll probably get later.

The newer radars look awful nice compared to the old ones, and there's some pretty good ones in the $2K range, a bit cheaper the entry level FLIR.

And, FWIW, radar WILL lie to you... just have to know how to interpret that.