What does radar do that my eyes can't?

[toocoys]

Some stuff isn't "random."

-Chris

Random may have been a bad choice of word. Inapplicable, obscure, unrelated, or irrelevant may have been better choices.

 

[ranger58sb]

Random may have been a bad choice of word. Inapplicable, obscure, unrelated, or irrelevant may have been better choices.

Fair enough. And I can agree: "Because I said so" isn't always a great reason... even if sometimes the instruction itself has merit.

-Chris

 

[Fish53]

There's one other thing AIS can do that radar can't, although it only matters in some places. Assuming the signal makes it, AIS can see across land or around a river bend better than radar in many cases. But it's no substitute for radar, it's a supplement.

I have to qualify your comment, AIS can see around corners but can only see a vessel with AIS.








i

 

[fgarriso]

How good is AIS at picking targets when someone turns it off and stops transmitting .
The CG and US NAVY do it all the time.

 

[MYTraveler]

The only thing AIS can do that radar can't is tell you the name/call sign of an AIS target. In all other ways, radar is a superset of AIS.

Although I too would choice radar over AIS, AIS does have one more important advantage -- it can see around corners, which is valuable in island invested waters with fast moving ferries, like the PNW.

 

[Fish53]

Although I too would choice radar over AIS, AIS does have one more important advantage -- it can see around corners, which is valuable in island invested waters with fast moving ferries, like the PNW.

What about VTS?

 

[twistedtree]

I have to qualify your comment, AIS can see around corners but can only see a vessel with AIS.
i

Agreed. I left that off my list.

 

[SteveK]

I use marine traffic on the phone if I want to know the name and details of boats around me. I already can see these vessels with my eyes. broadcasting my location with AIS is not important. Therefore I do not need AIS as a stand alone built in device.

Radar is great to have when needed. If weather were to force me below to operate then it would be on. Otherwise it sits there unused. Though one night run had it on and the wife watched our progress.

This spring fog reduced visibility to about 2 KNM. That was all I needed to stay away from other vessels once the eyes saw them. Any "what if" scenarios of course would have other actions.

 

[Marco Flamingo]

Random may have been a bad choice of word. Inapplicable, obscure, unrelated, or irrelevant may have been better choices.

A problem arises if the determination of what rules are inapplicable, obscure, unrelated or irrelevant is made by a person with less knowledge and understanding although they believe themselves to always have superior insight. "Me ain't followin no dum gramre rules en never haved!"

As to AIS, I receive but don't transmit. It would cost me $600 to transmit. Last weekend in the fog I got some experience with the possible benefits of transmitting. If I transmitted and was received by somebody who only received, it would at least give them the possibility of contacting me directly or at least knowing something about who/what I am. Some benefit over them just seeing me as a radar blip, although I'm depending on them being attentive or having a CPA entered. I wonder what the ratio is between vessels with a transceiver and those with transmit only?

 

[Hippocampus]

Personally don’t want to be hit as much as not hitting someone else. Also like others know who I am if they want to speak with me on the VHF. So the AIS transceiver is on always. I’m not a contraband runner nor a naval vessel so like being seen.
Given the latency for stuff to show up on MarineTraffic it’s only used to keep track of friends.

 

[psneeld]

Read the actual rule and the USCG NAVCEN explanation.... radar does NOT have to be on all the time, it's up to the captain and the prevailing circumstances. It is a losing argument for someone saying you HAVE to have it on all the time unless you actually ARE in a collision and the use of the radar most likely would have helped you avoid it.

Like PFDs...safety organizations are trying to get you to be the safest you can be...but with radar...its pretty well known that a watchstander that is also the lookout and navigator, and maybe everything else, mandating radar use can be an issue in mandating attention be given to another source of info that is just duplicating what a lookout can do in good visibility. That's why for other than recreational vessels, radar installation, training and watch is often required by the USCG.

 

[Sailor of Fortune]

What about VTS?

VTS is a very limited area resource.
The nice thing about AIS is the quick 2 pieces of info that I want immediately, CPA and TCPA. ...yes, I get it, all vsl don't have it etc. Thats why , like radar, its a NAV AID , not an end all, be all.....

 

[Fish53]

VTS is a very limited area resource.
The nice thing about AIS is the quick 2 pieces of info that I want immediately, CPA and TCPA. ...yes, I get it, all vsl don't have it etc. Thats why , like radar, its a NAV AID , not an end all, be all.....

ARPA gives CPA and TCPA and can be applied to any target. There is no "end all, be all" with anything which is why we have integrated systems. With VTS your position, course and speed are monitored and you are informed of conflicting traffic as well as your position in the traffic scheme, again like AIS only with those participating in the system which is the salient issue here, many small vessels don't. You can get in just as much trouble colliding with 16 foot runabout as you can a ferry. Radar is the only thing that excludes nothing and requires no participation from other vessels. of course that's assuming the operator knows how to use it and is familiar with it's limitations.

 

[Fish53]

Read the actual rule and the USCG NAVCEN explanation.... radar does NOT have to be on all the time, it's up to the captain and the prevailing circumstances. It is a losing argument for someone saying you HAVE to have it on all the time unless you actually ARE in a collision and the use of the radar most likely would have helped you avoid it.

Like PFDs...safety organizations are trying to get you to be the safest you can be...but with radar...its pretty well known that a watchstander that is also the lookout and navigator, and maybe everything else, mandating radar use can be an issue in mandating attention be given to another source of info that is just duplicating what a lookout can do in good visibility. That's why for other than recreational vessels, radar installation, training and watch is often required by the USCG.

True, there is the "prudent operation rule" however and while you may have determined that you didn't need your radar on the USCG may disagree if you get in a collision, you did after all get in a collision and they'll look for reasons.

 

[Hippocampus]

So from what I understand if a drunk jerk t bones you on their jet ski and you’re not flying a black ball you may be subject to some degree of liability by admiralty court. Would think a sailboat who could argue his energy budget didn’t allow continuous radar (and he was fitted with an older unit) might have some degree of escape from liability. But for the typical trawler that argument is weakened.
Agree stressing about these “what if’s “ isn’t that productive. What’s the downside of always running radar? Why wouldn’t you always have it on? Don’t see the rationale for not turning it on. Even in a sailboat when coastal it was at least in standby if SOC didn’t permit transmission. That was with a older unit that took awhile to warm up. But now even a center console has enough electrons to continuously run radar. If screen area is an issue do a overlay. Simply don’t get why you wouldn’t run it. Please explain.

 

[backinblue]

As far as liability concerns, how would anyone know whether your radar was transmitting or not other than yourself?

 

[psneeld]

True, there is the "prudent operation rule" however and while you may have determined that you didn't need your radar on the USCG may disagree if you get in a collision, you did after all get in a collision and they'll look for reasons.

True...but that is not my point. There is no "rule" that it be on all the time for recreational boats or even that they have radar.

Why? Because anyone trained in crew resource management, cockpit skills, and operational risk management can make a hefty argument that an untrained operator, barely proficient in basic nav skills and boat operation should not be further distracted by an instrument designed for low visibility when visibility is NOT a factor..

I would love to be the defense expert witness in a case like that. For someone like you or me with background or training in radar under a variety of conditions...sure there is a case to be made that maybe it should be on always.. BUT to have an all encompassing rule? Nope, even a bad idea for the bureaucrats as it shows no understanding of recreational boaters.

Now be party to a collision or allision.....all bet are off.... but maybe not with a good defense. You are still gonna be responsible, but the radar thing might be moot depending again on background.

 

[Sailor of Fortune]

ARPA gives CPA and TCPA and can be applied to any target. There is no "end all, be all" with anything which is why we have integrated systems. With VTS your position, course and speed are monitored and you are informed of conflicting traffic as well as your position in the traffic scheme, again like AIS only with those participating in the system which is the salient issue here, many small vessels don't. You can get in just as much trouble colliding with 16 foot runabout as you can a ferry. Radar is the only thing that excludes nothing and requires no participation from other vessels. of course that's assuming the operator knows how to use it and is familiar with it's limitations.

I'm well aware of ARPA and MARPA. I have also worked extensively in VTS monitored waterways. I want you to sail in NY and ask VTS for all commercial contacts course and speed within a half mile of you..

 

[Hippocampus]

True...but that is not my point. There is no "rule" that it be on all the time for recreational boats or even that they have radar.

Why? Because anyone trained in crew resource management, cockpit skills, and operational risk management can make a hefty argument that an untrained operator, barely proficient in basic nav skills and boat operation should not be further distracted by an instrument designed for low visibility when visibility is NOT a factor..

I would love to be the defense expert witness in a case like that. For someone like you or me with background or training in radar under a variety of conditions...sure there is a case to be made that maybe it should be on always.. BUT to have an all encompassing rule? Nope, even a bad idea for the bureaucrats as it shows no understanding of recreational boaters.


Now be party to a collision or allision.....all bet are off.... but maybe not with a good defense. You are still gonna be responsible, but the radar thing might be moot depending again on background.

P used to be a radar observer requirement which was administered by USCG to the best of my memory. Does that still exist? At what level of licensure is that required? Could a amateur like me find a place to get that training even though I have no need or desire to get an active USCG captains license?

 

[HTurner]

For those interested in a radar class:



https://asa.com/certifications/asa-120-radar-endorsement/

 

[Alaskaflyer]

P used to be a radar observer requirement which was administered by USCG to the best of my memory. Does that still exist? At what level of licensure is that required? Could a amateur like me find a place to get that training even though I have no need or desire to get an active USCG captains license?

I do know that there is some sort of classroom radar currency requirement for masters and some other deck officers on inspected vessels, or at least for the large and/or hazmat subchapter vessels, because I budgeted to send some of our crew to it every few years.

 

[Fish53]

I'm well aware of ARPA and MARPA. I have also worked extensively in VTS monitored waterways. I want you to sail in NY and ask VTS for all commercial contacts course and speed within a half mile of you..

I used to run the Reliable II a 250 ft tankship for Eklof in NY and have routinely run factory trawlers in the PNW, supply boats in GOM and lower Mississippi, and ore carriers in the St. Mary's river so I sort of get VTS. If you read carefully you'll see I wasn't selling VTS I was only citing one element of it. What I don't understand however is how the issue of utilizing every source of information for situational awareness is avoided as though anyone on here was advocating just using one or the other while ignoring the rest? Do you drive your car with one eye closed? Of course not and not taking advantage of all you can in a way that you can make best use of it is all I'm saying. If you're a professional mariner as I was for forty years then you have spent considerable money and time in education and renewal to get, advance and keep your license so I know you get it.

 

[psneeld]

I hope you aren't discussing me in the wording "I don't understand however is how the issue of utilizing every source of information for situational awareness is avoided as though anyone on here was advocating just using one or the other while ignoring the rest?"


If you don't think my qualifications to understand "situational awareness" are enough fine. Or the benefit of professionally reviewing hundreds or more of accident reports about other professionals losing situational awareness because they focused on either one thing or too many is enough....fine.


Most any research on scan breakdown and automation overload reveals a lot. it will mostly be aviation but the principles are still valid to a degree.


People with a lot of experience may never have an issue...but just keep in mind how many boaters have radar and are virtually clueless how to operate and use them...let alone safely and effectively when just looking ahead is good enough to stay safe in a smaller vessel.


Sure learn and get better...but all the time? Even when running alone or with a "no help" crew?

 

[Fish53]

I hope you aren't discussing me in the wording "I don't understand however is how the issue of utilizing every source of information for situational awareness is avoided as though anyone on here was advocating just using one or the other while ignoring the rest?"


If you don't think my qualifications to understand "situational awareness" are enough fine. Or the benefit of professionally reviewing hundreds or more of accident reports about other professionals losing situational awareness because they focused on either one thing or too many is enough....fine.


Most any research on scan breakdown and automation overload reveals a lot. it will mostly be aviation but the principles are still valid to a degree.

I wasn't addressing you although it appears as though you missed an important part of my comment that you quoted "as though anyone on here was advocating just using one". I can't be that incapable of using the English language that my comments are incomprehensible? I don't mind getting beat on for things I actually say and mean but it's getting old being beaten on for things I never said because folks don't take the time to read and consider.

 

[toocoys]

Sorry, but I read, reread and just did it again several times...and sorry...I am not sure exactly what that means i context of the rest of what you wrote.

I think he was more or less addressing me, or those like me, and saying:

-I (meaning myself) have radar
-I'm avoiding using my radar
-Avoiding using my radar is like driving my truck with one eye closed
-No one is advocating using every single piece of navigation equipment at the same time
-If it's available, and would help in necessary circumstances, then I should use it.

 

[psneeld]

I think he was more or less addressing me, or those like me, and saying:

-I (meaning myself) have radar
-I'm avoiding using my radar
-Avoiding using my radar is like driving my truck with one eye closed
-No one is advocating using every single piece of navigation equipment at the same time
-If it's available, and would help in necessary circumstances, then I should use it.

I don't agree with your assessment.... 2 and 3 makes my point.


4 is what the people saying that the COLREGs mandate about using ALL possible means to avoid collision. Which I interpret differently because of the words "prevailing conditions".



1 and 5 are what I do agree with, having a radar is not a bad thing, but there is no absolute "rule" in using it all the time. There are many different angles in this discussion and unless specific it is not easy to pick out what everyone is trying to specifically say.

 

[Fish53]

Sorry, but I read, reread and just did it again several times...and sorry...I am not sure exactly what that means in context of the rest of what you wrote.... I get not using either AIS OR radar...both can be important...but are you also saying that radar should or shouldn't be used all the time just because it is installed?


The rest, like the reference to one eye, suggests always using the radar which I think is debatable....unless you are comparing it to AIS or again using it just because it is installed.


Sorry if I am still misreading your post.

I was addressing another member who apparently thought I was advocating abandoning everything except VTS, which was not the case. I was simply saying that every source of information applicable to situational awareness has some value. Whether you can use them all at once or none at all is up to your particular capabilities. I guess I read Strunk and White too many times, or not enough?

 

[Fish53]

I think he was more or less addressing me, or those like me, and saying:

-I (meaning myself) have radar
-I'm avoiding using my radar
-Avoiding using my radar is like driving my truck with one eye closed
-No one is advocating using every single piece of navigation equipment at the same time
-If it's available, and would help in necessary circumstances, then I should use it.

Sorry but I wasn't addressing you, but as you obviously didn't get it either it makes no difference.

 

[psneeld]

I was addressing another member who apparently thought I was advocating abandoning everything except VTS, which was not the case. I was simply saying that every source of information applicable to situational awareness has some value. Whether you can use them all at once or none at all is up to your particular capabilities. I guess I read Strunk and White too many times, or not enough?

Again sorry for that post which I deleted virtually after a couple minutes.


This post I totally agree with (though I have limited VTS experience).

 

[Fish53]

Again sorry for that post which I deleted virtually after a couple minutes.


This post I totally agree with (though I have limited VTS experience).

No apologies necessary, I reread what I wrote and while I understand the meaning it is somewhat ambiguous.