@ Rexroth
NO,,you are not,, goes long time already on my nerves,,and honestly, If I could, public usage of AIS would be switched off. However the point you brought up did not occur to me in this respect.
(I know a lot people use it for good cause, but unfortunately a lot also on speculation and no idea whats going on in reality and in the end the goes into speculations )
Invented was AIS under the umbrella of safety for ships, then it became apparent that too often AIS even contributed to misjudgements during navigation and resulting into accidents.
For plain navigation, in my personal opinion, AIS is useless. The only thing I can see there is the name of the other vessel and some data,s. Unfortunately a lot datas are only as good as the entered data into the system by that ship. In other words, one has to question always if the information the AIS gives is correct. With that questionable it renders itself useless for the mariner.
What it became instead is a controlling device for VTS,s such as in the English Channel
and in ports and along coast lines and of course as here, for speculations.
The english channel is radar controlled from shore (as more or less all european coast lines nowadays)and ALL ships HAVE to report to land stations(which is a good thing) but that means also that AIS is even for them not really a thing to HAVE/NEED because they track the ships already in the radars !!.
And yes, I know that a lot disagree with me, but withhin the international shipping from the ships sides, i.e. the peoples who have to deal daily with it the picture looks quite different.
And yes, I know it is here to stay and I realise also, that the future of shipping will be more and more restricted and regulated. I dare to say that the future of shipping will be like airplanes today, that Master,s will have to submit passage plans to a not yet invented authority and get the approval. To the fact that LIRT,s are already in place and therefore
all ships can be located every 6 hrs because it sends a signal with course/speed/position it will also mean that the MASTER,s will have to ask for permission for diversions from the passage plan. If that would be not approved/rejected from someone ashore in an instant, then a responsibility vacuum will result. The real question is of course who is responsible
when rejection comes.,the Master or the land institution who rejects ?
A very delicate question to say the least.
Example
I left the Rio de la Plata in Sept 2012, a moment after we dropped the pilot at Recalada pilot station, the chief engineer called the bridge and said he needs to stop and fix something. I called the VTS,s Montevideo and asked for permission to anchor across the
traffic lane (no other traffic in the vicinity) about 3/4 mile to the north (a short term anchorage area for ships to montevideo or ships into the Rio de la Plata) and they refused. Instead they adsvised me to go 22 miles further East to another anchorage area. When I said we need to stop, they threatened me with Coast Guard actions etc etc. We went then for 5 hrs with dead slow to the other anchorage area knowingly that our main engine could give up on us any moment and which may be worst, with much more damage and or repair times then in the first anchorage. My experience, also with other VTS,s world wide,,the last one who helps is the VTS,s. They have only one focus, keep problems away. Prime example is the last big spanish oil spill, only happened because a incompetent VTS directed the vessel into the open ocean and not into a safe bay.
Of course, this a private opinion only
