Mid

2018 Rolex Sydney Hobart Yacht Race: The Race Committee has lodged a protest against Wild Oats XI

Recommended Posts

MR is like schoolboy with "Dog ate my homework" excuse after getting caught cheating.

If you break rules and it is really not your fault then you will fill request for redress form.

Making excuses days after finish is just pathetic and discredits our sport.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2018 at 6:29 PM, MelbourneA31 said:

Ok, so I've bit my tongue for the past couple of days but there is so much ignorant crap flying around that I can't stand it for a second longer.

The RRS run over the four year cycle of the Olympic Games and the Special Regs attached to the back of them comes into force from July so that you don't have a change to the Special Regs half way through the sailing season in Australia.

The Special Regs that came into force in July 2013 were reviewed in late 2011. A decision was made to replace an imperfect piece of equipment being a radar reflector with a far superior piece of technology called an AIS. The fitting of AIS was mandated for Cat 1 Races from 2015 to allow a phase in period and recommended for Cat 2 races.

Prior to 2015, if you wanted to track your competitors, who all had mandated radar reflectors, the purpose of which was to make them more visible to commercial shipping, you could fit a radar to your racing yacht, as did most of the Whitbread 60's. With some knowledge of relative motion and a plotting sheet you could determine the course and speed of your competitors or any other traffic by plotting them.

AIS is part of the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System and was considered a worthwhile addition to yachts racing in Cat 1 and Cat 2 races. I notice that in the Sydney to Hobart Notices to Competitors that AIS Man Overboard devices are being promoted. Again, another worthwhile piece of safety equipment because a yacht cannot receive a PLB signal without advice from a shoreside receiver. Clearly you cannot track a MOB if your AIS is switched off!

The side effect that AIS could be used as a tactical tool was discussed and discounted due to the far greater benefits for SOLAS and collision avoidance with commercial traffic. Yachts are horrendously poor radar targets.

To say that AIS is only a requirement this year is wrong, it has been in force for the last three editions of the Sydney to Hobart. the Special Regs only require it to be operational, the S.I's require it to be functioning at all times. I would expect that whoever did the Safety Audit of WOXI would have determined that the equipment was functioning correctly.

BTW VHF DSC and MF/HF DSC were also added to the Special Regs in that same review.

To finish of the year I went looking for a post that would be most interesting to reply to. Your opening sentence caught my eye "Ok, so I've bit my tongue for the past couple of days but there is so much ignorant crap flying around that I can't stand it for a second longer".

It was then I found out to my disappointment all you could offer was  simply a chronology of how AIS ended up in WS's Special Regs etc and  concluded with your penultimate statement saying "AIS is only a requirement this year is wrong, it has been in force for the last three editions of the Sydney to Hobart". Now while maybe inferred to your SI's reference, you fail to mention that this year is in fact the first year that the S2H SI's mandate AIS's to be turned on, particularly the TX function that on any serious race boat can be turned off at the flick of an optional switch to RX only or "pirate mode" for most races unless mandated.

So I thought to myself, In your own words you say you have been biting your tongue for days, then post to clear the ignorant swamp, but are totally ignorant yourself?? WTF I thought. Then I read further and it got better under your own hand.

On 12/30/2018 at 7:51 PM, savoir said:

On behalf of myself and all the other dumbfuckers here on SA I extend my gratitude .

How lucky are we boys and girls to have MelbourneA31 both in our presence AND dispensing his wisdom at the same time ?

 

On 12/30/2018 at 8:10 PM, MelbourneA31 said:

Go fuck yourself dickhead - I sat on the sub-committee that did the re-write. Got a smart arse answer to that arsehole?

Now I haven't explored further down thread to see if @savoir responded but my guess it got a bit ugly on account of your erudite response, so I will step into his shoes.

First @MelbourneA31 thank you very much putting your time into improving the rules of racing in this sport. However I'm afraid that time invested is where my largese ceases.

I cannot believe someone at the pointy end of rule making at a State/National level chimes in to this thread with nothing to add other than ignorant crap and has no opinion on the foundation of this debacle being "self policing" of the rules.

Please stop doing what your doing in the rule making department for offshore sailing and fuck off. My guess is you have never been outside the sight of the Committee boat, let alone land.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, VOA said:

Randy could take this to the highest sailing body in the country. 

But he won’t. 

The building owner won't let him past the door. Wonder who that is???

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, frant said:

Jack I’m holding you fully responsible for this whole sorry affair. Or at least your tin foil hat that is.

frant I object very strongly to your inference there. I will have you know I can move very comfortably between both the analogue and digital world.Though in this instance I was confused when @mad said I had to go to the white phone, when the prick knows I'm colour blind.

603955494_MadsPhone.thumb.jpeg.22f90c5a13df4c006eb3469d9bfff149.jpeg 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Varan said:

“We were very disadvantaged because they had their AIS switched off,” Harburg said. “And the rules say it’s got to be on all the time."

A sensible fair-minded skipper of a line honours boat, on hearing the above, said by a respected rival, would immediately and graciously retire. How can this skipper hold up his head and claim he has won when he knows his rival has been disadvantaged?  Why would Harburg say what he is reported as saying unless he believed it to be true?

If the skipper in question thinks his rival might possibly be mistaken about the AIS status he could of course ask around to verify that what his rival had said was right, and when it was confirmed, could then retire. No protest should be necessary. Yacht racing is a sport for gentlemen.

This very entertaining "sail-world" window into the frailty of human nature throws light on the magnitude of personal ego, human weakness and folly, and the embarrassing lengths people will go to try to defend a certain type of behaviour. You only have to ask yourself on reading this piece is "If this skipper was in the right, why would he be so upset and why would he be saying all these things?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, staysail said:

“We were very disadvantaged because they had their AIS switched off,” Harburg said. “And the rules say it’s got to be on all the time."

A sensible fair-minded skipper of a line honours boat, on hearing the above, said by a respected rival, would immediately and graciously retire. How can this skipper hold up his head and claim he has won when he knows his rival has been disadvantaged?  Why would Harburg say what he is reported as saying unless he believed it to be true?

If the skipper in question thinks his rival might possibly be mistaken about the AIS status he could of course ask around to verify that what his rival had said was right, and when it was confirmed, could then retire. No protest should be necessary. Yacht racing is a sport for gentlemen.

This very entertaining "sail-world" window into the frailty of human nature throws light on the magnitude of personal ego, human weakness and folly, and the embarrassing lengths people will go to try to defend a certain type of behaviour. You only have to ask yourself on reading this piece is "If this skipper was in the right, why would he be so upset and why would he be saying all these things?"

Not too sure about your respect thought and you forget Richards now confirmed today it is all AIS true. There is a bit of interesting history between those two teams that goes back that has been buried in recent times, but post the passing of one old guy and this race outcome, that friction has bubbled to the top. Both of these two fuckers have no idea of the damage they are doing to the race itself and by knock-on effect to the sport and quite frankly where they don't appear to give two hoots. After all how long are they both around for, one more 75th S2H, at best?

Two cockwobblers making us all dance to their tune. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case you don't know, you can verify your AIS is working by simply loading the "FindShip" app on any smartphone and look up any vessel that has reported a location that made it all the way back to shore. Works great. I use it every time I turn on the boat's communication systems at the dock, just to make sure my signal is getting out. In fact, I'm looking at Wild Oats XI, right now on FindShip. She's heading north at 10.1kts off of Nadgee. Closest boat to her is Melanesian Pride. 

AIS is cool. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The “not mandatory” was the true Ricko. The interview reads like it was thoroughly vetted, lawyerd, and spindoctored by the Oatleys. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JasonSeibert said:

In case you don't know, you can verify your AIS is working by simply loading the "FindShip" app on any smartphone and look up any vessel that has reported a location that made it all the way back to shore. Works great

Many small device AIS apps and via browser and via sat so a boat doesn't have to be close to shore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, 10thTonner said:

The “not mandatory” was the true Ricko. The interview reads like it was thoroughly vetted, lawyerd, and spindoctored by the Oatleys. 

Give him a break. You can only polish a turd so far.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JasonSeibert said:

In case you don't know, you can verify your AIS is working by simply loading the "FindShip" app on any smartphone and look up any vessel that has reported a location that made it all the way back to shore. Works great. I use it every time I turn on the boat's communication systems at the dock, just to make sure my signal is getting out. In fact, I'm looking at Wild Oats XI, right now on FindShip. She's heading north at 10.1kts off of Nadgee. Closest boat to her is Melanesian Pride. 

AIS is cool. 

Sure and anyone who uses AIS knows that within phone range of shore you only have to have a quick peep at web sites like Marine traffic, Vesselfinder etc. to see a totally independent confirmation that you are "seen" by all, and if I were in a serious race where AIS was mandated I would use that method to check. Who wouldn't?

Sure if you don't bother to check by some such foolproof ways, it is possible you might just possibly not know if you have a malfunction, but that does nothing to change the advantage that gives you over your competitors, and everyone I know who races and understands AIS and its link to pc based navigation for sure does know about switching it off if you don't want others to see your data. My kit came with an optional pair of terminals for wiring up to a switch for exactly that purpose! So far though, I haven't been in a race where even having AIS has been compulsory and I don't think this "mandating" of modern navigation/safety features is a good idea. Where would it all end? Rule books as thick as a bible!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Many small device AIS apps and via browser and via sat so a boat doesn't have to be close to shore. 

My sentence was poorly written. The boat doesn't have to be close to shore, it was the location I was referring to. The information packet has to bounce enough through the mesh to make it from ship to ship to a "base station" where ever that may be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, staysail said:

So far though, I haven't been in a race where even having AIS has been compulsory and I don't think this "mandating" of modern navigation/safety features is a good idea. Where would it all end? Rule books as thick as a bible!

Post 1998 the RO is very gun shy about safety. You probably haven't been in too many races where 6 people have died. The south coast of NSW conditions permitting are alive with fishing boats, many now having AIS and in addition many fixed/drift fishing devices with AIS transponders on the race course. A decision therefore was made to make turning AIS on for this race mandatory, noting AIS Class B fitted has been in World Sailing Offshore Reg for Cat  0/1 Races for years .

With your extensive Cat 0/1 experience in mind Stay despite not knowing this, you should contact WS and the RO of this race and set them straight.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, JasonSeibert said:

My sentence was poorly written. The boat doesn't have to be close to shore, it was the location I was referring to. The information packet has to bounce enough through the mesh to make it from ship to ship to a "base station" where ever that may be

English comprehension is now a dead art? No it doesn't have to do some ship/shore bounce thing. Sats pick up Class B AIS direct in this postcode, despite what you may have read here. You can see the pings of Comanche and BJ in history below. The straight line is WOXI with only two pings, pre start and post finish and did the last bit with wheels.

50 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

and via sat so a boat doesn't have to be close to shore

1603764687_WOXITSHIRT.jpg.ad607d8cbda1a1dc7ae2cfc898490196.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LionessRacing said:

Ah no, MSEE. Your mood does not negate the physics.

A dipole antenna works (as noted above) by focusing energy toward a plane.

Signal energy vs (solid) angle is a matter of antenna design, whips are omnidirectional in plane, perpendicular to the axis of the antenna  with propagation lobes above and below the plane that have smaller angles at higher gains (longer, higher fractions of a wavelength) The higher gain in plane is due to out of plane energy being directed into the plane, much like a Fresnel lens.  The argument about effective range vs gain is classic if the antenna is on a moving pitching/heeling vessel  

Signal energy vs distance for a given angle is a function of the propagation surface area at the distance, for a zero gain theoretical point source (such as a handheld stub, it spherical) or 1/radius^3 , for high gain dipole whip it’s essentially cylindrical or 1/radius^2, 

the AIS satellites are in LEO, at 300 -2000 km and not Overhead GeoSynchronous at 22k miles. 

Any minor “axial leakage” energy would propagate as spherical, and an “overhead” satellite would be farther away with 1/1000 to 1/1000000 the energy. 

You had to go and mention Fresnel lenses.  When I started in my field, computers were very slow and we processed our data (recorded on film) with optical computing.  Pretty fun to see real time Fourier transforms and we were able to process at about twice real time.  The limits were how much xylene we were willing to have stream out of the liquid gate we used for the film.  Even then xylene was a well known carcinogen.  Much better mood today and thanks for calling me out.  

For the rest, Fresnel lenses were commonly used in lighthouses and have some really cool characteristics.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

For the rest, Fresnel lenses were commonly used in lighthouses and have some really cool characteristics

Yes. Putting aside Franklin connecting to lightening with his key on a string in the mid 18th century both the optics work of Fresenel and Faraday's with electricity occured around the same time in the early 19th century. It took around  another 50 years however for the two to join up in a lighthouse using electricity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

English comprehension is now a dead art? No it doesn't have to do some ship/shore bounce thing. Sats pick up Class B AIS direct in this postcode, despite what you may have read here. You can see the pings of Comanche and BJ in history below. The straight line is WOXI with only two pings, pre start and post finish and did the last bit with wheels.

1603764687_WOXITSHIRT.jpg.ad607d8cbda1a1dc7ae2cfc898490196.jpg

I'm not sure we are on the same page when it comes to AIS transceivers. But that's not important to the discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JasonSeibert said:

I'm not sure we are on the same page when it comes to AIS transceivers. But that's not important to the discussion. 

Clearly not if you insist a offshore AIS TX "information packet has to bounce enough through the mesh to make it from ship to ship to a "base station" where ever that may be" and not sat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jack_sparrow said:

Clearly not if you insist a offshore AIS TX "information packet has to bounce enough through the mesh to make it from ship to ship to a "base station" where ever that may be" and not sat.

Not all AIS transceivers communicate with satellites, nor are they required to. If you don't know that, then we don't really need to have this discussion. There are several flavors of AIS transceivers. I suppose what matters is what was required for the race. IF the race required a Class B high power with satellite link, or a Class A with satellite link, then great you are correct. However, most AIS transceivers don't have the functionality. Sooo... we are not having the same discussion with the same assumptions. 

For my boats, the AIS transceiver doesn't know a damn thing about a satellite. Sooooo - that means that my signal has to make it to a location in the mesh where the signal could get to a base station. That's pretty much how it works. It sounds like you are assuming that the AIS systems on every boat talk to satellites. Is that what you are assuming? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JasonSeibert said:

Here's some interesting information from the Coast Guard related to LED lighting causing signal interference.

https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO Documents/5p/CG-5PC/INV/Alerts/1318.pdf?ver=2018-08-16-091109-630

 

While only dated this year that advice is many years old and is a receive not transmit issue. Not one recognised Nav light maker produces gear anymore that generates such interference 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11.4 Changes to Special Regulations • Special Regulation 3.24.5 (c): The minimum amount of engine fuel that shall be carried at the start of the race shall be at least Litres = LWL(metres)/0.135. • Special Regulation 3.25.1(d): All boats shall carry on board a satellite phone. The satellite phone shall have coverage and be switched on for the duration of the race and be connected to main power or have a spare battery. • Special Regulation 4.09 (a): An AIS Transponder shall be carried and be switched on, such that it is receiving and transmitting.

The rule is mum as to the quality of the AIS transponder - only that it must be on and receiving and transmitting. 

A class B can be high power or low power. Obviously the high power AIS class b will send further distances. but the low power will not. 

This is the unit I use: https://www.em-trak-usa.com/product-page/b100-standard-ais-class-b-robust-plug-play-connectivity-uscg-certified

It only transmits at 2 watts.

Edited by JasonSeibert
Updated information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JasonSeibert said:

Not all AIS transceivers communicate with satellites

Every Class B AIS transciever ever built will communicate with a satellite if both are in range and there are no TX issues. I have no idea where you get this sat enabled/not enabled AIS shit from..I do know you are getting close to turnip territory though if you keep persisting with this drivel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jack_sparrow said:

Every Class B AIS transciever ever built will communicate with a satelite if both are in range and there are no TX issues. I have no idea where you get this sat enabled AIS stuff from..

When you say "satellite" do you mean the thingy flying in the sky a few miles up in the air?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might help explain the misconceptions for those on the fence. In particular I like this quote: 

Quote

However, around ten years ago various organisations discovered that, much to everyone’s surprise, these short range signals could in fact be picked up from above the Earth’s atmosphere. This was not expected as the maximum horizontal range at sea level is around 50 nautical miles (74 kms), yet these same signals could be received on the ISS, 400 kilometres up. 

http://www.bigoceandata.com/news/satellite-ais-addressing-some-misconceptions/

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JasonSeibert said:

When you say "satellite" do you mean the thingy flying in the sky a few miles up in the air?

Yes.If you look out the window from what ever planet you are on, you might see one wizz by.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, JasonSeibert said:

Not all AIS transceivers communicate with satellites, nor are they required to. If you don't know that, then we don't really need to have this discussion. There are several flavors of AIS transceivers. I suppose what matters is what was required for the race. IF the race required a Class B high power with satellite link, or a Class A with satellite link, then great you are correct. However, most AIS transceivers don't have the functionality. Sooo... we are not having the same discussion with the same assumptions. 

For my boats, the AIS transceiver doesn't know a damn thing about a satellite. Sooooo - that means that my signal has to make it to a location in the mesh where the signal could get to a base station. That's pretty much how it works. It sounds like you are assuming that the AIS systems on every boat talk to satellites. Is that what you are assuming? 

Hmm.  I think you are wrong.  Your AIS transceiver does NOT have to have any additional capabilities to be picked up by a satellite receiver.  No "uplink", no special transmission hardware or software.  It just pumps out its VHF signal, and then if the satellite has a specialized receiver it will pick up that VHF signal.  The AIS transceivers that are higher power (e.g. 5 watt versus 2) have a better chance of being heard by the satellites, but its still possible for the lower power signal to be heard.

There is fairly simple explanation available on the site that Just a Skosh used to pull his screen shots from, Big Ocean Data.  Its a good service if anyone is in the market for AIS tracking.

http://www.bigoceandata.com/news/satellite-ais-addressing-some-misconceptions/

 

(EDIT -  Ha, Jon beat me to it)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, JonRowe said:

This might help explain the misconceptions for those on the fence. In particular I like this quote: 

http://www.bigoceandata.com/news/satellite-ais-addressing-some-misconceptions/

And with only a decoding program and antenna you can download NOAA weather sat pics direct from their satellites and be looking at them before they do and many hours later issue a forecast using them. Space is fence free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, JasonSeibert said:

This is what people sometimes refer to as satellite AIS

What people? Mate give up. Be assured there is no such thing as satellite AIS that you keep banging on about other than subscription services who take normal AIS VHF band (Class a&b) transmissions received via satellite and then on sell that data. You are blinkered thinking AIS VHF regardless of class A or B power output is not picked by low orbiting satellites. It is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot, Jack, you speak for EVERYONE on the planet. Cool. How this devolved into a semantics discussion is interesting. I suppose that means the whole thing is beat to death. My apologies to the group for allowing that to happen.

Bringing it back to the relevant discussion for a moment: 

I used this splitter https://www2.vespermarine.com/antennas-splitters/antenna-splitter-sp160 on Gamble with a Vesper antennae to increase clarity and range on my AIS install on the recommendation of my riggers here in Texas. Prior to this, on my O30, I used a dedicated AIS antennae mounted on the pushpit that I also used as the backup VHF antennae in the event of main failure. 

I also used their specific antennae: https://www2.vespermarine.com/antennas-splitters/shared-ais-antenna

Cheers.

 

Edited by JasonSeibert
Updated information

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cal20sailor said:

You had to go and mention Fresnel lenses.  When I started in my field, computers were very slow and we processed our data (recorded on film) with optical computing.  Pretty fun to see real time Fourier transforms and we were able to process at about twice real time.  The limits were how much xylene we were willing to have stream out of the liquid gate we used for the film.  Even then xylene was a well known carcinogen.  Much better mood today and thanks for calling me out.  

For the rest, Fresnel lenses were commonly used in lighthouses and have some really cool characteristics.  

It’s moments like these when I feel like a Luddite 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JasonSeibert said:

I forgot, Jack, you speak for EVERYONE on the planet. Cool.

I have been very polite so far, Now fuck off noting the Vespa door is down the hallway.

Vespa.jpg

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few misconceptions here. Let's review a few basics.

  1. AIS transponders receive GPS position information from satellites; the communicate with other vessels in range via VHF both sending and receiving position, course, speed, etc.
  2. AIS has no explicit mechanism for transmitting information to satellites
  3. There are satellites that include VHF receivers specifically to listen to terrestrial AIS broadcasts
  4. A vessel-based AIS Class-B 2W VHF transmitter equipped with a dipole antenna situated to broadcast to other vessels is unlikely to be received reliably by a satellite in low earth orbit. There's insufficient radiated energy to be received at that distance. Recent changes to the Class-B standard allow 5W transmission and greatly improve the reliability of satellite reception.
  5. No vessel retransmits the information produced by other vessels. If there are two vessels, A & B, that are not in AIS range of one another, the presence of a third vessel, C that is in range of both A & B does not magically cause A and B to see one another
  6. AIS does not provide real-time position, course and speed information. Class-B vessels moving faster than 2 knots transmit that information twice per minute. While substantially faster than a tracker, this is hardly real time
  7. Marine Traffic and other sites obtain vessel AIS information primarily through terrestrial receivers run by volunteers. You can get your own AIS receiver, connect it to a PC and become a contributor of such information. In addition, they also receive information from satellite receivers, however, this is primarily interesting only for Class-A equipped vessels that transmit at 12.5W and therefore more reliabily received by satellites
  8. The OSR requires the AIS and VHF antenna to be at the mast head and this means a splitter must be used on a sloop. Similarly, the rules require a maximum of 50% loss in the antenna cable. Therefore, all power levels need to be divided by about 2 when considering radiated power at the antenna. If a class B AIS transponder is not getting at least 1W out the antenna, the yacht is not compliant.
  9. The best way to determine transmitted power is via SWR. The SRT radio, used in all commercially available AIS transponders of which I'm aware, measure and report SWR via a free PC-based applications called ProAIS2 that is connected via USB to the AIS transponder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Moonduster said:

A vessel-based AIS Class-B 2W VHF transmitter equipped with a dipole antenna situated to broadcast to other vessels is unlikely to be received reliably by a satellite in low earth orbit. There's insufficient radiated energy to be received at that distance. Recent changes to the Class-B standard allow 5W transmission and greatly improve the reliability of satellite reception.

Moon agree certainly not reliable by any measns, but there is a truck load of evidence of properly setup Class B 2w with masthead dipoles being picked up by low level sat on this race course. As you say Class B SOTDMA 5w units increase that prospect.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, JasonSeibert said:

Working with some blockchain solutions for tracking this data

Right... that sounds like a great idea, bitcoin for AIS

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Moon agree certainly not reliable by any measns, but there is a truck load of evidence of properly setup Class B 2w with masthead dipoles being picked up by low level sat on this race course. As you say Class B SOTDMA 5w units increase that prospect.    

I agree with Jack's statement.  I have seen mid ocean transmissions show up on tracking sites from boats that I am 100% confident have a 2W AIS transmission.  Which is most pleasure boats at the moment since 5 W Class B units are new to the market in the last 18 months or so.

I can't speak to the reliability of those 2W transmissions being picked up by satellites, and I am sure 5 W is more reliable at being picked up.  But you can absolutely get a 2W signal off the birds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Snowden said:

Right... that sounds like a great idea, bitcoin for AIS

Ha! Not quite, but sort of. The problem is dispute resolution between two parties when they don't trust each other, and/or when cargo arrival/delivery time is disputed. One party says X while the other says Y. Through a combination of sending messages through communications channels in the AIS transmission protocol, and verification of the data transmission through sat-com integrated devices, the information can be audited and stored in a blockchain distributed database. It's called the "internet of things" and blockchain solutions can provide the neutral third party evidence to resolve payment issues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Snowden said:

Right... that sounds like a great idea, bitcoin for AIS

Blockchain is bigger than bitcoin.  It has a lot of the weirdo, conspiracy theory fringe folks who gravitate to Bitcoin circling around in the space, but the reality is that blockchain itself as a software concept is powerful and is going to crop up in more and more applications.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rail Meat said:

Blockchain is bigger than bitcoin.  It has a lot of the weirdo, conspiracy theory fringe folks who gravitate to Bitcoin circling around in the space, but the reality is that blockchain itself as a software concept is powerful and is going to crop up in more and more applications.

I hear this a lot, but it’s been around for near enough ten years now and I haven’t yet seen a truly decentralised and permissionless implementation where the blockchain tech adds real value over one party maintaining a database. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rail Meat said:

Blockchain is bigger than bitcoin.  It has a lot of the weirdo, conspiracy theory fringe folks who gravitate to Bitcoin circling around in the space, but the reality is that blockchain itself as a software concept is powerful and is going to crop up in more and more applications.

Blockchain is merely a database. the reliability of the database is its distribution across diverse parties on a global scale. Currently, the Bitcoin blockchain is the most diverse and widely distributed with billions of dollars in infrastructure. Without the distribution, the trust component of the database degrades. A blockchain with only one node is just a database. The real interesting prospects that I'm seeing are around side chains to larger backed existing chains. 

For the shipping solution, I looked at moving the client towards a side chain with audits to the bitcoin blockchain. essentially hashing the sidechain data into the bitcoin chain for preservation of data. But that's off topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Snowden said:

I hear this a lot, but it’s been around for near enough ten years now and I haven’t yet seen a truly decentralised and permissionless implementation where the blockchain tech adds real value over one party maintaining a database. 

Industries are slow to change. they fear change. Interestingly, the bitcoin protocol is based off of a 1980s encryption concept. So, it's really been around for nearly 40 years. Just slow to implement, slow to be adopted. But "internet of things" is a big deal, and having a reliable data source for that information, trusted enough to solve disputes, is a worthy thing. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This should be the nextgen AIS systems - full data mesh networks. Here, they use AIS to help route efficiently. 

https://www.cut.ac.cy/digitalAssets/106/106626_1mcecn-2011.pdf

One thing this proposal does not address, and is also a current weakness of AIS data, is corruption and security issues. But that can be addressed in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say that 2W transmissions could not be received, I said that they are unlikely to be received reliably. The best evidence for this is that the change to 5W has been approved.

I believe we're all in heated agreement.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bitcoin graphs are like the weather ..you are hoping for a lift and you get headed or depending which side of the ledger you are on, expected it on the nose but find yourself going down hill doing 20kt+ and smiling. This one dated July this year indicated the bottom had been reached and is labeled as "despair" but would quickly return to "mean". However between July and now it went of another cliff so I'm not too sure what the current label is?? Suicidal for everyone? 

Bitcoin.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, mad said:
2 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

You had to go and mention Fresnel lenses.  When I started in my field, computers were very slow and we processed our data (recorded on film) with optical computing.  Pretty fun to see real time Fourier transforms and we were able to process at about twice real time.  The limits were how much xylene we were willing to have stream out of the liquid gate we used for the film.  Even then xylene was a well known carcinogen.  Much better mood today and thanks for calling me out.  

For the rest, Fresnel lenses were commonly used in lighthouses and have some really cool characteristics.  

It’s moments like these when I feel like a Luddite 

Me too, after all that turkey. Where would we get one at this hour???

B)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jack_sparrow said:

Bitcoin graphs are like the weather ..you are hoping for a lift and you get headed or depending which side of the ledger you are on find yourself going down hill doing 20kt+. This one dated July this year indicated the bottom had been reached and is labeled as despair. Between July and now it went of another cliff so I'm not sure what the current label is?? Suicidal? 

Bitcoin.png

Don't be mad, Jack. It's okay. This is all off-topic. We can go back to you talking about sailing, but if you WANT to talk about bitcoin, you might want to rethink your process. People think of bitcoin as an investment, or that there should be some expectation of a return. That's where the entire process fails.

Bitcoin is two things: A brand, and a protocol. It is also what most people think of as an intergalactic credit.  It is a value transfer protocol that people store value in the network, and then transmit/transfer it from point to point. The current "price" of bitcoin is the reflected perceived value of the network and the effort put into it. That is in contrast to a "stable coin" where people expect the value in to be the value out as backed by some fixed price. If you put $100 into Bitcoin when it was $100, you would have converted $100 USD into 1 BTC. Today, the world values that BTC at about $4,000. Pretty good value. But what do you do with it? IF you don't know why it is used, how it is used, when, where, why, or IF it should be used, don't use it. That simple. If you are going to invest in Bitcoin, don't. You'll spend too much time looking at these graphs.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

I knew I should not have made that post.

Oh, no...It's always fun to read the script from an episode of "Lost in Space".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Sydney Hobart required blockchain processing by racing boats to maintain and verify positional AIS data points....WOXI would have been disqualified.

But what if you could award time bonuses for blockchain block adds during processing...

So I could load up a Pearson shitbox with computers and win on time bonus (the first year)....it would be true technology race....screw maxi yachts....get a old container ship and load it up with 1,000,000 GPUs and never lose!

Sydney Hobart 2031 Edition a field of four mega container ships will race flat out....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Crazy Cat said:

 Don’t forget that The Indian made WOXI look pretty stupid when she glided past around 0300 on Thursday in light winds to overtake them for the second time. 

Then by your methodology the Indian is crewed by brain dead morons by letting WOXI beat them to Hobart every time they have both finished. If you want to wave your tiny cock around you should do it where no one can see you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LB 15 said:

Then by your methodology the Indian is crewed by brain dead morons by letting WOXI beat them to Hobart every time they have both finished. If you want to wave your tiny cock around you should do it where no one can see you.

The Indian has finished each time, bonus points for that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Varan said:

Another statement by MR that doesn't quite gel:

"Richards did not attend the Hearing in person. "I hate protests." And in his stead former World Laser Champion, Glenn Bourke represented Wild Oats XI."

From the 2017 protest decision:

ROLEX SYDNEY HOBART YACHT RACE 
2017 
Protest No: 1 
Protest: Maxi 12358 "LVD Comanche" represented by James Spithill 
 vs. 
 Maxi 10001 "Wild Oats XI" represented by Mark Richards 

 
Protest is valid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had some time to ruminate on Richard's Sail-World interview and find his story less than convincing. To wit:

"We did an AIS check, there is video footage of Juan Vila [top Volvo Ocean Race navigator] doing the AIS check on the way out to the start", an indignant Richards told Sail-World from Sydney.  We do the right thing for the club and the spectators, and every year we carry a cameraman aboard the boat, says Richards. "We did the AIS check and that can be seen on the website."

According to NOC #2,  during the mandatory PreRace Radio Check "it is recommended" that  AIS system(s)  be turned on for verification. Surely a line honors contender would comply.  But, here's the stinker, the Radio Check is required to be completed by 2359 December 22nd,  3 days before the start.  Unlikely an onboard Channel 7 team actually videod  the PreRace Radio Check three days before, so he may mean "somebody" videod a test of AIS transmission working immediately prior to the start.   Cool if true, AIS verification on tape.  But I've looked high and low on the Interwebs and cannot find the referenced video. 

 "As soon as we went around Bradley's Head the Channel 7 TV guys started live streaming from the helicopter. The instant they started streaming, we lost all our instrumentation. We lost our wifi, and a lot of instrumentation went down on the boat.  The cameraman told us "sorry guys that is probably from the download.  It is a very high microwave frequency and it can interfere with other equipment at times," Richards explains.  Today, I totally believe that is what happened."

Now, this is an interesting claim.  An airborne video link is UHF and is unlikely to interfere or damage nearby VHF transceivers. For example concerning live video feeds from airborne  helicopters modern practice is "the microwave transmitter chosen was the Nucomm PT-6 digital radio. It is a compact, high-powered unit that provides a full 12W in analog mode, or approximately 8W in digital."  Hardly a "splitter frying" amount of RF power.  Curiously, hundreds of other boats at the start did not suffer damage from the rogue helicopter, and I've found no evidence that it has ever occurred in previous aerial heavily covered  media sailboat starts, or any venue FTIW.

Also, consider that helicopters are complex machines and depend heavily on constant voice & telemetry to stay aloft and safe.  That a microwave video UHF payload would interfere with VHF transmissions is impossible; helicopters would fall out of the sky.

"We got everything rebooted and got everything going afterwards. We were receiving AIS, when you are receiving, you also believe that you are transmitting OK as well.  When you are on board the boat you've no idea whether you are actually transmitting or not. If the device says you are transmitting then you assume that you are sending a signal.  The AIS had nothing to show that we weren't transmitting, and as far as we were concerned that was end of story. Our AIS was on for the whole of the race, " he reiterated. 

Bullocks!  Every AIS transceiver I've seen when connected to a splitter (common on masthead sloops with a single antenna aloft) the splitter has LED readouts that guarantees you are transmitting on VHF & AIS, and alerts if there's an antenna problem.  Witness:

spiktter.jpg.71dc33837eba7b8008797648c1b3e0ef.jpg

To say you didn't know your AIS splitter failed then it becomes magically fixed within 40 minutes of finishing implies your comms guys are blind.

  • Like 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, axolotl said:

Bullocks!  Every AIS transceiver I've seen when connected to a splitter (common on masthead sloops with a single antenna aloft) the splitter has LED readouts that guarantees you are transmitting on VHF & AIS, and alerts if there's an antenna problem.  Witness:

spiktter.jpg.71dc33837eba7b8008797648c1b3e0ef.jpg

Sure, but even on my modest 30’er that box lives behind the instrument panel and only sees the light of day every couple of months when something shits itself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, frant said:

Can someone clarify if the 2kw AIS signal transmitted via satellite captures all data. On Marine traffic my boat and many others show up as “ vessel via satellite”. Is this an issue of registering with Marine Traffic to have vessel data displayed or is it a function of low powered class B transponder?

You have to register and provide boat details and you can even send them a pretty picture if you like. This is the Australian application.

http://beacons.amsa.gov.au/documents/amsa89-australian-maritime-mobile-service-identity-mmsi-application.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, EddyAllTime said:

 

Trial by media? Nah, it's more like trial by Saling Anarchy. 

 

MR provided a reasonable explanation, but you faggots cannot help but pile on.

Let it go. WOXI won. Move on. It's 2019 now.

 

Reasonable explanation ?

HAHAHAHAHAHA

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some of the dialogue in this thread is disgraceful. Its like a feeding frenzy at the zoo and a real statement about some of the people on here. This was a fantastic race yet a lot of people enjoy picking a team apart even after a valid explanation surely we can accept it and move on. Show the humility and sportsmanship you are accusing others of not having.

 

Well Sailed Woxi 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mad said:

I’m gonna have to call bullshit on this one. 

The WO AIS system was turned on briefly at 11.08 am and again at 12.43 pm.  No track was left either time so we can assume that the transmission was short.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rail Meat said:

Hmm.  I think you are wrong.  Your AIS transceiver does NOT have to have any additional capabilities to be picked up by a satellite receiver.  No "uplink", no special transmission hardware or software.  It just pumps out its VHF signal, and then if the satellite has a specialized receiver it will pick up that VHF signal.  The AIS transceivers that are higher power (e.g. 5 watt versus 2) have a better chance of being heard by the satellites, but its still possible for the lower power signal to be heard.

There is fairly simple explanation available on the site that Just a Skosh used to pull his screen shots from, Big Ocean Data.  Its a good service if anyone is in the market for AIS tracking.

http://www.bigoceandata.com/news/satellite-ais-addressing-some-misconceptions/

 

(EDIT -  Ha, Jon beat me to it)

 

You are quite right. EVERY class A and B AIS can talk to satellites. You don't have to do anything to them because they work that way straight out of the box.

I have owned and used a Simrad 400 for 5 years. It is a 2w unit and can talk to satellites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Liquid Assett NZ said:

.....

This was a fantastic race yet a lot of people enjoy picking a team apart even after a valid explanation surely we can accept it and move on. Show the humility and sportsmanship you are accusing others of not having.

Well Sailed Woxi 

The valid explanation merely confirms that they did not comply with the AIS safety requirement.

Richards should show the humility and sportsmanship you accuse others of not having.

Other than the AIS contravention.... Well Sailed WOXI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will this ruckus affect sales of the Robert Oatley wines?

 

PS: It would have been so interesting if the last arriving boat would had lodged a valid protest against WOXI . Drinks would have been on me, except I am not close to Hobart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Please stop doing what your doing in the rule making department for offshore sailing and fuck off. My guess is you have never been outside the sight of the Committee boat, let alone land.

Jack fucking hates it when someone else has more info than the does,  gets real upset and chases them off like a broody hen.

Funni to see how predictable he is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Liquid Assett NZ said:

I think some of the dialogue in this thread is disgraceful. Its like a feeding frenzy at the zoo and a real statement about some of the people on here. This was a fantastic race yet a lot of people enjoy picking a team apart even after a valid explanation surely we can accept it and move on. Show the humility and sportsmanship you are accusing others of not having.

 

Well Sailed Woxi 

Hahahhaahaaaaa

Says the WOXI sock.  It's not just Jack who is predictable.

But this is precious, expecting everyone else the be sportsman except Richards.

posting on an intenet forum = "disgraceful"

failing to observe the RRS = "well sailed"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

To finish of the year I went looking for a post that would be most interesting to reply to. Your opening sentence caught my eye "Ok, so I've bit my tongue for the past couple of days but there is so much ignorant crap flying around that I can't stand it for a second longer".

It was then I found out to my disappointment all you could offer was  simply a chronology of how AIS ended up in WS's Special Regs etc and  concluded with your penultimate statement saying "AIS is only a requirement this year is wrong, it has been in force for the last three editions of the Sydney to Hobart". Now while maybe inferred to your SI's reference, you fail to mention that this year is in fact the first year that the S2H SI's mandate AIS's to be turned on, particularly the TX function that on any serious race boat can be turned off at the flick of an optional switch to RX only or "pirate mode" for most races unless mandated.

So I thought to myself, In your own words you say you have been biting your tongue for days, then post to clear the ignorant swamp, but are totally ignorant yourself?? WTF I thought. Then I read further and it got better under your own hand.

 

Now I haven't explored further down thread to see if @savoir responded but my guess it got a bit ugly on account of your erudite response, so I will step into his shoes.

First @MelbourneA31 thank you very much putting your time into improving the rules of racing in this sport. However I'm afraid that time invested is where my largese ceases.

I cannot believe someone at the pointy end of rule making at a State/National level chimes in to this thread with nothing to add other than ignorant crap and has no opinion on the foundation of this debacle being "self policing" of the rules.

Please stop doing what your doing in the rule making department for offshore sailing and fuck off. My guess is you have never been outside the sight of the Committee boat, let alone land.

I am offering an insight into how and why the regulations were changed. if it were up to me Satcom C would be offered as an alternative to the HF/MF radio as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Wavedancer II said:

Will this ruckus affect sales of the Robert Oatley wines?

If so it will save lives 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frant said:

No, the MMSI no is programmed into transponder, same MMSI for DSC radio on vessel..All that done correctly and that information shows up on other vessels and Marine Traffic via shore repeaters. It is just via satellite that doesn’t identify vessel.

The companies offering AID tracking aps typically require a subscription fee to reveal certain value added data.  That includes all data received via Satellite reception. Pony up the fee to the site and you will get all the data. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Liquid Assett NZ said:

I think some of the dialogue in this thread is disgraceful. Its like a feeding frenzy at the zoo and a real statement about some of the people on here. This was a fantastic race yet a lot of people enjoy picking a team apart even after a valid explanation surely we can accept it and move on. Show the humility and sportsmanship you are accusing others of not having.

 

Well Sailed Woxi 

"A valid explanation surely we can accept "

Ummm.....I dont know if I should laugh or cry. The fact that you accept that shows a serious lack of critical reasoning skills. Even someone who wants to give Woxi the benefit of doubt should at least acknowledge the weakness of their statements. If only to be able to claim some level bbn of credibility. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JasonSeibert said:

Here's some interesting information from the Coast Guard related to LED lighting causing signal interference.

https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO Documents/5p/CG-5PC/INV/Alerts/1318.pdf?ver=2018-08-16-091109-630

 

Jason,

I just wanted to say thanks, that was really interesting article. My AIS and VHF is average range, so I ran this test this morning, quick and easy to do. 

Happy it was a good result, though it means I still haven't found the issue :ph34r:.

Very enlightening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JasonSeibert said:

This should be the nextgen AIS systems - full data mesh networks. Here, they use AIS to help route efficiently. 

https://www.cut.ac.cy/digitalAssets/106/106626_1mcecn-2011.pdf

One thing this proposal does not address, and is also a current weakness of AIS data, is corruption and security issues. But that can be addressed in time.

The concept has a good real world track record. Fiji's telecommunications backbone uses this principle and has worked surprisingly well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mid I criticised your starting this thread. However you must have known something. After only 4 days this thread is approaching half the size of main thread that started 11 months ago. That is a lot of opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Liquid Assett NZ said:

This was a fantastic race yet a lot of people enjoy picking a team apart even after a valid explanation surely we can accept it and move on.....

My bold italic edit

You forget that Richards’ explanation is only valid if it was included in his declaration and that CYCA had checked and accepted it.

Show me the official CYCA ruling on it.

And by not presenting his explanation of the AIS problem on the race declaration, he effectively lied. How sportsmanlike is that?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, frant said:

MR chose to give a media explanation. That explanation to many here is clearly flawed as opposed to “reasonable” hence the ongoing discussion. Some dispute that WOXI won fairly. Discussion will continue wether you denigrate the participants or not.

MR might not be the first guy that WOXI should have looked to for their PR spokesman.  I saw a guy that was pretty keyed up and distresses.  I think he overstated some things like, "the splitter got fried"  It makes you expect to find a melted plastic puddle on the end of the cable.  That they got it going so quickly in Hobart suggests that was not the case.  Maybe they flipped the (presumed here) after market transmit switch after the race in Hobart but I tend to favour the Cold Boot theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Moonduster said:

The best way to determine transmitted power is via SWR. The SRT radio, used in all commercially available AIS transponders of which I'm aware, measure and report SWR via a free PC-based applications called ProAIS2 that is connected via USB to the AIS transponder.

Nitpick. What you need is radiated power. SWR doesn't measure resistive losses, so losses in the coax and insertion losses due to the splitter and connectors won't be seen. What it will see is the mismatch of the antenna and feed line, and most importantly how well the antenna's installation is working in real life versus a theoretical perfection. Additionally you see evidence of damage: kinked coax, bad, loose, corroded, connections, missing or damaged antenna and so on - things that create a reactive change. This matters because when you want to know your radiated power you need to take into account the intrinsic losses. You can add up the losses as specified for each component, and the coax. But if some idiot decides to use a lower spec coax to save money or weight (or buys cheap Chinese fake brand), and doesn't tell you, you won't see that extra loss in the SWR figure.  In the extreme, a dummy load has a perfect SWR, but no radiated power at all.

Once you have an installation sorted, an ongoing SWR reading gives you pretty good indication of a fault, but not always. One thing a splitter needs to do is to divert the AIS transmitter if the VHF transceiver is transmitting. A properly designed splitter will have an internal dummy load that the AIS is diverted to when this is happening. Although the AIS is not radiating any power through the antenna at all in this circumstance, the SWR should remain good (in fact it might even improve.) 

Internal SWR monitoring is a really important thing for transceivers, and I get the impression is underappreciated. Many AIS units will continuously monitor the SWR and will report apparent faults via an indicator or message, not just make it available for interrogation via ProAIS2 . But this may require that you use the same brand display as AIS unit. You don't get such indication in the AIVMD messages. The need to use a connected PC is useful for setting up an installation, but monitoring the AIS unit like this as a permanent solution is probably not viable for most installations. But even then, an end to end check that your AIS transmission is being effectively received is the only foolproof answer. Despite all the moaning about how obvious using any of the free Internet services to check can be done, I wonder who here can put their hand on their heart and claim that they always perform such a check whenever setting out to sea. This is a problem. Radio checks are a no-brainer. But pull out a smart phone and check your AIS? That perhaps should be in the same category, but I'm going to bet the vast majority just don't think about it. And monitoring your AIS after you have left and out of phone range? Sure, can be done, but if it needs a sat data downlink, the vast majority will not be blowing their precious data allocation on it, even if they have sat data aboard, and most probably never think about it. But people don't expect their AIS to break, so why would you be spending any time at all checking?

I don't think there is an easy answer here. AIS for pleasure craft has crept up. Mandating AIS transmission for the S2H is a great idea on paper, but in doing so it made a jump in expectations about the technology that was probably not warranted. It isn't fault of the SI's, rather I think it is one of imagining your average class-B transceiver installation in a pleasure craft would intrinsically operate to the level of reliability expected of a class A system installed in a commercial vessel.  Install and forget black boxes, where none of the status lights are visible once installed, are not the right answer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites