Mid

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

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, paps49 said:

Hoppy you're winding us up surely?

No one can be that stupid.

 

22 minutes ago, DtM said:

Oh he certainly is !!!

Sorry paps DtM is on the money. @hoppy post history shows he would not know how to wind a clock....it is believe it or not what you see.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Of course they will "want" to follow race instructions because they wont want to risk losing on protest, but I highly doubt that professional ocean racing sailors are happy publicising their tactical moves within 30 seconds of making them.

Hack sailors back in the fleet will probably not care so much, but probably would prefer the option to go dark when desired.

Hoppy, with notable exceptions almost all the skippers I have raced with and against have never sought to win or improve their results by clandestine, unfair and unethical behaviour and the risk of protest is not high on the list of what motivates them to abide by rules. There is no satisfaction in sailing for an honest man from a win which has not fairly been achieved.

I would suggest that in the S2H race, a sailor "back in the fleet" would not necessarily merit your description "Hack sailor", and would very likely be an experienced person who would abide by the normal high standards of ethics of the great majority of ocean racing sailors.

If there was an option in the race rules which allowed "going dark" with one's AIS transmission, this option could be taken by anyone and would become a part of acceptable and fair sporting tactics. The adoption of such a rule is unlikely for obvious reasons in my view.

Your remarks suggest you simply don't understand the concept and reality of fair competition in a self policing sport, but then if you have never raced offshore you will not have experienced the spirit of fair play which thankfully is the norm. Offshore racing is not like professional football!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AIS TX TEST #4

We finally have a winner chicken dinner with post from @Tricky Pig , albeit the Jury said it just past the post with fuck all detail.

12 hours ago, Trickypig said:

I’m going to take a wild guess at #4: There is a relationship between a vhf unit’s ability to receive and transmit via the same antenna. Ie if you know the range and transmit power of a shore station and can receive from it, then you know the transmission capacity of your antenna system .

So to explaining this; AIS TEST #4 ..VHF TX POWER/RANGE DEGRADED and AIS TX POWER/RANGE DEGRADED.   

Firstly I’m very mindful of I think @Fiji Bitter post upthread about he and probably others here being technically confused but it is difficult to do this stuff in plain and short English. AIS TX Tests #1 - 3 above required little explanation. #1 screams out at you automatically with visual and audio alarms and #2 & #3 require just some quick button pushing.  

However AIS Test #4 is more complex in terms of quantifying actual AIS TX Power Loss so I will try and keep my explanation as brief and as jargon free as possible, but also still appeal to those here that don’t mind the scientific and would like to see the underlying principals, rather than just my unsupported outcome for this AIS Test #4.

Secondly anyone on a race boat holding the necessary Radio Qualifications on board as mandated by any Offshore Race Rules in the world and with practical experience will or should understand everything I put forward.

Obviously this subject of AIS TX Tests relates to comments made on the public record such as from those below indicating no such AIS TX Tests exist or is problematic to conduct on the race course.

AIS TX Tests #1 - 3 have already dispelled that urban myth propagated by Mark Richards off WOXI. The extension to that is the same persons suggesting mandatory AIS activation may possibly require external/RC compliance as it falls outside the RRS of "self policing" including the making of post-race Declarations accordingly. Yet no such comparable compliance regime exists with say Safety VHF Channel 16 24/7 activation on the race course? Why is AIS suddenly different?

What is the known potential breech of VHF and or AIS TX Transmission strength according to any Race Rules where mandatory activation is included is the question, not the need for more compliance  rules. This includes the 2018 S2H and other races locally in Australia and world wide in 2018 or before that have mandated AIS activation.

Those public comments were as follows and should not be forgotten in the context of this subject where they are all complete bullshit. 

WHAT THEY SAID

Public comments about the use of the Automatic Identification System (AIS) in the 2018 Rolex Sydney to Hobart Race (S2H) and a Race Committee 2018 S2H RC WOXI Protest against Wild Oats XI (WOXI) that was declared "invalid" and Hearing that never eventuated. If there had been a Hearing and facts disclosed, then maybe some commentary might be different. Note: My "emphasis" in quotes.

1. Remember this Post up thread of FeelMyselfVigorously's (copied as I don't want to wake him up).

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of this race and other races, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.

The sport is self policing and if you make a declaration you can only declare the known knowns jack"

2. And then we had this from Mark Richards in his Sail_World.com/nz 31 Dec Interview with Richard Gladwell.

"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.

"There is a light which shows on the AIS that you are transmitting, and ours was. The problem is, it is a VHF antenna, and I know from my experience in the powerboat building world, that if you don't have a perfect VHF connection, then the system becomes massively compromised."

3. Then in  Sails Magazine Feb/March 2019_WOXI Matt Allen, ex Commodore of the CYCA, the Race Organiser (RO) of the S2H, Race Veteran and President of Australia Sailing (AS) who is quoted as saying; "Its been a test to a new rule that probably needed more thinking about in terms of of how they were going to deal with the compliance of it." He goes on to say; "he believes boatsshould be notified that their AIS isn't working to begin with. I think that if there is a breakdown in the AIS system that can be valid excuse, as we know things do break down on boats."

4. The Editor Of Sails Magazine Scott Ale (who completed his 15th S2H this edition) asks the question; "So how can a boat tell if its AIS is working at full strength when its out on the race course? The answer is with some difficulty."

Obviously missing from the above list of four comments is the S2H Race Organiser (RO) or the CYCA. However they have invited submissions post race where I quote;  "From interested parties “around rules, the use of technology and at all times the safety of competitors.”  The RC/CYCA's response it seems after ignoring their responsibilities having regard to competitor post race Declarations (maybe they forgot to look at WOXI's) and being silent after their Race Committee (RC) instigated an AIS Protest against WOXI destined to be deemed "invalid" by the International Jury (IJ) and so a hearing that never happened. Therefore we have to await their viewpoint now 11 weeks on appearing on the public record. That will be an interesting wait as they are holding off printing Notice of Race for 2019.   

So there you have four (4) opinions ranging from FeelMyselfVigorously a poster here on SA and on the record of having done 12 X S2H's and a Master V to boot it seems, the Editor of an Aust hard copy sailing magazine who has done 15 X S2H and then two S2H icons by any measure and one the current President of Australian Sailing. All who say in essence AIS TX transmission strength is unknown and it can't be tested on the race course and so all saying it must become a RC compliance and if not possible, it must be scrapped?. That is notwithstanding this AIS activation rule is in place locally and world wide and a piece of equipment mandated to be carried (but not activated) for a few years??.

Give me fucking strength Matt, Richo and Co. Do you really think we are complete fucking idiots on SA as you plaster up support to a dodgy nine finger WOXI salute without controversy on account of no transparency behind what happened over AISGATE?

Do you really think no one notices the RC's Claytons Protest circumventing RRS/SI Declaration and Protest Rules, the Chairman of the IJ who had the nuts to put WOXI out the back door in 2017 was not invited back for 2018 and his replacement maybe too busy with Team New Zealand to care about the 2018 S2H. BTW is he still allowed to practice law? Then who has been a major financial underwriter of Australian Sailings existence at their HQ and today? Appearance is more important than reality guys. Complicity is the stroke of death. 

What is sadly forgotten in AISGATE is a masterful decision by Juan Vila the navigator on WOXI to stay wide and east on the approach to Tasman Light, burning up VMC but without having to gybe on approach in the NW going SW breeze and that principally resulted in WOXI being first over the line, but with a a bit of help from them being "AIS dark' so other competitors were "dark" to their approach and rounding of Tasman Light. This was the only point AIS came into play for the 100' Club for the entire race. That said the "end does not justify the means" under the RRS and SI's.

 

10671038-3x2-940x627.jpg.3e8ce017ce0a8e9721f5f5a8ec1b373b.jpg

What we have now is a technical narrative of AIS failure on the race course being promoted by the above persons to disguise WOXI knowing or not knowing there was an AIS issue on the race course to support a Skippers post Race  Declaration. However that is now being shown here on this thread bit by bit to be complete horseshit. Worse still the horseshit unless challenged here guides the formulation of race rules for not just the S2H, but  many RO's world wide looking on for their races where they contemplate AIS activation.

Is having Mark Richards being able to put up 9 fingers in the S2H 2018 unchallenged the price world wide we all have to pay worthwhile?

So Mark and Sandy who I'm told view this thread via their people.. As I have outlined above courtesy of Vila you won this this race in my mind fair and square. However your reluctance to come clean other than AIS "fried splitters" and VSWR faults according to your electronics expert as reported in Sails Mag resulting in a 95% AIS Range reduction are simply not cutting the mustard on the technical front. 

So Sandy and Mark my suggestion is get Mumbles to write an appropriate PR piece ASAP saying you believe your VHF/AIS TX signal complied with the race rules and as per the post-race Declaration submitted by WOXI showing 100% compliance on the basis quarantined to knowledge on the Race Course (not afterwards upon hitting the dock) and with that you will enjoy what you deserve. A grand result, albeit Mark will look like a complete donkeyl having regard to AIS TX Knowledge #1 - 5 here, but worse is being a cheater as some idiots claim.  

If that suggestion  is not to your liking, then all WOXI have raised is 8 not 9 fingers in the real sailing world with the help of the CYCA and I would't play golf with any of you pricks...and game on. 

End it it now would be my tip.

 

12d264151816a3598e1d6eb95fe65307.png.ea0fd634c5eee54e06114d0702d09bb8.png

 

PS. Sorry I forgot after that rant. I have the AIS Test #4 detail ready to post, just give me until today and tomorrow to edit to take out as much jargon/technical as possible without ruining it for anyone who wants to rely upon it and or not take my word without testing it.  

 

        

  

 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

So Mark and Sandy who I'm told view this thread via their people.. As I have outlined above courtesy of Vila you won this this race in my mind fair and square. However your reluctance to come clean other than AIS "fried splitters" and VSWR faults according to your electronics expert as reported in Sails Mag resulting in a 95% AIS Range reduction are simply not cutting the mustard on the technical front. 

So Sandy and Mark my suggestion is get Mumbles to write an appropriate PR piece ASAP saying you believe your VHF/AIS TX signal complied with the race rules and as per the post-race Declaration submitted by WOXI showing 100% compliance on the basis quarantined to knowledge on the Race Course (not afterwards upon hitting the dock) and with that you will enjoy what you deserve. A grand result, albeit Mark will look like a complete donkeyl having regard to AIS TX Knowledge #1 - 5 here, but worse is being a cheater as some idiots claim.  

Seconded.

The only things that have contributed to the lingering stink hanging over WOXI's win have been the contradictory and very public pronouncements from team WOXI about the technical nature of the failure. There are some very simple rules in public life about how to handle this sort of mess, and they don't seem to be understood. 

The CYCA is however another matter. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hoppy said:

But the fact is that the officially accepted line is that the AIS TX was fried.

The officially accepted line is what is in Race Declaration. 

2 hours ago, hoppy said:

Other than that, I am just in disagreement with the AIS TX SI that they added to the S2H last year because always transmitting is not an important safety item for this part of the world with the minimal shipping traffic.  

AIS activation was not just for shipping.

Share this post


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

As for the option to "go dark", it has been the norm in the S2H ever since rule 4.09(a) was added to the special regs for cat 1

Your confused. AS SR 4.09 is AIS instalation only. There is no requirement to activate RX/TX so "going dark" as you say doesn't exist in offshore racing at all. If SI mandate activation then going "dark" is not an option. Offshore Racing is not like playing hide and seek with pirates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, hoppy said:

.................., I am just in disagreement with the AIS TX SI that they added to the S2H last year because always transmitting is not an important safety item for this part of the world with the minimal shipping traffic. 

 

Being "in disagreement" with a rule isn't a sufficient reason for ignoring it in a fair sporting competition. Whether you personally think a rule is necessary or a good rule is immaterial, as is the part of the world in which you sail.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2019 at 2:16 AM, jack_sparrow said:

12d264151816a3598e1d6eb95fe65307.png.ea0fd634c5eee54e06114d0702d09bb8.png

Tell me Herr Ricko, wass der AIS Kaput?

Nein...

 

 

        

  

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2019 at 1:16 AM, jack_sparrow said:

AIS TX TEST #4

We finally have a winner chicken dinner with post from @Tricky Pig, albeit the Jury said it just past the post with fuck all detail.

So to explaining this; AIS TEST #4 ..VHF/AIS TX POWER/RANGE DEGRADED.   

Firstly I’m very mindful of I think @Fiji Bitter post up thread about he and probably others here being technically confused but it is difficult to do this stuff in plain and short English. AIS TX Tests #1 - 3 above required little explanation. #1 screams out at you automatically with visual and audio alarms and #2 & #3 require just some quick button pushing.  

However AIS Test #4 is more complex in terms of quantifying actual AIS TX Power Loss so I will try and keep my explanation as brief and as jargon free as possible, but also still appeal to those here that don’t mind the scientific and would like to see the underlying principals, rather than just my unsupported outcome for this AIS Test #4..........

PS. Sorry I forgot after that rant. I have the AIS Test #4 detail ready to post, just give me until today and tomorrow to edit to take out as much jargon/technical as possible without ruining it for anyone who wants to rely upon it and or not take my word without testing it

 

I haven't forgotten explanation to AIS TX Test #4. Just a bit busy atm and in editing to make it reader friendly I realised that few here would know what Log Tables, Slide Rule or a Log Function Calculator looks like to do their own Test #4 matched to specific boat and location. So I needed to go find some RF On-Line Calculators to make it a breeze to do with no radio knowledge needed. Now got what I need. Give me another day.      

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AIS TX TEST #5 ????

In the meantime there is still one to go. Get this one and bundle up with #1 - #4 and you have the beer.

Hints....easiest of all to guess what it is and to employ. Also more obvious and accurate in a tracked race.

Share this post


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

AIS TX TEST #5 ????

In the meantime there is still one to go. Get this one and bundle up with #1 - #4 and you have the beer.

Hints....easiest of all to guess what it is and to employ. Also more obvious and accurate in a tracked race.

Well, just drinking the last bottle of that crate I bought last week, so need another one, and this one is easy as piss.

Just look for any competitor on the tracker who is actually within AIS range, but not showing up as such. Call him over the VHF and ask him to confirm that he can see you on the AIS. If he can you know that your AIS is working properly, and that his is not. Thank him for his cooperation, and tell him you are protesting him.

Double points for turning this test into a tactical tool, I suppose. Would have been a race winner for Black Jack.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2019 at 2:04 PM, hoppy said:

 

This explains you AIS confusion. You have lots of commercial shipping, fishing vessels etc in your region, by comparison we have SFA down the coast of NSW and even less than SFA once you go away from the mainland to Tassie.

Hoppy, the only confusion here is yours, the SI's didn't give a shit about the amount of traffic, they merely mandated transmission. If you were not transmitting you are in breach and not eligible accept a trophy or a watch or pass Go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2019 at 11:34 AM, hoppy said:

 

This explains you AIS confusion. You have lots of commercial shipping, fishing vessels etc in your region, by comparison we have SFA down the coast of NSW and even less than SFA once you go away from the mainland to Tassie.

FFS, you don't need lots of traffic to justify anything. It is merely and prudently adding another layer of useful safety technology.

When was the last time you heard about multiple ships hitting the same yacht repeatedly? Just One is always too many.....

Think of it the other way - should you need to evacuate a crew member for some medical emergency - trust me - you will want your AIS to be broadcasting.

Oh, I forgot, you don't race offshore.

The deep pockets of offshore have had rangefinders and night vision googles for a very long time - AIS is just part and parcel of prudent SI's - unless you are near the Horn of Africa or Straits of Malacca. But this isn't; the only piracy going on stays in Sydney CBD.

What MR did was indicative of his approach to so much of his demeanour. I know that this is not a trait shared by most of the WOXI crew nor Sandy Oatley.

 

Share this post


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

Well, just drinking the last bottle of that crate I bought last week, so need another one, and this one is easy as piss.

Just look for any competitor on the tracker who is actually within AIS range, but not showing up as such. Call him over the VHF and ask him to confirm that he can see you on the AIS. If he can you know that your AIS is working properly, and that his is not. Thank him for his cooperation, and tell him you are protesting him.

Double points for turning this test into a tactical tool, I suppose. Would have been a race winner for Black Jack.

 

Well simply put... a radio check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AIS TX Tests #1 - #3 up thread required little explanation and hence why they were picked up so quickly here. However AIS Test #4 is more complex. However to appeal to those here that don’t care about the scientific nor would like to see the underlying principals, and just my unsupported outcome for this AIS Test #4.

Here is the Prelude in Section A and an Executive Summary in Section B amounting in essence to my submission to the CYCA as invited just for AIS TEST #4 plus ironically a VHF Test under Race Rules on the race course and which any numbskull can quickly and should understand without the detail pending.  

AIS TX TEST #4 – VHF & AIS TX POWER/RANGE DEGRADED  

A. PRELUDE

1. This AIS TX Test #4 is obviously further to that obtained automatically in Test #1 (AIS TX Alarm) and done by searching in Tests #2 (Software) and #3 (On-Line AIS Position).

2. If AIS TX Tests #1 - #3 are showing an Antenna (including cable & VHF/AIS Splitter) related problem, then there is a high probability the same problem is also impacting on VHF RX/TX capability and in breach of Australian Sailing (AS) Special Regulations (SI) 2.03.1 and 3.25.4.

3. That aside this AIS TX #4 Test is also mindful of a misconception no such AIS TX Tests exist all propagated by the Skipper of WOXI Mark Richard’s who has stated in his Sail_World.com/nz 31 Dec Interview with Richard Gladwell as follows; "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." Then in relation to VHF he also stated disingenuously some may say for a joint VHF/AIS as follows; "The problem is, it is a VHF antenna, and I know from my experience in the powerboat building world, that if you don't have a perfect VHF connection, then the system becomes massively compromised.”

4. Then the following quote from Sails Magazine Feb/March 2019_WOXI. It states via an exclusive interview with a WOXI commissioned “highly respected marine electronics expert” saying WOXI “was transmitting on low power due to an antenna fault – high VSWR.”

5. The irony of mandatory AIS activation by SI actually introduces via AIS TX Tests #1 - #3 and with #1 an automatic alarm, a warning your VHF has in Mark Richards words may be “massively compromised,” which ordinarily you would be unaware of until trying to use it, possibly in a rescue and recovery incident.

6. Anyone on a race boat holding the necessary Radio Qualifications on board as mandated by any Offshore Race Rules in the world and with some practical experience will understand everything I say here. For those that don’t it is necessary to first understand the concepts of Radio Frequency (RF) propagation and in particular VHF to be able to understand fully this AIS TX Test # 4 (That will follow in due course)

B. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - AIS TX TEST #4

This involves using your mandated by Race Rules 25W VHF Radio to establish a “VHF Radio Range Degradation” between your masthead antenna and that of a known VHF Receiver caused by the integrity and performance of your VHF/AIS Antenna System (including coax “feed line”, connections and antenna itself) failing by a selected amount of power loss. Hey presto you then have a quick test of your AIS TX.

It should be stated the range stated with your manufacturers VHF and AIS data sheet are not much help as to what a “normal Max RX Range” is as they say will be derived empirically from various manufacturer tests, some which “Guild the Lilly,” some don’t and some which don’t apply or missing for racing sailboat use and obviously make no allowance for antenna height, critical to any assessment. That said many who may regularly race the same course and communicate with fixed terrestrial stations might have a good feel for what that “normal max VHF range” is.

However in the absence of that it can be easily “calculated” with reasonable accuracy with the purpose of establishing a “Selected VHF/AIS Power Loss” using “Degraded VHF TX Range” to any Vessel or VHF Repeater/Base/Coastal Station.

This following Table is produced for a racing vessel with a 50’ mast mounted antenna and with either another vessel with same mast height or a terrestrial Base Station/Coastal Station having the same antenna height and similar RX sensitivity.

VHF/AIS DEGRADED TX POWER/RANGE COMPARISONS (i)

AIS/VHF TX Power Loss Reduced (ii)       Max RX Range in Nautical Miles  

                                                                                VHF Radio (iii)                    VHF AIS (iv)

Full Power (iii) & (iv)                                       21 nm                                    13 nm 

Divides by Half or -3dB                                   17 nm                                    11 nm

Divides by 10 or -10 dB                                   12 nm                                    8 nm                     

Divides by 16 or -12 dB                                   10 nm                                    7 nm

Divides by >1,000 or 57 dB (v)                     1 nm                                      0.5 nm                 

Notes:

(i) Two (2) VHF/AIS stations having the same antenna height of 50’ (picked as average in offshore racing). The range is calculated using various VHF modelling over sea water, both VHF/AIS Radios data sheets and the author’s experience. For instance Class B AIS manufacturers say their range is around 9 nm but that is based upon an antenna height of around 10.’ See Note (ii).  

(ii) A Decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit that is a ratio of the power of the system. It is not linear. For instance if the masthead antenna height is doubled, the received signal strength increases. Therefore essential vessel specific calculations are carried out having regard to Race Rules including Pre-Race Testing Auditing such as for the Sydney Hobart Race Radio Installation and Inspection Form and outcomes quantified before starting any race. 

(iii) VHF rated at 25W or 44 dB at 157 MHz transmitting but a factor of -1 dB assuming battery power on board a non-powered vessel not producing max rated radio power of 25W. Also optimistically on the threshold of minimum RX sensitivity of -107 dB at 12 dB SINAD for the RX Station, but both VHF stations having well installed/maintained antenna systems i.e. “feed line” losses and “antenna gains” nearly cancel each other out. For VHF only atmospheric conditions are facilitating an additional TX Distance of 4 nm or 21 nm or beyond “Radio Horizon” of 17 nm between both stations. That additional 4 nm or effective 4 dB could be very easily be lost if the above assumptions are not the case, so this must be kept in mind.

(iv) Class B AIS rated at 2W or 33 dB at 162 MHz All assumptions in Notes (i) - (iii) apply except VHF having greater power so an additional TX Distance beyond the “Radio Horizon” of 17 nm does not apply.

(v) Example using the above assumptions where a vessels AIS TX Range is degraded to just 0.5 nm or decreases transmit power well over 1000 times (30 dB) and translates to a VHF range of only 1 nm.  

 

As you can see by this Table comparing a VHF and AIS signals it shows very clearly an AIS Class B’s TX signal degrading more than 3 Decibels (dB) or a reduction in power by less than half (explained in AIS RX Test #1 and #2) and is a TX Power Limit Loss set by AIS manufactures that have a build in an alarm feature.

That AIS TX #1 alarm reduction by >2.6 dB or a RX Power Loss of 45% or <3 dB becomes very critical. It is the AIS TX distance loss PLUS a potential loss of specific AIS information transmitted to other vessels. However for practical purposes taking into account the vagaries of VHF TX strength assume if that if your VHF TX by distance is less than 50% or -12 dB you can be assured your AIS TX is definitely not functioning properly and your VHF is now borderline under Race Rules.   

That then in turn becomes critical in terms of complying with Australian Sailing (AS) Special Regulations  which in 2.03.1 states: “All equipment required by these Special Regulations shall on the race course in terms of 2.03.1 be:  (a) Function properly.”     

*****EXECUTIVE SUMMARY STILL TO BE CONCLUDED

I note I would not ordinarily put in the above Table a VHF/AIS TX power loss that Divides by >1,000 or 57 dB or equates to a Max VHF Distance of  1 nm or just a Max AIS TX distance of just half a nautical mile for two racing sailboats with 50’ mast mounted antennas unless for the following.

 The following quote from Sails Magazine Feb/March 2019_WOXI. It states via an exclusive interview with a WOXI commissioned “highly respected marine electronics expert” saying WOXI “was transmitting on low power due to an antenna fault – high VSWR” and “the fault would have significantly limited Oats AIS operating distance down to as little as half a nautical mile- as opposed to 10 to 12 nautical mile if functioning properly.” The article goes on to talk about on WOXI the antenna “cable has to run 45 metres down the length of the mast.”

I note such masthead “feed line” losses that article refers to are included for a 50’ mast in the above Table. I also note a high VSWR or Voltage Standing-Wave Ratio measuring an Impedance mismatch on the joint VHF/AIS Antenna “feed line” is measured in Decibels (dB). I also note by a reduction down to a AIS Range of only 0.5 nm or -57 dB by the above Table indicates what ever happened on board WOXI was catastrophic to both VHF and AIS if it applies to both the VHF and AIS joint Antenna and where the AIS itself is not at fault. It is noted that aspect of the AIS being at fault has never been raised by WOXI and supported by WOXI transmitting an AIS signal around 1 ½ hours after their finish or around 0930 28 December.

That technical aspect is a separate discussion, see Appendix A below.

Note: To underpin the above Table and enable you to do your own calculations to be both VHF and AIS compliant under Race Rules putting aside AIS TX TESTS #1 - #3 you need to understand Radio Frequency (RF) concepts like the marine band spectrum, power level, station signal gains and losses, receiver sensitivity and path losses etc. and do a working examples as follows, but which I have omitted to just keep this Post brief. They will come separately in a following Post.

C. RF/VHF/AIS CONCEPTS

D. MAX VHF RANGE CALCULATION

E. VHF RANGE TEST WITH DEGRADED VHF RANGE CALCULATIONS

F. AIS RANGE TEST USING DEGRADED VHF RANGE CALCULATIONS

G. PRACTICAL APPLICATION ON THE RACE COURSE

H. CONCLUSION

APPENDIX A – WOXI EXAMPLE USING VHF SI MANDATED REPORTING

 

Yes Appendix A you are looking for, but you will just have to wait. It is maybe not what you think:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s admirable work Jack, however it won’t change a thing and most people no longer give a shit about the line honour results anyway. 

Share this post


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

It’s admirable work Jack, however it won’t change a thing and most people no longer give a shit about the line honour results anyway. 

Mad who gives a flying fuck about the result...the game now is to stop another catastrofuck in race administration happening again and which could quite easily happen on your or anyone's offshore race course tomorrow. If it does then you all will be bitching like stuck pigs and coming back here for inspiration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Fiji Bitter said:

Well, just drinking the last bottle of that crate I bought last week, so need another one, and this one is easy as piss.

Just look for any competitor on the tracker who is actually within AIS range, but not showing up as such. Call him over the VHF and ask him to confirm that he can see you on the AIS. If he can you know that your AIS is working properly, and that his is not. Thank him for his cooperation, and tell him you are protesting him.

More information required lazy guy. As for calling anyone up forget it. Not part of this quiz and some rules Nazi's will say you are seeking "outside assistance" with your only out for making that call is you are about to run into a ship or a reef that is sporting an AIS.

Share this post


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

Mad who gives a flying fuck about the result...the game now is to stop another catastrofuck in race administration happening again and which could quite easily happen on your or anyone's offshore race course tomorrow. If it does then you all will be bitching like stuck pigs and coming back here for inspiration.

We can bitch all we want, however, cash is king. Not only in sailing, but every walk of life. 

Bitching on a sailing forum accomplishes little if at all. I understand your attitude and approach, but it’s indicative of any sport where one party wants to win at all or any cost. 

Sad but true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, mad said:

Bitching on a sailing forum accomplishes little if at all.

Who said bitching here is the start and end of it all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Fiji Bitter said:

Well, just drinking the last bottle of that crate I bought last week, so need another one, and this one is easy as piss.

Just look for any competitor on the tracker who is actually within AIS range, but not showing up as such. Call him over the VHF and ask him to confirm that he can see you on the AIS. If he can you know that your AIS is working properly, and that his is not. Thank him for his cooperation, and tell him you are protesting him.

Double points for turning this test into a tactical tool, I suppose. Would have been a race winner for Black Jack.

 

You could also just tell im to switch his on and/or do a 360. Fuck, what has this sport turned into? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack

So for ~ 30 m air draught and  VHF station Mt Raoul (460 m altitude) ~ 10 miles away, AIS stations Mt Mangana (570m altitude) ~ 23 miles away and Mt Maria (710m altitude) ~ 40 miles away, the numbers are? And this is the area was where the line honours race was won with lots of non race vessels around.

If any other boat can receive any of WOXI’s radio transmissions well enough, they should also see WOXI on AIS, so WTF was the crew on the radio relay vessel JBW doing, apart from drinking pink gins?

IF AIS is so dependent on VHF, surely all SI’s, declarations and automatic penalties associated with VHF should also be applicable to AIS?

What do you think to this:

CYCA should hand out portable AIS units instead of S2H trackers? At least then all AIS equipment would be functioning to a known minimum standard? Maybe hook it up to the required emergency antenna, that way you have an inherent emergency equipment check with one less thing to worry about if the mast comes down?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sidecar I think you have missed the point, being to demonstrate there are many ways to test AIS TX on the race course contrary to Richo saying there are none.

Tests #1 - #3 are far more accurate and quicker, than #4 where #1 is not really a test but an automatic alarm at around 45% TX power loss that appears visually and in most gear accompanied by a audible alarm. In fact they also indicate a potential VHF problem on a shared antenna so double the benefit. 

7 hours ago, Sidecar said:

So for ~ 30 m air draught and  VHF station Mt Raoul (460 m altitude) ~ 10 miles away, AIS stations Mt Mangana (570m altitude) ~ 23 miles away and Mt Maria (710m altitude) ~ 40 miles away, the numbers are? And this is the area was where the line honours race was won with lots of non race vessels around.

WOXI had a TX power reduction problem of around -60 dB or 0.000001 full power. As electronics guy said in Sails Mag AIS range was down to 1/2 nm so never going to reach Mangana  and Maria AIS Repeaters. Mt Raoul VHF (radio horizon around 50nm) is 10 and 20 mile from mandatory VHF report points. Regardless of improved Radio horizon you still need RX power. 0.000001 the power isn't going to cut the mustard. Switch over to pre-wired emergency antenna or handheld at 5w if problem was with shared part of antenna system.

7 hours ago, Sidecar said:

If any other boat can receive any of WOXI’s radio transmissions well enough, they should also see WOXI on AIS, so WTF was the crew on the radio relay vessel JBW doing, apart from drinking pink gins?

Only 2 (3 if position sched time in Storm Bay where HF ceases) VHF mandatory calls are Tasman Light (10nm) and the Derwent (20 mm) from Mt Raoul Repeater Channel 81.  Repeater manned 24/7 by RTYC just for the race. JBW not even in the same postcode back up the track.

7 hours ago, Sidecar said:

IF AIS is so dependent on VHF, surely all SI’s, declarations and automatic penalties associated with VHF should also be applicable to AIS?

AIS is not dependant on VHF it is a VHF frequency except data not voice. The both share same antenna via a Splitter that's all. Declarations are yes or no did I comply with rules. AIS activation is in the rules. Genuine failure of anything electronic in rules won't lead to a penalty unless you are shagging the RC Chairs missus.

7 hours ago, Sidecar said:

CYCA should hand out portable AIS units instead of S2H trackers? At least then all AIS equipment would be functioning to a known minimum standard? Maybe hook it up to the required emergency antenna, that way you have an inherent emergency equipment check with one less thing to worry about if the mast comes down?

Why? Also inferior to built in gear that has been tested and declared pre-race. Gear seldom the problem. The problem is usually installation issues (usually antenna related) or physical damage. Pre-wired emergency antenna via Splitter still allows emergency VHF/AIS. Deck mounted VHF/AIS antennas also have far inferior range. Everytime masthead antenna height is doubled, the received AIS/VHF signal strength increases four times (or 6 dB). That is why VHF masthead antennas are mandatory in the Special Regs. You also forget each AIS (with serial number) has vessels Registered MMSI and Call Sign attached to it. You can't just hand these things around like lollies.

Share this post


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

You could also just tell im to switch his on and/or do a 360. Fuck, what has this sport turned into? 

Circle work stops at the Syd Heads Sea Mark...after that is hoist the Yellow Flag and throw yourself at the feet of the RC  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My pleasure @Sidecar. As you can see it is subject I have a modicum of knowledge in and in relation to the WOXI/S2H both intrigued and dismayed by. Historical for what happened last Dec and what I'm sure, unless people speak up, potentially could be a ham fisted response to AIS by the CYCA and which will be reflected in the forthcoming SI's for the 75th at the end of the year.

The infuriating thing is because the RC "killed off" their own protest so there was no "hearing," no AIS lessons have been learnt and that then leaves it to places like this, who I can assure is a place very widely read by the biggest owners in this sport or someone in their entourage to convey it.

However when someone of Matt Allen's stature on the race course and off it as President of Aust is talking to Sails Magazine Feb/March WOXI and saying the RC need to essentially look at ignoring "self policing race rules compliance" and introducing "RC on water checks" I get infuriated as all caused by just bloke who is more interested in how many fingers he can poke in the air. It is if they have no idea that five (5) AIS TX Tests exist today and dovetail perfectly into existing race rules.

By the way that CYCA AIS response potentially could fuck it for everybody by encouraging dumb arse protests and not just in Australia as this race is treated world as the "benchmark" for safety rulings since 1998. Everyone forgets the S2H race is not the first to instigate mandatory AIS activation in Aust let alone world wide. Before 1998 it was the 1979 Fasnet that held that infamous signature for instigating many changes in race rules.

Do we need to embrace technology, yes. Do we need more complex safety rules to accommodate that? I think not.

That is the only reason I contribute to this thread and thank you for you're courteous reply.

RIP 40 Years ago 

images (71).jpeg

Share this post


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

My pleasure @Sidecar. As you can see it is subject I have a modicum of knowledge in and in relation to the WOXI/S2H both intrigued and dismayed by. Historical for what happened last Dec and what I'm sure, unless people speak up, potentially could be a ham fisted response to AIS by the CYCA and which will be reflected in the forthcoming SI's for the 75th at the end of the year.

The infuriating thing is because the RC "killed off" their own protest so there was no "hearing," no AIS lessons have been learnt and that then leaves it to places like this, who I can assure is a place very widely read by the biggest owners in this sport or someone in their entourage to convey it.

However when someone of Matt Allen's stature on the race course and off it as President of Aust is talking to Sails Magazine Feb/March WOXI and saying the RC need to essentially look at ignoring "self policing race rules compliance" and introducing "RC on water checks" I get infuriated . It is if they have no idea five (5) AIS TX Tests exist today and dovetail perfectly into existing race rules.

By the way that CYCA AIS response potentially could fuck it for everybody by encouraging dumb arse protests and not just in Australia as this race is treated world as the "benchmark" for safety rulings since 1998. Everyone forgets the S2H race is not the first to instigate mandatory AIS activation in Aust let alone world wide. Before 1998 it was the 1979 Fasnet that held that infamous signature for instigating many changes in race rules.

Do we need to embrace technology, yes. Do we need more complex safety rules to accommodate that? I think not.

That is the only reason I contribute to this thread and thank you for you're courteous reply.

images (71).jpeg

Good response that makes lots of sense. Interesting times ahead. Perhaps you could conjure a letter on behalf of the Editor and it could be sent to the CYCA? Just sayin....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, terrafirma said:

Good response that makes lots of sense. Interesting times ahead. Perhaps you could conjure a letter on behalf of the Editor and it could be sent to the CYCA? Just sayin....

Already in the works and hopefully with some Editor FP support in due course 

 

(Insert)  March 2019                                                                                                                                      

The Chair - Sailing Committee

Cruising Yacht Club of Australia

1 New Beach Road 

DARLING POINT NSW 2007 

AUSTRALIA

Transmitted via email: cyca@cyca.com.au

Attention: Rear Commodore Dr Sam Haynes

RE: HOW EVERYONE CAN AVOID LOOKING LIKE LANCE ARMSTRONG ON AIS

I understand you are seeking submissions from interested parties “around rules, the use of technology and at all times the safety of competitors” having regard to the mandatory activation of the Automatic Identification System (AIS) in the 2018 RS2H Sailing Instructions (SI) 11.4 for the 2018 Rolex Sydney to Hobart Race (S2H). This provision was the subject of a Protest by the S2H Race Committee (RC) that Wild Oats XI (WOXI) may have breached SI 11.4, but whereby a Protest that was deemed "Invalid" by the S2H International Jury (IJ) and therefore a "Protest Hearing" was never convened.

INTRODUCTION

The introduction….     

 

Yours sincerely

 

……………………………………………………

CC. The President Australian Sailing – Mr Matt Allen  office@sailing.org.au

       Chief Executive Officer World Sailing - Mr Andy Hunt

Share this post


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

Interesting times ahead ?  Hardly.  CYCA will ignore everything.

Read the post under yours. You can only hope. 

Share this post


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

So you think that CYCA will publicly admit that they fucked up ?

Dreamin'

@savoir I agree. But more to the point who is asking CYCA to admit to anything here except a minority of fools and @terrafirma isn't one.

Offshore Sailing Rules for the future are more important than this historical clusterfuck, other than revisiting it to ensure the current rules don't change by knee jerk responses.However attitude to rules does have to change, both on and off the race course. Leadership is what is fucked here. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

@savoir I agree. But more to the point who is asking CYCA to admit to anything here except a minority of fools and @terrafirma isn't one.

Offshore Sailing Rules for the future are more important than this historical clusterfuck, other than revisiting it to ensure the current rules don't change by knee jerk responses.However attitude to rules does have to change, both on and off the race course. Leadership is what is fucked here. 

The RC already had enough precedent from other offshore races to preconceive that their SIs were inadequate.

Then they got the perfect storm where 4 super maxis were vying for the lead 60 miles out in complete darkness and one had no AIS.

 

Have you sent your submission yet, Jack ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Trickypig said:

The RC already had enough precedent from other offshore races to preconceive that their SIs were inadequate.

What other SI being inadequate in this regard?

52 minutes ago, Trickypig said:

Have you sent your submission yet, Jack ?

Nah. Fine tuning stage. Took days to come up with a title that would not be forgotten in a hurry.

Share this post


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

Lance Armstrong was on AIS?

No that's why he became a cheater. If he had it turned on all would have been ok. 

Share this post


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

What other SI being inadequate in this regard?

Nah. Fine tuning stage. Took days to come up with a title that would not be forgotten in a hurry.

We've hit a road block Jack. The CYCA are anticipating your letter so they are running a campaign to deflect any criticism. Something about 75 years....

https://www.sail-world.com/news/215543/Cruising-YC-of-Australia-celebrates-75-years

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Trickypig said:

The RC already had enough precedent from other offshore races to preconceive that their SIs were inadequate.

Then they got the perfect storm where 4 super maxis were vying for the lead 60 miles out in complete darkness and one had no AIS.

Tricky I think you have swallowed a urban myth that AIS wording in the 2018 S2H SI was "inadequate", namely 11.4;  Special Regulation 4.09 (a): "An AIS Transponder shall be carried and be switched on, such that it is receiving and transmitting."

As a comparison;

Volvo Ocean Race SI 27.11 "The AIS shall remain powered on and transmitting at all times while Racing."

Brisbane to Kepple NOR  4.1.2 h. "be fitted with AIS with the ability to send and receive and must be activated in both modes at all times during the race."

Marblehead to Halifax Race in the US SI.20.3 “Each boat shall start transmitting her position using her Automatic Identification System (AIS) beginning no later than 2000 ADT on the day of the start and ending no earlier than after she has entered the Northwest Arm in Halifax.”

That is pretty wide range of offshore races and RC's having varied experience in SI drafting world wide. I can't see any inadequacy or ambiguity in any of them, including the S2H.

Share this post


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

We've hit a road block Jack. The CYCA are anticipating your letter so they are running a campaign to deflect any criticism. Something about 75 years....

https://www.sail-world.com/news/215543/Cruising-YC-of-Australia-celebrates-75-years

 

Oh yeah, that drums been beating hard since New Years, only signal showing on screen.

 

Share this post


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

Tricky I think you have swallowed a urban myth that AIS wording in the 2018 S2H SI was "inadequate", namely 11.4;  Special Regulation 4.09 (a): "An AIS Transponder shall be carried and be switched on, such that it is receiving and transmitting."

As a comparison;

Volvo Ocean Race SI 27.11 "The AIS shall remain powered on and transmitting at all times while Racing."

Brisbane to Kepple NOR  4.1.2 h. "be fitted with AIS with the ability to send and receive and must be activated in both modes at all times during the race."

Marblehead to Halifax Race in the US SI.20.3 “Each boat shall start transmitting her position using her Automatic Identification System (AIS) beginning no later than 2000 ADT on the day of the start and ending no earlier than after she has entered the Northwest Arm in Halifax.”

That is pretty wide range of offshore races and RC's having varied experience in SI drafting world wide. I can't see any inadequacy or ambiguity in any of them, including the S2H.

The  Volvo competitors wouldn't have put up with any 'going dark' shit.  Although I think because the organiser was in charge of the maintenance (with the Volvo `Boatyard') it created transparency for them 

As for other races... not enough stuff online to say. If a fleet is big enough and a few go dark one can still the patterns across the course and who is making a gain.

How does an RC police this?

 

Share this post


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

The  Volvo competitors wouldn't have put up with any 'going dark' shit.  Although I think because the organiser was in charge of the maintenance (with the Volvo `Boatyard') it created transparency for them 

As for other races... not enough stuff online to say. If a fleet is big enough and a few go dark one can still the patterns across the course and who is making a gain.

How does an RC police this?

 

Tricky puttying aside you still remain silent on your claim S2H SI were in your words  "inadequate" regarding AIS drafting having regard to other races, but it seems you now can't mention or have forgotten those races? despite me bringing up a few. 

AIS does not have to be policed by RC. Why is AIS activated any different to having VHF on at Ch 16 24/7 or Nav lights on after dark? That is why every racer puts in a post race declaration. You get caught out cheating by either a competitor protest or your post race declaration is not what it seems and is investigated by the RC..

BTW many instances in the VOR where AIS TX failed due to environmental reasons attached to a wet/wild RTW race (like many electronics) and accepted by all competitors. For instance this subject got seriously investigated when Vestas hit a fishing boat on HK approach and their AIS capability was investigated (no drama I understand). Then another example Scally lost Fish and their masthead AIS antenna at the time was caput and so issues picking up his AIS PLB. Which BTW meant zip in the circumstances. 

Mate you have invented something, then got caught out, then posed a diverting question not knowing the answer to your own question. Not a good look.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets see now how many of you know how to read and can join the dots.

AIS TEST #4 & RF CONCEPTS…..& THEN SHIT THAT PISSES ME OFF

This following Table I have already posted up thread but upon reflection it was as confusing as fuck. So I have re drafted it and added the supporting concepts of Radio Frequency (RF) and VHF/AIS below. I apologise for the extent of notes to this Table, but I’m fearful someone may read it without understanding how it is derived ignoring it is two vessels and or RX land station specific and then either rely upon it without doing a specific calculation or worse still, some trolls may try and demolish it having regard to WOXI reference therein.

By simply referring to the Table below and Notes non-compliance with both WS and AS Special Regs and any Sailing Instructions for Offshore Sailing in the world for both VHF and AIS when your Max VHF Range Distance is reduced by 50% is guaranteed. Then visa versa using the features attached to most Class B AIS Transponders you can quantify on the Race Course using AIS TX Tests # 1 – 2 (irrespective of AIS activation being mandatory) whether compliance with VHF Race Rules are being met. What a handy tool. All fundamental to any Post Race Declaration about Race Rule Compliance which is either Yes OR No and no grey territory.

More importantly in terms of safety if that AIS Max Range is reduced by 50% then the “closing time” before a potential collision occurs with another stationary vessel or other AIS enabled but unmanned device is also reduced by “half” in terms of potential collision time. If the other vessel vessel is moving on a colliding course, that "closing time" to collision is reduced again.

The absolute lunacy attached to this subject is totally of WOXI’s own making claiming no such AIS TX Tests exist on the race course. It seems all to propagate a narrative they were immune to any AIS Protest and the Race Committee similarly inclined so lodged a protest destined to be declared invalid.

Yet this AIS TX Test #4 the least reliable out #5 (#5 yet revealed here) but every vessel having mandated persons with Radio qualifications on board everyone knows about? Worse still read in the context of these statements by Australian Sailing in regard to WOXI AISGATE and I quote;

Sails Magazine Feb/March 2019_WOXI Matt Allen, ex Commodore of the CYCA, the Race Organiser (RO) of the S2H, Race Veteran and President of Australia Sailing (AS) who is quoted as saying; "Its been a test to a new rule that probably needed more thinking about in terms of how they were going to deal with the compliance of it." He goes on to say; "he believes boats should be notified that their AIS isn't working to begin with."

It then gets worse. Matt’s views as President of Australian Sailing are replicated in Australian Sailings own publication Opinions Divided On Wild Oats Saga where the Editor Roger McMillan, says; Before next year's sailing instructions (S2H) are written, the Race Committee needs to examine the issue of AIS reliability and determine a way to prove, conclusively, whether an AIS transmitter is turned on or not. If they can't prove it one way or the other, then the requirement for AIS has to be removed until they can”.

Well what we have now here from Australian Sailing is the worst of two evils. No fucking idea about the AIS TX Tests #1 -#5 articulated here. Then ignoring that looking to turn a “self-policing sport” into one being reliant upon the Race Committee policing it because they have no fucking clue about AIS? A mandatory piece equipment installed now for some years and where mandatory AIS activation has been in Race Rules now in many races around the world for years.  

 So basically a local narrative from the top echelons of Australian Sailing down which says, no such AIS TX Tests exist (despite shown otherwise here in this SA thread) on the Race Course and so everyone simply falls into line behind what Mark Richards/WOXI says in his  Sail_World.com/nz 31 Dec Interview  and then the CYCA will examine nothing unless pushed. That dumb fuck outcome can only come down to a RC auditing AIS compliance on the race course (albeit technologically impossible) and AIS protests that no one wants. That then ruins our sport courtesy of just one bloke desperate for putting more  fingers in the air.

How can this be so many will ask? Easy answer. What we have here is the old story of an “actual or worse perceived conflict of interest”. So starting in the last decade who has put more money into Australian Sailing than one entity?  Rather ironic when you consider that same entity survived a 2018 S2H RC WOXI Protest  under RRS 60.2(a) that is designed to “prevent” conflicts of interest for protests on the race course. That is even before even getting to the subject of an IJ Chairman after 8 years good service getting the boot by the CYCA after ruling against that favoured entity in the 2017 race. Then his replacement from NZ probably not giving two hoots about the S2H as up to his head in all things AC back in NZ.

So a bunch of stupid people thinking no one notices this implied or otherwise collusion amongst the leaders of our sport?? Fuck me dead, are we all that equally stupid to not complain?? Anyway for those interested in the technical not the “cover-up story”.

The irony is that Mark Richards by his own words is the best advocate for anyone on the race course doing AIS RX Test #4 as a matter of course. He says in the Sail_World.com/nz 31 Dec Interview that; “The problem is, it is a VHF antenna, and I know from my experience in the powerboat building world, that if you don't have a perfect VHF connection, then the system becomes massively compromised.”"The system is VHF frequency. If you don't have a perfect connection then the signal is compromised massively.”

So one would assume Mark Richards has forgotten about this quick Test #4 for both VHF and AIS functioning as per the Race Rules.This table may refresh Mark's memory and others about Race Rules.      

AIS RX TEST #4 - VHF/AIS DEGRADED TX POWER/RANGE COMPARISONS (i)

AIS/VHF TX Power Loss Reduced (ii)       Max RX Range in Nautical Miles 

                                                                                VHF Radio (iii)                   VHF AIS (iv)

Full Power (iii) & (iv)                                       21 nm                                    13 nm 

Divides by Half or -3dB (v)                            17 nm                                    11 nm

Divides by 10 or -10 dB                                   12 nm                                    8 nm                     

Divides by 16 or -12 dB (vi)                           10 nm                                    6 nm

Divides by 1,000 or -30 dB                             4 nm                                      2 nm

Divides by < 1 million or -57 dB (vii)            <1 nm                                     0.5 nm                 

Notes:

(i) Two (2) VHF/AIS stations having the same antenna height of 50’ (picked as average in offshore racing). The range is calculated using various VHF modelling (see Sections D & E below) over sea water, many VHF/AIS Radios data sheets and the author’s experience. For instance Class B AIS manufacturers may say their range could be anything from 8 -15 nm but those ignore vessel type, antenna heights and quality of installation. It must be stressed the “Full PowerTX Range” and then subsequent degradation will vary subject to those factors and the actual environmental conditions (see Notes (ii) & (iii) ).    

(ii) A Decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit that is a ratio of the power of the system. It is not linear. For instance if the masthead antenna height is doubled, the received signal strength at maximum at max range causes a 6 dB increase, or a four-fold gain in received signal power. Therefore it is essential vessel specific calculations need to be carried out having regard to Race Rules including Pre-Race Testing Auditing such as for the Sydney Hobart Race Radio Installation and Inspection Form and outcomes quantified before starting any race. Practical experience with the actual equipment and its performance is also very helpful to making subjective decisions about Max TX Range.   

(iii) VHF Radio rated at 25W or 44 dB at 157 MHz transmitting but a factor of -1 dB assuming battery power on board a non-powered vessel not producing max rated radio power of 25W. Also optimistically on the threshold of minimum RX sensitivity of -107 dB at 12 dB SINAD for the RX Station, but both VHF stations having well installed/maintained antenna systems i.e. “feed line” losses and “antenna gains” nearly cancel each other out. For VHF only atmospheric conditions are facilitating an additional TX Distance of 4 nm or 21 nm or beyond “Radio Horizon” of 17 nm between both stations. That additional 4 nm “average” or effective 4 dB (average” could be very easily be lost if the above assumptions are not the case, so this must be kept in mind.

(iv) Class B AIS rated at 2W or 33 dB at 162 MHz. All assumptions in Notes (i) - (iii) apply except VHF having greater power so an additional TX Distance beyond the “Radio Horizon” of 17 nm does not apply to AIS.

(v) Most AIS Transponders if Antenna VSWR Ratio >5:1 or a Power Loss factor of 45% or -2.6 dB, a Warning Alarm occurs indicating TX signal has degraded to the point distance and data integrity starts to become compromised.

(vi) As highlighted. For practical purposes taking into account the vagaries of VHF TX strength assume that if your VHF Max TX Range is less than 50%, the AIS has possibly suffered a similar power loss of 1/16th or -12 db and well in excess of an AIS’s limit of  -2.6 dB in Note (v). At his threshold of VHF/AIS TX power loss failure you can be virtually assured being on the threshold of non-compliance with both WS and AS Special Regs and any Sailing Instructions for Offshore Sailing in the world for both VHF and AIS. See Section C3 (d) below.      

(vi) As highlighted. Example using the above assumptions where a vessels AIS TX Range is degraded to just 0.5 nm or decreases transmit power by approx. 1 million times (-60 dB) and translates to a VHF range of <1 nm. For example the 0.5 nm as reported by WOXI for the 2018 S2H in Sails Magazine Feb/March 2019_WOXI albeit an antenna 3 X higher (150’) resulting from VSWR failure (cause not identified) which by any measure is catastrophic.    

For anyone not radio proficient and wants to better understand it and the jargon it is necessary to understand these RF/AIS/VHF/ Concepts below. Once you have digested that I will show you how to quickly calculate “Line/Propagation Losses” for both VHF Radio and AIS on any race boat and on any race course.  

C. RF/VHF/AIS CONCEPTS

This Section explains various Radio Frequency (RF) and VHF/AIS concepts like the marine band spectrum, power level, station signal gains and losses, receiver sensitivity and path losses etc. Before moving to the simple example of a vessel with a 50’ high mast head mounted antenna, it is necessary to understand these concepts and illustrate how this VHF/AIS TX Test #4 has been prepared, particularly if you wish to construct your own test as shown in Sections D - G. (omitted here)

1. VHF MARINE BAND SPECTRUM & AIS

Marine VHF (Very High Frequency) Radio comprises the radio frequency range from 156 MHz to 162 MHz. The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) labels this as the "VHF Maritime Mobile Band." The AIS frequencies are in the upper limit of the Maritime Band are at 161.975 MHz and 162.025 MHz. For further information about AIS and method of data RX/TX using VHF using this spectrum About AIS.

2. RF/VHF POWER.

(a). Watts to dB Explanation

RF/VHF power is most commonly expressed and measured in decibels (dB) with a decibel-milliwatt reference being dBm or a decibel-watt reference being dBw.  A decibel is a logarithmic unit that is a ratio of the power of the system. A decibel value of 0 is equivalent to a ratio of 1.

So any RF/VHF Range Calculations can only be done using Decibel-milliwatts (dBm) being the output power in decibels not watts. However you can convert between mW and dBm using the following formulas which also show the relationship between the two:

P(dBm) = 10 · log10(P(mW))

P(mW) = 10(P(dBm)/10)

For example, a power of 2.5 mW in dBm is:

dBm = 10log2.5 = 3.979 or about 4 dBm.

For example, a power of 7 dBm in mW is:

P = 107/10 = 100.7 = 5 mW 

However an On-Line conversion from Watts to dBm can be found here to save you wearing your calculator, log tables or slide rule out. Watts to dB Calculator. So here are some common dB and VHF/AIS TX Power rules.

(b). dB Values and TX Power

An Increase of:                 A Decrease of:                  TX Power Produced

3 dB                                                                                 Double transmit power

                                                3 dB                                 Half transmit power

10 dB                                                                               10 times the transmit power

                                                10 dB                               Divides transmit power by 10

30 dB                                                                               1000 times the transmit power

                                                30 dB                                Decreases transmit power 1000 times

So using the Watts to dB Calculator  you can see your 25W VHF Radio is rated at 44 dB, yet a 2W Class B AIS is rated at 33dB? How can that be some may say? The above dB Values and TX Power Table answers that question.

3. VHF/AIS TX ANTENNA POWER GAINS/LOSSES

(a). Antenna Power Losses

Part of the Antenna system is the “feed line” or the coaxial cable and its connectors between the Antenna and the VHF transceiver and which where most losses occur.

The causes for those losses can be many including type of coaxial cable, run length and number of connections etc. For instance the attenuation in “low loss” LMR 400 cable is approx. 1.5 dB and yet similar looking but inferior RG 58 is approx. a loss of 6 dB per 100’ of cable. Before the advent of modern low loss exterior rated small diameter coax cable your only option was coax cable the diameter of your finger, with its attached weight up the mast on race boats. A good quality connector the loss should be around 0.04 dB each plus Splitter (good quality) loss around 0.1 dB.

Note: any extraordinary losses involving an “impedance mismatch” (power or heat being returned to the Transceiver) can also be measured using a Voltage Standing-Wave Ratio (VSWR) meter. Refer to AIS TX Tests #1 and #2 for further explanation.

(b). Signal to Noise Ratio & EMI/RFI 

Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) or sometimes referred to as Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) which is narrower when referred to a specific frequency spectrum is when any unwanted signal interferes with your electronic equipment and in this case your VHF and AIS TX/RX signal. It can be caused by many things such as alternators (converting AC to DC), bad grounding, depth sounders, a Navigation PC, a microwave in the galley or a rapid change in voltage caused by switches making and breaking contact on high load devices such as electric winches etc. Filters or mechanical shielding is the most common solution which in fact is what a coaxial constructed and shielded antenna cable does. Good quality marine equipment is also built to recognised EMC standards. The outcome is strange readings on electronic displays, auto pilots suddenly going AWOL and weird noises on radio or audio equipment etc. In the case of VHF/AIS the probability is higher that it will impact more upon your RX sensitivity (see Section 4. Below) than your TX signal.

The most extreme EMI/RFI examples I can think of occurring is first generation LED Navigation masthead lights where the LED emitters having too closer frequency to the VHF marine band playing havoc with AIS’s. In fact this was the subject of a USCG directive last year about these older LED lights and AIS operation. With proper equipment location and cable routing, EMI/RFI should not be a major issue and not likely to be suddenly something which manifests itself on the race course and so is a condition that can be dealt with at Inspection and Audit stage as outline in Section 3(d) below.

 (c). Power Gain.

Marine VFF antennas are "omnidirectional vertically polarised" or in other words where the radiated signal is basically of equal strength through 360 degrees of and maximised in the horizontal plane and zero directly above and below the antenna like a "donut" as shown in diagrams below.

radiation-pattern-vert.jpg.f2120c2c8f678450b2b393e2a69780d1.jpgvert-polar.gif.7cc5de8464d1b8596127b932cae08ac5.gif

Then there is the antenna Gain which is the ability of the antenna to improve transmission "efficiency" and "horizontal directivity" of the radiated signal which gives the "appearance" the antenna alone is increasing power which it clearly can't do. Most marine masthead antennas will have a Gain of no more than 3dB, in fact any higher may introduce impedance matching or VSWR issues with AIS. The horizontal oriented "nodes" of a 3dB antenna are shown in diagram below.

antenna-3db.jpg.e7694d9604f1fa05539c91cd18c54da3.jpg

 

(d). How Do I Measure Antenna Power Gains/Losses so I can be assured I’m compliant with Race Rules?

First measuring and maintaining your VHF/AIS Antenna Power is an obligation under Race Documentation. For example using the 2018 Sydney Hobart Race (S2H) as an example. Australian Sailing (AS) Special Regulations  2.03.1 states: “All equipment required by these Special Regulations shall on the race course in terms of 2.03.1 be:

(a) Function properly.

(b) Be regularly checked, cleaned and serviced.”

However in addition to the obligation imposed under Australian Sailing (AS) Special Regulations 2.03.1 to regularly check and maintain for functionality, there is also AS 3.25.4 which states:

“Permanently installed VHF transceivers shall:

(c) Have transmission and reception with a base station at least 8 nautical miles distant.(peculiar to AS Regs compared to WS Regs)

(d) Be tested in accordance with the notice of race.”

So having regard to AS 3.25.4 the Pre-Race  Radio Installation and Inspection Form has a suitably qualified Radio Surveyor inspecting and making a Declaration that this is the case Pre-Race. This includes the AIS and the VHF antenna installation it relies upon namely Items;

15. “VHF Antenna in sound mechanical condition,

17. VHF Co-axial cable feeder is sound and of low loss quality with good connections, and

23. AIS Transponder fitted and operational.” 

So your suitably qualified Radio Surveyor inspecting and making a Declaration under Race Rules can tell you exactly what VHF/AIS TX Antenna Power Gains/Losses you have. No guessing is required.  It is noted that this expert Audit also includes other electronic orientated Safety Equipment, not just VHF/AIS in the form of Battery Power and Navigation Lights etc.

4. RX SENSITIVITY

A “typical” VHF and AIS Receivers “Minimum Sensitivity” is around 1 μVolt (50-Ohm antenna) or say -107 dBm at 12 dB SINAD.  Sensitivity is measured as a negative number so greater the number the greater sensitivity. SINAD is the ratio of the total signal power level (Signal + Noise + Distortion) to unwanted signal power (Noise + Distortion). Accordingly, the higher the figure for SINAD, the better the quality of the audio. 12 dB SINAD corresponds to a distortion factor of 25% and used by most VHF/AIS Manufacturers if they are not pulling the wool over your eyes.

A very high quality VHF Transceiver or that found in a typical terrestrial VHF Repeater will have a greater sensitivity in the order of -117 dB at 12 dB SINAD. So referring to the “dB Values and TX Power” Table in Section 2(b) above you can see that difference of 10 dB at a VHF Repeater as opposed to another vessels standard VHF and both having the same antenna height (see Section 5 below), that VHF Repeater has the effect of detecting your TX power when it 10 times smaller at a far greater distance. That explains why VHF Repeaters quite aside from their increased antenna height can receive VHF signals from long distances and with their greater TX power relay them back and forwards over long distances between two VHF Stations using a VHF Duplex Channel.  

It is noted the “received signal power” on a vessel for VHF voice should ideally be around 7 dB above that Receivers minimum sensitivity for good signal-to-noise and distortion ratio on the recovered modulation. Receiver sensitivity for a digital message via VHF such as AIS and DSC the same rule can be applied though strictly speaking is defined as the minimum signal power level with an acceptable Bit Error Rate (in dBm or mW).  In other words around a “received signal power” of -100 dBm to – 110 dBm depending on the nature of the VHF Receiver’s sensitivity is good.    

5. POWER PATH/ATTENUATION LOSS

(a). Detailed Explanation to Path Loss:

VHF radio communication relies upon line-of-sight propagation, which obviously limits performance. The primary factor in Propagation or Path Loss is the decrease in “signal strength” over “distance” of the VHF radio waves themselves. Radio waves follow an inverse square law for power density where the power density is proportional to the inverse square of the distance. In plain English every time you double the distance between antennas, you receive only one-fourth the power. This also means that for every 6-dBm increase in output power doubles the possible TX distance that is achievable. Another way of expressing that in sailboat terms is if the masthead antenna height is doubled, the received signal strength increases four times (or 6 dB). Therefore knowing relative antenna heights is absolutely critical to quantifying the Path Loss between the two VHF/AIS TX/RX Antennas.

This is because it does two things. Firstly it allows a greater “Radio Horizon” (RH) which is slightly longer than “line of sight” (LOS) as VHF waves will follow the curvature of the earth on account of “atmospheric refraction.” This is a formula for Radio Horizon anyone can do.

dnm = 1.169 hf

Where d = range in nautical miles and hf = the height of your antenna in feet.

There also many On-line Calculators for this. Here is one which does both LOS and RH: LOS RH Calculator, though in kilometres so you need to convert to nautical miles. Use any On-line Conversion Calculator. 

If you plug in two vessels (or a vessel and Coastal Station) with 50’ mast mounted antennas they will have Radio Horizon of 32 klm (16 + 16) or 17 nautical mile being the actual “service range.”

Secondly antenna height positions the “pathway” (Fresnel Zone) those radio waves sit in relation to the earth’s surface with regard to any obstructions. The object is to have your VHF TX signal path or Fresnel Zone having at least a 60% clearance to reduce the amount of loss or attenuation as that signal propagates through the air. The Fresnel zone is an ellipsoid volume between the transmitter and receiver whose area is defined by the wavelength of the VHF signal. However the open water is not immune as this positioning of the Fresnel Zone and attached TX signal attenuation occurs as the environment like sunny or cloudy, water salinity, wave height, humidity or moisture above the water surface absorb and reflect RF energy.

Water is also a highly reflective surface so any reflected radio waves can also arrive at the RX station “out of phase”. It is noted this “reflection” and signal being either “in or out of phase” has a higher impact upon “digital” VHF signals like an AIS Transmission or DSC message compared to an “analogue” voice transmission.

Therefore the greater height the Fresnel Zone is above water and exceeding the minimum 60% clearance mid distance between antennas, the less power loss/attenuation there is. Therefore antenna height and environmental conditions are the key to good VHF propagation. This Diagram may better explain Radio Horizon and Fresnel Zone.

722157607_LOSRHFresnelDiag.jpg.287dd5b592e2f0e461e752db1bd51851.jpg

Then there is another factor being where the Radio Horizons of the TX and RX stations do not overlap and yet the propagation is still possible over the Radio Horizon. For instance in the case of air above water, there can often be a temperature difference or boundary layer which enhances the atmospheric refraction more than normally associated with a Radio Horizon which is already greater than the Line of Sight.  Another factor is the influence of signals arriving by more than just the direct path between stations where a signal has been reflected and where water provides a reflector that may create these secondary paths. While I mentioned above signals arriving by different paths may have different phase relationships increasing propagation losses the received signal still becomes the sum of the multiple signals and increasing the TX distance beyond the Radio Horizon. See Section D3 below. (not included here)

(b). Practical Examples of RX Power & Path Loss:

Ignoring the greater sensitivity of high end receivers. The Voyager I space craft at the beginning of 2018 was over 13 billion (13,000,000,000) miles from earth. It is still transmitting scientific data today using its <25 watt VHF radio i.e. no Radio Horizon, “free space” and no Fresnel Zone issues. Similarly an AIS Satellite Repeater orbiting around 380 mile directly above earth at any one point (far larger distance having regard to the huge footprint of each satellite) can receive an Vessel AIS CLASS B TX signal having less than 2 watts or 33 dB of TX rated power.

Yet the exact same Class B AIS Transponder of 2W power on two vessels with masts of say 50’ will have a TX range limit less than the Radio Horizon of 17 nm between their two masthead antennas. Yet aboard the same two vessels their 25w or 44dB VHF Transceivers with 50’ mast mounted antennas and the same radio horizon of approx. 17 mile should be able to communicate that full Radio Horizon distance with ease on account they have over 10 times the power measured in dB. See detailed calculations in Sections D - G below. (not included here)

THE END FOR NOW

For those who want to do their own vessel and race course calculations you will have to wait for this in a forthcoming Post. Fuck even Richo and the CYCA will be hanging out for it, who knows?

D. MAX VHF RANGE CALCULATION

E. VHF RANGE TEST WITH DEGRADED VHF RANGE CALCULATIONS

F. AIS RANGE TEST USING DEGRADED VHF RANGE CALCULATIONS

G. PRACTICAL APPLICATION ON THE RACE COURSE

H. CONCLUSION

APPENDIX A – WOXI EXAMPLE

Looks complicated but actually very easy.

PS. I think I just did the longest post in SA history..sorry

Share this post


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

Tricky puttying aside you still remain silent on your claim S2H SI were in your words  "inadequate" regarding AIS drafting having regard to other races, but it seems you now can't mention or have forgotten those races? despite me bringing up a few. 

AIS does not have to be policed by RC. Why is AIS activated any different to having VHF on at Ch 16 24/7 or Nav lights on after dark? That is why every racer puts in a post race declaration. You get caught out cheating by either a competitor protest or your post race declaration is not what it seems and is investigated by the RC..

BTW many instances in the VOR where AIS TX failed due to environmental reasons attached to a wet/wild RTW race (like many electronics) and accepted by all competitors. For instance this subject got seriously investigated when Vestas hit a fishing boat on HK approach and their AIS capability was investigated (no drama I understand). Then another example Scally lost Fish and their masthead AIS antenna at the time was caput and so issues picking up his AIS PLB. Which BTW meant zip in the circumstances. 

Mate you have invented something, then got caught out, then posed a diverting question not knowing the answer to your own question. Not a good look.   

By `precedents' I meant the experience of fleets finding AIS essential to tactical decisions and the reaction of Volvo competitors when they had a suspicion of another `going dark' ,I can't find the interview now but I think it was Walker who said it wasn't tolerated and there were threats of penalties.

The fact that there was no drama when the Volvo boat's coax connectors failed  was because the boatyard found the problem and the  competitors had their transparency. You could say that the maintenance requirements under the SIs for the Volvo race provided necessary regulation/obligation for a competitor's use of AIS.

That other race's SIs are just as simple doesn't mean the controversy won't repeat itself

That there is so much controversy over Oat's lack of AIS transmission and no obligation on anyone's part to explain, makes me think the SIs are inadequate if they are the law of the land in this regard. Yes I understand that it is a self policing sport etc etc and the SIs as they stand should be adequate , Nevertheless an SI instruction that obliged a competitor to prove it works, rather like the mandatory radio check at Gabo could be a solution.

.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack

Do you or anyone else know if the Radio relay vessel JBW is also equipped as an AIS receiver/relay/repeater/ station, as for VHF?

All boats, including WOXI should be within its range some of the time during the race?

Share this post


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

Jack

Do you or anyone else know if the Radio relay vessel JBW is also equipped as an AIS receiver/relay/repeater/ station, as for VHF?

All boats, including WOXI should be within its range some of the time during the race?

No for AIS repeat/relay stuff and not sure you understand how repeaters AIS and VHF work?? Read section 5. above titled  "POWER PATH/ATTENUATION LOSS' and then you will know JBW is just like any other vessel on the ocean.

"All boats" in range of JBW with HF only...and sat phone.

495956855_VHFRepeater.thumb.png.942ac313b57999eda98da6ccd51be61f.png

shipsheadlands (1).jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Trickypig said:

That there is so much controversy over Oat's lack of AIS transmission and no obligation on anyone's part to explain, makes me think the SIs are inadequate if they are the law of the land in this regard..

Here are three examples yet again Tricky. Why in the fuck do you think S2H SI are inadequate re AIS ??? You are bordering on being put into the brain dead corner.

14 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Tricky I think you have swallowed a urban myth that AIS wording in the 2018 S2H SI was "inadequate", namely 11.4;  Special Regulation 4.09 (a): "An AIS Transponder shall be carried and be switched on, such that it is receiving and transmitting."

As a comparison;

Volvo Ocean Race SI 27.11 "The AIS shall remain powered on and transmitting at all times while Racing."

Brisbane to Kepple NOR  4.1.2 h. "be fitted with AIS with the ability to send and receive and must be activated in both modes at all times during the race."

Marblehead to Halifax Race in the US SI.20.3 “Each boat shall start transmitting her position using her Automatic Identification System (AIS) beginning no later than 2000 ADT on the day of the start and ending no earlier than after she has entered the Northwest Arm in Halifax.”

That is pretty wide range of offshore races and RC's having varied experience in SI drafting world wide. I can't see any inadequacy or ambiguity in any of them, including the S2H.

  

Share this post


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

Here are three examples yet again Tricky. Why in the fuck do you think S2H SI are inadequate re AIS ???

  

You are repeating yourself Jack and forcing me to repeat myself.

That there is so much controversy over Oat's lack of AIS transmission and no obligation on anyone's part to explain, makes me think the SIs are inadequate if they are the law of the land in this regard.. The three examples you give only make my point. They are all simple one liners in the respective SIs. I spoke to a well known navigator on the issue and he stated that AIS was now an essential tactical tool and that the `going dark' issue is giving him the shits. I believe the Syd Hob RC could have seen this coming.

The fear of navigators going dark in the Volvo race was discussed in several interviews. The `Boatyard' maintenance clause in the Volvo SIs provided the transparency for all involved. ie those SIs DID have a clause that prevented the `going dark' behaviours.

 There is anecdotal evidence of competitors in other races being unhappy with competitors going dark.

I believe that the Syd Hob RC could have preconceived that turning AIS off fo tactical reasons would be a continuing problem and yet they had a one liner in the SIs covering its use. I'm not saying Oats did, but AIS became surprisingly unreliable for some boats on the first night of the Syd Hob was one joke I've heard at the bar.

The fact that you are going to great lengths ( and thank you) to write a submission on this also tells me the SIs are inadequate for the Syd-Hob and other races. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tricky stop fucking around and simply say where the 4 world wide examples of SI above for mandatory AIS activation, incl the S2H, are in your words "inadequate". And if inclined which you clearly can't, illuminate us to your original statement claiming this aspect of SI wording has been a problem in many SI by naming those races.

BTW. Are you aware of the concept called pre race briefings?

Share this post


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

Tricky stop fucking around and simply say where the 4 world wide examples of SI above for mandatory AIS activation, incl the S2H, are in your words "inadequate". And if inclined which you clearly can't, illuminate us to your original statement claiming this aspect of SI wording has been a problem in many SI by naming those races.

BTW. Are you aware of the concept called pre race briefings?

All of 'em except the Volvo SIs.

If not why are you bothering with a submission to the CYCA?

 

Share this post


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

No for AIS repeat/relay stuff and not sure you understand how repeaters AIS and VHF work?? Read section 5. above titled  "POWER PATH/ATTENUATION LOSS' and then you will know JBW is just like any other vessel on the ocean.

"All boats" in range of JBW with HF only...and sat phone.

495956855_VHFRepeater.thumb.png.942ac313b57999eda98da6ccd51be61f.png

shipsheadlands (1).jpg

Jack not all boats will be in range of Jbw on hf

on different freq they may be but on the 6mhz race freq at certain times some will too far away but still too close to land a 6 MHz signal

no doubt some boats have fallen foul of the green cape rule over the years but did not understand enough to argue it out

all systems have  limitations the trick is to understand them

 

Share this post


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

Tricky stop fucking around and simply say where the 4 world wide examples of SI above for mandatory AIS activation, incl the S2H, are in your words "inadequate". And if inclined which you clearly can't, illuminate us to your original statement claiming this aspect of SI wording has been a problem in many SI by naming those races.

BTW. Are you aware of the concept called pre race briefings?

There's no way I'm reading through 40+ pages of this mess to see if it's been covered, but the inadequacy seems obvious, particularly when compared to other SI.

Special Regulation 4.09 (a): "An AIS Transponder shall be carried and be switched on, such that it is receiving and transmitting."

The problem is duration. 

The S2H SI don't specify for what duration AIS needs to be receiving & transmitting.

This omission of duration seems glaringly obvious when compared to the other 3 examples, all of which are very clear as to when you must be powered on and transmitting. 

Volvo Ocean Race SI 27.11 "The AIS shall remain powered on and transmitting at all times while Racing."

Brisbane to Kepple NOR  4.1.2 h. "be fitted with AIS with the ability to send and receive and must be activated in both modes at all times during the race."

Marblehead to Halifax Race in the US SI.20.3 “Each boat shall start transmitting her position using her Automatic Identification System (AIS) beginning no later than 2000 ADT on the day of the start and ending no earlier than after she has entered the Northwest Arm in Halifax.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, lydia said:

Jack not all boats will be in range of Jbw on hf

on different freq they may be but on the 6mhz race freq at certain times some will too far away but still too close to land a 6 MHz signal

no doubt some boats have fallen foul of the green cape rule over the years but did not understand enough to argue it out

all systems have  limitations the trick is to understand them

 

Lydia nonsense all in range. JBW 24/7 listening and sched race frequency is 4kHz not 6 kHz except 6 kHz late arvo scheds only for obvious reasons. Think you also got your mHz and kHz mixed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Hold Fast said:

The S2H SI don't specify for what duration AIS needs to be receiving & transmitting.

If so I'm looking for the bit in 4.09 (a) for the duration it can be turned off. Can you help?

SI 11.4 Special Regulation 4.09 (a): "An AIS Transponder shall be carried and be switched on, such that it is receiving and transmitting."

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

If so I'm looking for the bit in 4.09 (a) for the duration it can be turned off. Can you help?

 

Jeese Jack, careful,  you just made me inhale my coffee.

Share this post


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

If so I'm looking for the bit in 4.09 (a) for the duration it can be turned off. Can you help?

SI 11.4 Special Regulation 4.09 (a): "An AIS Transponder shall be carried and be switched on, such that it is receiving and transmitting."

Well the SI in this instance makes use the wording 'shall', not 'can', so not quite the same thing. 

That door swings both ways anyway. 

So if I'm looking for the bit in 4.09 (a) for the duration it shall be switched on. can you help?

SI 11.4 Special Regulation 4.09 (a): "An AIS Transponder shall be carried and be switched on, such that it is receiving and transmitting."

You asked for the inadequacy in comparison to the Volvo, Keppel etc SI wordings - there it is. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Hold Fast said:

Well the SI in this instance makes use the wording 'shall', not 'can', so not quite the same thing. 

That door swings both ways anyway. 

That door only swings one way. The word "shall" like "must" conveys an "obligation" under the rules. The word "can"  is something you can drink out of, or piss in, so very ambiguous. So that obligation is either "shall" be turned off or "shall" be turned on.

Share this post


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

That door only swings one way. The word "shall" like "must" both convey an obligation under the rules. Your word "can"  is something you drink out of.

It does swing both ways, because weather we consider your question or mine, the SI is not clear. i.e. it's inadequate. 

Share this post


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

It does swing both ways, because weather we consider your question or mine, the SI is not clear. i.e. it's inadequate. 

OK you believe inadequate are the words "A AIS Transponder shall be carried and be switched on, such that it is receiving and transmitting."

Pretend you sit in a small room with no windows writing policy for a law enforcement entity. You have come up with this draft directive for all officers but concerned it is inadequate;

"A gun shall be carried and be loaded, such that it is ready to fire"

How would you finalise that directive to make it adequate?

 

Share this post


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

OK you believe inadequate are the words "A AIS Transponder shall be carried and be switched on, such that it is receiving and transmitting."

Pretend you sit in a small room with no windows writing policy for a law enforcement entity. You have come up with this draft directive for all officers;

"A gun shall be carried and be loaded, such that it is ready to fire"

How would you finslise that directive to make it more adequate?

 

Jack is right. Simple matter for anyone who understands plain English.

Share this post


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

OK you believe inadequate are the words "A AIS Transponder shall be carried and be switched on, such that it is receiving and transmitting."

Pretend you sit in a small room with no windows writing policy for a law enforcement entity. You have come up with this draft directive for all officers;

"A gun shall be carried and be loaded, such that it is ready to fire"

How would you finslise that directive to make it more adequate?

 

in a similar way a simple amendment to the AIS rule would remove ambiguity

"A gun shall be carried and be loaded at all times while the officer is on duty, such that it is ready to fire"

simple addition of "at all times while racing" or similar, would bring it into line with the wording used in Volvo, Keppel etc and remove ambiguity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Hold Fast said:

in a similar way a simple amendment to the AIS rule would remove ambiguity

"A gun shall be carried and be loaded at all times while the officer is on duty, such that it is ready to fire"

simple addition of "at all times while racing" or similar, would bring it into line with the wording used in Volvo, Keppel etc and remove ambiguity

I see, so adding the words "at all times while racing" is needed to remove ambiguity. OK so between the start in Sydney and the finish in Hobart what times are not the racing times? Like are there anchoring and cook dinner times?

Share this post


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

Jack is right. Simple matter for anyone who understands plain English.

I don't think it's that simple.

You're interpreting the rule assuming an intent, not judging the rule on it's own wording in and of itself. 

It's not the same thing. 

Did race officials intend the AIS to be running constantly during the race? Probably.

Does the wording of the rule itself actually specify that? No. 

So there's room for ambiguity and the rule should be amended accordingly. 

Share this post


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

I don't think it's that simple.

 

Well you have a problem understanding plain English. The intent of the rule is that competitors must comply with it. It is a rule for a race. It is perfectly clear what the intention of the rule is because it is perfectly well written and anyone who understands plain English will know what the rule requires. End of story, I hope.

Share this post


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

I see, so adding the words "at all times while racing" is needed to remove ambiguity. OK so between the start in Sydney and the finish Hobart what times are not the racing times?

Or something similar, yes. You don't think it would?

There's a scheduled start for the race so probably that's clear enough as a minimum start time from when you must begin receiving & transmitting AIS. The finish is the finish, you're racing in-between. Would any non racing time in between matter? I don't know, haven't really thought it through or tbh know enough about what would constitute non-racing time during a race  (coming to aid of another vessel i suppose or something similar?) or exactly how it's handled by the rules, redress etc. 

None of that was the question though. The question was to show an example of how the AIS SI for S2H could be considered inadequate. I think that's been done. 

Share this post


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

Well you have a problem understanding plain English. The intent of the rule is that competitors must comply with it. It is a rule for a race. It is perfectly clear what the intention of the rule is because it is perfectly well written and anyone who understands plain English will know what the rule requires. End of story, I hope.

No, i just understand the difference between interpreting with an assumed intent and what's written. 

It's not perfectly well written at all. There's ambiguity in the rule regarding duration, which makes it inadequate.

I'm not a legal person, but going by the wording of that rule itself (maybe it's covered elsewhere, I don't know), I think it can be argued WOXI has complied. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why there are so many lawyers.

It wasn’t so long ago that many race boats had no thru hulls for the head because the rules didn’t state a ‘working ‘ head. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m enjoying reading this post, especially Jack’s very detailed descriptions on how AIS tests operate, but can’t help but wondering whether the Sydney Cruising Crushers and the Brisbane Royal Rumblers have got together to write their own rulebook?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites