If you’re at all interested in Class B AIS, today’s Panbo is a must-read.
I’m a bit perplexed by the US Coast Guard’s newly announced AIS Class B guideline: vessel names will not be transmitted. Wow! Why not?
Here’s a slide presented Friday afternoon at a special meeting with the Coast Guard’s Jorge Arroyo and the FCC’s Ghassan Khalek, as reported on Panbo:
Um, OK. But even if vessel names are not official, nor “data-based”, they remain incredibly convenient! How does virtually everybody on the water keep track of vessels cognitively, and refer to boats in communication? By name. Why do you suppose that is?
It ain’t just quaint nautical tradition, folks.
Vessel names are tremendously “ergonomic” for human brains, in a way randomly assigned ID and registration numbers can never be.
By the way, what is this “data-based” complaint about vessel names, anyway? I’m somewhat familiar with database architecture and data management principles, so here’s my guess: I think what they mean is that vessel names are essentially meaningless text string “blobs” with no specific utility or value in the database.
No utility because lots of vessels can share the same name; the name can’t be used to identify a specific vessel, and doesn’t even help associate an AIS database record with the corresponding records in other databases, such as state vessel registration databases.
No value because vessel names don’t correspond to anything official, and can be changed at will. From a data integrity perspective, they’re just random strings of nonsense.
Except that, you know, they represent the NAME OF THE BLOODY BOAT!
Surely MMSI will cover the data integrity requirements just fine?! Of course vessel names lack the uniqueness and persistence that database managers value so highly, but those qualities are inherent in the MMSI.
My opinion: Let’s rethink this vessel name restriction.
[Here's the text from the slide above, for the benefit of search engines:]
Vessel Name
-Although many numbered vessels paint a name on their boat, they are not official (nor data-based)
-Thus we intend to adopt the following vessel name convention base on vessel number, either:
-US#ST1234XYZ – U.S. State Numbered Vessel
-US#123456 – U.S. Coast Guard Documented Vessel
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
I’m guessing what they mean is that vessel names are not in the database. Registration numbers are cross referenced with HINs (hull ID numbers) but the Coast Guard does not track names.
Best,
D
Darren makes a good point. Imagine this situation. You buy a boat and change the name. Does any agency keep a record of that name? Do you remember to report the name change?
No boat names … they are ruining a perfectly good safety device, I was so much looking forward to being able to hail someone in the fog by boat name.
Someone needs to take the database architect out into the fog and have them try to hail someone by lat & long, then try to hail someone by x miles from a specific bouy, and then let them ask … so why dont you hail them by their boat name …
I have a coast guard registered boat and I can assure you that the coast guard keeps a record of the name. Can we suggest that this field consist of _US. This would solve both problems very nicely. I don’t know how big this field is; however, if the name it too long it should be truncated.
A name is for talking to. An mmsi is for looking up. If you want my attention, call my name. If you want my address, look up my mmsi. You can have both in one place if you put it in the AIS B data-stream.
If you want to save my life, PLEASE CALL ME SANDY!
If you want to waste a lot of time in an urgent emergency, just try to get my attention with “US#123456, US#123456, US#123456, this is blah blah blah…..” and I’ll think your calling one of those racing boats over there with the US numbers on their sails.
If you want to talk to my boat, CALL HER BY NAME.
Are you worried ther may be two boats by the same name? SO WHAT! ITS AN EMERGENCY!
Here’s a VERY interesting question. If my boat doesn’t answer because the number doesn’t ring a bell, ARE YOU GOING TO SHOOT HER?
Please, before you shoot, CALL HER BY NAME!
I’m starting to think maybe we’ve misunderstood, and that Darren Lewis (first comment, above) may have the correct interpretation: They aren’t going to store the name in the database.
If that’s the case, and vessel names CAN be included in the broadcast message, then the problem is much less serious. It would be nice to get some clarification from an official source: Did we get the wrong impression from the slide?
Cooler minds have prevailed. Ben writes:
Whatever impression we got originated in the slide. It appears that the Coast Guard is now planning to use boat names (they discovered they do have names in either the FCC Ship’s License database, or the Documented Vessel database, and the word is out that they will use numbers on vessels whose names do not appear in one of those places.
Wiser minds are prevailing.
I’m interested to see this debate over how seriously the Coast Guard takes unregulated boat names.
Perhaps the CG should consider keeping a database of the currently unregulated boat names in addition to registration numbers. As for the common duplicates, reg numbers can be checked.
The CG can enlist the larger vinyl lettering companies such as BoatUS and CustomBoatNames.com to help register boat owners in the Gov’t database when they buy their boat name.