 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Destinations USA and CanadaEuropeAustralia and NZAsiaLatin AmericaCaribbean IslandsAfricaTravel Types Air TravelCruisesRV Travel |
Travel Forum / Travel Types / RV Travel / July 2008Sportsfishing boat crashes into Mexican Tuna Pe
This is an incredible read complete with pictures. I know PecosBill (El Alumbrado) & Eregon share an interest in boating as well as RV'ing. There are probably others, but no matter this is one Hell of a story. http://tiny.cc/PH5FV enjoy, mike  SignaturePensacola, FL http://www.travellogs.us/ > This is an incredible read complete with pictures. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > mike I think they could easily stretch that into a 2 hour action movie. LZ >> This is an incredible read complete with pictures. >> I know PecosBill (El Alumbrado) & Eregon share an interest in boating [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I think they could easily stretch that into a 2 hour action movie. > LZ BTW, for those who didn't recognize what a "per sanior" was, I believe he meant "purse seiner" a fishing boat that uses a net with drawstrings called a purse seine. LZ > This is an incredible read complete with pictures. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > mike NOW they know why it's important to keep awake and alert, especially when under way. <eg> If the helmsman had been paying attention the incident wouldn't have happened. <EG> At least they managed to bring back a load of fish! SignatureI used to be an anarchist but had to give it up: _far_ too many rules. >> This is an incredible read complete with pictures. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >NOW they know why it's important to keep awake and alert, especially when >under way. <eg> Do you think that they may have been asleep? >If the helmsman had been paying attention the incident wouldn't have >happened. <EG> I tend to think that they were asleep. Otherwise they would have seen that on radar. At 12 knots that would have been on radar for over 2-hours. >At least they managed to bring back a load of fish! Were you able to see the pictures? mike SignaturePensacola, FL http://www.travellogs.us/ > Eregon <Eregon@Saphira.ørg> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>> >>> enjoy, Thanks Mike. Great link. >>NOW they know why it's important to keep awake and alert, especially when >>under way. <eg> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that on radar. At 12 knots that would have been on radar for over > 2-hours. We were once coming back to Miami from Abaco in the Bahamas in good weather when I put a friends teenage son in the wheelhouse for a half hour so we could all grab a sandwich. He hit an island. - PecosBill (El Alumbrado) > Were you able to see the pictures? After I registered for their site. The 50+ pictures took a while to download over a dial-up line. While I may have invited a bunch of spam to a spam-catcher ID, the story, with pictures, were, indeed, worth it. Thanks for posting the link! SignatureI used to be an anarchist but had to give it up: _far_ too many rules. >> Were you able to see the pictures? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >While I may have invited a bunch of spam to a spam-catcher ID, the story, >with pictures, were, indeed, worth it. There are plenty of valid ID/passwords at http://www.bugmenot.com for this site. that's what I used. As I read the story, four things impressed me. 1) that story has some of the worst grammar and spelling that I've encountered in awhile. So bad that in some places I wasn't sure I'd figured out what the "editor" was trying to say. 2), they sure were blatant thieves, stealing all those fish over and above what they'd been given permission to catch, while waiting to be freed. 3), the camera guy really needs to learn how to use his camera. I had to photoshop many of the pix to see any detail. Probably a third were redundant. and 4), I was shocked and amazed that the feds actually came to the rescue of individual citizens. It seems to be more typical to leave citizens at the mercy of foreign governments. -- John De Armond See my website for my current email address http://www.neon-john.com http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net! Tellico Plains, Occupied TN A few harmless flakes working together can unleash an avalanche of destruction. >> This is an incredible read complete with pictures. >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > At least they managed to bring back a load of fish! The tow vessel would have shown up, but most likely the pen would not. They are hard to see at times when near the fixed pens. There are a couple hundred fix pens off Tijuana. A couple low buoys is what you see. > The tow vessel would have shown up, but most likely the pen would not. > They are hard to see at times when near the fixed pens. There are a > couple hundred fix pens off Tijuana. A couple low buoys is what you > see. One thing I learned early on is to be alert to any indication of something on or near the surface. There's a lot of "stuff" floating that can make holes in a boat's hull and the deeper the hull the more alertness that's required. With all of the electronics and autopilots available, I'm surprised that there aren't a whole lot more stories like this one. To date, there's not been an adequate replacement yet invented for an alert lookout. The storyteller's comment that the first notification that something was wrong was a loud noise and a stalled engine indicates that the boat wasn't under Human control at the time of the incident. Additionally, the storyteller's grumble that the pen was poorly marked indicates that it WAS marked and should have been seen in time for the boat's course to be changed in order to avoid the incident. Whether the boat's occupants were asleep or simply drinking coffee in the cabin is immaterial: there wasn't anyone on the wheel. While the story made for good reading it says nothing good about the "Captain" or the crew of the boat. SignatureI used to be an anarchist but had to give it up: _far_ too many rules. >> The tow vessel would have shown up, but most likely the pen would not. >> They are hard to see at times when near the fixed pens. There are a >> couple hundred fix pens off Tijuana. A couple low buoys is what you >> see. If it could NOT be seen on radar then they may have some excuse. I would think with all that stuff in the air that there would have been some kind of return. When running like that at night on the open ocean I generally switch the radar between an 18-mile scale to a 12-mile scale then a 6-mile scale then an even smaller scale like 3-miles. On the smaller scale you can see crab trap buoys and sea gulls. When you are traveling at 12-knots and have the radar on the 12-mile scale you are scanning an hour out. That is NOT the scale you need to have your radar set on for any length of time. Once you see what is out there I think the radar needs to be returned to a much smaller scale and changed on a regular basis. >One thing I learned early on is to be alert to any indication of something >on or near the surface. I agree with this but I am thinking about my last Gulf crossing where it was so rough that the windshield (on the flying bridge) was covered in spray all night. Thinking back I can say that we "really" were not seeing well out of those windows. When we would see a return on the radar we would try hard to spot it out the side windows. Lights on small boats are hard to see on calm clear nights but they get really difficult to see on dark, rainy, rough nights. >There's a lot of "stuff" floating that can make holes in a boat's hull and >the deeper the hull the more alertness that's required. At this time there is a LOT of floatsom in the Gulf of Mexico as a result of the floods. There are huge patches of logs and debris in the Gulf. >With all of the electronics and autopilots available, I'm surprised that >there aren't a whole lot more stories like this one. There are probably more than we know about. I would be hesitant to publish what happened to them. They can't really think that they were not at fault, or can they? >To date, there's not been an adequate replacement yet invented for an alert >lookout. You are right, but I certainly like that radar. VBG >The storyteller's comment that the first notification that something was >wrong was a loud noise and a stalled engine indicates that the boat wasn't >under Human control at the time of the incident. Agree. >Additionally, the >storyteller's grumble that the pen was poorly marked indicates that it WAS >marked and should have been seen in time for the boat's course to be >changed in order to avoid the incident. Agree again. However, and I am thinking back on my recent Gulf crossing, if there was a small white light, or possibly two small white lights, on the pen then they could be hard to see if there was spray on the windshield. In order for us to see in the dark on my recent Gulf crossing we would have had to station someone in swim suite on the bow all night long as there was a LOT of spray getting caught in the wind as we plowed into the seas all night long. I do not think we were seeing many if any lights out of our front windows. I think most of the lights we saw were out our side windows. The window on the leeward side was open so we had a good view out that direction. >Whether the boat's occupants were asleep or simply drinking coffee in the >cabin is immaterial: there wasn't anyone on the wheel. Actually, there is no one "on the wheel" of the yacht we transported across the Gulf most of the time. Once we clear the dock it is on auto pilot and changes in course are made by punching degrees of change into auto pilot. At 6 to 8 knots small changes in course are all that is needed. >While the story made for good reading it says nothing good about the >"Captain" or the crew of the boat. Totally agree. mike SignaturePensacola, FL http://www.travellogs.us/ >>> The tow vessel would have shown up, but most likely the pen would not. >>> They are hard to see at times when near the fixed pens. There are a [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > > mike These pens are huge and the towing craft is supposed to display lights indicating something in tow. They were out at sea. A long distance from shore and since lots of boats traverse the area, a towed pen would be totally out of place. Even the permanent pens are hard to see in daylight. > These pens are huge and the towing craft is supposed to display lights > indicating something in tow. "White over white over white", but it's often hard to distinguish the separate lights at night. You have to know what you're looking for. > A long distance from shore and since lots of boats traverse the area, a > towed pen would be totally out of place. Oh, you know, "Freedom of Navigation" and all that rubbish. There are no "wide load permits" required at sea. PecosBill (El Alumbrado) > When running like that at night on the open ocean I generally switch > the radar between an 18-mile scale to a 12-mile scale then a 6-mile > scale then an even smaller scale like 3-miles. On the smaller scale > you can see crab trap buoys and sea gulls. When you are traveling at > 12-knots and have the radar on the 12-mile scale you are scanning an > hour out. > You are right, but I certainly like that radar. VBG So that I can better understand this horizon/radar thing: Can pleasure boat radar see over the horizon? How high off the water is the radar? I ask because the horizon formula says that an _eyeball_ 20 ft above the water has a horizon of only 5 - maybe 6 - nautical miles. If there were another eyeball out there 10 - maybe 12 - miles away that was also 20 ft off the water, the two eyeballs could just barely see each other. Signaturebill Theory don't mean squat if it don't work. >> When running like that at night on the open ocean I generally switch >> the radar between an 18-mile scale to a 12-mile scale then a 6-mile [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >another eyeball out there 10 - maybe 12 - miles away that was also 20 ft >off the water, the two eyeballs could just barely see each other. -------------------------- bill, I think your thought process is working pretty good. On the 60-foot yacht I just crossed the Gulf in the radar was located on the roof of the flying bridge. My guess is that it is 20' or more above the water. Of course we can see land much further than we can see small boats but I think even land is not showing a "good" return over 20-miles. We can see 30' to 50' fishing boats at probably 12-miles. Inside of 6-miles most any size boat shows up pretty good. I suspect that we can see a freighter/tanker at possibly 18-miles. I will pay more attention the next time I am out. mike -- Pensacola, FL http://www.travellogs.us/ > So that I can better understand this horizon/radar thing: > Can pleasure boat radar see over the horizon? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > another eyeball out there 10 - maybe 12 - miles away that was also 20 ft > off the water, the two eyeballs could just barely see each other. Back in my "maritime" days, we used to carry two radars: a 2kw 24-incher set to "course up" for detailed looks at close-in targets (6 miles or less), and a stronger 4kw 48-incher set to "north up" for the "big picture". With the "big radar" we could get returns off large (ship-sized) targets up to 40-42 miles, and good results off average sized fishing boats at 20 miles. The antenna was about 25 feet above the water line. -PecosBill >> So that I can better understand this horizon/radar thing: >> Can pleasure boat radar see over the horizon? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > miles, and good results off average sized fishing boats at 20 miles. The > antenna was about 25 feet above the water line. There's something I'm not understanding about horizons and radar. According to the formula, if your radar is at 25 ft, to see something at 20 miles, it'll have to have something sticking up 90 ft above its waterline. And not many average sized fishing boats have that. What factor am I missing in this (Gasp!) theoretical pondering? Note: The formula I have is for a _visual_ (straight-line, mostly) horizon. Signaturebill Theory don't mean squat if it don't work. >>> So that I can better understand this horizon/radar thing: >>> Can pleasure boat radar see over the horizon? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Note: The formula I have is for a _visual_ (straight-line, mostly) > horizon. Are you familiar with phased array, synthetic aperture, pulse frequency modulated radar? Max (me neither) >>>> So that I can better understand this horizon/radar thing: >>>> Can pleasure boat radar see over the horizon? [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Max (me neither) I used to be familiar with phased array, but do they have anything to do with boats and horizons? Signaturebill Theory don't mean squat if it don't work. >> Are you familiar with phased array, synthetic aperture, pulse >> frequency modulated radar? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I used to be familiar with phased array, but do they have anything to do > with boats and horizons? I'd still like to know why they couldn't use radar transponders. Any experts on board? LZ >>> Are you familiar with phased array, synthetic aperture, pulse >>> frequency modulated radar? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Any experts on board? > LZ the Transponder/interrogator system is a secondary RADAR system (SIF/IFF) You must have all the equipment at both, the target and observer ends. Usually aircraft have the transponders and the main base location Air Traffic Control facilities will have the interrogators. Ships will have both parts of the system. It is a separate system from the raw RADAR system and can operate with out it. The ship or aircraft can set specific codes (numbers) to transmit so to provide identification. They also have codes to display indicating they are being skyjacked. Elaborate systems can also automatically provide their altitude. Air Traffic Control Centers normally operate with SIF/IFF alone (long range) with out primary (raw) RADAR (short range). Terminal facilities will have both systems married and correlated to a single target for each aircraft. SignaturePosted by HOPPIE, 30 Years Active Duty ,11 Campaigns Vietnam, 100% DAV, Life Member; Am.Lgn,DAV,VFW,AFSA,VVA. >>>> Are you familiar with phased array, synthetic aperture, pulse >>>> frequency modulated radar? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > will have both systems married and correlated to a single target for > each aircraft. Okay. I think I knew all that since we used the system in Korea. So why couldn't buoys marking the tuna pens have a simple transponder that would cause a blip on a boat's radar? The buoy wouldn't show up but the transponder would give the location. LZ >>>>> Are you familiar with phased array, synthetic aperture, pulse >>>>> frequency modulated radar? [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > transponder would give the location. > LZ I'm not sure if they have maritime equipment that would be economically feasible for the fisherman. I think they do have them on Gov buoys but then funds are always available to them. You may see a reflector on them that looks like a satellite dish, these are for primary RADAR. I would think with the advent of GPS the systems have changed a lot. I do know the Air Traffic Control system has GPS way points being displayed on their monitor screens when there are no physical facility at that location. SignaturePosted by HOPPIE, 30 Years Active Duty ,11 Campaigns Vietnam, 100% DAV, Life Member; Am.Lgn,DAV,VFW,AFSA,VVA. > Max wrote: >> Are you familiar with phased array, synthetic aperture, pulse >> frequency modulated radar? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I used to be familiar with phased array, but do they have anything to > do with boats and horizons? I don't know. That's why I asked. Those are cool terms though, huh. Max >>> So that I can better understand this horizon/radar thing: >>> Can pleasure boat radar see over the horizon? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Note: The formula I have is for a _visual_ (straight-line, mostly) horizon. There is much advanced RADAR available. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-horizon_radar SignaturePosted by HOPPIE, 30 Years Active Duty ,11 Campaigns Vietnam, 100% DAV, Life Member; Am.Lgn,DAV,VFW,AFSA,VVA. > Bill wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Note: The formula I have is for a _visual_ (straight-line, mostly) > horizon. You're spot on. That's the visual horizon all right. Since I *know* we used to get primary returns off fishing boats at 20 miles or so, one can assume that those vessels had reflecting surfaces pretty high above the water line. When I say "fishing vessels" in this case, I'm talking about the fairly large vessels you'll encounter on the open sea, not Billy Bob's Bass Boat. It is not unreasonable to assume that some part of the gear was 50-100 feet above the water line. Radar is funny stuff. To get an "unambiguous" target, you have to have a pretty good primary return, but you can get "ambiguous" targets at greater ranges. It's basically a statistical process, taking into account pulse width, signal strength, the target characteristics (shape, material, etc.), the transmitter-target-transmitter path, antenna sensitivity, atmospherics, noise, and whether you're getting a direct primary reflection or a "fuzzy" reflection. There are also pulse encoding techniques that radar designers use to try to resolve "fuzzy" returns with very low signal-to-noise ratios. In a past life I could probably have given you a detailed explanation complete with equations, and even pseudo-coded the software for you, but after a couple of decades it's become "FM" technology to me (as the religious say, "it's a mystery"). All of this stuff is jumbled up in my leaky brain, but I remember little tidbits like "Bragg" equations (although I don't remember the equations themselves), "resonance", and "scattering". About the only thing tangible I remember is that, given the same "detection threshold", doubling the range means increasing the radiated power by a factor of 4. And a radar pulse can be detected at far greater ranges (i.e. "over the horizon") than the transmitter/receiver set can receive a reflection (kinda like seeing a searchlight beam miles and miles before you can see the lamp itself). None of that provides a reasonable answer to how a radar can see something that appears to be below the visual horizon, however. But, in the real world, fishing boats at 20 miles were above the "detection threshold" and painted pretty good returns. - PecosBill > None of that provides a reasonable answer to how a > radar can see something that appears to be below the visual horizon, > however. But, in the real world, fishing boats at 20 miles were above the > "detection threshold" and painted pretty good returns. Then we have another case of theory don't mean squat. Or there's something missing in the theory. Signaturebill Theory don't mean squat if it don't work. > Bill wrote: >> None of that provides a reasonable answer to how a radar can see [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Then we have another case of theory don't mean squat. Or there's something > missing in the theory. I'll go with that. - PecosBill >> None of that provides a reasonable answer to how a >> radar can see something that appears to be below the visual horizon, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Then we have another case of theory don't mean squat. Or there's > something missing in the theory. http://radarproblems.com/chapters/ch04.dir/ch04pr.dir/c04p3.dir/c04p3.htm SignatureKevin W. Miller "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference" - Charles Darwin http://www.bluemoongemworks.com/rv/index.asp >>> None of that provides a reasonable answer to how a >>> radar can see something that appears to be below the visual horizon, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://radarproblems.com/chapters/ch04.dir/ch04pr.dir/c04p3.dir/c04p3.htm Thanks. That seems to say that the radar horizon is about 15% further than the visual horizon. That's close enough for me. I got interested in this horizon business some years back when I found myself standing on a beach asking myself, "How far out is that boat?" I eventually discovered that the horizon is not as far out as I thought it was. Signaturebill Theory don't mean squat if it don't work. >>> None of that provides a reasonable answer to how a >>> radar can see something that appears to be below the visual horizon, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >http://radarproblems.com/chapters/ch04.dir/ch04pr.dir/c04p3.dir/c04p3.htm So Bill, I guess you should alter your slogan to say "theory don't mean squat if you don't bother to understand it." John -- John De Armond See my website for my current email address http://www.neon-john.com http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net! Tellico Plains, Occupied TN I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it. >>>> None of that provides a reasonable answer to how a >>>> radar can see something that appears to be below the visual horizon, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > So Bill, I guess you should alter your slogan to say "theory don't mean squat > if you don't bother to understand it." Actually, I said there might be something missing in the theory. There was, and Kevin pointed me to it. What's your problem? And I will not alter my slogan. It says what I want it to say. Signaturebill Theory don't mean squat if it don't work. >There's something I'm not understanding about horizons and radar. >According to the formula, if your radar is at 25 ft, to see something at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Note: The formula I have is for a _visual_ (straight-line, mostly) horizon. That's easy enough. Marine radar is low enough in frequency (9.4xxx Ghz) that it can see a bit over the horizon. Over water enhances the propagation. I can't say how far, as my experience is right next door on the frequency spectrum at 10.5 ghz, police radar. I can say that my X-band radar can almost always detect an oncoming car on the other side of a hill before I can see the car. That even holds true with my K-band radar (24 ghz) but nearly so far on the other side. (BTW: No use braking once you see the cop. Unless he's operating in one-pulse mode, you're got before either of you see each other. He can hear the doppler shift on the radar unit and he's more likely to come after you if he hears a sudden slowing. That is, you acknowledging that you know that you're speeding.) My X-band police radar outputs about 0.050 watts and can "see" for miles under good conditions. A typical civilian marine radar with a peak power of 4 kW or more on about the same frequency is probably limited purely by the horizon plus tropo scattering, ducting and other over the horizon phenomena. John -- John De Armond See my website for my current email address http://www.neon-john.com http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net! Tellico Plains, Occupied TN Serenity: That feeling of knowing that your secretary will never tell either of your wives. >>> So that I can better understand this horizon/radar thing: >>> Can pleasure boat radar see over the horizon? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Note: The formula I have is for a _visual_ (straight-line, mostly) horizon. Not that I am an expert, but I do have a lot of experience flying the radar Connie at 50 feet or less over the water - first off the coast of Cuba tracking the U-2 and then in the Gulf of Tonkin, 20 miles from Haiphong Harbor. According to the "experts" at the time, at fifty feet, the radar horizon was 18 miles. By staying 20 miles out, we kept the land mass off the radar screen and were able to see the aircraft over the land. (The first Mig was shot down by fighters under the control of my crew.) George > Not that I am an expert, but I do have a lot of experience flying the > radar Connie at 50 feet or less over the water - first off the coast [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > George I think I'll stick to just standing on the beach. The "Horizon calculator - radar / visual" says the radar horizon for 50 ft is 10 miles. But it could have been a tall beach. Signaturebill Theory don't mean squat if it don't work. > One thing I learned early on is to be alert to any indication of something > on or near the surface. They're easier to see at night, if they're lighted like they're supposed to be. "Green over white, we're trawling tonight!" ...or sometimes... "Red over white, the fishing's just right!" - PecosBill (El Alumbrado) >>> This is an incredible read complete with pictures. >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > are hard to see at times when near the fixed pens. There are a couple > hundred fix pens off Tijuana. A couple low buoys is what you see. No flashing beacons or radar transponders? If not, I don't see how they could bitch if you run over the damn things. LZ > No flashing beacons or radar transponders? If not, I don't see how they > could bitch if you > run over the damn things. Flashing beacons mean something specific at sea. Red, green, and white help you find your way through a channel. Yellow ones are special cases, and are to be avoided (but are not appropriate for fishing gear). Perhaps a look at the chart now and again may help? - PecosBill (El Alumbrado) >> No flashing beacons or radar transponders? If not, I don't see how they >> could bitch if you >> run over the damn things. > > Flashing beacons mean something specific at sea. Warnings about fish pens would be specific. Pick a new color or frequency. > Red, green, and white help you find your way through a channel. Yellow ones > are special cases, and are to be avoided (but are not appropriate for > fishing gear). > > Perhaps a look at the chart now and again may help? A purse seiners location and pens are always on the chart you have? How does that work? When we used to rent houseboats in the border waters, there were a lot of rocks and reefs that weren't on any chart. We used to mark them with milk bottles and tell the Coast Guard where they were. The guy who rented out houseboats marked them on the charts he furnished too. Long after the Coast Guard said they had all the rocks and shoals marked we kept finding new ones. LZ > - PecosBill (El Alumbrado) > > -- > Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service > ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------ > Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.