Death to PAPER ! More Nails in the Paper Chart Coffin . . .

[osirissail]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

This is quite an ill informed post. Crowd sourcing is already underway at navionics. The liability issues are overstated.
Dave

We are talking about two different things, so my post is still accurate and valid in so far as updating government charts or navigating using legal governmental charts. But inaccurate as to what "crowd sourcing" actually is and how it is being implemented.
From an explanation of "crowd sourcing" - Panbo: The Marine Electronics Weblog: Navionics Mobile, UGC & Plotter Sync
" Those screen shots above -- which show the new "Community Layer" turned on and off --"
The description defines "crowd sourcing" as using user generated data to create a new layer - overlaying the actual legal chart. This feature has been available for a decade in some other e-nav programs but not as a cross-communicating system via the web of interconnected communications devices in use world-wide.
- - And in - Why we need crowd sourcing, Downeast #2 | MadMariner.com there is a good discussion of the use of "crowd sourcing" to alleviate some of the problems with the snail-slow updating processes of NOAA.
- - Any permanent alterations to the actual underlying governmental charts opens up a world of legal hassles as the company "selling" such altered charts is legally liable for the accuracy. Since Navionics is not altering the underlying "official" charts but adding a "layer" on top to contain user information passed on from open sources, they are not legally assuming ownership of the underlying official chart.
- - It would be interesting to read the actual legal "conditions of use" document that Navionics includes with each purchase of the new system. It is not available easily on the web, so I can't get to it. But like the long, very fine print that accompanies every software and hardware, etc. item sold in the USA, there are disclaimers and in this case of accuracy and intent to claim ownership of navigation data away from the government. In other words, like the original digital maps sold to the public, they all contained the phrase - "Not for navigational purposes." "Crowd sourcing" information most probably contains the same disclaimer - "use at your own risk" - or something legally to that effect.
- - To a corporation - liability issues determine whether the entity continues to exist and makes a profit or dies. So corporations employ legions of lawyers to make sure that every facet of liability is covered enough to protect the company - sometimes they screw up. Ever wonder why that toaster you bought has twenty pages of "Don'ts" like don't use it in the bathtub, etc. and only only page of instructions on use - plug it in, put in bread, push down lever.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Got to say that I wouldn't buy any product where the navigational data was created (lol) by folks who have no credibility or training. Even if just an add on...........Just read the internet (including CF) to see what numpties are out there I sure as sh#t won't be relying on folks armed with a crayon and wishful thinking. even if that be a digital crayon


BTW glad to hear that Satellite Systems can now spot underwater rocks to the nearest inch and also allow for weather conditions in calculating tidal heights to a similar accuracy that will make the thinking part of navigation so much less painful for many

[lorenzo b]

I still see no reason why you cannot have both.

Was looking for paper charts yesterday for Caribbean and Central America: OceanGrafix @ $26.95 per segment of coastline x 70 segments = $1886.50- or several iPads.

[stillbuilding]

Last month's "Australian Yachting" magazine carried as its main story an investigation into a tragic loss of life during a yacht race off southern NSW in which the main issue was degraded GPS performance which landed a race on the rocks.

Now this can happen with any navigation tool and is not a direct result of using a chart plotter. Rather it is an indictment the unconscious way in which electronic screens achieve a validity over and above eyeball navigation. Somehow most if not all of us have
that primitive instinct - if I can see it (on screen) then it must be true. Like the news.

[doug86]

- - Any permanent alterations to the actual underlying governmental charts opens up a world of legal hassles as the company "selling" such altered charts is legally liable for the accuracy.

While I agree that this is a common belief, but I wonder if it has any basis in reality. Can anyone point to a law suit for liability against a private chart maker? Probably not, because as you point out, no one has been brave enough to offer such a product and say it is suitable as a primary navigation tool.... on the water, anyway. So, the theory hasn't been tested in court.

What about street maps? Does the government produce those? No, Rand Macnally and AAA and other private companies do. Have they been sued for inaccurate products?

And, in the sky, Jeppesen has been selling privately produced instrument approach plates for years, (used to find the runway when you can't see the ground. Talk about relying on your chart!) and they are not based on a gov't version because no gov't version of those charts exist. Some of the data is provided by the gov't, but not all.

I think the liability issue is overblown by the corporate lawyers who get paid to imagine ways their clients might get sued and print disclaimers to avoid the courts.

While I agree with you that these disclaimers continue to create a legal hurdle for mariners to adopt electronic charts as a primary means of navigation, I don't see that the liability issue has slowed down the cartography efforts of private companies to actually produce a superior, more accurate and up to date product than the gov't paper chart, nor have the disclaimers put a damper on boating public's willingness to spend money on those superior products.

[doug86]

Originally Posted by stillbuilding

Rather it is an indictment the unconscious way in which electronic screens achieve a validity over and above eyeball navigation. Somehow most if not all of us have
that primitive instinct - if I can see it (on screen) then it must be true. Like the news.

No, I think it is an indication of our instinct to seek a consensus. When you look with your eyes, you know that data comes only from one source. When you look at a paper chart, a chartplotter screen, or a newspaper, or an internet forum, one is more inclined to believe that information is true because it comes from multiple sources. The survival instinct resists arguing with so many at once.

As navigators, we know that a paper chart took many humans to collect, print and verify the data, and when your own mind finds a discrepancy, your first thought is "how can that many people be wrong?". The same is true with TV news.

[dacust]

Originally Posted by doug86

No, I think it is an indication of our instinct to seek a consensus. When you look with your eyes, you know that data comes only from one source. When you look at a paper chart, a chartplotter screen, or a newspaper, or an internet forum, one is more inclined to believe that information is true because it comes from multiple sources. The survival instinct resists arguing with so many at once.

As navigators, we know that a paper chart took many humans to collect, print and verify the data, and when your own mind finds a discrepancy, your first thought is "how can that many people be wrong?". The same is true with TV news.

I can see how this would be true for some people. Maybe a lot of people.

Maybe it's because I work in software development that I don't fall for this. I KNOW it is not that that many people agree. I know it only takes ONE of those people to make a mistake that can screw up something. And I know that even if it works perfectly in every case for years, that finally a unique situation can occur that makes it inaccurate. And that unique situation may be something quite obscure. And the inaccuracy may be small or large, consistent or random, obscure or obvious.

I instinctively know that computers can only be trusted so far. I know I have to double check what it tells me. Even (maybe especially) when it's something I wrote myself.

The point is valid, however. There is still a tendency for me to look at the CP and instinctively believe it. Could be for the reasons stillbuilding points out. Could be something else. But I think it's very real.

-dan

[doug86]

Chart No. 1 is no longer available in print, but users are welcome to download and print a copy from the NOAA link above. Hard copy versions of Chart No. 1 may be purchased from commercial vendors. The Tenth Edition dated November 1997 is the current edition number.

Chart #1 is not really a chart, but still, another nail in paper's coffin.

U.S. Chart No. 1

[smurphny]

If anyone has not discovered it yet, the S. Atlantic pilots are now in .Pdf format on the NOAA website. They were not available the last time I checked about a year ago.

[ActiveCaptain]

OK, it happened last week. Ten miles offshore, at night, 1 mile from a small slue only marked by unlit buoys...all chartplotter displays went away. It was my third offshore jump without paper charts; my first at night.

The full description is here:
http://takingpaws.blogspot.com/2011/...wn-at-sea.html


Spoiler alert: We lived.

[xuanin]

I am working at sea now almost 30 years, and I am a huge fan of the modern technology you sometimes find on the merchant ships
(mostly new-building)

However the danger is that navigating is seen as a sort of computer game.
The never failing eyeball mark I is seldom used to look outside.
I also sailed completely paper less and I liked it.
The possibility that the 7 gps receivers on board all malfunction is rare.
But I always insisted that we had a back-up folio of paper on board, if it was only to teach the cadet the old style navigation and force the officers to use common sense and to look outside every now and then

[Capt Phil]

Great description of losing your main electronic support and how you dealt with the event, Jeff. It reinforces my personal predisposition to have a set of paper charts that I updated position every couple of hours. You are clearly more comfortable and gifted at using other electronic options than I am and kudos to you for employing them to remain secure.
Your experience is a great primer to others who rely solely on the electronic arrays to navigate. I suspect that most others don't have your experience or back-up systems aboard to deal with a failure like you describe.
I grew up on the water in a different era and struggled with the new technology but eventually developed some degree of comfort , if not ability, to use it.
Thanks for sharing a picture perfect execution of your cruising plan in the face of unforeseen difficulties... cheers, Capt Phil

[osirissail]

Originally Posted by doug86

. . . And, in the sky, Jeppesen has been selling privately produced instrument approach plates for years, (used to find the runway when you can't see the ground. Talk about relying on your chart!) and they are not based on a gov't version because no gov't version of those charts exist. Some of the data is provided by the gov't, but not all.
. . .

In reality that statement is not true. Having been in the airline captain business for 32 years before retiring - all of Jeppesen's aeronautical charts ARE based on USA government aviation charts and data. Jeppesen does not originate any data independent of the USA government issued data.
- - How it actually works is that the USA government (FAA) issues approach and airport approach data and enroute navigation data. It exists but it is NOT in a paper "plate" format. It exists as a page of written data and is somewhat analogous to "Pilot Books" for mariners.
- - Jeppesen then takes the written data and transcribes it into a visual depiction known as an Approach Chart/Plate or Enroute Chart or whatever the customer wants. In the year 2000 it cost US Airlines about $40K per pilot per year to get access and possession of the Jeppesen full set of approach charts and enroute maps which each pilot was then required by law to possess and update. The updating process for pilots was a major bummer as we normally had 100+ individual charts/maps to remove from our binders and then insert the new revised charts each week.
- -But everything on the charts/approach plates originates from the FAA charting specialists. Jeppesen only takes that written descriptive data and converts it to a convenient visual presentation. And in modern "computerized" airliners the data now comes on "Disk" or flash drives and is loaded into the Flight Management Computers of each airliner.
- - The US Military uses a similar system except that their booklets of charts and plates is bound and published by the USA government and civilians can purchase them. Updating the military charts is easy as you just throw away the old booklet and use the new booklet of charts.
- - For Category III approach charts, Jeppesen takes the USA federal descriptive pages and extends them to include approach data/parameters specific to each airline's operating certificate or Federal authorization to conduct CAT III operations. Cat III operations are your VERY low visibility landing and take off procedures. These are specifically designed and must be approved by the FAA prior to the specific airline and pilot being able to use the Cat III system. You cannot land the airliner "blind" - there must be some degree of - outside the cockpit - visibility albeit the amount is so small that it seems you are actually landing "blind."

[doug86]

Goodbye paper flight manuals: Alaska Airlines to outfit pilots with iPads



Goodbye paper flight manuals: Alaska Airlines to outfit pilots with iPads - GeekWire


.... another nail...

[Jubilee39]

An interesting exercise to see accuracy of charts vs actual locations is to use google earth and whatever electronic charts you wish to compare. Download actual tracks posted on any number of forums or websites and overlay them. Fiji is generally fairly accurate only a quarter mile off is some locations and spot on in others. You just have to know which is which. If you put some of the circumnavigators tracks for Vanuatu for instance Port Villa the main harbor is spot on but the track for Port resolution is a half mile inland. I have not used paper charts in years but print out critical chartlets and eyeball everything.
Joe