More Thoughts About Paper

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by colemj

(Really? A lead line? You don't even trust your electronic depth?).

Mark

When I anchor stern-to a shore, I use a lead line to measure the depth of water under my rudder, which is some distance from the depth sounder.

On more than one occasion I found that my rudder would be in danger on hitting the bottom as the tide fell. The keel would have been OK.

When anchoring on a steep slope, as is common in Desolation Sound, a stern tie is necessary to prevent the vessel from swinging out and dislodging the anchor. The steep slope also present problems with respect to the rudder. In the summer especially some of the anchorages in the Gulf Islands are crowded enough that stern tie is necessary to reduce swing room. Both Princess Bay (Wallace Island) and Pirate's Cove (Decourcy Island) have rings to the stern-tie. I use a lead off the stern is all cases.

I also teach the use of radar as a navigation instrument including a radar fix. (I especially like Racons). On passages I rely on a GPS with a waypoint at the mouth of Juan de Fuca. I admit that I need to get my celestial up to speed, just in case. And I would like to get my Yachtmaster Ocean certification.

I have had students so tied to the chartplotter that I felt compelled to turn it off. This is in areas where I have been sailing for 30 years.

I still use paper publications for tides and currents, and can do the calculations for secondary ports and stations, as well as intermediate times.

Is using paper charts infallible? Of course, not. Do I use electronics? Of course. I teach electronic navigation, including chartplotter versus laptop, and raster versus vector. On my courses I carry a tablet with raster charts, a handheld with vector charts and a smartphone with vector charts. But I still navigate on paper. It seem to force me to think more and take less for granted.

As I mentioned earlier, I am not a Luddite. I am a believer in the appropriate use of technology; not the technological imperative.

EDIT - The only time I have hit a rock - my depth sounder read 11 feet. The draft was 6 feet. That was humbling lesson - right when I needed humbling. PAY ATTENTION TO CURRENTS.

[BandB]

Have you ever been in your car and GPS been confused for a moment on where you are? I have. But it didn't drive me back to using a huge book of paper maps to get around town.

As to "putting you on land", I'd hope most would realize, I'm not there. And hope most would compare what they're actually seeing to what any chart shows. I can point you to dozens of issues at any time not reflected in electronic or paper charts. Markers moved or missing. New obstructions. There is no single perfect navigational tool. We use them all. Eyes among the most important. I should be paying adequate attention to catch a sudden issue with electronic or paper charts. One fact is that electronic will be updated often that the paper you already own are not. People can navigate fine with paper. People can also do manual spreadsheets on ledger paper using pencil. I don't choose to do either. However, if I had used paper forever and was far more comfortable with it, I'd make my move to electronic gradually.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Canibul

I can think of another difference. All Electronic devices WILL fail at some point. This a 100% certainty.

ink and paper will last for centuries.

First, that is bad reasoning - pretty much a non-sequitar to connect electronic devices with paper charts. Second, we had several ink and paper charts on board recently that barely had another year left in them and they were not even 1/10 of the way to a single century, let alone plural ones. Third, how long do you expect your paper charts to last? We use to change them out much more often than we did our electronic devices.

Mark

[Canibul]

IF you take care of your paper charts, they will last. Doesn't matter if you take care of electronics or not. They will fail. 100% certainty.

And even a fragment of a paper chart still works.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Jammer Six

No, it isn't.

Paper charts don't put you anywhere.

That is exactly, precisely the difference.

I couldn't have provided a better example if I'd written you a script.

But when you plot your GPS position on a paper chart, any inaccuracy in chart origin will put your position off in exactly the same way that a chart plotter based on the same chart will. But the chart plotter is faster and less error prone than the manual plotting.

Admittedly, if you are using the paper chart with hand bearings etc for pilotage rather than doing GPS navigation, you don't get the displacement, but any navigator worth his salt will check for chart offsets in the same way when in a new coastal area and make due allowances.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Canibul

IF you take care of your paper charts, they will last. Doesn't matter if you take care of electronics or not. They will fail. 100% certainty.

And even a fragment of a paper chart still works.

Which is why I carry paper charts as a backup.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by jackdale

When I anchor stern-to a shore, I use a lead line to measure the depth of water under my rudder, which is some distance from the depth sounder.

On more than one occasion I found that my rudder would be in danger on hitting the bottom as the tide fell. The keel would have been OK.

When anchoring on a steep slope, as is common in Desolation Sound, a stern tie is necessary to prevent the vessel from swinging out and dislodging the anchor. The steep slope also present problems with respect to the rudder. In the summer especially some of the anchorages in the Gulf Islands are crowded enough that stern tie is necessary to reduce swing room. Both Princess Bay (Wallace Island) and Pirate's Cove (Decourcy Island) have rings to the stern-tie. I use a lead off the stern is all cases.

I also teach the use of radar as a navigation instrument including a radar fix. (I especially like Racons). On passages I rely on a GPS with a waypoint at the mouth of Juan de Fuca. I admit that I need to get my celestial up to speed, just in case. And I would like to get my Yachtmaster Ocean certification.

I have had students so tied to the chartplotter that I felt compelled to turn it off. This is in areas where I have been sailing for 30 years.

I still use paper publications for tides and currents, and can do the calculations for secondary ports and stations, as well as intermediate times.

Is using paper charts infallible? Of course, not. Do I use electronics? Of course. I teach electronic navigation, including chartplotter versus laptop, and raster versus vector. On my courses I carry a tablet with raster charts, a handheld with vector charts and a smartphone with vector charts. But I still navigate on paper. It seem to force me to think more and take less for granted.

As I mentioned earlier, I am not a Luddite. I am a believer in the appropriate use of technology; not the technological imperative.

OK, your anchoring examples just deflect the prior argument about using hand bearing compass and lead line to navigate, not anchor. Sure, a lead line is useful there (and as you probably expect, we have a handheld depthsounder that we simply walk to the transom, push a button and read the display).

There is a big gulf between Luddite (which I haven't called anyone) and primary comfort with usage of electronic means. Those of us who are much more comfortable using computers, etc to view and derive the same information as others with paper, protractors, pencils, hand compasses, etc, do not believe in the "technological imperative" - whatever that means. We simply make better, more comfortable and easier use of those tools than some others.

You don't believe that? Why are you using a computer to correspond with me? Is it because you believe in a "technological imperative" in this instance, or is it because you are simply used to it and it is easier for you than hand writing a letter and mailing it to me (I will give you my mail address, if you like)?

Again, go back to my post questioning why "electronic" people are considered morons. Is it possible that some of us do the exact same things as you, only using slightly different tools in more comfort and better ways?

Can you imagine that some of us look at paper charts with discomfort and constraint like others may approach electronic ones? Does this make us poor navigators by default? Why can't I pinch my fingers and have the small scale chart immediately appear at precisely the area I want on a paper chart? Why can't I just flick my wrist when viewing Cuba and immediately be looking at charts of Colombia? Drives me nuts…

Mark

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Canibul

IF you take care of your paper charts, they will last. Doesn't matter if you take care of electronics or not. They will fail. 100% certainty.

And even a fragment of a paper chart still works.

Again, poor reasoning. What if your boat catches fire? Do you not have your electronic charts backed up in anyway? Why not extend that reasoning to everything on your boat? How good are your paper charts when your GPS goes? Do you have a sextant and are steeped in its use? Will your position fixes be very useful with your paper charts?

You can play "what if's" until the cows come home, and you can spin any argument to favor any side and use alarming phrases like "100% certainty". There is a 100% certainty you will die this century whether you take care of yourself or not. What does that mean?

Mark

[jackdale]

Mark

The doctrine of the technological imperative is that because a particular technology means that we can do something (it is technically possible) then this action either ought to (as a moral imperative), must (as an operational requirement) or inevitably will (in time) be taken.

It is especially prevalent in medicine.

Yes I use technology when it is appropriate. Like right now with this post.

(I was in a graduate program in educational technology.)

BTW - I did not call you or anyone else a moron. I just happen to be of a mind in which learning and understanding the basics of traditional navigation provides a firmer foundation in electronic navigation.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

Typical of paper navigators that think everyone else is a moron.

I was the guy who prompted the "moron" comment.

Mark, you're right, I made a BIG mistake.

I wrote: "I even doubt if any of the new gen skippers using only chartplotters..."

It should have been: "I even doubt if MANY of the new gen..."

And I should have clarified my intent of "new gen" to mean those NEWER generation of skippers who use ONLY chartplotters who DO NOT or HAVE NOT bothered to learn the BASIC PRINCIPLES of navigation.

Sorry about that.

[Jammer Six]

Originally Posted by colemj

OK, but that is the same truth for paper charts.

Mark, I read your comment above when you replied to a post that said, in the portion that you quoted, "I've had chart plotters put me squarely on land."

You then said that that same truth somehow applies to paper.

And it doesn't. Paper doesn't put you anywhere, and that's the difference.

In glossing over this key difference, and then talking about it again without seeing it, you emphasize the main difference between a plotter and a paper chart.

[BandB]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

And I should have clarified my intent of "new gen" to mean those NEWER generation of skippers who use ONLY chartplotters who DO NOT or HAVE NOT bothered to learn the BASIC PRINCIPLES of navigation.

Sorry about that.

You are combining too things that are not necessarily tied together. You can use only electronics and still have learned the basic principles of navigation. So don't assume such.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Mark



It is especially prevalent in medicine.

Yes I use technology when it is appropriate. Like right now with this post.

(I was in a graduate program in educational technology.)

BTW - I did not call you or anyone else a moron. I just happen to be of a mind in which learning and understanding the basics of traditional navigation provides a firmer foundation in electronic navigation.

Thanks for the clarification on technological imperative. However, I fail to see how it applies here. As for the inevitable part, that ship has sailed. Jump on an airplane or commercial ocean liner and ask to see them actively navigating on paper charts. If you find one that is, it will not be for long. Heck, recently flew on a local airline puddle jumper in Belize. The pilot sat down, turned on his Garmin chartplotter that took up the majority of the cockpit console, activated the route he was going to take and took off. I sat right behind him and can assure you there were no paper charts on that plane.

As for the rest of that - the "ought" and "must" parts - it is only the paper pushers who go nuts about this. Whenever anyone tells me that they rely solely on paper charts for navigation, I just blink in confusion about why they are telling me this and go on with conversation. It matters nothing to me, and I have yet to meet anyone where it did. Or see anyone on this board who solely uses electronic navigation tools jump all excited about people only using paper charts. On the other hand, just look at this thread for the opposite example!

Paper people actually seek out to ask what I use to navigate and then go on and on and on about what a danger I am, etc. Lots of unfounded, unbacked and unexamined fear. It is almost like by successfully and quietly using electronic charting, I am somehow cutting off or questioning their manhood, or destroying their Walter Mitty salty seadog mariner self-image. Or negating the years of effort it took them to master older stuff - I don't know… It inexplicably becomes personal to them somehow.

Mark

[DeepFrz]

Realize where Canibul is coming from. He was visited by a lightening bolt which blew out all of his electronics, if I remember correctly. What would you do in that situation? I mean besides wet yourself...

Having paper charts on board gives you a fighting chance in a situation like that.

However, the OP, who is experienced, if not expert, in both paper and electronic navigation has stated a situation where he believes paper charts are a very valuable asset. Having used both I agree with him. It is much easier to get a view of the big picture with a paper chart, IMO. I have not sailed in the Swedish archipelago but I have sailed on the west coast of Canada and I would want to have paper charts for planning and backup if I ever get the chance to do it again. Just my opinion.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Jammer Six

Mark, I read your comment above when you replied to a post that said, in the portion that you quoted, "I've had chart plotters put me squarely on land."

You then said that that same truth somehow applies to paper.

And it doesn't. Paper doesn't put you anywhere, and that's the difference.

In glossing over this key difference, and then talking about it again without seeing it, you emphasize the main difference between a plotter and a paper chart.

Jammer, please tell me you are just being argumentative and your reasoning isn't that stunted. If you took your GPS position and plotted it on a chart that was inaccurate, you would be in the same situation as having a chartplotter doing it for you.

In the above example, if you were slavishly attached to your chartplotter, then you would not be aground - you would simply be farther away from your intended anchorage spot than you thought.

If one does run aground because the chartplotter shows one in clear water where land actually exists, then one is an idiot and no amount of paper charts are going to help them.

Again, please see my post questioning why electronic chart people are considered morons. You seem to be missing that point.

Mark