Navigation In the 0-3 Fathoms Zone

[chala]

Originally Posted by Surfer Girl

Mate, there are no hydrographic charts of inland dams first of all, and second of all, they would be a waste of time and money because the dam level fluctuates constantly - it can go up and down by 100 metres, therefore the shoreline is constantly changing, the bottom contours constantly changing, and fingers of land, rocks, etc there were above the water can now be submerged - are you getting the relevance now!?!

Are you trying to tell us that NSW Maritime is more concerned with raising revenue than providing safe boating in a recreational area?

And thanks for the lecture and now what is the answer to the Original Post NO, Yes or uncommitted?

Originally Posted by catty

Should a mariner be able to trust that enough navigable water exist between the “Open Sea” and a spot sounding of 2 fathoms (3.7 meter) in a charted 0 to 3 fathoms zone? (0 to 5.5 meter zone)
Regards

[Surfer Girl]

Originally Posted by chala

Are you trying to tell us that NSW Maritime is more concerned with raising revenue than providing safe boating in a recreational area?

I knew it

You are a person who doesn't take responsibilty for their own actions or choices... and you don't read very well.

So when you hit a reef in one of the many poorly charted areas in the Pacific, who are you going to blame then?

[chala]

Originally Posted by Surfer Girl

and you don't read very well.

Trust me I take a Yes for a Yes, a No for a No. The rest make me ponder.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Unicorn Dreams

I sail the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico a lot. If you have over 3 fathoms of water it's a miracle. Usually have less than 5' of water under the keel.

I found that quite freaky first time out there.... but it sure got me sharpened up again on my chart work which had got lazy...lol

[Factor]

Originally Posted by Surfer Girl

>>>snip>>> A few years ago when I was working for NSW Maritime as a Boating Officer, a guy sent an invoice to my manager for a new outboard because he was travelling at speed and hit a submerged rock. His take was that NSW Maritime should've had that hazard buoyed. My manager sent him back a fine for 'Negligent Navigation' for failing to Keep Proper Lookout and not travelling at a 'Safe Speed'... true story.

.

The relative dispute between chala and surfer girl is marginally interesting. And I aint gunna get in the middle of it.

BUT, the alleged true story above simply indicates that surfer girls manager has little or no grasp of the principles of criminal law. Should you be in the same situation as the person getting the fine - seek urgent legal advice, the issue of the process in this case was without legal foundation*.

I sincerely hope that this manager does not still work for any Law Enforcement Agency.

* The relevant principle is mistake of fact and enunciated in R v Vallance R V Kaprinowski et al.

[chala]

Originally Posted by Surfer Girl

the Pacific

The Pacific again that would be nice, what you reckon Gord?

[Surfer Girl]

Originally Posted by Surfer Girl

I know it's a long answer to your question but No, don't just trust the chart. Use all the tools at your disposal but in the end you are the Skipper and you are responsible for safe navigation.

The question was answered back in post #53. Like I said, you don't read very well. My intention has only ever been to assist fellow mariners and promote safe boating. At the end of the day, you choose to be on the water nobody forced you out there. If you run aground (or worse), are you going to blame the chart or develop safe boating practice and use all the tools at your disposal (the most important of which is your brain), to stay safe?

Originally Posted by Factor

The relative dispute between chala and surfer girl is marginally interesting. And I aint gunna get in the middle of it.

BUT, the alleged true story above simply indicates that surfer girls manager has little or no grasp of the principles of criminal law. Should you be in the same situation as the person getting the fine - seek urgent legal advice, the issue of the process in this case was without legal foundation*.

I sincerely hope that this manager does not still work for any Law Enforcement Agency.

* The relevant principle is mistake of fact and enunciated in R v Vallance R V Kaprinowski et al.

Factor, a case of a vessel colliding with another vessel, a jetty or a rock has nothing to do with criminal law only maritime law (both the ColRegs & the local maritime law). Internationally, Maritime Law is very clear - A master must keep proper lookout at all times by sight, sound or any means available... AND a master must travel at a safe speed at all times. These 2 rules, more than any other, will keep boaters safe 99% of the time.
Since I used to be a Maritime Officer, it's safe to say I know (maritime) law pretty well (and obviously so did my ex -manager). I also currently run a business teaching people safe boating. I don't care about being fined or not (it was just an anecdote to illustrate a point) - I care about safe boating, whether that's going wake boating in your local waterway with your kids or circumnavigating in a yacht. At the end of the day, you take responsibilty for being as safe as you can or you make excuses...
Maritime Law is clear - it requires a skipper to 'take responsibility' BUT way more important is my safety and that of my passengers & family and your safety and that of your passengers & family. That safety is up to you and me...

[Factor]

Originally Posted by Surfer Girl

Factor, a case of a vessel colliding with another vessel, a jetty or a rock has nothing to do with criminal law only maritime law ..

I really don't want to get into a dispute, but Maritime law is in fact criminal law when you are issuing fines/charging people with offences. Since I used to be a Prosecutor its safe to say - I know Crim Law.

[Surfer Girl]

Originally Posted by Factor

I really don't want to get into a dispute, but Maritime law is in fact criminal law when you are issuing fines/charging people with offences. Since I used to be a Prosecutor its safe to say - I know Crim Law.

Fair enough, I defer to your expertise as a former Prosecutor and stand corrected that Maritime Law is in fact also Criminal Law.

However, from experience in investigating boating accidents/incidents and compiling proofs of the offense and a brief of evidence (in consultaion with the legal team), negligence is established 90% of the time and it's not too hard to see why. The legal definition of "Master must travel at a safe speed at all times" is 'travelling at a speed where any sudden danger can be avoided'. "Proper lookout" is self explanetory.

99% of boating incidents, car incidents, aviation incidents are human error; i.e. someone was driving too fast for the conditions (e.g. crowded waterway on a weekend), someone was too busy talking and not watching where they are going, someone didn't maintain their vessel and a mechanical failure can be directly linked to that lack of maintenance, someone was intoxicated, etc, etc.

Every time we are on the water we see idiots navigating in a dangerous manner, people biting off more than they can chew because of the sea conditions, people calling 'May Day' or 'Pan Pan' because they ran out of fuel in benign conditions, people going 30NM offshore in little tinnies and no lifejackets, flares, etc - believe me, I have seen it all! Some of those incidents resulted in fatality (e.g. capsise) or grievous bodily harm. And in most of those incidents the skipper was blaming someone or something else!

I'm not a Maritime Officer anymore and I don't care about fines or prosecution anymore. But I do care very much about Safe Boating, inspiring excellant practice and Seamanship and people having fun. To do those things you have to take ownership, stop blaming everyone or everything else and take responsibilty. Maritime authorities around the world are mostly trying to help water users be safe - the ColRegs exist for that purpose, they place NavAids in channels to assist boaters, charts are produced to assist boaters, GPS is a free service (thank you USA military) that we use and has revolutionised navigation, etc. Sure, bureaucracy and over regulation is a PITA but that is life in the Western World - it's easy to escape though; isn't that one of the reasons we are all cruisers?

[capnorv]

I don't always trust charts, if it says over 600 meters, I figure it knows what it says. We have shallow water and also very steep to water up here. Then to top it off when I'm in glacial melt, the depth sounder doesn't work and you can only see about 2cm. In that case I go extremely slow in shallows, check the tide and only go on the rise. But then thats ideal, and yes, I've rested on the beach a few times anyway. As the old saying goes there are two kinds of sailors...those that have been aground and tall tale tellers...and yes this summer my GPS got stupid and I got to rely on charts and compass and maritime(mine) weather observations...just like back then.

[chala]

Originally Posted by Surfer Girl

The question was answered back in post #53. Like I said, you don't read very well.

The question was not about to trust official charts or not to trust official charts.
The question was “to trust that enough navigable water exist”.

For someone who profess safe boating I find the following amusing.

Originally Posted by Surfer Girl

I had the paper chart out, I had my laptop with C-Map and interfaced GPS open.
……….soon had the Mt Gay rum out

Lets hope that the laptop is of the marinised type, than C- Map is better than a pirated CM93 version and that the Second after God is not getting to drunk.

[roger.waite]

Originally Posted by chala

Should a mariner be able to trust that enough navigable water exist between the “Open Sea” and a spot sounding of 2 fathoms (3.7 meter) in a charted 0 to 3 fathoms zone? (0 to 5.5 meter zone)

At this level of generality (above), you have to expect many people to say "no". In part, because there are so many areas where depths vary rapidly and/or unpredictably, e.g.

1. Shallows may be poorly surveyed (commercial ships don't go there).
2. Sands shift. Wrecks appear. Debris accumulates.
3. Rocks and coral heads may not lie on the surveyor's transits.
4. Some surveys / e-charts do not display all hazards clearly.
5. Some hazards are plotted out of position.
6. Weather changes and the nature of the shore create additional hazards.

In later posts, you seem to be more focused on feeling your way into shallow anchorages. Done carefully, without relying completely on charts, I do anchor in shallow water. But I prefer a few metres under my keel, and want a simple exit route if the weather changes.

[chala]

Originally Posted by roger.waite

At this level of generality (above), you have to expect many people to say "no". In part, because there are so many areas where depths vary rapidly and/or unpredictably, e.g.

1. Shallows may be poorly surveyed (commercial ships don't go there).
2. Sands shift. Wrecks appear. Debris accumulates.
3. Rocks and coral heads may not lie on the surveyor's transits.
4. Some surveys / e-charts do not display all hazards clearly.
5. Some hazards are plotted out of position.
6. Weather changes and the nature of the shore create additional hazards.

In later posts, you seem to be more focused on feeling your way into shallow anchorages. Done carefully, without relying completely on charts, I do anchor in shallow water. But I prefer a few metres under my keel, and want a simple exit route if the weather changes.

Excellent post.

“1. Shallows may be poorly surveyed (commercial ships don't go there).”
“2. Sands shift. Wrecks appear. Debris accumulates.”
This is normally indicated on a chart.
“3. Rocks and coral heads may not lie on the surveyor's transits.”
This is an important point, what criteria, principle, would a marine surveyor use to determine transits?
”But I prefer a few metres under my keel”

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

Lets say the anchorage you what to explore is shallow with soft bottom. How shallow are you willing to anchor in in calm conditions (low bouncing), lets say your draft is 6 foot?

[catty]

It looks like your op question has been answered, with yes and no. Its time for you to man up and answer the question yourself or get someone else to skipper your boat.

As for this quote from an earlier post......

In my view an official chart ought to be accurate but so much of this chart is inadequately Surveyed. In 1960 Hiscock wrote about the Bowen strait “ in all its length the chart shows only eight soundings”. 51 years later it still shows eight soundings. Fortunately this may change as I have noticed lately some survey ships in the region.

I'm not sure the tax payer should fund accurate charts for your little sailing expeditions. The great attraction for me of the north and northwest coast of Aus is the fact that its poorly charted.
This keeps a lot of the cruisers away. You know the ones... they always complain about the charts.

Sailing in these regions away from the " ant trail" can be highly rewarding. It does require skills other than" Nintendo navigation". Using the tides, weather, your senses, experience and caution are all helpful.

As for the Hiscocks' complaints about only eight soundings in Bowen straight, Jeeze, why would you want to clog the chart up with more. There is sufficient information for a safe transit (using the tides and a good lookout). Of course more soundings have been taken in this area and the chart makers have decided not to clutter the chart with them. Obviously you are knew to this situation, you confidence will increase with experience.

Regards

[sarafina]

This is reminding me of boating in the delta... where anyone who relies on a chart is a fool.

My tools?

1.Depth Meter
2.Eyes on the bow
3.Walking the water in front of the boat

Depending on how shallow it seemed.

Good way to avoid log fish as well.

Charts are interesting for keeping track of your route, and KNOWN hazards, but that's about it...