Paper Charts Now Unnecessary

[btrayfors]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

I am not trying to put words into your mouth, but are you saying you feel AIS has a negative impact on vessel safety?

YES, I am saying that! With qualification.

In the hands of an intelligent, experienced and prudent mariner who fully understands what AIS is and what it is not, I think it's fine to have aboard. I have a few friends and colleagues who fit that profile.

But in the hands of the average boater you find on the water these days, it is a definite threat to safe boat operation. It's seductive, it's all to easy to believe that what you see on the screen is REALLY what's out there to worry about (and not the 80% of additional things which aren't shown on the screen). And, while you waste time worrying about how to call that ship on the VHF (after all, his ship name and callsign are shown on the AIS display) you're not using the most important navigational tool of all...the Mark I eyeball ... to keep a sharp lookout all around you.

AIS is the LAST thing I'd put on my boat -- and I don't have one aboard -- though I'm in the marine electronics business and install them for clients.

RADAR, by contrast, is the FIRST thing I'd put aboard after compass, fathometer, VHF, GPS and....wait for it: paper charts!

Bill

[downunder]

[QUOTE=btrayfors;1018413

RADAR, by contrast, is the FIRST thing I'd put aboard after compass, fathometer, VHF, GPS and....wait for it: paper charts!

Bill[/QUOTE]

Absoutely agree about RADAR

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by btrayfors

AIS is the LAST thing I'd put on my boat -- and I don't have one aboard -- though I'm in the marine electronics business and install them for clients.

RADAR, by contrast, is the FIRST thing I'd put aboard after compass, fathometer, VHF, GPS and....wait for it: paper charts!

Bill

Bill I agree with your list - don't know if it is in priority order but I would put the paper charts on before the gps...

I have lost track of the score but I can't see arguing against paper charts. It's sort of like saying, "I have an autopilot connected to the rudder post so I am removing the tiller."

We also lose context on a forum. We don't get fog in my waters. Visibility is always good except for the odd hour of thunderstorm or perhaps night. MKII eyeballs are as useful as radar perhaps...

Singapore registered vessel are required to have a HARTS (VHF transponder - like airplanes) or an approved AIS transceiver. This is for vessel identification and location in the port.

So in the boat bucks distribution mode the AIS gets on before radar.

Not arguing against radar, mind you...

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by btrayfors

YES, I am saying that! With qualification.

In the hands of an intelligent, experienced and prudent mariner who fully understands what AIS is and what it is not, I think it's fine to have aboard. I have a few friends and colleagues who fit that profile.

But in the hands of the average boater you find on the water these days, it is a definite threat to safe boat operation. It's seductive, it's all to easy to believe that what you see on the screen is REALLY what's out there to worry about (and not the 80% of additional things which aren't shown on the screen). And, while you waste time worrying about how to call that ship on the VHF (after all, his ship name and callsign are shown on the AIS display) you're not using the most important navigational tool of all...the Mark I eyeball ... to keep a sharp lookout all around you.

AIS is the LAST thing I'd put on my boat -- and I don't have one aboard -- though I'm in the marine electronics business and install them for clients.

RADAR, by contrast, is the FIRST thing I'd put aboard after compass, fathometer, VHF, GPS and....wait for it: paper charts!

Bill

Bill a lot of your concerns seem related to "information overload" and distraction. I have some sympathy I used to do a lot of flying and was involved in some accident investigation.
"Above all else fly the plane" is advice that would have saved a few pilots.

Interestingly my experience is that modern charting and other electronic systems have greatly reduced the skippers burdon. In many situations I have much more time to keep a good look out, and check on the safe running of the boat. Not having to leave the helm is a great help.

You have described the sort of stupid behavior in some of your posts and that unfortunatly , is seen on the water, but would these people be any better off with a paper chart? Personally I doubt it.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

I have lost track of the score but I can't see arguing against paper charts. It's sort of like saying, "I have an autopilot connected to the rudder post so I am removing the tiller."

A better analogy "I have an autopilot (or 2) so I am not fitting a wind vane"

[conachair]

Originally Posted by stevewrye
Just curious of how many here have crossed the Pacific or the Atlantic without paper charts of destinations you had planned on visiting?



Yep. Hands up. Was a bit scary but day or so before leaving Cape verde for Caribbean solo I met a couple of boats in the anchorage heading for Brazil and said why don't I join them. So with CM93 and some digital photos of some pages of a already photocopied many times cruising guide I did the passage to Natal. Getting south american charts anywhere can take some time but down there charts of anywhere were non existent. From that a few observations from a cruising perspective..

• Closing the coast there was a big suspension road bridge over the river which wasn't on the cm93 charts or the cruising guide which was very confusing but the buoys and gps position matched. Looking afterwards it wasn't on any charts or on google earth.
  Lesson is don't put so much trust in charts. Throughout this thread there seems to be a big trust that charts are perfect and an exact replica of reality. Usually they are and wonderful they are too, but I would say don't be so trusting, you never know.
• The "planned to visit" doesn't really fit much I don't think. Cruising isn't like that. Vague plans maybe but I think it's better to acknowledge that things change. Electronic really comes into it's own, fairly detailed charts of everywhere so over a beer in some off the beaten track anchorage you can chat with someone who's been somewhere you fancy and put some data onto the chart about good anchorages etc.

As for digital/paper personally I like both but ultimately don't completely trust either.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by carstenb

I'll chime in my two cents again. Chartplotters are great. I use one all the time when I am sailing. However, all paper chart data (assuming the paper is completely up-to-date) bass exactly the same information that any chartplotter has - all data comes from the hydrographic office.

.....

You choose to ignore my previous reply. Again what you state isn't always true. Vector databases can and do contain more information then available on a paper chart. Not all data also goes through hydrographic officies. Many modern digital chart companies are in effect hydrographic offices.

Dave

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by conachair

Originally Posted by stevewrye
Just curious of how many here have crossed the Pacific or the Atlantic without paper charts of destinations you had planned on visiting?

We get over to Sebana Cove in Malaysia a couple of times a year. It is a cruiser friendly spot and they used to do a friday BBQ for the yachties.

It seems to me the topics of discussion include

- Can I copy all your movies? Great! I'll be over in the morning with my hard drive
- Can I copy all your charts? Great. I'll take them to town to the repro guy
- What's the provisioning setup around here? Detailed directions follow
- Where can I get a XYZ left handed widget nut around here? Detailed instructions follow
- Can I sleep with your wife? Up to her mate...
- What are the coolest "private" places to set sail for? Followed by silence

It seems the last thing cruisers share are the secret destinations...

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by btrayfors

YES, I am saying that! With qualification.

In the hands of an intelligent, experienced and prudent mariner who fully understands what AIS is and what it is not, I think it's fine to have aboard. I have a few friends and colleagues who fit that profile.

But in the hands of the average boater you find on the water these days, it is a definite threat to safe boat operation. It's seductive, it's all to easy to believe that what you see on the screen is REALLY what's out there to worry about (and not the 80% of additional things which aren't shown on the screen). And, while you waste time worrying about how to call that ship on the VHF (after all, his ship name and callsign are shown on the AIS display) you're not using the most important navigational tool of all...the Mark I eyeball ... to keep a sharp lookout all around you.

AIS is the LAST thing I'd put on my boat -- and I don't have one aboard -- though I'm in the marine electronics business and install them for clients.

RADAR, by contrast, is the FIRST thing I'd put aboard after compass, fathometer, VHF, GPS and....wait for it: paper charts!

Bill

I have to say this is quite nonsense. It is not for you or me to denigrate the " average " boater. In my experience people who fit AIS know the limitations. No-one trades mark I eyeball despite all the electronics on board.

aIS as you state isn't radar therefore should never be compared with it. Hence I'd fit things I can afford first. Since AIS is affordable I'd fit it first. That doesn't mean I wouldn't fit radar. Just that I can't afford it. ( yet)

The fact is anyone sailing the high seas in commercial trafficked areas sees immediately the benefit of AIS especially class B transponders ( I'd urge anyone to forget read only AIS)

In my case AIS is doing something different to what you suggested , mine is not primarily informing me of other ships movements , it's telling them I exist. This is something radar can't do.

Comparing radar and AIS and ranting on about it is like comparing apples and oranges., both are fruit after that all bets are off.

Other usefull things are that AiS gives me ships name and mmsi . So I can quickly call them rather then before wasting time repeating trying to call " ship at location x" to which almost all ignore ( as they one expect AIS triggered name/mmsi calling). Hence my time spent not using the eyeball is reduced with AIS.

The world and that includes The maritime world moves on bill. aIS is a virtually free technology and will eventually appear by default in most marine setups. Radar will always be more expensive and hence that bit less prevalent amongst cost conscious cruisers.

[btrayfors]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

You choose to ignore my previous reply. Again what you state isn't always true. Vector databases can and do contain more information then available on a paper chart. Not all data also goes through hydrographic officies. Many modern digital chart companies are in effect hydrographic offices.

Dave

Dave,

While that's true sometimes, it's also true that in general raster charts contain more detail about shore-based objects than do vector charts.

Raster charts are IDENTICAL copies of paper charts.

Vector charts are not.....they are digitized versions of paper charts which may or may not have accurate representation of coastlines and main features, depending on the care of those who did the digitizing and those who checked them against the master (paper) chart.

In the U.S., NOAA has a separate track for production of raster and vector electronic charts. There is good collaboration between the offices responsible for these two versions, and a serious attempt is made to ensure that the vector charts agree with the raster (and paper) charts.

This is not always true of "third party" providers. Some are better than others. Some have gross errors of commission or omission....or both.

Two years ago in home waters, in a VERY familiar place, I was delivering a big cruiser up the Washington (DC) Channel. It is 500' wide, and I've navigated that channel perhaps 500 times....maybe more. I know it well. My boat is equipped with raster charts and several GPS units. I KNOW the representations of position to be "balls-on accurate" -- that's a technical industry term :-)

This day, with a huge Garmin chartplotter on the flybridge, the plotter showed me over near the seawall, though visually I was almost dead center in the 500' wide channel. This was a perfect illustration of how vector charts can be in error, even on a very expensive modern chartplotter.

Bill

[stevewrye]

Originally Posted by conachair

Originally Posted by stevewrye
Just curious of how many here have crossed the Pacific or the Atlantic without paper charts of destinations you had planned on visiting?



Yep. Hands up. Was a bit scary but day or so before leaving Cape verde for Caribbean solo I met a couple of boats in the anchorage heading for Brazil and said why don't I join them. So with CM93 and some digital photos of some pages of a already photocopied many times cruising guide I did the passage to Natal. Getting south american charts anywhere can take some time but down there charts of anywhere were non existent. From that a few observations from a cruising perspective..

• Closing the coast there was a big suspension road bridge over the river which wasn't on the cm93 charts or the cruising guide which was very confusing but the buoys and gps position matched. Looking afterwards it wasn't on any charts or on google earth.
  Lesson is don't put so much trust in charts. Throughout this thread there seems to be a big trust that charts are perfect and an exact replica of reality. Usually they are and wonderful they are too, but I would say don't be so trusting, you never know.
• The "planned to visit" doesn't really fit much I don't think. Cruising isn't like that. Vague plans maybe but I think it's better to acknowledge that things change. Electronic really comes into it's own, fairly detailed charts of everywhere so over a beer in some off the beaten track anchorage you can chat with someone who's been somewhere you fancy and put some data onto the chart about good anchorages etc.

As for digital/paper personally I like both but ultimately don't completely trust either.

That is just it, no one should trust digital/paper and I know of no good long range sailor who would. But for many a paper chart of the right size gives a great overview of the area and some of the dangers arriving at a destination. I personally can not do that as well with electronic charts because I have to zoom in way too close to see the dangers marked on electronic chart. In zooming in sometimes one can loose reality to where land is or where a marker is. If you zoom out now you can see land on electronic chart but often the danger is no longer on the screen to compare how the danger relates to the land. At least with the right paper chart you can see both danger and the land then do a bearing and sight vision on how to approach. Ya I know you can mark the dangers on the electronic chart so the mark shows dangers when zoomed out but Kryps I rather have my eyes on the road ahead than pushing buttons.

There is nothing better than having a beer with other cruisers in some out of the way place and discussing navigation and other related items. But remember that info can be as bad as what you might find on a chart of any kind. Just like relying on other peoples weather forecasts to head out on a passage. Brazil sounds great looking forward to getting there soon.

[btrayfors]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I have to say this is quite nonsense. It is not for you or me to denigrate the " average " boater. In my experience people who fit AIS know the limitations. No-one trades mark I eyeball despite all the electronics on board. .....

Unfortunately, despite how much you would emote, this just isn't the case. The evidence is simply overwhelming, both anecdotal and on-the-record, that the "average boater" just isn't up to the task of navigating safely.....with or without electronic aids.

Maybe you and I travel in different communities, but the boaters I come across, and read about, and listen to on the marine VHF (which is on 24/7) are just not that well equipped to navigate safely. The younger ones tend to place much too much reliance on gadgets...electronic "aids to navigation"...which all too often get them into difficulty. They lack the basic skills of piloting and navigation using simple, traditional methods, and are quite lost when their iPad goes blank.

Yesterday, a boater taking on water in the Potomac River with 4 persons aboard gave the Coast Guard a GPS position, after he "finally got the GPS to work". The position he gave was actually next to a seawall in a marina, fully 3 miles from his actual position! He had no clue.

Again, this is not a techno-phobe railing against technology. I'm a technical guy...many consider me a technical guru. But, I have a healthy respect for electronics and an appreciation of the strengths and the weaknesses alike.

RE: AIS providing ship names so you can call them on the VHF, why not just adopt a simple defensive strategy: STAY THE HELL OUT OF THEIR WAY!

Bill

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by btrayfors

Dave,

While that's true sometimes, it's also true that in general raster charts contain more detail about shore-based objects than do vector charts.

Raster charts are IDENTICAL copies of paper charts.

Vector charts are not.....they are digitized versions of paper charts which may or may not have accurate representation of coastlines and main features, depending on the care of those who did the digitizing and those who checked them against the master (paper) chart.

In the U.S., NOAA has a separate track for production of raster and vector electronic charts. There is good collaboration between the offices responsible for these two versions, and a serious attempt is made to ensure that the vector charts agree with the raster (and paper) charts.

This is not always true of "third party" providers. Some are better than others. Some have gross errors of commission or omission....or both.

Two years ago in home waters, in a VERY familiar place, I was delivering a big cruiser up the Washington (DC) Channel. It is 500' wide, and I've navigated that channel perhaps 500 times....maybe more. I know it well. My boat is equipped with raster charts and several GPS units. I KNOW the representations of position to be "balls-on accurate" -- that's a technical industry term :-)

This day, with a huge Garmin chartplotter on the flybridge, the plotter showed me over near the seawall, though visually I was almost dead center in the 500' wide channel. This was a perfect illustration of how vector charts can be in error, even on a very expensive modern chartplotter.

Bill

Bill modern paper chart production is now mastered from digital data. The paper chart is not the master. Vector is a much superior technology and will eventually replace all raster products.

Dave

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by btrayfors

Unfortunately, despite how much you would emote, this just isn't the case. The evidence is simply overwhelming, both anecdotal and on-the-record, that the "average boater" just isn't up to the task of navigating safely.....with or without electronic aids.

Maybe you and I travel in different communities, but the boaters I come across, and read about, and listen to on the marine VHF (which is on 24/7) are just not that well equipped to navigate safely. The younger ones tend to place much too much reliance on gadgets...electronic "aids to navigation"...which all too often get them into difficulty. They lack the basic skills of piloting and navigation using simple, traditional methods, and are quite lost when their iPad goes blank.

Yesterday, a boater taking on water in the Potomac River with 4 persons aboard gave the Coast Guard a GPS position, after he "finally got the GPS to work". The position he gave was actually next to a seawall in a marina, fully 3 miles from his actual position! He had no clue.

Again, this is not a techno-phobe railing against technology. I'm a technical guy...many consider me a technical guru. But, I have a healthy respect for electronics and an appreciation of the strengths and the weaknesses alike.

RE: AIS providing ship names so you can call them on the VHF, why not just adopt a simple defensive strategy: STAY THE HELL OUT OF THEIR WAY!

Bill

I don't agree, the fact is your story illustrates the problem of lack of knowledge ie the need for compulsory basic training rather then any issues with " gadgets"

As to using AIS and staying out of there way , you have obviously never crossed the English channel or traveled across the Gibraltar approaches., staying out of the way of 12 to 16 ships all travelling 14-18 knots spread over miles of ocean isn't an option, you dance with them , in that case the more aids I have the better.

Dave

[btrayfors]

"Bill -- modern paper chart production is now mastered from digital data. The paper chart is not the master. Vector is a much superior technology and will eventually replace all raster products."

Dave,

Would that that were the case. It isn't.

Unless there's been a major change in the past year, NOAA reports that the paper chart is the basis and the controlling factor for all charts, raster and vector.

Yes, there is an electronic rendition of the paper charts...it's the vector chart.

NOAA has commissioned and is working toward a time when there will be a single electronic database from which both raster and vector charts are produced. Such product does not exist at the moment. They say it will be a few years before that can be done.

That's for NOAA charts. For "third-part vector charts", like those provided with chartplotters, the situation is quite different. They are digitized...sometimes by hand...and suffer from errors of commission and omission. Some are better than others, of course.

"As to using AIS and staying out of there way , you have obviously never crossed the English channel or traveled across the Gibraltar approaches., staying out of the way of 12 to 16 ships all travelling 14-18 knots spread over miles of ocean isn't an option, you dance with them , in that case the more aids I have the better. "

You're right: I've never crossed the English Channel in a small boat. However, I have navigated the Gibraltar approaches, as well as several other high traffic areas around the world. One of the most active is the Delaware Bay/Delaware River, as well as the approaches to NY Harbor, Baltimore, etc. Never have I felt the need for AIS.

The worst reason I can think of for fitting AIS is that "it is cheaper than radar". That's really a shame, because excellent used radars can be found for not a lot of money. AIS or radar? Not even a moment's indecision, IMO. If you don't have the money for radar now, save the $$$ you'd spend on AIS and save up for a few months and get a working radar.

Bill