Another foundering how do chart plotters get it wrong

[rwidman]

What's this "straw man" reference and how did this thread turn to that?

[FamilyVan]

Originally Posted by rwidman

What's this "straw man" reference and how did this thread turn to that?

Oh. I tried to identify a few reasons why a boat may have grounded in spite of the use of electronic charts and suggested some strategies to avoid that kind of mishap.
Every time I posted something Colemj said it was a Strawman Fallacy and that electronic charts were better than paper charts.
Then for some reason TransmitterDan liked the sound of it and joined in. You can Google it easily enough. It's a reference to somebody trying to cloud the truth with an illogical argument.
Apparently me saying you could verify a GPS position with a DR position was a Strawman Fallacy. Even though mariners have been cross referencing position fixing methods for centuries.

Sent from my SGH-I547C using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

Not to mention, bulky, and heavy, as well...

For my cruise last summer in Atlantic Canada, my charts folded into quarter formed a stack just under a foot in height, weighing a total of about 70 pounds... Not inconsequential, aboard a 30-footer...

At $20 apiece for CHS charts, I don't even want to know the total cost :-) Fortunately, I obtained most of my stuff years ago for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland used by another cruiser, at a fraction of the cost...

Still, money and space well spent, at least for me... And, the CHS charts are, literally, cartographic Works of Art... :-)

Ours are $35 a pop. I just purchased three of the five I really needed. Not a nice surprise to my budget.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by rwidman

What's this "straw man" reference and how did this thread turn to that?

Strawman is a kind of argument of which many on here probably wouldn't even know about if it wasn't for an episode of 'The Big Bang Theory'.

And it got to that because of some pedantic nick picking.

That's my observation from just watching.

[rwidman]

I think the whole argument started because of the wording of your original post which seemed to imply that the boat went aground because of some error in a chart plotter.

I don't know how it got so out of hand, we (recreational boaters) are pretty much free to use whatever navigational aids we want to and in any combination or order we want to.

[FamilyVan]

Originally Posted by FamilyVan

Near shore navigation relying solely on a chart plotter is risky business. Chartplotters are like any other computer. Garbage in garbage out. Many surveys are very old and done by human beings with varying amounts of skill and sobriety.
I'll take a glance at a Chartplotter to verify what I already believe to be true, but that's where it stops.
I don't even have a Chartplotter on my sailboat, just an old lat/long only GPS.
All kinds of things can affect accuracy of survey information, aeration in the water, weeds, rocks, dead heads, faulty equipment, improper use of equipment.
Then there's the false sense of security that comes with Chartplotters. Would you even consider making landfall on a dark hazardous, isolated, unfamiliar coast without a chart plotter? Just your naked eye, some sailing directions and a magnetic compas?
No? Well then you shouldn't do it with a Chartplotters either.

Sent from my SGH-I547C using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Found my original post. I can't see where I said Chartplotters were inferior to other methods? If anything I suggest they should be treated exactly the same as any other navigational tool because like any other tool they have inherent flaws.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by rwidman

I think the whole argument started because of the wording of your original post which seemed to imply that the boat went aground because of some error in a chart plotter.

I don't know how it got so out of hand, we (recreational boaters) are pretty much free to use whatever navigational aids we want to and in any combination or order we want to.

If that's the case then there being a bit 'nick picking' though I can see why.

But, as I have repeated twice, I have no idea what happened with this particular vessel. I was just using it as an example to raise the question about 'chart plotters' and 'charts'. So, the conversation between charts plotters is correct.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by FamilyVan

So TransmitterDan. I'll ask you the same question I posed to Mark. "Another foundering how do Chartplotters get it wrong?". Or are you satisfied with just making false accusations?

Actually, I don't think you ever asked this question. It is the title of the thread, but you made the assumption that the boat was using a chart plotter and it caused them to come to grief. You have absolutely no evidence of this, although it may be true (or not true - nobody knows).

A strawman argument is exaggerating or misrepresenting something, or someone's position, in order to present their own as reasonable or true.

I don't get TV here, so don't know about its use on a show - it is a long-recognized form of logical fallacy. I'm flattered that you thought I invented it, but anyone who has ever studied logic knows that this device has been around and described for centuries.

A better reading of my posts would show you that I did not say electronic charts were better than paper charts - rather, I stated that examples of paper charts being the "standard" and better than electronic can easily be turned around with examples showing electronic can be better than paper. And I provided examples where that was the case.

You also won't find anywhere where I stated that verifying a gps position with DR is a strawman argument - although you provided a perfect example of a strawman argument by making this statement!

In other words, I have been attempting to show balance and help people to understand that there is no "absolute" here. As well as point out that devices do not CAUSE people to do things, and that much of the arguments for most of the "proper ways" presented here have nothing to do with chartplotters or electronics. Errors can and will be made with all methods, all forms of charts will have inaccuracies, etc.

Lastly, chartplotters can be better than other traditional methods. Here is one example - you sail into an unexpected current eddy that starts to set you. On your chartplotter, this is immediately shown as the COG vector deviating from the heading vector - a big "V" shows up on the plotter. And it can even alert you to a XTE if you want it to. In traditional methods, you may either miss this unexpected cross set completely, or not realize it is happening until you take your 2hr position plot.

Many people without chartplotters have gone up on reefs because they found themselves unexpectedly off-course due to a current set they didn't recognize fast enough.

Now, the experts navigators here are going to be running around throwing wood chips overboard and plotting their positions every 5 minutes 24 hours a day, but those of us amateurs will be just as safe with more sleep and less stress.

Mark

[colemj]

Originally Posted by rwidman

I think the whole argument started because of the wording of your original post which seemed to imply that the boat went aground because of some error in a chart plotter.

Here you go:

Originally Posted by FamilyVan

With the limited information I can assume what occurred was an ECS assisted allision.

Mark

[colemj]

Originally Posted by FamilyVan

"Another foundering how do Chartplotters get it wrong?".

Since you are asking now, my answer is chartplotters do not get it wrong - people get it wrong, and chartplotters do not cause the problem.

Now let me ask you a question: "Another foundering - how do boats without chartplotters get it wrong?".

If you want, I can supply dozens of examples of foundered boats not using chartplotters to apply to my question.

Do you see where I am going with this, and why I think the arguments against chartplotters are flawed?

It has nothing to do with chartplotters. I'm trying to help.

Mark

[Rustic Charm]

Guys, unless you raise something completely new to add to the discussion, there is simply no benefit in constantly having a go at each other.

And frankly, to an observer you both seem to be agreeing with the fundamentals of each others argument, alas, your saying the same thing. But arguing over explanations and examples.

Give it a rest.

[FamilyVan]

Mark, accidents caused by over reliance on a single piece of equipment is a well documented fact. You reference the study of logic- well I can reference the study of navigation. It's taught first year at every maritime academy in the world. The International Maritime Organisation considers it such a hazard to safe navigation that one of the corner stones of the international collision regulations is not to over rely on a single piece of equipment. You immediately called that a logical fallacy.
If you are correct- and it is a logical fallacy, it is not I who have made the logical fallacy but the International Maritime Organisation and the 170 countries that have signed off on the document and say they agree with Rule 5.
You say I have no evidence to suggest that this hazard exists. I do have evidence- you just lack the education to understand it. I have no doubt you are some kind of professional, Doctor or Engineer or something similar- but what's clear from your lack of knowledge on this front is that you are not a navigator.
Are you in an intellectual position to argue this point in spite of the evidence that you may be mistaken? Do you think you could stand up on a podium and convince the 170 signatory states of the IMO that they are all wrong?

[colemj]

Originally Posted by FamilyVan

Mark, accidents caused by over reliance on a single piece of equipment is a well documented fact. You reference the study of logic- well I can reference the study of navigation. It's taught first year at every maritime academy in the world. The International Maritime Organisation considers it such a hazard to safe navigation that one of the corner stones of the international collision regulations is not to over rely on a single piece of equipment. You immediately called that a logical fallacy.
If you are correct- and it is a logical fallacy, it is not I who have made the logical fallacy but the International Maritime Organisation and the 170 countries that have signed off on the document and say they agree with Rule 5.
You say I have no evidence to suggest that this hazard exists. I do have evidence- you just lack the education to understand it. I have no doubt you are some kind of professional, Doctor or Engineer or something similar- but what's clear from your lack of knowledge on this front is that you are not a navigator.
Are you in an intellectual position to argue this point in spite of the evidence that you may be mistaken? Do you think you could stand up on a podium and convince the 170 signatory states of the IMO that they are all wrong?

You just have not been able to grasp the definition of a strawman argument, have you? The above is yet again a perfect example - you have distorted my position (and actual words) to make yours seem more reasonable.

You have also thrown in a few more logical fallacies by framing me in your terms and then knocking me down on them, but let's forget about that.

Nowhere have I stated anything about relying on a single piece of equipment. In fact, I explicitly stated that I don't know of a single boat that does. You made fun of me for all the backup electronics I have and made the assumption that I don't have a depth sounder, compass and other tools.

However, accidents have also been caused by relying on NOT using a chartplotter too. You won't address that, but it is the crux of why you cannot understand this debate.

I am in an intellectual position to stand on my arguments, and I have been attempting to lay them out in understandable terms. Nothing I have posted disagrees with the IMO or other bodies of expertise.

Again, you position chartplotters as a "hazard that exists". I don't think chartplotter are a "hazard", and am trying to balance your fear.

Where have I argued that anything should be over-relied upon? I will argue that it is certainly valid that a chartplotter can be used as a primary navigation tool. You have argued that its role should be secondary, at best.

I don't agree with that, and have given both personal and first-hand accounts of coming to grief using primary navigation techniques as you define them. You refuse to address that point.

Personally, I think the IMO would be in complete agreement with everything I have been saying.

Mark

[FamilyVan]

Dude, over reliance on a single piece of equipment has been my only argument since the beginning.
You have disagreed with every post I've made. So yes, you have been arguing against my only argument.
Now please, leave me alone. I'm not interested in what you have to say.

Sent from my SGH-I547C using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[lordgeoff]

Originally Posted by captain58sailin

Having recently completed two deliveries, one transatlantic with a CP, the other to Trinidad, no CP. Used roughly the same routing as far as Puerto Rico. The CP did provide an additional visual reference for the near land navigation, however, everything was plotted on a paper chart prior, and a position was logged every 2 hours and plotted on the paper charts every 4 hours, with verification via Radar and DR. Managed to arrive at both locations approx. 24 hours prior to ETA and did not run aground. I always cushion my ETAs in case of bad weather. CPs do not provide the user with good judgment, they can be a good augment. Don't forget to look out the window and use the computer between your ears for something besides a hat rack. As Ron White is fond of saying "You can't fix stupid". I avoid making landfall at or near dark and will adjust my speed accordingly to insure I don't.

Well said. I would be your first mate any time. You are obviously careful, a planner and utilise navigation tools well.