Another foundering how do chart plotters get it wrong

[colemj]

Originally Posted by FamilyVan

I've navigated the East Coast of Cape Breton. I agree, it is not a good place to be without Paper Charts.

Do you mean paper charts, or raster charts?

At its heart, Jon's argument is really about raster vs vector, and possibly the display size, than about electronic vs paper (those raster charts are also available electronically). It is also a lot to do about his comfort and experience levels with both respectively.

He just doesn't realize that!

Mark

[FamilyVan]

No Mark, not Raster.
My preference would be a Vector Chart on my plotter for analyzing currents and a Paper Chart for route planning and big picture stuff.
I have a 5'2"x4' flat surface on my deep freeze where I can roll out a full size chart and do my thing.


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

[zeehag]

Originally Posted by colemj

You will be exactly on your GPS position to within the accuracy of the GPS (generally 30' or less). Your charts may not be accurate, however.

Mark

you would be entertained watching folks try to enter this lagoon using their gps. ALL of them ground.
they fail to realize their gps shows em 50ft to 50 yards off, which makes ALL the difference.
seems folks trying to sail these days are unable to use eyes and ears and other senses in sailing.
is a shame, as sailing is a multitasking experrience which involves ALL senses as well as independent thought and problem solving techniques i have yet to witness in todays crops of asa taught alleged sailors.

[FamilyVan]

I don't really follow along on any chart. I plan my route in advance (my preference is paper, some prefer electronics, as long as you have good electronics either should work fine).
Once I turn onto my leg my wrist watch and magnetic are my main tools. Depending on how challenging the pilotage is I''ll take 60 seconds or so to drop a plot on my chart and take a quick look at it every 15 minutes, half hour or hour. At the same time I'll take a peak at my GPS to see if it's providing any good xte information and my sounder to verify depth (unfortunately a RADAR is beyond my budget).
I really don't like anything that will take my attention away from looking out the window.
The big place I will use a GPS is for a course alteration if there are no landmarks visible.

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

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by zeehag

you would be entertained watching folks try to enter this lagoon using their gps. ALL of them ground.
they fail to realize their gps shows em 50ft to 50 yards off, which makes ALL the difference.

It's not the GPS that is wrong, it's the chart. (Not that this hasn't already been said a couple dozen times in this thread). If they were using a paper chart and plotting their position on the chart they would have the same issue.

I would expect people to use the GPS to get them to the lagoon and their eyes to get them into it.

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by colemj

OK, I think you went off the rails here Jon. I realize you don't have much experience with electronic charting, and prefer to think that people who do use them to full extent, as well as be able to stay on a small XTE route, are not real sailors, but - really?

First, have you ever used a charting program that will run a route and list obstacles found? You write like you don't have much experience, because you have made some mistaken assumptions about this feature. You might not realize that these programs do a lot more than just point out only features that a route line crosses over. And that they update this list depending on your actual track - regardless of it deviating from your route.

What do you have against a charting program that does provide a list of potential hazards and/or obstacles when you plot a route and updates it based on your actual track? Why are those of us who use these tools "SeaRay drivers"?

Oh, well… Perhaps one of these years I'll learn to simply keep my mouth shut, but I wouldn't count on that… :-))

You're absolutely correct, I am nowhere near as familiar with these sorts of programs as you are, my experience is mostly confined to the use of chartplotters alone.

My apologies as well, it's not my intent to brand everyone who does their plotting electronically as nothing more than a "Sea Ray Driver"… After all, I've stated electronic means are my primary plotting tool, as well… I'm simply trying to point out that such a mindset is often better suited to navigating from Points A to B under power, than the sort of meandering that so often occurs when being driven by the wind. And, I believe being as wedded to such technology as many sailors are today, it often has the end result of sailing less, and motoring more, in an effort to keep that little boat icon on the Straight & Narrow, as defined by a course line displayed on a screen…

Originally Posted by colemj

What is wrong with allowing one's autopilot to compensate for current or leeway so that a large cross-track error is not produced and one doesn't find themselves unexpectedly off course? Again, why the derisive analogy to "SeaRay drivers"? BTW, your windvane slavishly follows the wind - this is far more dangerous than compensating for set and drift. But it does solidly place you in the "non-SeaRay" category, which seems to be important to you.

Nothing inherently wrong with such a practice, as we've discussed elsewhere, it might have saved that 70' Hylas from her grounding and dismasting up in Penobscot Bay a couple of summers ago, for instance. But again, I think it's a procedure better suited to motoring, than to sailing… In regions of stronger tidal streams, it can often result in slower passage times, and the need to continuously re-trim the sails, with the heading constantly in an effort to stay on the rhumb line… And, when sailing in larger seas, particularly off the wind, most older and less sophisticated autopilots when interfaced to a waypoint, can often make precisely the wrong course correction at the wrong time, simply in an effort to move the boat a few meters to port or starboard, and keep it "where it should be", as determined by the preset maximum XTE…

Originally Posted by colemj

You imply that some of these tools were used by Vestas, but you have no proof of that. If you are saying that they didn't use these tools, then your point is silly and cheap.

All I know is that the navigator aboard VESTAS was using Expedition software, one of the most powerful and sophisticated routing tools available today… And yet, the simple failure to zoom in sufficiently to reveal the existence of that reef proved to be disastrous, as admitted by both Verbraak and Nicholson… yet had they been doing something as fundamental - albeit 'outdated' - as plotting their daily noon to noon runs on a paper chart of the entire western part of the Indian Ocean, they most certainly would have become aware of the danger ahead before Crunch Time…

:-))

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by hoppy

The "green blob" should be more than enough of a hint telling you to zoom in and look more closely and if there is any doubt, avoid.

Of course it should… Just like the light blue blob that showed up on the navigator's computer aboard TEAM VESTAS WIND in the Indian Ocean should have been enough of a "hint" to have a closer look, no?

Except, it apparently wasn't… And, if one of the most experienced offshore navigators around can make such a fundamental error, I've got to concede I might be capable of doing so, as well… Especially, when exhausted, or sick, or otherwise distracted...

Originally Posted by hoppy

These are screen shots from the Navionics web app which is what you will see on a MFD using Navionics and on their iPad app.

The only way you would not see Orpheus Rock as a navigation hazard to avoid would be if you don't open your eyes. Call me suspicious but when sailing, but I would also avoid the shallows to the west as well even if it didn't have the "R" (is that a rock?) even though it appears more than deep enough.

Sorry, but I think you're missing the point of my post…

I was specifically responding to the assertion that "Paper charts can't compete" with ECS… I take the opposite view, that when it comes to the amount of information displayed on paper, vector charts - when set to the identical range - often do not convey the same information as paper, seen at a single glance… Without having to do any additional 'work' often necessary to 'reveal' a feature such as Orpheus Rock…

Not to mention, even when zoomed in all the way, that Navionics chart does not clearly indicate a rock that can be awash at times…

As a sailor and navigator, I can use all the help I can get :-) Information that is conveyed immediately, without requiring further steps or procedures to 'unearth' it, is of great value to me, minimizing the chance of missing or overlooking something important… It is strictly in that regard, why I feel electronic often not "compete" with the simplicity and legibility of paper, and is what prompted my initial response...

Originally Posted by colemj

Do you mean paper charts, or raster charts?

At its heart, Jon's argument is really about raster vs vector, and possibly the display size, than about electronic vs paper (those raster charts are also available electronically). It is also a lot to do about his comfort and experience levels with both respectively.

For Atlantic Canada, obtaining CHS raster charts would represent a considerable additional expense… After already having purchased a full suite of CHS paper charts, C-Map chips for my plotters, and Navionics for the iPad, I was ready to cry "Uncle" at that point, in terms of $ spent on charts - whether paper, or electronic… :-)

I had the impression Navionics for the iPad would be a smart purchase… That's what I get for listening to a guy like Ben Ellison of PANBO, I guess… :-)

Another thing worth noting is that at least for now Navionics has gotten ahead in terms of data updating. They’re republishing their whole database every day and anyone with a current Gold or Platinum card can update it any time they can stick it in an online PC, no special card reader required. I’ve done it and it works quite well.

Navionics also has a layer of User Generated Data that can be shared just like the chart updates or even more easily on connected mobile devices like iPads. And they just added depth soundings files to what UGC includes, something like what Svein is suggesting.

I like C-Map charts a lot but they have gotten a bit behind in terms of updating and community data. On the other hand, Coastal Explorer — which deserves a try as your next PC charting program — now supports the C-Map Max format.

Review of Computer Based Electronic Navigation System

[sailorF54]

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

Here's where I disagree.

:-))

Re Orpheus Rock

No intention to 'throw oil into the fire' (as the French would say)
but
1 - You can set the so-called 'Deep water level' on vector charts. On #1, it is set at 5 meters (15'). Shallower areas are then painted blue (as opposed to white when deeper), requiring attention.
2 - Not all vector charts are created equal
#2 is from a Cmap CM93 V2 chart at roughly the same scale as your paper chart: the 2 star symbols clearly show rocks just left of the (recent ?) green buoy. Zoom further and click on these (#3) Detailled information is there

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

I was specifically responding to the assertion that "Paper charts can't compete" with ECS… I take the opposite view, that when it comes to the amount of information displayed on paper, vector charts - when set to the identical range - often do not convey the same information as paper, seen at a single glance…

Now if you substitute "electronic raster chart" for "paper chart" in the above, it doesn't change the meaning any.

I think your argument is about raster vs. vector format and not paper vs. electronic display.

Mark

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

All I know is that the navigator aboard VESTAS was using Expedition software, one of the most powerful and sophisticated routing tools available today… And yet, the simple failure to zoom in sufficiently to reveal the existence of that reef proved to be disastrous, as admitted by both Verbraak and Nicholson… yet had they been doing something as fundamental - albeit 'outdated' - as plotting their daily noon to noon runs on a paper chart of the entire western part of the Indian Ocean, they most certainly would have become aware of the danger ahead before Crunch Time…

See, this is where things get defined so they fit one's world view.

Let me try:

IF they had performed the most rudimentary preplanning of their route,

or IF they had heeded the zoomed out chart features of a blue blob with 20 meter depths all around it, when all other waters were 3,000 meters (this is imminently apparent in the base vector chart itself).

or IF they had used the full functionality of their charting tool,

or IF they had simply been operating a split screen with both a large view and closeup view (this is a very common mode that most of us use),

or IF they had even looked at their AIS tracking plot and seen ALL THE OTHER vessels do a dog-leg around that reef instead of plowing right through that area,

they would have become aware of that danger ahead before Crunch Time.

That accident was not, and cannot, be attributed to electronic charts and charting. It was a navigational error.

You can make the case that it wouldn't have happened when plotting noon-noon runs on paper, but you would have to assume a great big "IF" there, because they certainly failed the five separate "IF's" above that would have saved them.

BTW, they did have paper charts of that area on board. So that is a sixth major navigational error they made. Without a doubt, that electronic program burrowed into their brains and caused all of their troubles...

Mark

[avb3]

Originally Posted by weavis

I can think of a closer analogy..........

I thought doctors now prescribe drugs for that??

[weavis]

Originally Posted by avb3

I thought doctors now prescribe drugs for that??

[FamilyVan]

A bit of thread drift here. And I apologise in advance here. I am accustomed to a very efficient form of navigation- done for commercial purposes, not enjoyment. On a commercial bridge, no special attention is paid to the ECS. The RADAR and Gyro holds high esteem for the commercial mariner, but most of your time is spent looking out the window confident that your preparation will ensure you reach your destination without hassle. Much like the Barrista at Starbucks doesn't worry too much about the spoon she mixed the latte with.

In recent years navigation has changed. I sit in a big leather chair (rather then stand). Within hands reach I have ais, plotter, RADAR, fibre optic gyro, encrypted com's, VHF, every alarm in the E/R is relayed to a panel on the bridge, non stop emails from hr or accounting or whoever. Sooo much noise.

When I go sailing, I don't want any of that noise. I don't want to hear the engine, I don't want to listen to alarms, and I definitely dont want to receive emails. I would have stayed at work if I wanted that.

Now I know, for a fact, I can navigate my boat very well with out any of that, however, I do keep my monochrome GPS running because, it means I don't need to mess around with a sextant.

I guess what I'm getting at is one of the reasons I don't go heavy on the electronics is- for me (and I don't mean to project my preference on others) is it just isn't what sailing is about.
It is obvious that Mark and TransmitterDan like their electronic gizmos (this is not an insult, I think it's part of what you like about sailing, I think you guys enjoy the technology, I don't fault you for that at all, I like Harleys and big guns, no reason, I just do).
What I'm getting at is, I can find myself around on the water pretty darn well, electronics or not. I prefer not. I'm guessing you guys could manage either way too, but prefer with Electronics.

This post was not meant to challenge any one, but to illustrate that different philosophies that exist.


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

[colemj]

Originally Posted by FamilyVan

I guess what I'm getting at is one of the reasons I don't go heavy on the electronics is- for me (and I don't mean to project my preference on others) is it just isn't what sailing is about.

I have the feeling you think some of us are sitting with our heads buried in electronics and running around tending to all the alarms, etc?

Rest assured, the electronics are simply for navigation. We also enjoy the sailing aspect, but prefer to simply glance down at a small device for a second every so often when near-shore sailing to make sure we are not off-course more than we think we are. It is much more relaxing and simple than taking bearings and plotting them on paper down below.

Offshore, we are basically on radar and AIS - something not available to the mechanical and paper crowd. But even this is a simple glance now and then.

Do you have anything on your boat like a battery monitor or voltmeter or temperature/pressure gauges on your engines? If so, do you know how whenever you happen to walk by you almost unconsciously notice them and know the state of your systems?

That is what it is like with electronic navigation. You aren't slaved to it or tending to it - it is part of your background and continuously there.

The actual sailing is what is in the conscious foreground.

Mark

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by colemj

Now if you substitute "electronic raster chart" for "paper chart" in the above, it doesn't change the meaning any.

I think your argument is about raster vs. vector format and not paper vs. electronic display.

Mark

Not really... all things being equal, I still prefer the larger full size of paper, especially for initial planning, or 'exploring' over the small screen that often requires much panning and zooming... I simply find them far easier to use, others' mileage may vary, as always...

Moot point in this instance anyway, as the only raster charts I have that match my paper versions are US charts from NOAA...