Another foundering how do chart plotters get it wrong

[FamilyVan]

No, I was not calling you a slave to your electronics. I just think they are part of the enjoyment for you.

Absolutely I have a quality electronics panel. And I keep my auto pilot in tip top shape (I don't like looking at electronics or steering boats).

My point wasn't to antagonize, it was to illustrate the fact that different people will get different things out of sailing.

This year I "upgraded" my lighting from LED to kerosene (ok, I kept the LED for backup).

I'm saying it is to some degree a matter of personal preference. I navigate well with-out do-dads and navigate well with do-dads. When recreating I navigate without do-dads out of personal preference.

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

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by colemj

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...

Well, I don't know how any of us can know that with such apparent certainty - at least at this point in time...

Originally Posted by colemj

It was a navigational error.

No disagreement there...

Originally Posted by colemj

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.

To believe otherwise, you'd have to think it would be likely that Wouter Verbraak would NOT have noticed the lighthouse on Ile du Sud/Cocos Island - if he were keeping a DR plot on BA 4072 - that likely would have been situated within a quarter of an inch of the pencil notation he would have made at 1200 to mark their position on the day of the grounding...

Anything's possible, I suppose...

:-)

Had he been plotting on BA 4702, however, his pencil may have have touched the chart as far as a full inch away from the Cargados Carajos Shoals... In that event, he most certainly never would have been alerted to their existence, no?

:-)

[FamilyVan]

Originally Posted by colemj

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.

This is exactly my point. You find it more relaxing to simply glance down at a small device, I find it more relaxing to take a bearing and plot it on paper below.

I find it more relaxing to shoot a duck when I feel like eating lunch, maybe you feel like going to the grocery store is more relaxing (I have no idea what your culinary preferences are, I'm just illustrating a point. I do however love duck hunting).

[transmitterdan]

That is a lot of thread drift Van. I am not offended that you surmised that. But you are reading into it something that isn't there. I fully understand your point about wanting to put work behind you. I am the same way.

What I like to do is run through my planned route well in advance (sometimes days or weeks). I "fly" along the entire route making notes about obstacles, bridge clearances, locks, etc. I do that on a PC. Then I upload the route into my Garmin hand held GPS and store that without batteries in a safe place. I also upload the route to the chart plotter. I print out all the waypoints in route order on paper and put that inside the nav table in a waterproof baggy.

When going somewhere I seldom refer to the chart plotter except to glance how far off track I am and is the COG what I think it is (can't do set and drift in my head). I usually sail with the wind feature of the autopilot in clear water so drift and set are automatically wrapped into the XTE calculation.

I set a depth alarm based on my notes about the expected depth along the route.

If the chart plotter fails I have an old one as a backup. If that fails I have the hand held with all my waypoints. If that fails I have an iPhone and I can input waypoints manually from my paper printout. If that fails my wife has an iPhone and an iPad. I have 2 solar chargers for iPhones and iPads. If all that fails I will just assume the world is ending and anchor as soon as it's safe and start drinking all the booze on board before the big one hits.

Edit: I left out the radar, AIS and CARD all of which I have and turn on as appropriate. But we are talking about charting right now so I didn't mention them. But they are essential to have IMO.

[transmitterdan]

There are probably 10 things the navigator (or skipper) of VW could have done that would have prevented the grounding. So how can we who are not involved be certain of a particular one as the root cause?

It is every bit as easy to "fly" the next 12-24 hours of a passage on computer as it is on paper. It takes about the same amount of time and skill.

[FamilyVan]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

There are probably 10 things the navigator (or skipper) of VW could have done that would have prevented the grounding. So how can we who are not involved be certain of a particular one as the root cause?

It is every bit as easy to "fly" the next 12-24 hours of a passage on computer as it is on paper. It takes about the same amount of time and skill.

That's pretty easy to agree with. If you're bumping into stuff- you're doing something wrong. So that brings us around 360. If you are an experienced navigator, the navigating part should be easy enough.

Therefor what has to be broken is your process. The question isn't whether a piece of equipment was broken it's whether the process is broken. Is the process broken because you don't know the process? Or is the process broken, because you no longer follow the process? If you no longer follow the process why do you no longer follow the process? Is it possible they were no longer following the process because their electronics gave them comfort where there should have been no comfort?

It seems easy enough to believe that traditional ways of doing things are just that- an old way of doing things. There is more to it than that. For thousands of years Nautical Science has been experimenting and growing. They have been developing processes and procedures which consistently reveal promising results.

Enter the digital age, and the entire process is traded for a calculating device. Steps 1-9 are now ignored only step 10 is important- the answer is given by the calculating device.

The answer arrived at by the calculating device in step 10 is just as accurate as the answer arrived at by calculating steps 1 through 9 and resulting in 10 as complete an answer? Yes it is. Does the child plugging numbers into the calculating device understand the answer as well as the child who calculated the answer manually?

Nope.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by FamilyVan

That's pretty easy to agree with. If you're bumping into stuff- you're doing something wrong. So that brings us around 360. If you are an experienced navigator, the navigating part should be easy enough.

Therefor what has to be broken is your process. The question isn't whether a piece of equipment was broken it's whether the process is broken. Is the process broken because you don't know the process? Or is the process broken, because you no longer follow the process? If you no longer follow the process why do you no longer follow the process? Is it possible they were no longer following the process because their electronics gave them comfort where there should have been no comfort?

It seems easy enough to believe that traditional ways of doing things are just that- an old way of doing things. There is more to it than that. For thousands of years Nautical Science has been experimenting and growing. They have been developing processes and procedures which consistently reveal promising results.

Enter the digital age, and the entire process is traded for a calculating device. Steps 1-9 are now ignored only step 10 is important- the answer is given by the calculating device.

The answer arrived at by the calculating device in step 10 is just as accurate as the answer arrived at by calculating steps 1 through 9 and resulting in 10 as complete an answer? Yes it is. Does the child plugging numbers into the calculating device understand the answer as well as the child who calculated the answer manually?

Nope.

This it in a nutshell, this is what this thread is really all about. This is what I have been trying to say all along but either I'm not good at explaining it or other's aren't willing to consider this concept. I like to think that you have explained it better and those who disagree will post sound logical arguments as to why they disagree.

I had been trying to stay out of the "ping pong" of recent posts but your post is so close to what I believe is happening that I have to endorse it

And add, not understanding the maths behind the calculator doesn't often cause the boater to run aground but not understanding the process of navigation does (IMO) cause some boaters to run aground. Although clearly not anyone contributing to this thread .

[transmitterdan]

One of the things I like is "going places" on my charts. But I could never afford paper charts (well I could but I can't justify it) for all the places I can go to on my laptop for free.

And the old theory that hand calculating and memorizing times tables imbues better understanding has lost a lot of teeth over the years. We went to the moon with slide rules but now we are going to Pluto. The moon is a couple light seconds away. Pluto is 4 light hours away. Slide rules and log tables are just not accurate enough to navigate that journey. Once you know how to use (and verify) electronic calculations there are few things you cannot do.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Wotname

And add, not understanding the maths behind the calculator doesn't often cause the boater to run aground but not understanding the process of navigation does (IMO) cause some boaters to run aground. Although clearly not anyone contributing to this thread .

I've run aground (couple of times) but it wasn't the chart plotter's fault.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

I've run aground (couple of times) but it wasn't the chart plotter's fault.

But were you using a CP at the time?
I have run aground a couple of times too but it wasn't the CP or the GPS fault - 'cause they weren't invented then Since using a GPS, I haven't ran aground but who knows, maybe it will be me next week

Can we please get away form thinking that (as Mark posted), CP's don't MAKE boats founder. I'm sure every poster here knows this.
EDIT: This not directed at you TxDan!

What some of us a saying is that the process of using a CP ALLOWS some to make mistakes or put another way, makes it easier to mess up. In the same way that they make navigation so much easier.

The answer to the problem is education.

YMMV

[FamilyVan]

Okay, now I'm a little annoyed. You've been aground a "couple of times". Not 50 or 60? You are calling me a Strawman? Illogical and deceptive? Smokes, I've been aground a couple of times in an hour! Never mind my entire boating career.


My six month old son has touched bottom a couple of times, I'll quote him directly " blaaahweee"

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Wotname

But were you using a CP at the time?

Both times I had a plotter. First time was my first real boat and I wasn't looking at the plotter. Secon time I thought I knew the route so didn't turn on the helm plotter. But the one down below was on and recorded the track. I touch bottom about 3 yards from where the plotter contour lines said I would. Was pretty embarrassing.

Originally Posted by Wotname

What some of us a saying is that the process of using a CP ALLOWS some to make mistakes or put another way, makes it easier to mess up. In the same way that they make navigation so much easier.

The answer to the problem is education.

YMMV

Same thing goes for paper because newbies won't even bother. They get overwhelmed with all the stuff in those hardback tomes (e.g. Chapmans) and so they just go out when weather and viz are good. That can lead to trouble when fog rolls in or a battery problem causes delays and it gets dark. That little breadcrumb trail leading back to the dock can be a life saver for a newbie.

Some of this has to do with how our brains are getting rewired by long term exposure to visual electronics. Ever see a 1 year old playing a game on an iPad? It's scary to think what these kids will be able to do when they are grown. I don't think their brains are going to be mush.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Both times I had a plotter. First time was my first real boat and I wasn't looking at the plotter. Secon time I thought I knew the route so didn't turn on the helm plotter. But the one down below was on and recorded the track. I touch bottom about 3 yards from where the plotter contour lines said I would. Was pretty embarrassing.



Same thing goes for paper because newbies won't even bother. They get overwhelmed with all the stuff in those hardback tomes (e.g. Chapmans) and so they just go out when weather and viz are good. That can lead to trouble when fog rolls in or a battery problem causes delays and it gets dark. That little breadcrumb trail leading back to the dock can be a life saver for a newbie.

Some of this has to do with how our brains are getting rewired by long term exposure to visual electronics. Ever see a 1 year old playing a game on an iPad? It's scary to think what these kids will be able to do when they are grown. I don't think their brains are going to be mush.

Sounds like we are both going to be safe from this long term exposure thing

And there is no denying that the breadcrumb trail is often helpful. I like to think of it (CP/GPS) as a wonderful servant but fearful master (like fire ).

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

To believe otherwise, you'd have to think it would be likely that Wouter Verbraak would NOT have noticed the lighthouse on Ile du Sud/Cocos Island - if he were keeping a DR plot on BA 4072 - that likely would have been situated within a quarter of an inch of the pencil notation he would have made at 1200 to mark their position on the day of the grounding...

Anything's possible, I suppose...

I think you missed my point. IF he plotted his noon-noon site on a paper chart, he would have found what you point out.

However, IF he had done any one of the five other basic things I mentioned, that don't involve a paper chart, he would have also seen the reef, etc.

IF.

He didn't do any of these six basic navigational things. To make the case that a paper chart would have saved them is no more a fundamental statement than making the case for the five other basic ways an electronic chart could have saved them.

He was not using his tools, or using them incorrectly.

For example, I am flabbergasted that Vestas had an AIS tracking system continually showing them the positions and tracks of all the other boats - and showing those boats doing an obvious dog-leg around that reef - while Vestas either ignored the display completely, or didn't realize the significance of those tracks. Why would a competitor take a longer distance route? Did they really think everyone was making a tactical error which only Vestas could see?

A paper chart (which they had on board) would not have (and did not) helped them - unless you really do believe that the mere presence of electronics alters people's brains and forces them to make critical mistakes.

Mark

[transmitterdan]

Fatigue is a more likely cause of the VW grounding than electronic charts. Hubris is also a candidate. These two affect all of us at one time or another. If our brains were wired correctly we wouldn't be going into cold, vast waters with 3/8 inch of plastic/aluminum/steel between us and drowning.