Another foundering how do chart plotters get it wrong

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by colemj

Sorry, I didn't realize you were in control of this thread.

I am unsure why I need to "concede" anything when I am not convinced otherwise, and can provide rational arguments to support my case. Is this wrong?

I questioned that quote because the poster conflated the concepts of CP influencing people's behaviors because of lack of education with the amount of education he seemed to be implying was necessary - in the same paragraph and construct. I simply asked him if that is what he meant and gave him the opportunity to clarify it.

Likewise, I will stand up for familyvan and assert that he has the right to defend his points to me and address mine.

Feel free to also address any of the arguments and points I bring forth. If you think I should concede, provide some rationale for my arguments being wrong.

Unless I have got this all wrong and you are the controlling master of this thread?

Mark

nope, I'm definitely not the controlling master of the thread. So you keep going Mark. At least your providing some entertainment. So. All fine here, you keep going.

[Group9]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

nope, I'm definitely not the controlling master of the thread. So you keep going Mark. At least your providing some entertainment. So. All fine here, you keep going.

Never mind. I had a funny comment, but my wife frequently has to remind me that I'm not always as funny as I think I am so I'm going to keep it to myself.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by Group9

Never mind. I had a funny comment, but my wife frequently has to remind me that I'm not always as funny as I think I am so I'm going to keep it to myself.

Its ok....... it was in the email notification that you posted.........



(and she was right)

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I'm well aware of what AIS is, I have it my self. But I suspect you know that.

"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? "

WHERE did you get this idea from? That the other vessels were showing obvious dog-legs?

The 'dog leg' Mark refers to looks fairly apparent, to my eye... Here are the tracks of the fleet at the time of the grounding, VESTAS is the blue boat...




However, VESTAS would not have been able see the fleet ahead on AIS, she was running pretty much in isolation at that time over 100 miles behind the lead boats... Which would also likely explain why neither SCA or ALVIMEDICA might not have been able to track the progress of VESTAS from behind at the time, and perhaps give them a call to alert them they were sailing into danger...

AIS has certainly changed the nature of the racing in this edition of the VOR, but I've heard several references to what appears to be the surprisingly limited range of the AIS the fleet is using. Perhaps the antennas are mounted on the relatively low nav/comms tower at the stern? In any event, once a boat loses touch with the fleet via AIS, they need to wait for the tracking info from VOR race control issued every 6 hours:

Seeing the result of those errors is much easier in this edition of the Volvo. “AIS has made the biggest difference, though, both for good and bad,” continues Walker. “When you’re within five miles you can see your opponent’s every move. But when you lose them on AIS, the six-hour wait for the next sched is a long time. The next time you see them they could be over 150 miles away.”

Read more at Volvo boats are tricky beasts to sail – Yachting World

One final comment on the "ease" with which the existence of the Cargados Carajos Shoals might have been revealed by the reliance upon the Expedition routing program alone. Seems it might not have been quite as simple as some appear to think...

Charles Caudrelier, skipper of DONGFENG:

“We are offshore in the middle of nowhere, and on the chart, if you don’t go on the maximum zoom you can’t see anything.”

“There are shallow spots, and plenty 200m deeper - I’m not surprised you can miss them,” he adds.

“When I was looking at the navigation a few days ago, checking these things, it took a long time for me to find them.”

Grounded | Volvo Ocean Race 2014-2015

Oh, well... I suppose we have to concede that Mr Caudrelier just might not be very adept at using computers, and all that navigation stuff :-)

It was at the age of 18 Charles began competitive racing in the Tour de France à La Voile with a student team. Sports aside, being particularly good at Mathematics, Charles graduated with a Master’s Degree from the Merchant Ship Academy.

Charles Caudrelier | Dongfeng Race Team

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I'm well aware of what AIS is, I have it my self. But I suspect you know that.

"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? "

WHERE did you get this idea from? That the other vessels were showing obvious dog-legs?

Where did I question your knowledge of AIS? You asked if it had been reported that the boats had AIS, and I answered yes it had, and that it is part of the standard boat equipment for them. Who is being argumentative here?

A cursory glance at the plot I posted shows that the other boats did an obvious dogleg around that reef, while Vestas (blue track) did not do this dog-leg and went straight onto the reef.

I also clearly stated that it was my "own personal, non-factual and unsupported, belief on what happened", and that I had no supporting evidence (except my interpretation of those tracks).

But you keep going Rusty - at least you are providing some entertainment!

Mark

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by colemj

Where did I question your knowledge of AIS? You asked if it had been reported that the boats had AIS, and I answered yes it had, and that it is part of the standard boat equipment for them. Who is being argumentative here?

A cursory glance at the plot I posted shows that the other boats did an obvious dogleg around that reef, while Vestas (blue track) did not do this dog-leg and went straight onto the reef.

I also clearly stated that it was my "own personal, non-factual and unsupported, belief on what happened", and that I had no supporting evidence (except my interpretation of those tracks).

But you keep going Rusty - at least you are providing some entertainment!

Mark

OMG Mark, I did NOT ask 'where it was reported that the other boats had AIS!'
I was doing nothing more than asking about the 'dog leg' comment came from. Which has now been answered.
You don't have to take everything so damn personally as If it's all an attack on you.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

The 'dog leg' Mark refers to looks fairly apparent, to my eye... Here are the tracks of the fleet at the time of the grounding, VESTAS is the blue boat...




However, VESTAS would not have been able see the fleet ahead on AIS, she was running pretty much in isolation at that time over 100 miles behind the lead boats... Which would also likely explain why neither SCA or ALVIMEDICA might not have been able to track the progress of VESTAS from behind at the time, and perhaps give them a call to alert them they were sailing into danger... :-)

Thanks. I don't quite understand what I'm looking at. Is the 'dog leg' where they all seem to take a tack to the 'left'? If that's the dog leg, then doesn't vestus do it too? I Presume the reef is where the blue one Is stopped facing the wrong way.

[JPA Cate]

Just a comment from looking at the differences in those tracks. The low is moving roughly SE. So, the red track guys still had N'ly quadrant winds, tacked early to go on the west side of the shoal, as did the gold track, and the white track had worked his way to the west by the time his track shows on the picture.

What happened to Vestas' tack? The track wobbles, and drifts north Possible also, a bit of current setting towards the north? or not enough S in the wind? it's a shame they were not using a scale on their plotter that would have shown them more clearly where they were in relation to the reef. If they had been using their radar, even pole mounted, it could have shown the break on the reef in time to avoid it.

For us as cruisers, who are not going as fast, and who have just one or two of us to do everything, some things we can take away from the Vestas' grounding issue include checking our charts & plotters on varying scales, using radar to give an accurate real time measure of how far off a break we are, giving known shoals a wide berth, and exercising a greater watchfulness near the hard bits. Ironically, it seems that trying to get the last 1/4 knot of speed out of the boat is distracting from our other duties.

Ann

[transmitterdan]

When I watched the VW video it appeared the first hint the crew had something was wrong is the sound of breaking surf. Several crew run to the port side looking into the dark trying to figure out what they hear. It's several seconds and then BANG the keel hits. It's as if they had no operating collision avoidance instruments at all (depth, radar, AIS, chart plotter).

[FamilyVan]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

When I watched the VW video it appeared the first hint the crew had something was wrong is the sound of breaking surf. Several crew run to the port side looking into the dark trying to figure out what they hear. It's several seconds and then BANG the keel hits. It's as if they had no operating collision avoidance instruments at all (depth, radar, AIS, chart plotter).

I suspect they had all of their bridge equipment in good working order, but were more or less confident in their position and weren't closely monitoring their electronics.

Guard zones were probably off on the RADAR because any kind of sea state would have caused nuisance alarms. Alarms were likely off on the depth sounder too, same reason, to avoid nuisance alarms.

AIS could have helped if they were within VHF range and closely monitoring it, but it really isn't tool for the job and the last instrument that should have helped in this situation.

Hearing the surf first is exactly what I would have expected. When the Queen of The North (410' BC Ferry) hit an island and sank all bridge equipment (including ECS and RADAR) were working properly.

Guard zones were off, nobody was (adequately) monitoring electronics or maintaining a proper look out. The first sign to the bridge crew that they had made a grave error in navigational prudence was, the wheelsman could see the reflection of their nav lights on the trees on a cliff face.

Oops.

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

[avb3]

Originally Posted by FamilyVan

I suspect they had all of their bridge equipment in good working order, but were more or less confident in their position and weren't closely monitoring their electronics.

Guard zones were probably off on the RADAR because any kind of sea state would have caused nuisance alarms. Alarms were likely off on the depth sounder too, same reason, to avoid nuisance alarms.

AIS could have helped if they were within VHF range and closely monitoring it, but it really isn't tool for the job and the last instrument that should have helped in this situation.

Hearing the surf first is exactly what I would have expected. When the Queen of The North (410' BC Ferry) hit an island and sank all bridge equipment (including ECS and RADAR) were working properly.

Guard zones were off, nobody was (adequately) monitoring electronics or maintaining a proper look out. The first sign to the bridge crew that they had made a grave error in navigational prudence was, the wheelsman could see the reflection of their nav lights on the trees on a cliff face.

Oops.

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

Queen of the North incidence I think was caused by some unauthorized "fraternization" between the OOW and a female crew member, if I recall correctly. Distracting activity one could say.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[FamilyVan]

Originally Posted by avb3

Queen of the North incidence I think was caused by some unauthorized "fraternization" between the OOW and a female crew member, if I recall correctly. Distracting activity one could say.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

That's the rumour, but their union rep and lawyers told them to zip it. So very little is (officially) known about what was going on on the bridge.

What is known for sure is the bridge equipment was functioning properly, they were running on their plotted course on their ECS, they failed to make their scheduled turn at the appropriate moment (possibly due to nooky), they had there XTE alarms turned off, they had their RADAR guard zones turned off, they ran into an island and lost their ship and cost two people their lives.

Sounds familiar eh? Except for the nooky and loss of life.

I can see why it's a logical fallacy for me to draw a parallel between the two situations.


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

[Neptune's Gear]

I said it before, but this is very simple. Does not matter what gear you have, you must USE IT Properly! Vestas had the gear, but didn't use it.
And, elementary Nav - NEVER trust one source of info. Trust, but verify. If the CP says you are ok, Check with Radar, Sonar, manual methods, whatever. If 2 or more say you are Ok, you are!
Interesting comment FV, about radar guard zones. I use them when single handed, all the time. Set up correctly I have some, but not many, false alarms. I've learned to put up with them, and I always check them.