Why Integrate the Autopilot ?

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by bazzer

Jim, sorry to tell you, but in the case of a
Raymarine integrated seatalk system all instruments can and do operate independently of the MFD. commercial aircraft have fail safe systems with much redundancy built in. Unless you have personal experience of using such a system your comments , as well as other posters, are little more than opinions of armchair sailors.
If your are around San Fran, contact me and I'll show you ony 1976 Q boat.

Bazzer,

Perhaps I'm not understanding, but if all the instruments display their info on the MFD, and the MFD dies, where is the info then displayed?

I've only sailed on 2 boats with integrated systems, one Raymarine, one Furuno, and the only display was a big color screen that could display chartplotter info, depth, speed, wind angle/speed, radar, and in one case, battery info.

Please enlighten me... I may be behind in my knowledge of the latest stuff.

Cheers,

Jim

[bazzer]

Jim, with the raymarine system each subsystem has its own controller and display head which integrates with the mfd via a seatalk interface. It is not necessary to use the MFD to use them, this includes the autopilot, in my case a slightly older S1 controller. I can and usually operate my AP from the cockpit without the MFD, a E80 being used. I personally like to have the radar on most of the time to gain more hours of experience using it, but often not just to enjoy the sailing. Raymarine radar does need the MFD and could fail and take the MFD with it, but I still have eyes and ears.
My offer of showing you or anyone else for that matter holds, just PM me wi contact info
Bazzer

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by bazzer

Jim, with the raymarine system each subsystem has its own controller and display head which integrates with the mfd via a seatalk interface. It is not necessary to use the MFD to use them, this includes the autopilot, in my case a slightly older S1 controller. I can and usually operate my AP from the cockpit without the MFD, a E80 being used. I personally like to have the radar on most of the time to gain more hours of experience using it, but often not just to enjoy the sailing. Raymarine radar does need the MFD and could fail and take the MFD with it, but I still have eyes and ears.
My offer of showing you or anyone else for that matter holds, just PM me wi contact info
Bazzer

Thanks Bazzer...

The systems proliferate and grow ever more complicated. Sounds like what you describe satisfies the redundancy requirement. I'll have to get together with Greg soon and see what he is thinking about.

And thanks for the offer of a demo... but we're a bit far away to make a go of it. We've just returned to Oz after 6 months in Livermore, and don't anticipate returning for some while. By then I imagine it will all be wireless and linked to the cloud!!

Cheers,

Jim

[downunder]

Jim Cate - an armchair sailor

Never heard you called that before and certainly not the case.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

That comment is true irrespective of the level of electronic integration on board.



NO it does not. Irrespective of whether the autopilot is slaved or not or just steering a course or in fact if a crew man is steering, the prudent skipper never assumes the route is safe. Constant vigilance is maintained and required by law.



Again this is a completely generalised assumption thrown out as fact. I suspect their are many things that vie to take the skippers attention away from the task in hand ,,,, sun dappled or not. Those people that do so allow it , will in most likelihood, become complacent for all sorts of reasons.

Again in your last statement. All good skippers retain active control the vessel, maintain an appropriate watch and deploy and use all the instrumentation and devices that are available to them to aid in their successful and enjoyable voyage.

Dave

I agree. If a stupid, careless person has a boat it doesn't matter what equipment he or she does or doesn't have. I actually got hit -- FROM THE REAR -- by an idiot with autopilot. The water was rough, he was way too close to us, and the water was pretty rough. A wave threw off his autopilot and his boat lurched off to port and clipped our stern.

His line of sight was blanketed by his headsail by the time he hit us, but he had plenty of time to realize he was overtaking another boat, but he had plenty of time to take his autopilot off. He was in such a habit of using it, that it didn't even dawn on him.

CLEARLY he hadn't paid attention to the effect of rough water, but he never should have been on AP in such proximity to my boat.

Fortunately very little damage was done, but two weeks later I was leaving the harbor, and there was THE SAME BOAT coming out right behind us, ALREADY on AP -- and gaining on us! I watched for 15 seconds as he stood on his cabin top untangling lines, never looking up, in very crowded waters. We fell off -- we weren't racing, and we were actually waiting for another boat to come out and join us. The "AP King" never even saw the danger that we could tell. I just keep a WIDE berth from him at all times.

But it's not the AP's fault. Without AP he would still be a scary-careless sailor.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

seems that some know how to use their systems while others are afraid of their system becoming SkyNet

I don't really understand the thinking that says if you use your autopilot (what difference does it make whether it is integrated) that you aren't watching where you are going? Sometimes I like that my AP keeps the course WHILE I'm looking around (some people cann't hold a course worth anything)

Well, as I said, I've seen it happen -- and by the way, by the time we realized the guy was not monitoring his boat it was too late to avoid him. I can explain more if you want, but it will be tedious and that will be the bottom line.

It wasn't the AP's fault. Someone was actually photographing the boat that hit us at the time, and blew them up. Turned up that the skipper was sitting on the side bench right up against the cabin wall while his wife was below making lunch. NO ONE was at the helm. We have the photo proof.

[savoir]

Originally Posted by downunder

Jim Cate - an armchair sailor

Never heard you called that before and certainly not the case.

I want to know how he fits that armchair on board. Sounds like a seriously clever use of space. Maybe he picked it up on special from IKEA while he was away.

[Pelagic]

I have not read all these posts, so perhaps my point is redundant to previous comments.

The main reason I do not engage the track function is to allow the watch keeper the chance to “feel and minimize” their cross track error by making minor adjustments to sails or AP settings during their watch.

It helps them to feel the tidal and leeway changes during watches, making them better sailors more in tune with the boat and varying conditions, if ever we had to resort to DR methods.

Having done numerous ocean crossings it would be a shame to deprive new sailors of the joy of maintaining a tight track by their adjustments alone.

You cannot teach the art of sailing by the push of a button!

[s/v Jedi]

The problem described my many in this thread, are the idiots that go out in their gadget boats. Not clearly defined is the point of view that it is the modern electronics that enable them to actually take the boat out to sea.... that without the gadgets, they would not be able to do this, making the sea safer for the rest which includes "us".

But this is in error. I clearly remember those good old days and there were enough idiots out on the water then too. They wouldn't know which way to move the tiller to steer to port but they were out there.

A couple weeks ago, I saw a yacht arriving here in Panama. Their home port was in the EU so you would expect them to be skilled after all that sailing, ocean crossing, tough conditions etc. Well, the guy didn't know which way to turn the wheel when going in reverse.... so, the idiot at least used his gadgets in such a way to get to his destination which makes it safer for us out there too as you don't want to meet the guy out there with him hand steering his boat !

There is also this Luddites thing... like it was better in the old days. Well, may be it was, but they also needed 20+ crew to sail a boat of Jedi's size and we're just the 2 with 1 always off duty. We need the gadgets; if the AP breaks and the backup AP breaks, we'll head to shore for repairs. I once hand steered for 13 hours in stirmy North Sea conditions and the only reason I survived the trip was because I arrived after those 13 hours.

ciao!
Nick

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I have not read all these posts, so perhaps my point is redundant to previous comments.

The main reason I do not engage the track function is to allow the watch keeper the chance to “feel and minimize” their cross track error by making minor adjustments to sails or AP settings during their watch.

It helps them to feel the tidal and leeway changes during watches, making them better sailors more in tune with the boat and varying conditions, if ever we had to resort to DR methods.

Having done numerous ocean crossings it would be a shame to deprive new sailors of the joy of maintaining a tight track by their adjustments alone.

You cannot teach the art of sailing by the push of a button!

Yes, but that would be a misuse of the Autopilot. It's not as if it has no place at all.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

The problem described my many in this thread, are the idiots that go out in their gadget boats. Not clearly defined is the point of view that it is the modern electronics that enable them to actually take the boat out to sea.... that without the gadgets, they would not be able to do this, making the sea safer for the rest which includes "us".

But this is in error. I clearly remember those good old days and there were enough idiots out on the water then too. They wouldn't know which way to move the tiller to steer to port but they were out there.

A couple weeks ago, I saw a yacht arriving here in Panama. Their home port was in the EU so you would expect them to be skilled after all that sailing, ocean crossing, tough conditions etc. Well, the guy didn't know which way to turn the wheel when going in reverse.... so, the idiot at least used his gadgets in such a way to get to his destination which makes it safer for us out there too as you don't want to meet the guy out there with him hand steering his boat !

There is also this Luddites thing... like it was better in the old days. Well, may be it was, but they also needed 20+ crew to sail a boat of Jedi's size and we're just the 2 with 1 always off duty. We need the gadgets; if the AP breaks and the backup AP breaks, we'll head to shore for repairs. I once hand steered for 13 hours in stirmy North Sea conditions and the only reason I survived the trip was because I arrived after those 13 hours.

ciao!
Nick

Exactly. The mistake the guy made when he hit me was not just in using the AP but in being CLUELESS.

With or without the technology, he's clueless.

[bazzer]

Integrating the AP with the plotter has absolutely nothing to do with if there is a idiot captaining a boat. I was sailing San Francisco bay recently and nearly got rammed amidships by one of the AC 45 support boats whose skipper was clearly not paying attention to where he was heading, maybe Larry Ellison himself. I was on AP and keeping a sharp lookout as well as my crew who has a video to prove it. A loud yell was all that was needed to stop a collision at the last moment. As for being rammed from behind, a radar circular guard zone would probably avoided this collision, surely a good case for sensible use of electronics?

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

I clearly remember those good old days and there were enough idiots out on the water then too.

But to be fair, IMO (overall) Gizmos have probably helped out a lot more Sailors than have created new problems. Even the Village idiot can follow a Sat Nav .

Just a shame that appears to be used as a substitute for actually knowing what you are doing. But that's the modern way I guess........

.....kinda scarey watching someone converting what the Gizmo(s) say around the reality. I don't travel on the boats of others much

[sidmon]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

It's amazes me that old duffers come on and make completely hypothetical assertions or that good electronics leads to laziness. The aircraft industry will tell you that the switch to glass cockpits has significantly increased safety as it removes the tyranny of scanning the dials and allows pilots to focus on overall situational awareness.

Dave

Better take another look there Dave...

Aviation researchers have discovered disturbing trends among the crews of the new generation of automated aircraft. Among those are aberrations in the ways in which flight crew workload is affected. Remembering that automation was supposed to reduce workload to free the crew to perform higher level tasks, they are finding that most workload reductions are occurring when work levels were already low, such as during cruise. As workload is decreased, there seems to be an insidious trend toward increased complacency, lack of vigilance and even boredom among the crews of highly automated aircraft. In historically high workload situations, such as departure and arrival, automated systems can actually increase crew activity, detracting from critical vigilance for outside traffic and awareness of position, terrain, and the general ATC situation.


As documented in my previous comment, the USN has found the same human factors problem with their ECDIS automated nav system.

Take a look at that sobering pic of the USS San Franciso (the sub with the smashed bow)...She was very nearly lost because of what I would describe as automation induced complaceny:

A preliminary report on the submarine that hit a seamount in the Pacific three months ago concludes that numerous warnings of shortcomings in the ship's navigation department existed at least a year before the accident.
In a January 2004 inspection, the USS San Francisco crew did not properly use its fathometer warning system and its electronic Voyage Management System, or VMS, which were both factors in the accident a year later, according to the report, a copy of which was provided to The Day.
In August 2004, during another inspection, the San Francisco navigation team was found deficient in the chart review process, and in a certification process in October 2004, the team failed to adequately highlight hazards to navigation on the charts, the report found.

As you see Dave, even professional crews are struggling to cope with automation....

While its true that there have always been idiotS on the water...These new whizbang nav systems which do everything for you are ushering in a new, more efficient way for them to spread their mayhem.

But more importantly, even for those of us who want to use them properly, its imperative to understand that its easy to develop a personal process that can leave your head out of the game at a critical time.

Not saying throw all your electronics away....Just saying that as you "integrate" them into the way you sail, consistently ensure that you are not allowing these alluring sirens to seduce you.

On the island of an aircraft carrier there used to be painted in 10 foot high letters:

THINK

[AussieGeoff]

I think I can summarise this nicely.

At the end of the day, all the gizmos and gadgets are navigation AIDS. ie they are there to HELP you navigate. They are NOT navigators, lookouts, helmsmen or deckhands.

YOU need to navigate your boat.
YOU need to keep a sharp lookout to avoid hitting things. (Be it other boats, rocks, shipping containers or jettys).
YOU need to ensure that you are steering a safe course and that you are compensating for leeway, not just letting 'George' steer a heading.
YOU need to ensure your boat is trimmed and the helm effort isn't too much for the helmsman (be he wetware or silicon).

No amount of navigation AIDS are a substitute for a competent NAVIGATOR.

Always remember, like rust, Murphy never sleeps, and sooner or later, that worst case combination of circumstances will happen when you just ducked in to use the head with nothing in sight...

Look up 'cascade failure' sometime. Accidents, small, large or catastrophic are usually not caused by one single thing going wrong, but by a seemingly unlikely combination of many small things, sometimes in ways that seem to defy the odds of such things happening in combination at just the right time.
Yet there have been many smoking craters that used to be airliners that have fallen prey to just such things.


Just my 2c

AussieGeoff