Why Integrate the Autopilot ?

[colemj]

Originally Posted by sidmon

Has the investment -considerable investment- prevented such things?

The USN has had some of its worst groundings ever after implementation of integrated nav systems. So has the airline industry. And so has the cruise ship industry.

Huh.

How'd that happen?!?!?!

More food for thought

Well, if this statement isn't damning electronics, then I'm missing something.

Again, you are using hyberbole and conflating complex glass bridge systems on vessels that have no resemblance to recreational craft (navy destroyers and commercial airliners???) with simple recreational electronics.

Are you really saying that you believe Joe Sixpack with his Hunter 32 is going to put in a full glass bridge, antenna farms, satellite receivers and heads up displays and get out there and be a danger to himself and everyone else - when he would be perfectly safe had he stayed with a sextant and lodestone?

And yes, I am saying that modern electronics have prevented a lot of running aground and other navigational errors. Doesn't mean they don't happen still, but that is the nature of boating and navigating. I wonder if the Spanish Main ever lost any ships?

As far as the navy, airlines and cruise ships, what data support that the increased groundings are due to the electronics and not to the fact that there are far more ships operating, they are much larger and more complicated vessels, they move at higher speeds and operate in lower error margin envelopes, they are operating in many new and different areas than the past, the congestion is much higher - and any other factor that is different than the past. So it naturally follows that they will have worse accidents, but it does not follow that those accidents are caused by high investment in technology and its application.

Do you think they would have fewer, and less spectacular, accidents if they were equipped with simple low-tech gear? Would you feel safer on or around them?

[nigel1]

Originally Posted by SteveT

Hi Nigel - know exactly what you mean. My current pet peeve is PI lines carefully plotted on the chart and nobody having a clue as to setting them up on the radars (all 3 of them). Good for a hissy fit!

Hiya Steve
+1 on the PI lines, and so easy with the video displays available now. Its not like your asking them to stick head and hands in some manky CRT radar hood and fumble about with protractor and chinograph.

Just re-reading the NTSB report into the Royal Majesty versus the Nantacket shoals, think I'll print off a copy and leave on the chart table.
Its not a question of where exactly the putty is, or where the ship is, but where they are relative to each other.

[s/v Jedi]

Let's see, it is not the fault of the crew; complacency! The glass bridge is at fault. The Jedi writes nonsense with his talk about incompetent crew, just look at the USS Port Royal, there is your proof, complacency, common human thing!

Well, I looked and found that I am right. The captain was incompetent and thus dismissed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29104705.../#.TxiKNPF5mK0

The integrated navigation equipment was allowed to stay aboard and steer the ship.

Gee, how could they do that?

Nick.

[donradcliffe]

I have to agree with all of you. Nothing is infallible, be it the human eye, the depth sounder, chartplotter, radar, or buoy systems, or whatever. I have seen cases where each has failed due to human error. The art of navigation consists of taking ALL available inputs, and making sure that they are consistent with each other. The captain should be watching the chartplotter, radar, depthsounder, AIS, paper charts, looking out the window, listening and making sure that all these inputs indicate a safe passage.

Now class, what do you do if one or more of these inputs don't agree with others and indicate you are standing into danger??

A hint--airplane pilots can't do it.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by sidmon

Show me the quotes where I have blamed the electronics...

Is this a game? I stepped up and showed you quotes from your last challenge and you skip right over it and ask for another?

Mark

[donradcliffe]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

Nearly 200 posts, and there hasn't been one sensible reason given not to integrate an autopilot.....

Here's another:

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...sic-74956.html

[colemj]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

Nearly 200 posts, and there hasn't been one sensible reason given not to integrate an autopilot.....

Yes there has - it is scary and people might die and if the Phoenicians didn't need to, then neither should you.

Mark

[colemj]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

Here's another:

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...sic-74956.html

How is that a reason not to integrate? In that specific example, the OP doesn't yet know what the problem is (it could be something not to do with integration) and even though he has a problem, the autopilot still works without the integration.

Man, you people see witches everywhere...

Mark

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by colemj

Is this a game? I stepped up and showed you quotes from your last challenge and you skip right over it and ask for another?

Mark

Welcome to the club next he will freak out in PM's at you heheh

Nick.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

Nearly 200 posts, and there hasn't been one sensible reason given not to integrate an autopilot.....

hey I gave 2 earlier today; money to buy the cables & time to plug them in

seems to be pretty low end reasons for the benefits gained!

[sidmon]

Originally Posted by colemj

Is this a game? I stepped up and showed you quotes from your last challenge and you skip right over it and ask for another?

Mark

Because what you provided previously was not from me...

Feel free to go back and look.

Yes there is every good reason to leverage the latest technology and "integrate your autopilot"

However:

Fully understand your electronics, and make sure you "integrate" the fundamentals of navigation, seaman's eye, and mariners' prudence into the way you sail from then on.

As the above accidents detail...Even the best int eh business can fall prey to a mindset where those basics easily atrophy.

Thats the message I have been hitting on over and again.

That you can't see it speaks volumes to the foibles of human nature that I am highlighting.

[sidmon]

Originally Posted by colemj

As far as the navy, airlines and cruise ships, what data support that the increased groundings are due to the electronics...

Well...Of course you will think I am damning the black boxes...But here yah go for starters...

The incident is one of more than a dozen in an airline industry report in which the pilots failed to properly monitor the flight, the automation or even the location of their airplane.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by sidmon

Because what you provided previously was not from me...

Feel free to go back and look.

Weellll.... This is your quote and challenge I responded to (I felt free to go back and look):

"Never. Not Once. Has anyone ever said that here Mark."

And I showed you an example of someone saying that here. And further examples of deep implications of that sentiment (integration leading to head on collisions, lost legs, etc).

Maybe your real name is "anyone"?

Mark

[nigel1]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

Nearly 200 posts, and there hasn't been one sensible reason given not to integrate an autopilot.....

Take a quick look at the NTSB report on the Royal Majesty grounding.

I use auto pilot, but not in nav mode. OK,. maybe the compass will go tits up, but I'm usually comparing the flux compass with the magnetic. '
How about if your in NAV mode and the GPS receives erroneous data, lets say it suddenly places you 4 cables north of where you are. Whats the helm going to do?
Last year I was sailing south of the Burbo Banks wind farm, making about 8 kts and a course of about 090. I then noted that the CMG/SMG indicated a CMG of north and SMG 8 kts.
Stuck me head down the companionway and the boat symbol on the chart plotter is in the middle of the wind farm tracking north. A hard re boot sorted it, but no idea what caused it.

More dramatic results have occurred on Dynamic Positioned vessels. Here it really is integrated, rudders, thrusters, props, and it should keep a vessel within a couple of meters of a specified spot and a constant heading.'
Now these systems typically have use of 2 x DGPS, a laser range/bearing, underwater acoustic systerm, taut wire.
All but the DGPS require a bit of human effort to set up, and all but the GPS are relative positioning systems.
Most DP ops require 3 position system inputs, the computer cleverly sorts them out and comes up with a mediam position, but the main sorting is by voting, if 2 systems say your here, one says your not, it gets kicked into touch.
Your typical modern offshore construction boat cost around $100m, your deep sea drill rig a lot more than a cruise ship. Park them 8 meters apart, and an 8.5m GPS error is just the start of a really bad day.
This is not conjecture, its happened, and happened again, massive dollar losses, and people get killed, usually the divers-
I admit the above does not really apply to our sail boats with our leisure chart plotters, but it serves as an example of what can go wrong with GPS integrated systems.
But, you should have seen, a bit of foresight/awareness by the operator would have prevented these incidents in the first place

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by colemj

As far as the navy, airlines and cruise ships, what data support that the increased groundings are due to the electronics and not to the fact that there are far more ships operating, they are much larger and more complicated vessels, they move at higher speeds and operate in lower error margin envelopes, they are operating in many new and different areas than the past, the congestion is much higher - and any other factor that is different than the past.

Well I can guarantee you all that the airline rate of groundings is the same as it has been since around 1902. Once per take off.

As we say in the aviation business, take offs are optional - landings are mandatory.

BTW - on some level it is always human error.

The peeing contests are amusing to watch but the only thing grinding my gears are the flip comparisons to commercial aviation. Each false statement makes me want to jump in and correct but this is not an aviation forum. Suffice to say no one so far has posted an accurate airline analogy so please stop. You arre giving me and probably the commercial pilot guys reading this headaches.

BTW - not bragging or "credentialling" but I have been in commercial aviation 30 years and part of the NTSB accident team on 3 commercial accidents. I have been very close to the whole cockpit integration stuff and what some are talking about here falls way short of the level of integration, sophistication and situational awareness benefits that commercial aviation has achieved.

And those tossing out references to Air France (and others) just go read up on airline safety statistics since the 50's and 60's. You will find today's numbers absolutely and convincingly eclipse the super connie days when we still had skylights to take star shots with sextants. And that 50s cockpit with 5 or 6 crew now has 2. Modern is better.

Sorry. It is irrefutable.