Team Vestas hits reef

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

You don't, by any chance, have a red hulled boat do you? ..... Are you heading "back" via the Australs and Gambiers? Steel boat?

The red hulled boat you are thinking off is probably Northanger, there were two red hulled Polish charter yachts down there but both were lost in 2009/10. ( edit... you aren't thinking of Ian on Persimmon are you? )
Heading back directo Pto Montt.

Back on track.... those two sets of screens shots I posted before were both using the same CM93 1.31 chart folio ( mid 200x?) ... the difference is simply in how the old burglebrand software handles them v. the way that openCPN does.

I always have paper on the chart table.... I guess otherwise it would just be called a table... three charts were enough to show everything I needed to know for crossing the Pacific....

[Jim Cate]

I've also seen CM93 charts come and go with updates, which is very disconcerting. If you hit the properties of each CM93 update, you will see that they don't have the same number of files--some of the older versions have a lot more files. I was always tempted to take the latest edition and copy the older additions onto it using the "don't replace duplicates" to make sure I hadn't lost any charts in their 'update'.

Hi Don,

So, I just did that exercise: 2006 has 26,995 files, 2010 has 27,859 files and the new improved 2011 has but 20,204 files... a loss of over seven thousand charts!!!

Have you ever done the "consolidation" trick that you describe? I can't quite work out how it would treat new vs old versions of the same chart. Meanwhile I keep all three versions resident and switch back and forth for comparisons in suspect areas. PITA, and it sometimes confuses both the computer and me, but it does help resolve such questions.

Cheers,

Jim

[avb3]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

....

As you will hear from all the experienced navigators here, its not a question of paper vs electronic or raster vs vector--a good navigator takes ALL of the available tools into account, and makes sure that they are singing in tune. Any discrepancies (between charts, between eyeball/radar/depthsounder/ears/waves/smells/etc and charts) and its time to go on alert and steer clear or stop the boat if necessary until they are resolved.

....

THIS is the answer. As I mentioned earlier, the free pilot guides available via NOAA clearly advise if the reefs. You'd think an expeirenced navigator would have looked at then. I wonder why not if indeed he didn't. And if he did, then why cut it so close?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[BlueBuddha]

The team just made additional media statements. They explicitly indicated the error was not zooming enough on the electronic charts.

We'll be back | Volvo Ocean Race 2014-2015

Team Vestas Wind navigator Wouter Verbraak (NED) explained the reason for the accident to the media:

“In hindsight we would’ve continued to zoom in on the area much more, on the electronic charts. Not doing so is the big mistake that I made, but the good thing is that we didn’t make any more.”

[transmitterdan]

He is not blaming the electronic charts. He is blaming himself for not looking at the electronic chart close enough. The information was there but he didn't look at it.

[BlueBuddha]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

He is not blaming the electronic charts. He is blaming himself for not looking at the electronic chart close enough. The information was there but he didn't look at it.

Yes. Looks like 100% human error.

[libramax]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

I've also seen CM93 charts come and go with updates, which is very disconcerting. If you hit the properties of each CM93 update, you will see that they don't have the same number of files--some of the older versions have a lot more files. I was always tempted to take the latest edition and copy the older additions onto it using the "don't replace duplicates" to make sure I hadn't lost any charts in their 'update'.

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

So, I just did that exercise: 2006 has 26,995 files, 2010 has 27,859 files and the new improved 2011 has but 20,204 files... a loss of over seven thousand charts!!! [...] Meanwhile I keep all three versions resident and switch back and forth for comparisons in suspect areas. PITA, and it sometimes confuses both the computer and me, but it does help resolve such questions.

These quotes and the screenshots that show partial data really have me shaking my head. I'm newish to sailing, but very familiar with the software industry, and I'm sad to see that its worst practices have carried over. Inattention to details, unfamiliarity with the usage domain, and just plain kludges to get the software out the door are the price of cheap software, but have no place in serious endeavors such as sailing and navigation. I suppose I've pre-empted my own rant with the word "cheap" that is used to explain (and excuse) so much of the problem.

In my mind, proper software enhances the analog task (eg paper charting) that it is supposed to replace. For example, instead of simply replicating the various paper charts, there should be a way to bring significant details from the detailed charts up to the less detailed one. For example, have reefs, shoals, rocks, and wrecks marked as an optional layer on the large-scale charts. Of course it gets cluttered when you turn on that layer, but it's better than having an uninformative "blue area" and zooming, and running into missing chart files.

[El Pinguino]

Zooming in sufficiently to pick up hazards along the way for , say, the next 24 hours would be a megaPITA... especially compared with just inspecting a reasonably scaled paper chart. You could of course pre plan your passage, pick up all the hazards, and 'mark' them on your electronic chart so they show up regardless of the scale but once again a multimegaPITA and very prone to missing stuff.
You also stand the risk of there being no large scale chart showing some isolated rock so zoom away to your heart's delight... you wont find it til you hit it. Sefton Reef is case in point.

What would be rather nice would be software that offered an automatic 'best scale' function.

My old software has a 'best scale' button but you have to select it manually, I don't think opencpn has that function..maybe I just haven't looked hard enough.

[LeaseOnLife]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

... you wont find it til you hit it. Sefton Reef is case in point.
....

That's a nasty one, do we know it exists?
Quick check:

Sefton Reef
per Sailing Directions Pub 125

1.19 Numerous off-lying dangers have been reported
between longitude 100°W and the coast of Chile. The effect of
seismic disturbances on the ocean floor within this area, which
is not infrequent, may cause an existing islet or rock to become
submerged. On the other hand, earthquakes thrust submerged
peaks above, or nearly above, the ocean surface. Through the
years, various surveys have failed to locate most of these
reported dangers. However, they are retained on the charts as a
warning to navigators.
1.19
Included in these dangers are Sefton Reef (36°43'S.,
83°15'W.), Yosemite Rock (32°04'S., 83°14'W.), Podesta
Island (32°14'S., 89°08'W.), Emily Rock (29°38'S., 87°25'W.),
a rock and adjacent shoal depths of at least 165m in position
25°40'S, 85°00'W, and a depth of 155m, which was reported in
the position 43°13'S, 97°43'W.

• any CM93 I can locate doesn't show anything for 36°43'S.,
  83°15'W
• Chilean S57 don't show anything
• Navionics (checked via webapp)=nothing
• The only chart I can dig up that shows Sefton Reef is NGA 609 which does show the reef on a 1:3 500 000 charts

I see two problems with vector charts

• content missing, ==> vector chart suppliers need to fix that, as users we can point out locations that need improvement. A "best scale" SW option won't show content when it doesn't exist.
• displaying SW / Chartplotter hides dangers from navigator. libramax points out a possible way with layers.

I prefer to do my pre-flights with raster charts, we use a PC for that, but I understand the love for paper charts.


Dirk

[hpeer]

In my Megan sailing experience I've had numerous similar problems. I find Cmap better than Navonics. I tend to go over my intended route on a large scale. I carry paper charts. I use Fugawi whereby I can view raster images. I use iNavix for the same reason, raster charts.

It's not that I don't use vector charts, but I do check them against paper, raster or by large scale preview, PITA it may be.

Especially single handing, one gets tired and foggy headed. At least I do.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by LeaseOnLife

That's a nasty one, do we know it exists?

Dirk

Do we know it doesn't exist?

It is shown on paper chart Int 609 ( which I suppose is the same as NGA 609) at 36* 54'S .... I found it listed with the same lat on wikipidea...

Doesn't appear until you have zoomed into 631700 on openCPN but even at that zoom it should show even if charted 11 miles north.

There is a reason I give all known isolated dangers a berth of about 60 miles when offshore.....

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

He is not blaming the electronic charts. He is blaming himself for not looking at the electronic chart close enough. The information was there but he didn't look at it.

Still.... would that error have occurred with a paper chart? I mean.... "you don't know what you don't know!"

[Seasiq]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

Still.... would that error have occurred with a paper chart? I mean.... "you don't know what you don't know!"

I set sail to Hawaii years ago. It wasn't until I sailed past Iceland that I realized I had my charts upside down.

Nothing is foolproof!

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Seasiq

I set sail to Hawaii years ago. It wasn't until I sailed past Iceland that I realized I had my charts upside down.

Nothing is foolproof!

[emoji106]

[zstine]

I don't understand why, in a day when paper charts are going the way of the dodo, we as a community can't come together and demand more from navigation software. Instead, I see most blaming the navigator, who made a mistake that is very very easy to make. A mistake that will be repeated again and again if the tools don't change. Aegean in the Newport-Ensenada race (all aboard lost) may have made the same mistake. An alarm "Your route or Track progression approaches shallow water/obstructions" may have saved their lives of and kept Vestas off the rocks. Why aren't there government standards for electronic charts like NOAA paper charts? Why do we allow navigation software to have a disclaimer "Not for navigation"? Why when you zoom out in a vector chart, does it not display the minimum depth in the new/larger grid? That is the standard for paper charts, right!? IMO, That reef/island should show up in all zoom levels, but one zoom out and Vestas is in 40m! wtf. Today's vector charts are totally inadequate and the manufactures of these products are unethical at best when they are clearly marketing them for navigation use.