Are paper charts a dinosaur?

[zboss]

Originally Posted by Canibul

We had two more instances of a boat running aground on the reef here last week. Both cases, the guy was following a chart plotter with software sold to them by Garmin in the US.

Are we sure that the issue was the chart and not the users? I see this everyday in the BVI charter fleet. They have a perfectly good plotter, and a perfectly marked entry into the bay on both the plotter and using navigation beacons but they lose their marbles and hit the reef.

Most of the time is because they are experiencing idiocy. A lot of guys will follow the channel coming into a harbor but for some reason sanity checks out the next day and they try and go out NOT using the channel. I don't get it.

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by colemj

I've never argued that vector charts show all the detail at all levels that raster charts do - that is the whole point and advantage of vector charts, which provide MUCH more usability and information overall compared to raster and paper charts.

However, vector charts do not leave one as blind as you and Dongfeng lead people to believe. The statement by Dongfeng was just stupid and inaccurate. Vector charts give you specific warnings of these things, although they are not as detailed as raster at all levels. To ignore clear warnings does not make any sense.

Tell me - would you plot a predominantly open-ocean, deep water route straight through that blue blob labeled "Cargados Carajos Shoals" without any further investigation? Even if you refused to zoom in one more level to see it clearly, wouldn't you consult a pilot or similar to see just what the heck "Cargados Carajos Shoals" WAS?

The answer to this is key in this debate.

Of course I wouldn't... But my only point is that with a single glance at a paper or raster chart of the Western Indian Ocean, would give a pretty good indication of what the heck Cargados Carajos Shoals are: namely, an archipelago consisting of extensive reefs, islets, and at least 2 lighthouses... So, in an instant, I'd realize it would be better to plot a course AROUND it, rather than THROUGH it... ;-)

And, every single time I referred to that chart, I would be reminded there was a danger there to be avoided, one that would not vanish, or re-appear, depending upon the scale applied...

I've proven to myself that I'm capable of some pretty dumb mistakes, I can use all the help I can get, and keep things as simple as possible... Many are obviously content relying upon this mode, if it works for them, that's fine...





But I'll favor this sort of progression from the NGA, where the hazard is indicated from the get-go, there are no 'surprises', and the archipelago never disappears... For me, that is the value added in having a paper chart to refer to...

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by rwidman

You know, if you prefer paper charts to electronic charts and a chart potter, that's just fine. It's your choice. If you prefer electronic charts on a chart plotter, that's just fine also. Choosing over the other doesn't make someone better than someone else. Arguing about people's choice is silly and doesn't change anyone's mind.

The argument isn't about choice or preference it's about whether paper charts have become pointless or superfluous. There is a related sub-argument about the relative safety of using either.


Adelie

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

Of course I wouldn't... But my only point is that with a single glance at a paper or raster chart of the Western Indian Ocean, would give a pretty good indication of what the heck Cargados Carajos Shoals are: namely, an archipelago consisting of extensive reefs, islets, and at least 2 lighthouses... So, in an instant, I'd realize it would be better to plot a course AROUND it, rather than THROUGH it... ;-)

And, every single time I referred to that chart, I would be reminded there was a danger there to be avoided, one that would not vanish, or re-appear, depending upon the scale applied...

I've proven to myself that I'm capable of some pretty dumb mistakes, I can use all the help I can get, and keep things as simple as possible... Many are obviously content relying upon this mode, if it works for them, that's fine...





But I'll favor this sort of progression from the NGA, where the hazard is indicated from the get-go, there are no 'surprises', and the archipelago never disappears... For me, that is the value added in having a paper chart to refer to...

This argument favors raster over vector charts but does not directly touch on the question of whether paper charts still have a place.


Adelie

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Adelie

The argument isn't about choice or preference it's about whether paper charts have become pointless or superfluous. There is a related sub-argument about the relative safety of using either.


Adelie

It probably is about choice as those that choose to have paper charts on board do not think they are pointless or superfluous. Those that don't have them on board most likely think they are pointless and superfluous.

I am in the former group.. however offshore I'm happy crossing the Pacific in the trades with 3 charts and down in the 40's with one, plus one of NZ's North Island and two on the other side, Diego Ramerez to Valpo and Valpo to Peru.
Patagonia is something of a special case and needs more paper.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

It probably is about choice as those that choose to have paper charts on board do not think they are pointless or superfluous. Those that don't have them on board most likely think they are pointless and superfluous.

I am in the former group.. however offshore I'm happy crossing the Pacific in the trades with 3 charts and down in the 40's with one, plus one of NZ's North Island and two on the other side, Diego Ramerez to Valpo and Valpo to Peru.
Patagonia is something of a special case and needs more paper.

At an individual level it is about choice, at the group level it is about consensus.

Well at the commercial scale paper maps have mostly become superfluous regardless of what vessel masters really want. The US has stopped printing them,carriage is not required if you have the appropriate electronic mapping system which is required above a certain tonnage anyway and most shipping companies have stopped stocking them on their vessels when they aren't required. Some jurisdictions (Canada) still require them but they are a decreasing minority and even smaller minority of the total shipping world wide.

The question is whether this is also the case for recreational cruisers. I would think that if only 1 or 2 or 5% of cruisers feel that they really have to have paper backups then this is a dinosaur choice for the group as a whole. If however there is a sizable minority (15%, 25%, 33%, pick your arbitrary percentage) who feel a need to have paper backups or even choose to use them for primary navigation then they really aren't dinosaurs for our group. To really know we would need to do a survey of what people are really carrying.

[El Pinguino]

At the commercial end of the spectrum paper charts have mostly become superfluous regardless of what ship masters would like mainly because they have commercial grade ECDIS systems.
Yachts? Totally different situation.
And do all ships have ECDIS? I think not . Oliva, built 2009, didn't have ECDIS when she was lost less than 4 years ago. Rena was using paper when she was lost just over 3 years ago. http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1412/11204.pdf
The loss of these two ships had more to do with the competence of the bridge team than the nature of the charts.

'If' a ship has a proper ECDIS system with ECDIS back up they don't need paper... still lots of ships out there using paper and will be for some time to come, ECDIS mandatory | ECDIS | Marine Equipment For Merchant Marine | FURUNO

[colemj]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

The loss of these two ships had more to do with the competence of the bridge team than the nature of the charts.
]

I am always amused here that whenever grief happens to those using paper charts, it is about the competence of the navigator - while when the same happens when electronics are used, it it's the fault of the charts/electronics.

Mark

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Adelie

The question is whether this is also the case for recreational cruisers. I would think that if only 1 or 2 or 5% of cruisers feel that they really have to have paper backups then this is a dinosaur choice for the group as a whole. If however there is a sizable minority (15%, 25%, 33%, pick your arbitrary percentage) who feel a need to have paper backups or even choose to use them for primary navigation then they really aren't dinosaurs for our group. To really know we would need to do a survey of what people are really carrying.

I think it is quite obvious that in this forum, the paper chart group is a vast majority.

Mark

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by colemj

I think it is quite obvious that in this forum, the paper chart group is a vast majority.

Mark

I disagree, I think they are a vocal minority. Think a lot of folks using papercharts currently don't feel that they would need to hold onto the paper once they have adopted electronic.

If you really want to find out run a survey.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Adelie

The argument isn't about choice or preference it's about whether paper charts have become pointless or superfluous. There is a related sub-argument about the relative safety of using either.


Adelie

Well, we can settle this very quickly then. To people who prefer paper charts, they are have not become pointless or superfluous. To those who prefer electronic charts, they have.

Make sense?

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Adelie

At an individual level it is about choice, at the group level it is about consensus.

Well at the commercial scale paper maps have mostly become superfluous regardless of what vessel masters really want. The US has stopped printing them,carriage is not required if you have the appropriate electronic mapping system which is required above a certain tonnage anyway and most shipping companies have stopped stocking them on their vessels when they aren't required. Some jurisdictions (Canada) still require them but they are a decreasing minority and even smaller minority of the total shipping world wide.

The question is whether this is also the case for recreational cruisers. I would think that if only 1 or 2 or 5% of cruisers feel that they really have to have paper backups then this is a dinosaur choice for the group as a whole. If however there is a sizable minority (15%, 25%, 33%, pick your arbitrary percentage) who feel a need to have paper backups or even choose to use them for primary navigation then they really aren't dinosaurs for our group. To really know we would need to do a survey of what people are really carrying.

Adelie, I do not care a whit what the "group consensus" about the dinosaur nature of paper charts might be, and I do not think that a survey would reveal very much of interest. Only a very small fraction of CF members actually do much voyaging beyond familiar waters, and these are the folks to whom it really matters what sort of chart is used. And I am pretty sure none of them care about what "the group" thinks; perhaps this is the "vocal minority" that you mention. They are the ones to whom it really matters, and I would bet a decent sum that nearly all of them use some combination of paper and e-charts.

El Pinguino (who is a retired master mariner of long professional experience) has pointed out that in fact, many commercial vessels still use paper. Your arguments based on the commercial use of ECDIS are not convincing. Further, while the nature of supply has changed, there are still sources of paper charts for those who want them. All in all, it does seem to be a matter of choice of the individual skipper/navigator, most of whom don't care what anyone else uses.

Cheers,

Jim

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by colemj

I am always amused here that whenever grief happens to those using paper charts, it is about the competence of the navigator - while when the same happens when electronics are used, it it's the fault of the charts/electronics.

Mark

Hmmm... seems to me that there has been pretty universal agreement that in the case of Vestus (sp?) it was completely the fault of the navigator, not the charting system.

And I suspect that most of us know that ultimately the skipper shoulders the responsibility for the ship's safe conduct, no matter what type of charts he or his designated navigator uses (or misuses).

Jim

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by colemj

I am always amused here that whenever grief happens to those using paper charts, it is about the competence of the navigator - while when the same happens when electronics are used, it it's the fault of the charts/electronics.

Mark

Its good to see you are so easily amused.
With paper...what you see is what you get... assuming you aren't that 'experienced' sailor in NZ a few weeks ago.

Most if not all chart plotter assisted stuff ups are operator error.

With electronic you need a more skilled operator and a higher savvy level.

Joe Punter often thinks 'is electronic-is good' while not realising the possible shortcomings of the system he is using, esp if he isn't fully up to speed with it and very often is under or over zooming. 'Look - is in colour - must be very very good'.

Its a bit like the blind faith boat people seem to have in AIS these days... 'I have AIS... they will see me.'

I've only once asked a ship if they had me on AIS. Well offshore one night , two ships in an overtaking situation that made me the meat in the sandwhich, they were chatting about who would do what to whom, when they were done I called the one giving me some minor concern. 'No probs, I can see you and will be passing clear ahead' ( a couple of cables) ... 'Thank you, by the way... do you have me on AIS?'... 'Hang on, I'll go and have a look.......'

A lot of ships don't have bridges that look like the flight deck on 'Starship Wombat'.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by rwidman

Well, we can settle this very quickly then. To people who prefer paper charts, they are have not become pointless or superfluous. To those who prefer electronic charts, they have.



Make sense?

Vaguely amusing sarcasm that did nothing to advance the discussion.


Adelie