Are You A Video Game Navigator?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Van Der Beek

. . . Surely, if you introduce distractions the result would be more accidents when driving not less. It's just not that it's a distraction but increase in workload...talking on the phone, scrolling thru a menu system to get the option to change radio channel etc etc.

That's what we call a "red herring" -- not relevant to the discussion.

No one argues that watching TV behind the wheel, browsing radio channels, surfing the net, Twittering, sending and receiving texts, liking Facebook pages, talking on the phone, or for goodness' sake, good old receiving oral sex while driving, degrade safety. This is obviously true, but it is not at all what we were talking about.

[barnakiel]

I will not agree with everything said above. Some observations are sound, others sound unjustifiably egocentric.

A boat navigated purely by an auto could be the safer one. Otherwise the world would not be going towards self driving cars. We are not yet there, though, true.

It seems that human error is the most common error on the water and one that leads to life loss and damage. Once we eliminate humans, part of the problem is gone.

I am a video game navigator. This saved our back when we got caught by a weather shift in NC. I am a trained and licensed navigator too.

Navigation by the instruments may save your boat or life one day. Become proficient with whatever devices you have onboard. Reading the manuals in the fog is a bad practice at best.

Imho, the true challenge is that with so many plotters and other devices on the boats, so few boat owners are navigators.

Cheers,
b.

[Van Der Beek]

@Dockhead

Let's recap.

My quote

Originally Posted by Van Der Beek

However, the indroduction of GPS, mobile phones, Tv, complicated interface to change radiochannels etc introduced distractions which many times are the reason for WHY accidents happen in the first place. The driver wasn't focusing on what he should be focusing on, he was distracted, system overload etc.

His response...

Originally Posted by Valhalla360

More importantly for every crash/death caused by overuse, the data says there are even more prevented by the use.

My response...

Originally Posted by Van Der Beek

Are you telling us that the indroduction of GPS, mobile phones, TV, complicated interface to change radio channels etc, have dramatically REDUCED crash rates?

Surely, if you introduce distractions the result would be more accidents when driving not less. It's just not that it's a distraction but increase in workload...talking on the phone, scrolling thru a menu system to get the option to change radio channel etc etc.

Paus for a bit....

Here you come in.. (commenting on my respones to Valhalla360)

Originally Posted by Dockhead

That's what we call a "red herring" -- not relevant to the discussion. No one argues that watching TV behind the wheel, browsing radio channels, surfing the net, Twittering, sending and receiving texts, liking Facebook pages, talking on the phone...

Well that's exactly what he did with his quote, which was why my response was framed as a question. I wanted to find out if we were on the same page, or if there was a misunderstanding somewhere.


We were talking in the context of cars and driving.

I'll come back and check on the thread later tonight, to busy right now.

[Captain Bill]

The GPS chart plotter tells me my position on a moving boat. It is not possible to do that using conventional methods. If I take bearings from three points and the boat is moving the position I plot will have a huge error simply due to the motion of the boat. Unless there are three people to take the bearings at the exact same time there will be a substantial error in my plotted position. Even then, by the time I plot the bearings on a chart I will be a substantial distance from the plotted point. Unless I'm at anchor conventional methods can only tell me where I was, not where I am and none of them can give me the accuracy of a GPS/chartplotter. Even If I plot a GPS position on a paper chart, my old slow biological system will still only let me plot where I was not to mention that the diameter of the pencil point is likely larger than the position error in a gps. I simply cannot plot a fix 12 times a second and neither can anyone else on this forum. As for electronic charts scaling getting people in trouble, this is due to the skipper's stupidity, not the chart plotter. How much detail would one miss if they were trying to navigate the ICW using chart 11009(Cape Hatteras to the Florida Keys). Using a chart plotter on the wrong scale is just as stupid. Unfortunately stupidity is not against the law. I was almost run over last year by a megayacht running on autopilot with no one at the helm. Was that the autopilot's fault? Was that the chartplotter's fault? Would it have changed anything if the captain had plotted his position on a paper chart before he left the bridge and didn't leave anyone on watch? I think not. The moron skippering this megayacht was presumably a professional, not some weekend yahoo, yet he left the bridge anyway and almost ran me down. Only my evasive action prevented it. Electronic navigation is only a tool, and the success of it's use depends totally on the skill of the person using it.

[sailorboy1]

Is this a " no one knows how to navigate, except me" thread? I love these and am sorry I have not been paying attention. Is it too late to join and win?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Van Der Beek

@Dockhead

Let's recap.

My quote



His response...



My response...



Paus for a bit....

Here you come in.. (commenting on my respones to Valhalla360)



Well that's exactly what he did with his quote, which was why my response was framed as a question. I wanted to find out if we were on the same page, or if there was a misunderstanding somewhere.


We were talking in the context of cars and driving.

I'll come back and check on the thread later tonight, to busy right now.

You're talking past each other.

Distractions are bad -- sure. We all agree about that.

But technology relevant to navigation and safety -- what we ARE talking about -- is not bad. Here we do not agree.

Like every tool invented by mankind -- this technology can be abused. Some jackass can think he doesn't have to learn anything about navigation, if he has a shiny new chart plotter. That he doesn't have to keep a lookout, or verify in any way what the plotter tells him. But for every one such jackass -- who would certainly find a way to drown himself even without technology -- there are surely 99 sailors who get a concrete improvement in safety because of improvements which this technology can bring. Just because some jackass will hit himself between the eyes with a hammer, if you give him one, doesn't mean that hammers are bad.

And the evidence for this, which Valhalla named, is that DESPITE the distractions of irrelevant technology like music, video, texting, etc., etc. -- it's getting objectively safer to drive a car or navigate a yacht, and not just by a little bit. This is objective evidence, and pretty strong evidence.


There are a certain number of people who like to think along the lines of "When men were real men, and ships were ships, we didn't need no stinkin' GPS, we didn't need no stinkin' instruments, we could sail by feel and smell and by the hair on our chests, and everyone who uses a chart plotter is a homo." Hogwash! When men were men and ships were ships, something like 10% of ships never came back. Progress in the art of navigation has gone hand in hand with progress in technology and tools. The fact that the tools can be abused doesn't prove anything -- all tools can be abused. If this proved that tools are bad, then we would all be better of living in caves and hunting with our bare hands.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Is this a " no one knows how to navigate, except me" thread? I love these and am sorry I have not been paying attention. Is it too late to join and win?

Ha, ha, ha!

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Is this a " no one knows how to navigate, except me" thread? I love these and am sorry I have not been paying attention. Is it too late to join and win?

Cute!...... But it does suggest an interesting question....
How confident should we be in our Navigational skills?

[skipmac]

I found video game nav and paper both have their uses, strengths and weaknesses.

Until I can buy a 24" chartplotter that I can hold in my lap (and doesn't cost a kazillion dollars) I like small scale paper charts for planning and daydreaming. Also as I recall from previous planning, even charts showing large areas of the ocean, small hazards are marked and visible. Maybe not much detail but it shows you there's something there that might not show on a plotter zoomed out.

For navigating in a twisty, tight channel with side or crossing channels and markers in every direction a plotter sure is handy and for me, easier and safer. Captain Bill makes several good points on the real time benefits of a plotter.

But as several have pointed out, never rely on a single source if possible and take care navigating in dangerous waters in low visibility. Better to stand off and lose a night's sleep than to smack a reef.

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Sure, but did you ever meet anyone who thought that electronics alone "without human oversight/interpretation/evaluation" can "safely get a boat from here to there"?

I never met such a person, and certainly no one in this thread has suggested such a thing.

Actually yes, I meet them a lot. One of my jobs is marine product sales, and every day I meet many people who expect that the tool, in this case a chart plotter, will do the navigation for them, just like when the climb into a car, put it into D (for dummy) step on the gas, and tell them when and where to turn. They literally expect the chart plotter to plot a route and get them there safely. They think that all they have to do is follow the arrow.

N.B. Please don't mention the newest plotters that when used in conjunction with the more detailed charts, will plot a route. There is still a difference between navigating and blindly following an arrow.

Certainly you are correct that the majority of those on this blog are not video game navigators, but alas, in the general boating world, and the world in general, many (perhaps most) people place an undue reliance on what devices tell them and do NOT check to see if there are any discrepancies between what they are supposed to be seeing.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by skipmac

I found video game nav and paper both have their uses, strengths and weaknesses.
.

I bet I've spent $1200 the past year on paper charts and electronic nav chip cards. Boat operation normally uses the electronic. But planning uses the paper and paper is the big picture for the area. I just can not read a zoomed out chip chart to understand what's really around me. All take a backseat to a bouy!

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I went and found the Coast Guard accident date:
- 1997 approx 8000 accidents reported
- 2015 approx 4500 accidents reported.
It fun to find the stray situations where automation and electronic tools can be blamed...

I don't think insurance companies will "find stray situations where automation/electronics are to blame". More likely they look at total numbers attributable to causes year to year. Overall numbers are irrelevant - it's numbers caused by (improper use of) technology that seems to be getting them rattled.

[rognvald]

" If I take bearings from three points and the boat is moving the position I plot will have a huge error simply due to the motion of the boat. Unless there are three people to take the bearings at the exact same time there will be a substantial error in my plotted position. Even then, by the time I plot the bearings on a chart I will be a substantial distance from the plotted point. Unless I'm at anchor conventional methods can only tell me where I was, not where I am and none of them can give me the accuracy of a GPS/chartplotter. " Captain Bill


Bill,
Although this is certainly true, we are not talking about a Cigarette boat doing 50k over the water but a 4-8 knot sailboat. When coasting, I always use traditional navigation with LOP's from landmasses, towers, buildings, etc., in conjunction with a Running Fix and check the reliability with the GPS Chartplotter. In most cases, the difference is not visibly negligible since I can easily shoot 2-3 chosen LOP's in under a minute(no great feat) and plot it on paper in under 30 seconds(also no great feat). And, many times when coasting, if I know there is a strong onshore current, I will take LOP's and use my hand , similar to parallel rules, to quickly see if the boat is being affected to a greater or lesser degree without plotting it on paper(usually in 15 minute intervals between fixes). The "given" is that I am sailing in "clean water" with no charted or visible dangers in the immediate area. Again, I am not anti-technology but prefer to use a mixed bag of witchcraft to get my boat from point A to B. Lastly, your experience with the powerboat is very common and sadly it seems to be on the increase. However, I find it more common in the Bahamas with the big American Sportfishers both inshore and offshore and I wondered if they feel more freedom outside the boundaries of the US. We had a 50 foot plus Hatteras(Miami Port of Call) nearly swamp our dink while fishing off Bimini. They laughed as they sped past. Only luck saved our motor. Good luck and safe sailing.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

I don't think insurance companies will "find stray situations where automation/electronics are to blame". More likely they look at total numbers attributable to causes year to year. Overall numbers are irrelevant - it's numbers caused by (improper use of) technology that seems to be getting them rattled.

Sure but do you really think they have listed as a cause: Set autopilot in busy area, went below for a nap while doing 20kts? While I don't work with the insurance industry, I do a lot of work with crash statistics and they are much broader categories that they deal with.

Of course, the original premise of the article was to imply that electronic navigation was making things more dangerous (not how insurance companies set rates). But the numbers (and you will find even when broken down by cause) are going down. In many cases by dramatic amounts.

Even the distractions are over stated don't hold up. I'll give you an example. In the 1950's, if you wanted to change the radio station, you had to lean over (cars were bigger) and twist a dial. If the road was bumpy, you often had to fiddle with it for 10-15 seconds to get the strongest signal because it was an analog dial. Today, there is typically a button on the steering wheel that you operate by feel, never taking your eyes off the road and it jumps to preset stations and dials in the correct frequency far more precisely than you could do even if you parked every time you changed the channel. So the distraction of changing your radio station is still present but far less intrusive and far less likely to cause a crash.

Likewise, GPS in your car seems like a distraction but mine warns me if there is a backup around the next bend, so I can ease off and be prepared to brake before I see the backup. If I'm in an unfamiliar area or detoured due to an accident, rather than focusing a great deal of attention on finding my way, the GPS reroutes and tells me when and where to turn, so I am able to focus on the road.

Phones are a challenge in the automotive world but for cruisers, they really aren't a big issue (and not the focus of the article in question). If I have to take a call, I simply hand off the wheel. At 6kts in open water, it's an easy thing to do. (going below to take a call while the autopilot takes over is just idiotic and could certainly be done with a windvane so it's not a purely electronic issue).

Many of the same benefits apply to using technology on a boat. Go thru Georgia some time where it seems like endless marshes with interlaced channels. With the GPS and a route pre-planned, it's easy to maintain position and which way to turn at each junction. Without the GPS, even with careful navigation, I bet I would take at least one wrong turn a day. A wrong turn can leave you aground when the channel suddenly gets shallow. Do it at 20kts and injuries become a real concern.

So even with distractions, it's better to use modern technology.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

...So even with distractions, it's better to use modern technology.

We all use modern technology - no one would put to sea nowadays without at least one GPS. That's hardly the point of this little thread. No one disputes that.