Not another one?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Seaslug Caravan

. . . Looks like the normal blindly following icon on screen, no one on deck routine.

Limited understanding of navigation equipment.. .

Which could never happen to you, of course.

[El Pinguino]

Just had a look on my OpenCPN/Cmap display.... Beveridge Reef shows up when well and truly zoomed out...thats Tonga on the left, Nuie in the middle, and Beveridge on the 20* //el on the right.

There is a note ( see ! next to the reef ) saying the reef is reported to lie 3 miles NE.

Posted with no other comment.

[StuM]

Navionics shows Beveridge Reef at any reasonable scale that you would use initially when planning to go from Cook Islands(Rarotonga?) to Niue.

No way it should have been missed if using those charts.

But! Zoom in and there is a critical warning.

[El Pinguino]

Its not just yachts.... go to Marinetraffic and look for Kea Trader

[StuM]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Its not just yachts.... go to Marinetraffic and look for Kea Trader

Hadn't heard about that one. Sounds expensive

https://fairplay.ihs.com/container/a...ader-grounding

[El Pinguino]

Of course every one is assuming the yacht was on passage to somewhere else and that she simply blundered into the reef.

Far more likely that the reef *was* her destination and that she was standing 'off and on' awaiting daylight.

So that scuppers all the 'Nintendo Navigator' theories.

Also... the '3 mile NE' thing is a bit of a red herring.... nobody passes an unlit reef at sub 3 mile distance in the dark.

[Seaslug Caravan]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Which could never happen to you, of course.

Of course not , I don't have a Nintendo Nav system .i am still a paper chart guy.

Call me a "girlie man " but I never used to sleep at night when on passage with the kids on board.
My partner and the children , once they got old enough,always did the daywatches when vis is generally so much better.

Do I know you??

[fxykty]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Of course every one is assuming the yacht was on passage to somewhere else and that she simply blundered into the reef.

Far more likely that the reef *was* her destination and that she was standing 'off and on' awaiting daylight.

So that scuppers all the 'Nintendo Navigator' theories.

Also... the '3 mile NE' thing is a bit of a red herring.... nobody passes an unlit reef at sub 3 mile distance in the dark.

According to the articles quoting the skipper they were on their way to Niue and had no idea the reef was there. This is not speculation - this is what the skipper is quoted as saying.

That said, a paper chart even of the entire South Pacific at 1:10,000,000 scale shows that reef. Paper is invaluable for passage planning and obviates the need to trace a 1,000 mile passage 10 miles at a time on a plotter to spot the possible dangers, setting aside the number of times you'd have to repeat that 10 mile trace to cover every possible track that you're likely to take.

Spot possible dangers on paper first, then check those areas on the chart plotter. Even set guard waypoints if you like.

I don't have the link to the VOR Vestas report (posted in the Leopard 46 lost in French Polynesia thread), but that report provides a good passage planning checklist (aimed at race boats, but applicable to cruising as well).

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by fxykty

According to the articles quoting the skipper they were on their way to Niue and had no idea the reef was there. This is not speculation - this is what the skipper is quoted as saying.

Re-arrange 'words eat my I'.

I have just a few minutes ago been directed to a piece in the Daily Mail....

'Bobby, an experienced sailor who has logged more than 200,000 miles at sea, says the accident happened because his high-tech GPS navigational system failed to show the reef.

‘We were using electronic navigation charts on a 100-mile scale which should have shown where all the islands are, where all the reefs are. But it showed nothing.

‘Once we hit, I started scaling the chart down and when I got to the 12-mile scale, the reef suddenly appeared. '

One wonders what the software involved was....

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Seaslug Caravan

Of course not , I don't have a Nintendo Nav system .i am still a paper chart guy.

Call me a "girlie man " but I never used to sleep at night when on passage with the kids on board.
My partner and the children , once they got old enough,always did the daywatches when vis is generally so much better.

Do I know you??

Ah, that's somewhat different!

Paper won't give you the fatally misleading impression that you get from vector charts zoomed out to the wrong scale. So you're way ahead, if paper is your primary cartography. But you still have to HAVE all the paper (a bigger challenge than with electronic charts) and you still have to LOOK at the large scale charts.

Running up on a reef at night is a nightmare scenario, and I don't think even the best navigators among us are guaranteed to have no risk of doing it. There but for the grace of God . . .


Drifting the thread a bit -- I have paper charts stuffed under every bunk on my boat and filling the nav table to overflowing. But my annual cruise takes me through the waters of 10 countries, and I finally gave up trying to have updated paper on board for the whole route. I have migrated mostly to raster charts on a high resolution monitor using OpenCPN, for passage planning. Still not quite as good as paper, but comes close. And it is vastly easier to store a large number of charts, and keep them updated. Raster charts, like paper, can't give you the false impression of detail, but like with paper, you still have to consciously find and look at the large-scale charts covering your whole route. It's not a trivial process and it's very, very easy to make a mistake, even with tools better than the vector charts used by most sailors.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by fxykty

. . . Paper is invaluable for passage planning and obviates the need to trace a 1,000 mile passage 10 miles at a time on a plotter to spot the possible dangers, setting aside the number of times you'd have to repeat that 10 mile trace to cover every possible track that you're likely to take.
. . .

Indeed!!

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

. . . ‘We were using electronic navigation charts on a 100-mile scale which should have shown where all the islands are, where all the reefs are. But it showed nothing.

‘Once we hit, I started scaling the chart down and when I got to the 12-mile scale, the reef suddenly appeared. '

One wonders what the software involved was....[/I][/I]

This is an absolutely typical feature of vector charts. Looky: http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...em-140632.html


Raster charts don't suffer from this problem -- they are basically just scanned paper. So the detail is not shown or hidden according to blind computer algorithm, but according to the decision of a human cartographer. So dangerous stuff usually appears even on small scale charts (paper or raster). And even if it doesn't, you always know what scale of chart you're looking at, so it's vastly harder to be deceived. Each scale of chart is a different chart, not just the electronic rearrangement of data from a chart database.

Vector charts are fantastic for chart plotting -- instant orientation, pilotage, etc. I experimented with raster charts from NV Charts in my regular plotter and I don't like them at the helm and/or on a small screen.

But they totally suck for passage planning, which is a totally different activity from chart plotting underway.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Of course every one is assuming the yacht was on passage to somewhere else and that she simply blundered into the reef.

Far more likely that the reef *was* her destination and that she was standing 'off and on' awaiting daylight.

So that scuppers all the 'Nintendo Navigator' theories.

It would scupper them if they were unsupported theory, and your supposition were correct. Unfortunately, their words scupper your theory and establish the actual cause.

Did you read either of the linked articles?
They were en route from Cook Islands to Niue and were totally unaware of the reef.

Bobby, an experienced sailor who has logged more than 200,000 miles at sea, says the accident happened because his high-tech GPS navigational system failed to show the reef.‘We were using electronic navigation charts on a 100-mile scale which should have shown where all the islands are, where all the reefs are. But it showed nothing.
‘Once we hit, I started scaling the chart down and when I got to the 12-mile scale, the reef suddenly appeared. It was a huge shock. I had no idea it was there.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by StuM

It would scupper them if they were unsupported theory, and your supposition were correct. Unfortunately, their words scupper your theory and establish the actual cause.

Did you read either of the linked articles?
They were en route from Cook Islands to Niue and were totally unaware of the reef.

Bobby, an experienced sailor who has logged more than 200,000 miles at sea, says the accident happened because his high-tech GPS navigational system failed to show the reef.‘We were using electronic navigation charts on a 100-mile scale which should have shown where all the islands are, where all the reefs are. But it showed nothing.
‘Once we hit, I started scaling the chart down and when I got to the 12-mile scale, the reef suddenly appeared. It was a huge shock. I had no idea it was there.

I suggest you refer back to my post #24

Not being a reader of the 'Daily Wail' that info had slipped under my radar so to speak.

Once again... please do try to keep up with the herd....... there's a good chap.

[SailingFan]

This is something I have seen in the ICW and the St. John's River, as well, of course, because the charts are not always accurate due to relocated and migratory shoaling and buoys from hurricane and storm surges, but also because the scale makes a massive difference in what shows on electronic charts. The paper charts are closer as already stated, and quite useful. I had no depth finder, at the time. The larger features were easy to locate as we zoomed in, and I ended up using my cellphone and a gps zoomed in to the closest level. That was a Navionics app I believe, and was reasonably good.

When on larger bodies of water however, it would seem wise to at least do as some have suggested here, and make a plan with paper, then select waypoints and input them into the electronic paths, and then you can at least trust that unless you are unlucky enough to find a growing volcanic feature that was not there when the chart was last checked, you should be better off (after all, reefs don't usually just pop up!).

The fact that this fellow had no idea the reef was there means he did not do his due diligence. Can it happen to anyone? Sure, but his credentials suggest that he is not just anyone, and that his claimed experience level should suggest he is held to the higher standard that his pay grade and licensures merit and demand.

I wonder if he would be willing to take the pay cut necessary for the repairs and damages caused by this blunder, as a means to properly reflect his level of expertise as demonstrated on this particular trip?