Not another one?

[double u]

"...not to let this luck -- even if it lasts for 30 or 40 years -- go to our heads..."
100% agree!

[estarzinger]

On the luck thing . . . . as I mentioned in another thread . . . .
- one part of seamanship is to know what specifically to invest time and effort in paying close attention to and what you can (should not, but can) afford to be a bit lazy about. On a shorthanded boat we simply cannot pay 100% attention to everything - so attention/focus triage is a core skill.
- a second part is to be generally aware and alert enough to catch stuff that 'is not right, before it really bites you'. This involves being really in tune with the vessel (sounds and smells and feel) and have the right sensors and alarms on (but not too many).
- and the third part, is when bad luck bites you (and it will if you sail long enough), to have the tools and skills and courage and self-reliance to fight yourself out of the hole and clear (being able to sail with a broken rudder, broken mast/boom, being able to kedge off of coral and rocks, being able to sail in and out of harbors with a dead engine, etc etc Note: we have at some point had to, and been able to, do most of that).

On the first point - He was heading to Niue, I am presuming from rarotonga, and he unfortunately let 26nm of cross track error build up. If he had stayed on the GC route he would have missed the reef by that much. You get off your planned track, you do need to double check it is ok, even in the middle of the open ocean.

On the second point, I am wondering (after these two recent pacific incidents) whether the really wonderful cat deck saloon (which I generally love) may tend to make some sailors more isolated from their environment, less aware and less sensitive? On Hawk we intentionally went with a hard dodger rather than a pilot house for that reason (and lol because many pilot houses make me seasick at night).

As to this specific incident, again related to point #2 - skipper 'should have' seen land on chart (e-chart or paper), 'should have' seen breakers on radar (although probably did not have radar on like many cruisers on passage), 'should have' felt change in motion (but that probably required more experience with this boat than he had), 'should have' see white water (or some color/turbulence, which is usually visible even on real dark nights) but probably/perhaps not possible from inside the deck saloon.

Probably no point 3 option in this case - looks like the bottom was ripped off on contact. In 'conventional' construction, steel might have have given you an option 3 in this particular case (or 'serious extra scantlings' aluminum or composite).

[fxykty]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

...
On the first point - He was heading to Niue, I am presuming from rarotonga, and he unfortunately let 26nm of cross track error build up. If he had stayed on the GC route he would have missed the reef by that much. You get off your planned track, you do need to double check it is ok, even in the middle of the open ocean.
...

Well, we don't know where they started from, nor whether he planned a GC route or whether he just placed a waypoint next to Niue, nor whether their autopilot was heading to that waypoint. I should think if they were using their autopilot to track to a waypoint then they would have seen the XTE.

But remember, he had no idea the reef was there. So nothing specific to look out for and nothing to worry about even if 26 miles XTE.

Originally Posted by estarzinger

...
On the second point, I am wondering (after these two recent pacific incidents) whether the really wonderful cat deck saloon (which I generally love) may tend to make some sailors more isolated from their environment, less aware and less sensitive? On Hawk we intentionally went with a hard dodger rather than a pilot house for that reason (and lol because many pilot houses make me seasick at night).
...

Yup, it's very easy to stay inside the salon, either flaked out on a bench or sitting in the nav table chair. We set a 10 minute timer to ensure at least occasional looks outside. But I'm sure that some of my crew pop out, take a look around (not light adjusted) and go back inside. If there's a container in front of us we're hooped.

We set radar guard and AIS alarms (the latter primarily for mob notification), plus all the other instruments, but it's not proper watch keeping. For sub tropical South Pacific while on an ocean passage far from land not too big a deal I think. Am I stupid?

Originally Posted by estarzinger

...
As to this specific incident, again related to point #2 - skipper 'should have' seen land on chart (e-chart or paper), 'should have' seen breakers on radar (although probably did not have radar on like many cruisers on passage), 'should have' felt change in motion (but that probably required more experience with this boat than he had), 'should have' see white water (or some color/turbulence, which is usually visible even on real dark nights) but probably/perhaps not possible from inside the deck saloon.
...

You have way more ocean experience than I do, but I'm not sure that a reef is visible at night if there's any reasonable sea and wind about - how does it look different from the usual swell top breakers?

I guess the quality of watch keeping depends very much on the perceived risk. It's hard to maintain a strict watch keeping regime on a family boat in the middle of a big, mostly empty, ocean. Other than to make the watch-keeping station as exposed and uncomfortable as possible, what are other options?

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by fxykty

Other than to make the watch-keeping station as exposed and uncomfortable as possible, what are other options?

In principle it is straightforward. be fully awake/alert (at least) every 15 minutes and full look and listen 360 degrees outside the boat (from outside, not inside the dodger/saloon/pilothouse), and look at the chart & radar & ais & depth sounder (make sure all are consistent with chart and each other).

In practice, people find that takes a lot of discipline, more than many people have. Especially after you have not seen anything at all but white caps for a couple days. Then you have to decide, on the attention vs fatigue triage, what your judgement call is.

Originally Posted by fxykty

Well, we don't know where they started from,

yea, I am making an educated guess,
but it is really the only likely place given the reef they hit

nor whether he planned a GC route or whether he just placed a waypoint next to Niue

Default for most plotters/gps is a GC route.
Most people dont even know there are different types of 'streight line' routes. So, again sure, an educated guess,
but very likely.

nor whether their autopilot was heading to that waypoint. I should think if they were using their autopilot to track to a waypoint then they would have seen the XTE.

On ocean passages, autopilot steering to waypoint is less common than coastal. More common is compass or wind, especially on the pacific downwindish routes. If it had been steering (all the way) to way point then there would have been no xte.

But remember, he had no idea the reef was there. So nothing specific to look out for and nothing to worry about even if 26 miles XTE.

But the reef was right there on his plotter. As I said above he should have been looking at the plotter every 15 minutes, and if he had slid off his route he should have been especially careful to look and zoom. You are arguing he had an unknown unknown (which seems correct for him), and I am arguing that such reefs are a known unknown and should be looked for. Just like uncharted rocks are a known unknown when you get off the main route in Chile.

Yup, it's very easy to stay inside the salon, either flaked out on a bench or sitting in the nav table chair. We set a 10 minute timer to ensure at least occasional looks outside. But I'm sure that some of my crew pop out, take a look around (not light adjusted) and go back inside. If there's a container in front of us we're hooped.

We set radar guard and AIS alarms (the latter primarily for mob notification), plus all the other instruments, but it's not proper watch keeping. For sub tropical South Pacific while on an ocean passage far from land not too big a deal I think. Am I stupid?

I'l duck that question - you are master, only you can make that risk assessment.

You have way more ocean experience than I do, but I'm not sure that a reef is visible at night if there's any reasonable sea and wind about - how does it look different from the usual swell top breakers?

Usually definitely visible on radar from say 3nm, perhaps further with a good radar. By eye, usually more flashes of white than open ocean, and bigger on the horizon. But you need to be alert and experienced to catch those two things.

I guess the quality of watch keeping depends very much on the perceived risk. It's hard to maintain a strict watch keeping regime on a family boat in the middle of a big, mostly empty, ocean.

Their kids look big enough to keep a watch during the day. That would help a lot.

But I agree, as I said above, many people find the discipline of watch keeping very hard. It's not something we are trained in unless relatively elite military (or similar) service.

........

[double u]

"... a minor, unlucky, but tragic oversight..."
neither minor, nor unlucky nor "oversight"! he didn't look.
we all make/made plenty of mistakes - this was not a "mistake", it was a wrong attitude!
no sympathy for people who drive insurance premiums up & give the bureaucrats excuses to introduce restrictive legislation! (& yes, there are a few oceancrossings in my background...some in retrospect looking full of big risks taken without sufficient knowledge like halfway rtw with my lady pregnant)
(the 200.000 miles I find hard to believe too, 3 rtws amounted to probably not much over 100.000)

[estarzinger]

Would be interested to know if the boat that was anchored inside the reef (which did the 'rescue') had an anchor light on. I am guessing they did, because it was a research sort of vessel. If so, that is one more watch keeping clue that was available to a problem developing. But if the cat deck saloon windows were dark tinted, an anchor light (and by the way, often other vessel nav lights) is more difficult to see from inside.

I do have both empathy and sympathy for these guys, while still agreeing/recognizing this was a pretty basic fault of someone who seemingly had not done a lot of (tropical) ocean navigating. They do (apparently) have insurance unlike the other cat (in polynesia). So it is 'easier' on them, but does have a direct knock-on effect on other (insured) cruisers costs.

One other comment - this was about a 585nm leg, which we found to be exactly the wrong/worst length. Short enough that you really never get your sea legs or a truly relaxed sleep, but long enough that you get really fatigued. We always preferred 2 days (or less) or more than 5 days. Their cognitive functioning at the time of the incident, at the likely cumulative fatigue level, could have been about that of a serious drunk driving level.

[Steadman Uhlich]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Would be interested to know if the boat that was anchored inside the reef (which did the 'rescue') had an anchor light on. I am guessing they did, because it was a research sort of vessel. If so, that is one more watch keeping clue that was available to a problem developing. But if the cat deck saloon windows were dark tinted, an anchor light (and by the way, often other vessel nav lights) is more difficult to see from inside.

I do have both empathy and sympathy for these guys, while still agreeing/recognizing this was a pretty basic fault of someone who seemingly had not done a lot of (tropical) ocean navigating. They do (apparently) have insurance unlike the other cat (in polynesia). So it is 'easier' on them, but does have a direct knock-on effect on other (insured) cruisers costs.

One other comment - this was about a 585nm leg, which we found to be exactly the wrong/worst length. Short enough that you really never get your sea legs or a truly relaxed sleep, but long enough that you get really fatigued. We always preferred 2 days (or less) or more than 5 days. Their cognitive functioning at the time of the incident, at the likely cumulative fatigue level, could have been about that of a serious drunk driving level.

Good points! As usual.

[Jim Cate]

Back to the electronic chart issue for a moment;

Recently received an e-mail from Aussie cruising friends, currently cruising in Maine waters. They had struck a rock reef while actively monitoring their Navionics "Sonar" e-chart. The reef was completely missing at all zoom levels, and the bottom contours showed a depth of 13 meters at the impact point. The standard Navionic chart did show the reef... a case where the allegedly greater detail of the premium chart was defective. They have found two other reefs missing from the Sonar charts in the area. They posted screen shots of the two charts, but I was unable to copy them here. I don't know if they have notified Navionics.

I have some misgivings about all the non-official charting services. I realize that many use these services and like them,but cases like this seem to crop up all too often.

Thoughts?

Jim

[Greg Shakeshaft]

What is this word "wreak"? Do you mean wreck.

[El Pinguino]

'But the reef was right there on his plotter. As I said above he should have been looking at the plotter every 15 minutes,'

In the Daily Wail article he says plotter was on 100 mile scale and did not show the reef until, after impact, he went down to 12 mile scale.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

In the Daily Wail article he says plotter was on 100 mile scale and did not show the reef until, after impact, he went down to 12 mile scale.

Yea I know. However, I take a "trust but verify" approach to such comments . . . . . #1 I have looked at navionics, c-map and isailor charts and all show the reef thru the zoom scales. So, I would be curious what sort of charts he had that did not show the reef at 100 mile scale. #2 We all know this sort of zoom problem can happen (although I am skeptical in this particular case), so it was at least my practice to do a very quick zoom down on the watch keeping plotter scan - takes no time at all - kept us off some rocks in Argentina and iceland.

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Thoughts?

Yea, they contacted me. I asked them to please not reference me in their blog about it - I already have a 'hard guy' reputation and dont need any extra help getting sued.

Given what we now know about Navionics, I would suggest people stick as close as they can to the main base file cartography.

I personally am fine working with Navionics charts. But would suggest you do need to exercise a bit more caution than with an official chart, and it is helpful to have a second chart source to double check occasionally and when things just dont feel right.

I personally don't know enough about the various 'unofficial/commercial' e-chart options to know which one is 'best'. As I pointed out in another thread, the isailor charts had a zoom problem in the one place I looked closely. . . . if you can afford the ARCS (uk hydrographic office) that seems to be likely the best general source, but there are some places where other countries (like the french) do better coverage.

[Seaslug Caravan]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

' As I said above he should have been looking at the plotter every 15 minutes,'

.

REALLY??.

No he should have been advancing his position regularly with DR to find out where the FXXX he was going to be in !5, 30, 60 (whatever minutes time he felt comfortable with considering he had a very precious cargo aboard, namely the little kiddies).

How the hell can you clobber something that size if you are actually navigating?.

Gazing at a chart plotter is NOT NAVIGATING, no matter how regularly you do it.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Seaslug Caravan

REALLY??.

No he should have been advancing his position regularly with DR to find out where the FXXX he was going to be in !5, 30, 60 (whatever minutes time he felt comfortable with considering he had a very precious cargo aboard, namely the little kiddies).

How the hell can you clobber something if you are actually navigating?.

Gazing at a chart plotter is NOT NAVIGATING, no matter how regularly you do it.

Point of Order!!! That was said by some other bloke at #68... not by me!!!!

Struth Bruce... careful with your 'quotes'

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Seaslug Caravan

No he should have been advancing his position regularly with DR to find out where the FXXX he was going to be in !5, 30, 60

Gazing at a chart plotter is NOT NAVIGATING, no matter how regularly you do it.

Dude, practically speaking when offshore watch keeping in order to 'advance his position with DR' you just simply look down the route for (say) 10nm. You don't need to do anything sophisticated or a calculation. And if you are on a plotter (raster or vector) you flick the zoom a bit. None of this takes any time to do. It may look like 'gazing at a plotter' but there is (should be) actually a thought process going on rather than a blank stare and blank mind.

It is in fact one of the advantages of a plotter. You (always) know where you are on the displayed chart and your route/course line. You don't have to plot a position, removing the potential for at least one possible error.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Dude, practically speaking when offshore watch keeping in order to 'advance his position with DR' you just simply look down the route for (say) 10nm. You don't need to do anything sophisticated or a calculation. And if you are on a plotter (raster or vector) you flick the zoom a bit. None of this takes any time to do. It may look like 'gazing at a plotter' but there is (should be) actually a thought process going on rather than a blank stare and blank mind.

It is in fact one of the advantages of a plotter. You (always) know where you are on the displayed chart and your route/course line. You don't have to plot a position, removing the potential for at least one possible error.

Exactly!