Paper Charts Now Unnecessary

[IslandHopper]

Originally Posted by Exile

I take it that this system is reserved -- based on cost or otherwise -- for commercial vessels.

Cost would be the main overiding factor then practicality, some of the systems are quite large.....

This is the system (x2) i had on my last vessel...



If you click on the link below you will find (down the right hand side of the page) links and downloadable booklets explaining what ECDIS is and what actually makes a system ECDIS......trying to explain it in anymore detail here would take me days at the keyboard.....

http://www.transas.com/products/onboard/ns/ecdis_premium/

Originally Posted by Exile

With the inevitable trend (like it or not) being towards more reliance on plotters, it just seems that standardization would be desirable. Can't see why accuracy & reliability on recreational vessels plying the oceans would be any less essential.

I use the same Transas nav program as above (recreational version, although the charts are exactly the same as the commercial version!) on my own laptop, fed by the same model Furuno GPS (GP-150) and the accuracy is the same. But a Toshiba Laptop running Windows 7 with all the other programs stuffed inside, and connected to the internet, does not meet the equipment standards for ECDIS, and so it shouldn't....

The same goes for makers of standalone chart plotters for the recreational market such as Garmin etc, it's just to cost prohibitive for them to produce equipment to IMO standards and expect the recreational boater to pay the resultant high cost that would be needed to make a profit....

ECDIS is about performance standards of all the components involved, not just the accuracy of charts.....

http://www.imo.org/blast/blastDataHelper.asp?data_id=22622&filename=A817(19 ).pdf

Originally Posted by noelex 77

Is it more detailed than the equivant electronic one?. I am not arguing, just wondering. It's hard to compare electronic and paper charts as few people carry the latest copies of both. So a few practical comparisons would be helpful. My only electronic maps of Port Phillip bay are old, but if you could publish a photo of a small area of detail on the paper chart someone will have the latest electronic chart and we can do a comparison.

Originally Posted by nigel1

As far as I am aware, "official" electronic charts contain the same info as the latest "official" paper charts. By "official", I mean that they meet IMO standards.

I agree with nigel here, and if anyone reads through the above links it explains why i agree....not aimed at anyone in particular, but if you had 'corrected' to date paper and electronic charts on board that give you conflicting information, why would you automatically believe the electronic to be correct ? if both are of the approved type they should be the same if corrected (that word again), if the electronic is not of the approved type i would be looking as to where they are obtaining there information from...but that’s just me....

As for Port Phillip Bay....the "officially approved" electronic charts on the ECDIS system on board my last ship have exactly the same info as the "officially approved" paper charts......Melbourne has been our home port for the last 26 months while working in the Bass Strait oil fields....the company i work for still requires us to carry paper charts (corrected to date) even though we are fully compliant with IMO requirements for ECDIS to go paperless....

It's a transitional period that they have insisted on until they are confident that crews are comfortable with going paperless......a decision i might add that i fully support after seeing some instances similar to that that nigel mentions above....although the second mates tend to disagree with the situation....

[Mr B]

A few years back,
I built the drilling rig that drilled the channel coming out of Geelong, to lower the bottom of the channel,

The platform was tied up to the Crib point pier while this work was being done,

It was a floating triangular platform that stood on liftable legs when drilling, It was moved out of the way for passing ships, By anchor chains,

It was all done on electronic GPS from satellites, It was .003 Millimetre accuracy, The drilled holes (75 mm) were on a 2 metre square grid line,

When the platform moved back into position, It dropped the drill back down into the previous hole that it was drilling, and it was smack on the button, every time,

Then when the holes were all drilled,

Another Company came along and dropped their charges down the same drilled holes and blew the bottom of the channel with explosives,

And No, I dont know what GPS system they had, But it was a good one, Probably worth heaps as well,

[Jbaffoh]

.003 mm is finer than a troll's hair.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by IslandHopper

....not aimed at anyone in particular, but if you had 'corrected' to date paper and electronic charts on board that give you conflicting information, why would you automatically believe the electronic to be correct ? if both are of the approved type they should be the same if corrected (that word again), if the electronic is not of the approved type i would be looking as to where they are obtaining there information from...but that’s just me....

Thanks for the information on the commercial situation. It seems surprising to me that some recreational boat owners consider it lunacy to go whitout paper charts when commercial ships and planes operate this way.

Interesting that the maps are exactly the same.

Places like Port Phillip bay are large commercial ports and have been comprehensively mapped by official sources. In places where commercial shipping does not go official maps often show little detail. Ironically these are the places crusing boats often want to go, so it's not unusual to use unofficial sources.
When there is conflicting information and there often is, most boat owners play it safe and consider the worst case.
If there is a rock shown in the centre of an anchorage for example I would anchor so that my swinging room avoided this hazard even if it's not shown on the official map.

Raster charts are obviously the same as official charts, but I am not so sure about vector charts, there seems to be detail included which is not on the official charts.
Others have better knowlege of these charts are actually produced so I accept there assurance that they are in fact exactly the same.

Incidentally the anchorage where I am located has a reef that is not shown on any of the charts or pilot books.
Two boats hit this reef yesterday in separate incidents. One (only a small boat) was extensively damaged and I had to tow a very distraught family back to a safe anchorage.
Don't trust the maps implicitly in out of the way places.

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by wolfenzee

How many times do you ask someone a question and instead of trying to think of an answer they check their smart phones

The answer here is get a smart phone...

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by Lagoon4us

Good luck....

<But useless if you cant, Think about aircraft 20 years ago on a moonless night, they couldn't see a thing yet with Dead Reckoning, Paper charts and instruments they navigated there way through safely>

in 1982 there were lots of electronic aids. In fact there have been radio aids to navigation for a long time before that. Yet there were many and there are still too many CFIT events...

It isnt about paper or electronic charts. Is about the accuracy of the navigator.

[Lagoon4us]

Of course there were radio beacons radar etc HOWEVER there was always paper charts to plot to.

Accuracy of a navigator? ABSOLUTELY!

It was the point i was making to someone who may be taking unnecessary risks that with DR you know where you've been, blacked out with log and compass the navigator can accurately plot where you need to go.....

Cheers

[IslandHopper]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

Incidentally the anchorage where I am located has a reef that is not shown on any of the charts or pilot books.
Two boats hit this reef yesterday in separate incidents. One (only a small boat) was extensively damaged and I had to tow a very distraught family back to a safe anchorage.
Don't trust the maps implicitly in out of the way places.

And this is such a case that should really be reported to the Hydrographic Office responsible for the area, unfortunately this is how a good number of nav hazards make their way onto a chart as a correction........

When i say chart, i mean both electronic and paper

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by IslandHopper

And this is such a case that should really be reported to the Hydrographic Office responsible for the area, unfortunately this is how a good number of nav hazards make their way onto a chart as a correction........

When i say chart, i mean both electronic and paper

Yes you are probably correct. I think I would be making corrections most weeks however.

[noelex 77]

This is an example of the differences between different mapping systems. One is a paper imray chart purchased about 6 months ago one is a Navionics iPad electronic chart downloaded about 2 months ago.
You can see the information is different not just in presentation, but it must have been compiled from a different source or at least incorporating additional information.

This is why I like to look at several map sources, which is much more viable with electronic maps.

Btw there is nothing extraordinary about this example, I just happened to have an up to date paper an electronic chart of the same area.

The electronic map is much better, which has been my general experience, but this may vary considerably in other areas.

It is a little to small to show up, but on the electronic chart you can click and get a photo and notes about the anchorage.

[goboatingnow]

IMO approved ECDIS systems are set out for ships etc. In practice you can replicate the same typical features in modern charttplotters including redundancy.

Theres no particular practical reason not to go paperless on leisure boats, I won't m but many do.

Dave

[Jbaffoh]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

IMO approved ECDIS systems are set out for ships etc. In practice you can replicate the same typical features in modern charttplotters including redundancy.

Theres no particular practical reason not to go paperless on leisure boats, I won't m but many do.

Dave

Is seems most of you paperless proponents never weigh anchor without two diesel mains and/or a generator running.

I think many of your opinions would change if you crossed oceans with only 40-60 gallons of fuel and you lacked space for 300+ watts of solar power. Or if your mode of propulsion exposed you to the risk of knockdowns in heavy winds--which is both common, and exposes electrical systems to the risk of failure. Or if you need to view a bigger picture than a computer screen because our mode of propulsion often does not accommodate driving down the center of a rhumb line like an automobile--plotting and tacking often requires more visible chart area at a glance than is available on the screen.

For you shallow draft floating fuel tanks who travel without heeling under 60-foot tall walls of canvas broadside to the wind, perhaps you don't need paper. But I think the rest of us do.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Jbaffoh

I think many of your opinions would change if you crossed oceans with only 40-60 gallons of fuel and you lacked space for 300+ watts of solar power. Or if your mode of propulsion exposed you to the risk of knockdowns in heavy winds--which is both common, and exposes electrical systems to the risk of failure. Or if you need to view a bigger picture than a computer screen because our mode of propulsion often does not accommodate driving down the center of a rhumb line like an automobile--plotting and tacking often requires more visible chart area at a glance than is available on the screen.

oohh, argh laddie, what a salt you are. arrghh. myself, Ive only done a few transaltantics, whats solar power, we had a aa battery, two pints a-water, and a couple gallons of beer. Knockdowns , arrgh , them aplenty, sailed home with a hanky and used the dessert spoons as oars. The plotter worked fine though!.

arrgh

Dave

[Jbaffoh]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

oohh, argh laddie, what a salt you are. arrghh. myself, Ive only done a few transaltantics, whats solar power, we had a aa battery, two pints a-water, and a couple gallons of beer. Knockdowns , arrgh , them aplenty, sailed home with a hanky and used the dessert spoons as oars. The plotter worked fine though!.

arrgh

Dave

Not claiming to be saltier than you. Just saying the risks and considerations are different. Sure, people successfully accomplish lots of stuff every day--that doesn't mean it's always prudent. As I've repeatedly said, I use plotters. I also plot my DR and fixes on paper every hour. I also plot my routes on paper. There is more of a need for this while sailing, than driving motorboats.

Don't be an a$$.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Jbaffoh

Not claiming to be saltier than you. Just saying the risks and considerations are different. Sure, people successfully accomplish lots of stuff every day--that doesn't mean it's always prudent. As I've repeatedly said, I use plotters. I also plot my DR and fixes on paper every hour. I also plot my routes on paper. There is more of a need for this while sailing, than driving motorboats.

Don't be an a$$.

What is there more of a need or less of a need when driving motorboats BTW

You notice that I was saying that I also keep paper backups

( fixes every hours crossing the Atlantic ! )

I beleive there is no need for detailed coastal charts ( approaches etc ) but paper is good for planning and route position fixing

DAve