Traditional or digital navigation - which is safer?

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

The Vestas case, and the discussion here about zooming in, is a solid case of "old think" and not actually learning to use the new tools. Instead trying to use them just like the old tools.

Think there was much more to it than that from reading the report, if they had followed their own standard procedures they would not have hit the reef. The race course changed the day before departure so in the rush quite a lot was missed. Like downloading sat images for use offshore, and actually looking at them...

[Dsanduril]

That's just the point. With an electronic system it is quite possible to automate those checks, so as soon as the navigator input the new route, or the helmsman changed the boat's heading the electronic navigation system should have raised a flag.

For the most part we treat these things like we would paper charts, using the eyeball to look for problems and then we get stories about "zoom" issues. The electronics can be/should be set up to look for the same issues, automatically.

The Mark I eyeball is still the best navigation tool, but most of us aren't using the electronics to even 10% of their potential.

[nortonscove]

The original question seems flawed. It is an individual choice and can be no other way. Everything else is simply others implying their superiority. I have a friend that insist on belt and suspenders when on the water yet drives like a maniac and never wears his seatbelt. There is no sense in the decision of others.

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

If they’d been relying on paper charts does anyone really think that this same navigator would have had a detailed chart of this tiny reef on board and would have had it out and using it?

Tiny?! The reef is huge. That's what makes the accident so ironic. They could have seen it on a chart of the entire ocean.


$6 million boat. No $10 chart. Ironic indeed.

[OS2Dude]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

With an electronic system it is quite possible to automate those checks, so as soon as the navigator input the new route, or the helmsman changed the boat's heading the electronic navigation system should have raised a flag.

Not always. The charts are not 100% accurate. (Not even electronic ones, since they're based off paper charts.) If the reef was charted out of its actual position, even by the smallest fraction, the chart-plotter may have thought the route was clear.

[Dsanduril]

Originally Posted by OS2Dude

Not always. The charts are not 100% accurate. (Not even electronic ones, since they're based off paper charts.) If the reef was charted out of its actual position, even by the smallest fraction, the chart-plotter may have thought the route was clear.

Yes, but for the purposes of this discussion that is moot - if the charted position is wrong it doesn't matter if chart is paper or electronic. The Mark I brain and eyeball are still required, but if you set your guard zone at something like 10 miles either side of the route then the charted position would have to be grossly off in order to be missed by automated checks. The point of any check would be to call your attention to any location along your route where your guard zone will pass through shallow water/land. Then you can look at and evaluate each point. Same thing you would do if you were plotting on and looking at a paper chart, without having to get out the detailed ones.

The post above about Beveridge Reef is a perfect one. There is no detailed (official) chart. It shows up only on some giant charts of the whole South Pacific. Paper charts where the width of your pencil line might be a mile or two. And the charted position is off by about 3 miles (some electronic chart vendors have moved it). Easy to miss on paper or electronic charts. But the computer does know it's there, and using a guard zone check that scans through all the water depth and land definitions along your route you should catch it without having to know you need to zoom in on that random patch of blue ocean.

I'm still mired in my paper chart upbringing so I look at things the "old-fashioned" way, be it paper or electronic, but I'm trying to make the transition to having the programming back me up (I'll probably die before I ever get to the point of me being the backup to the programming).

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

If they’d been relying on paper charts does anyone really think that this same navigator would have had a detailed chart of this tiny reef on board and would have had it out and using it? ..........

A detailed chart of this 'tiny (sic) reef' would not be needed.

This reef is shown on my BA Chart 3934 ( now renumbered as part of the 4xxx series ) 'The World'.......
It is definitely shown on any passage chart used in that part of the Indian Ocean such as BA 4071

https://www.marinechandlery.com/medi...4/0/4071_1.jpg

My 'Golden Rule' when using paper charts?
Regardless of scale.. stay at least 1 inch away from any dangers.....

Try it... it works....

[RichMac]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

This accident wasn’t the fault of digital navigation but rather was the fault of a lack of preparation and laziness on the part of the navigator.

The information needed to avoid this reef was literally right at the navigators fingertips but he just chose not to look at it.

I agree totally with your support of digital, but you're being too hard on the poor navigator!

The basic problem is having all the nav stuff at the chart table, with the navigator needing to sleep. (yes, he should have prepared the course better). On deck there are several alert, smart sailors with no convenient view of their course or position.
Very simple solution - chartplotter on deck!

The wrecking of the Clipper yacht Greenings was absurd, all the crew including navigator on deck, all the nav gear down below!

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by RichMac

I agree totally with your support of digital, but you're being too hard on the poor navigator!

The basic problem is having all the nav stuff at the chart table, with the navigator needing to sleep. (yes, he should have prepared the course better). On deck there are several alert, smart sailors with no convenient view of their course or position.
Very simple solution - chartplotter on deck!

The wrecking of the Clipper yacht Greenings was absurd, all the crew including navigator on deck, all the nav gear down below!

There should be a second, third and fourth navigator.
Anyone on those boats "should" be able to step into that position at a pinch.

Coming from sail background and now in power I do enjoy the enclosed helm with large screens a glance away.
Marine plotter on 23 inch screen zoomed out wide
Open cpn on another 23 inch screen split and 1/2 zoomed in closer and 2nd split in closer again.
And being fairly high up, great view of what's ahead.

[chrisr]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

A detailed chart of this 'tiny (sic) reef' would not be needed.

This reef is shown on my BA Chart 3934 ( now renumbered as part of the 4xxx series ) 'The World'.......
It is definitely shown on any passage chart used in that part of the Indian Ocean such as BA 4071

https://www.marinechandlery.com/medi...4/0/4071_1.jpg

My 'Golden Rule' when using paper charts?
Regardless of scale.. stay at least 1 inch away from any dangers.....

Try it... it works....

agree completely n follow much the same rule myself...although this does remind me of sailing with one of my children a while after we went metric.

i said "just ease the headsail an inch"...she turned to me and said "what's an inch daddy ?"

cheers,

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by slug

With modern navigation the entire crew has nothing to do..they loaf around, eat, sleep ,get fat and become stupid

With traditional navigation the watchkeeper is always busy, the new watchkeeper is alway# busy

Your entire crew is busy..and they avoid obesity and ignorance

Because rolling out a chart and using a set of dividers burns so many calories

[RichMac]

Originally Posted by Simi 60

There should be a second, third and fourth navigator.
Anyone on those boats "should" be able to step into that position at a pinch.

After the Greenings accident in 2017, I spoke with some of the other Clipper crews when they arrived in Fremantle. They said they were not qualified to navigate!

What nonsense, endangering all the crew and a waste of a good yacht. The Clipper yachts now have a token chartplotter on deck, a small-size (7") Garmin in front of one wheel.

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by RichMac

After the Greenings accident in 2017, I spoke with some of the other Clipper crews when they arrived in Fremantle. They said they were not qualified to navigate!

What nonsense, endangering all the crew and a waste of a good yacht. The Clipper yachts now have a token chartplotter on deck, a small-size (7") Garmin in front of one wheel.

They weren't qualified to run up on a reef either but they managed to do a great job of it.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

Tiny?! The reef is huge. That's what makes the accident so ironic. They could have seen it on a chart of the entire ocean.


$6 million boat. No $10 chart. Ironic indeed.

Sure you can see that there’s a reef somewhere out there, but not in enough detail to navigate near it in a yacht race. For that they needed to zoom way in from your “chart of the whole ocean” or have a whole lot of paper charts on hand that have a lot more detail than the whole ocean.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Sure you can see that there’s a reef somewhere out there, but not in enough detail to navigate near it in a yacht race. For that they needed to zoom way in from your “chart of the whole ocean” or have a whole lot of paper charts on hand that have a lot more detail than the whole ocean.

Simple fix... do not navigate near it......