Team Vestas hits reef

[Suijin]

This may be self evident at this point, but there are two distinct issues being discussed in this thread...what is the best, most prudent and responsible practice for navigating in unfamiliar waters when you have multiple resources at hand and the time to study them, and what, given the dictates of the VOR, was the cause of the incident and how should blame be assigned?

It's clear that consulting multiple sources and taking the time and effort to determine the exact nature of the waters you are crossing is the best practice, when practical.

On the VOR, that is not the case. They don't carry paper charts and never will. These guys cut the handles off their toothbrushes to save weight; they are not going to take a tube of charts on the boat. That's just a fact. So they are beholden to that constraint and need to rely on what they are supplied with..B&G hardware and whatever dataset they are given. The navigator screwed up, as he should have seen the archipelago and taken the time to explore it adequately.

I will say that if I was assembling a team for an ocean race he would be on my short list for navigators. He's not going to make that mistake again...vs. someone who's never made it. Experience is the best educator.

[DeepFrz]

CHS paper charts meet the requirements of the chart carriage regulations. CHS digital charts meet the requirements of the chart carriage regulations under certain circumstances. CHS Electronic Navigational Charts (ENCs) meet the requirements provided they are used with an Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS). CHS raster charts meet the requirements only if paper charts are carried and used as a backup.

That's what the Canadian Hydrographic Service has to say about raster charts.

[donradcliffe]

Originally Posted by Suijin

On the VOR, that is not the case. They don't carry paper charts and never will. These guys cut the handles off their toothbrushes to save weight; they are not going to take a tube of charts on the boat. That's just a fact..

You obviously haven't seen post #100.

[JPA Cate]

We run Open CPN with CMaps charts.

Sefton Reef shows up as an X inside a circle, and is pale purple in color, like the ! inside a circle not too far from it. Scale: 3,500,000. The sailing directions, though, tell a more interesting story. [FWIW, they tell a similar story for the area around Raoul Is., also volcanic.]

Since the Sailing Directions are heavy (if paper), perhaps they could be put on disc or flash drive, and be acceptably carried on race boats in that format.

Ann

[donradcliffe]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Hi Don,

So, I just did that exercise: 2006 has 26,995 files, 2010 has 27,859 files and the new improved 2011 has but 20,204 files... a loss of over seven thousand charts!!!

Have you ever done the "consolidation" trick that you describe? I can't quite work out how it would treat new vs old versions of the same chart. Meanwhile I keep all three versions resident and switch back and forth for comparisons in suspect areas. PITA, and it sometimes confuses both the computer and me, but it does help resolve such questions.

Cheers,

Jim

I have taken the new chart folder and used CTL-A and CTL-C to collect the charts, then pasted them to the old folder. When the screen pops up that says 'this folder already contains a folder named '00300000', I used "yes to all"
which should replace the older charts with the same names, but leave the old charts alone where there are no new charts. I've never checked out the results enough to trust them.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

The red hulled boat you are thinking off is probably Northanger, there were two red hulled Polish charter yachts down there but both were lost in 2009/10. ( edit... you aren't thinking of Ian on Persimmon are you? )
Heading back directo Pto Montt.

Back on track.... those two sets of screens shots I posted before were both using the same CM93 1.31 chart folio ( mid 200x?) ... the difference is simply in how the old burglebrand software handles them v. the way that openCPN does.

I always have paper on the chart table.... I guess otherwise it would just be called a table... three charts were enough to show everything I needed to know for crossing the Pacific....

Yes Ian. Persimmon. Makes me smile that you know him. And it was, but from your link I realised you were not he.

[BlueBuddha]

Originally Posted by zstine

. An alarm "Your route or Track progression approaches shallow water/obstructions" may have saved their lives of and kept Vestas off the rocks. .

As a rookie outsider, that this is not a standard feature of current electronic tools is beyond comprehension. Does anyone have a good idea about the tech issues that could be keeping Garmin and the like from introducing these features?


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by BlueBuddha

As a rookie outsider, that this is not a standard feature of current electronic tools is beyond comprehension. Does anyone have a good idea about the tech issues that could be keeping Garmin and the like from introducing these features?


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

I don't know, but believe it or not almost all the antennas etc in the United States as well as a topo map etc is in the Garmin map database for the aviation handhelds they sell.
Surely by comparison the Marine would be much easier?

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by BlueBuddha

As a rookie outsider, that this is not a standard feature of current electronic tools is beyond comprehension. Does anyone have a good idea about the tech issues that could be keeping Garmin and the like from introducing these features?


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

If my memory isn't playing tricks on me, the original C-Maps program for laptops did include that feature. You could specify a width of a route, and if it included hazards a warning would pop up as you approached them. Again, IIRC, it would warn if your predicted path wandered outside of the prescribed path, rather than waiting for you to actually exceed your max cross track error.

In many ways it was a frustrating bit of software, but those features were useful.

Jim

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Zooming in sufficiently to pick up hazards along the way for , say, the next 24 hours would be a megaPITA

I cannot understand only inspecting the charts every 24. On watch I check the electronic chart at least every hour or so. Usually it is on continuously. I will routinely scan 10-12 nm in every direction with an emphasis on the track close to our expected route. The position should be confirmed by other means where possible. If hazards are expected consulting a few different types of electronic charts is easy.

This sort of inspection takes less time than plotting your position and COG on paper charts.

Electronic charts are very different to paper. Paper charts require the transfer of your current position and COG onto the chart. Electronic chats require an inspection of area at more detailed zoom levels.

These requirements are well known, especially to professional sailors.

However, I think there is a major difference between a cruising sailor and a professional racing sailor. As a cruising sailor these tasks just keep me awake between cups of coffee. A professional race navigator has a much higher workload. I can easily see how when chasing the ultimate boat speed navigation mistakes could happen.

[Neptune's Gear]

Agreed Noelex77, on my boat the plotter is always on, and zoomed to about 8-10 miles scale. It also has Radar and AIS guard zones, and very loud alarms. There is a screen below, and another at the helm. At least one is on all the time. It is looked at every 10 mins, min, when I'm not single handed.
Contrary to what someone else posted earlier on int his thread, my radar (3G Broadband) would absolutely have seen that reef - I have used it for exactly that on many occasions in tropical areas. It would have given sufficient warning.
Vestas had better gear on board than I do. I fail to see why they were not using it! Even with charts not (currently) displaying the reef, the rest of the gear would have detected it if it was being used. I really don't understand why it was not, unless perhaps they were short of power??

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by BlueBuddha

As a rookie outsider, that this is not a standard feature of current electronic tools is beyond comprehension. Does anyone have a good idea about the tech issues that could be keeping Garmin and the like from introducing these features?

I believe there are some high end systems that do something like this. This is a feature that is more useful in a "planning software" package than a real time ECDIS type system in my opinion. One simple hurdle is how is the software supposed to know apriori where the boat will be in 1 hour or 24 hours or XX hours? This is a problem with AIS software now. It can only assume the boat will follow a straight line at the current speed.

If you have preprogrammed the "lane" of expected travel and then have to leave it for whatever reason (wind shift, adverse weather, etc.) how fast can a new "safe lane" be constructed by the navigator? And is that the best use of available resources. Suppose someone is buried in the task of redoing the projected track and the distraction results in a collision.

A second issue is one of liability. What will happen when someone crashes their muti-million $ carbon fiber sled on a reef? I can imagine all sorts of legal theories about damages and liability because the software didn't alarm. Or worse, the software didn't automatically drive the autopilot to go around the hazard. There are a lot of twists, turns and cul-de-sacs on liability issues. And on the open sea there might be uncertainty as to applicable law, jurisdiction, etc.

But in this particular case I keep wanting to apportion some blame on the race committee. They mandated the new course for the race fleet because of weather issues and knew this course would take the fleet close to the reef. They have in the race rules "gates" that each team must pass on a certain side. It seems to me it would have been a simple thing to have posted new safety gates on either side of this reef so teams knew well in advance that they had to pass either east or west of the reef. I am not a racer but I don't see why the race organizers could not have done that. I believe this is done in high latitude RTW races where the race committee adjusts the highest or lowest permitted latitude based on weather conditions during the race.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

If my memory isn't playing tricks on me, the original C-Maps program for laptops did include that feature. You could specify a width of a route, and if it included hazards a warning would pop up as you approached them. Again, IIRC, it would warn if your predicted path wandered outside of the prescribed path, rather than waiting for you to actually exceed your max cross track error.

In many ways it was a frustrating bit of software, but those features were useful.

Jim

Coastal Explorer does this currently. I think MaxSea does also, but it has been awhile since I used it. Our Furuno chartplotter allows one to "fly" a route at high zoom level to find obstructions.

Mark

[Cheechako]

Not sure if anyone posted this: video of the grounding:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z94w...ature=youtu.be

[Steadman Uhlich]

The video is interesting as it shows the moment of impact (CRUNCH BANG!).