Reflections on Seamanship

[Bycrick]

Electronic position finding can certainly be more accurate than celestial. I don’t think anyone would dispute that. For me the question is: Do I know that right now, where I am, that I can trust that position? Without some other method as a check, it’s just blind faith. And once you add into the equation the known and unknown errors in the data that is used to render the charts, and the potential for software or operator errors in the rendering system, you have even fewer reasons to simply assume that it’s all correct. Having 27 different GPS units doesn’t necessarily solve the problem, even if they’re using 4 different satellite constellations. In the middle of the Pacific, the errors won’t make much difference. Try to enter the harbor at Hiva Oa in the dark is a whole different issue.

[flightlead404]

Originally Posted by Manateeman

Tragic story, but remember the flight that descended into the Everglades?
Everybody in the cockpit was mesmerized by a faulty light and no one was watching the big picture as the altimeter spun down and they crashed killing everyone.

Sure you're not thinking of American Airlines 965 that hit a mountaintop in Buga, Columbia because the pilots were fiddling around with the auto-pilot instead of flying the airline?

4 human and one canine survivors.

Flight training changed. YouTube "Children of The Magenta Line".

[Cynara]

No matter your means of navigation, you should know you are getting the wrong answer. A messed up GPS signal, strange depth sounder readings, etc.

Don't get tunnel vision, especially when approaching a landfall, and being tired, you just want to get there.

[jackdale]

When teaching advanced level courses in good visibility I have been known to off turn the chartplotter to force students to look up and about, and use their eyes. Too many get fixated on the screen fail too what is around them. We are also using traditional coastal navigation techniques.

[Bycrick]

Jackdaws hit the nail on the head. It’s a shame that this isn’t done before one gets to the advanced levels. There was a long-running argument among scuba diving professionals. Many of the skills that I had to learn when I first got certified in 1968, had been dropped from the basic courses, or moved into further "advanced" courses. A lot of people were unhappy about it.. One of the most loudly proclaimed reasons in favor of the change was that it didn’t scare off new students, which was good for business. The old-timers could never find any statistics to show how many people were hurt or killed because of lack of what, up until then, were considered basic skills.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Jackdaws hit the nail on the head. It’s a shame that this isn’t done before one gets to the advanced levels. There was a long-running argument among scuba diving professionals. Many of the skills that I had to learn when I first got certified in 1968, had been dropped from the basic courses, or moved into further "advanced" courses. A lot of people were unhappy about it.. One of the most loudly proclaimed reasons in favor of the change was that it didn’t scare off new students, which was good for business. The old-timers could never find any statistics to show how many people were hurt or killed because of lack of what, up until then, were considered basic skills.

True. I learned in '75, taught by Navy divers who were a tad sadistic perhaps, but I really felt confident I could handle just about anything after that course. And the crazy thing was, we were practicing rescue techniques at the Monterey Bay breakwater when a tragic diving accident, unrelated to our class, happened right in front of us. A couple had been diving, (and it's only about 25 feet deep there if that) when one ran out of air somehow and the partner left her to go get help. Clearly their training and practice had not been sufficient. Our instructors ran to help but not much could be done for the woman when she was brought ashore. Those instructors were really shaken by it, as we all were, and our class got a bit of a lecture after that, but we really didn't need it.

[CassidyNZ]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Try to enter the harbor at Hiva Oa in the dark is a whole different issue.

To me, entering any new harbour in the dark in no way constitutes good seamanship. I’m firmly in the stand-off-until-daybreak camp. The only time I would ever enter a harbour in the dark is if I’ve been there before and I follow my previous track.

Of course I’m not speaking of large commercial harbours that are well lit and have proper channel marks.

YMMV

[Bycrick]

I actually was also at Monterey getting my wife certified that weekend. Entering even a known, "well marked" harbor at night can be dangerous. One night, 0300, returning to Golfito, Costa Rica. I’d been in and out dozens of times. A good range on the hill. Buoys marking the shoals. GPS says I’m at the waypoint at the channel entrance. Range lights don’t line up. Check the waypoint data; OK. Sail a little north and south; no I’m in the deep water for the channel. Turn on the radar; it says I’m in the channel. Range lights still out of line. Very slowly crept in under radar, depth sounder, binoculars. When I got in, I discovered that the buoy marking the south shoal had broken loose that day and that a navy frigate was parked at the dock, blocking the range lights. The lights I saw were on their superstructure. It just made me more skeptical of entering a harbor at night.

[barnakiel]

As a weather router, I would tell them to get out of the cabin once a day and look at the sky and the sea. More than once is actually twice as good.


This is as good as the advanced weather routing technology we have today.


External wx forecasting is 'nice to have' but not a 'must have' of offshore sailing.



barnakiel

[JPA Cate]

Originally Posted by Don C L

True. I learned in '75, taught by Navy divers who were a tad sadistic perhaps, but I really felt confident I could handle just about anything after that course. And the crazy thing was, we were practicing rescue techniques at the Monterey Bay breakwater when a tragic diving accident, unrelated to our class, happened right in front of us. A couple had been diving, (and it's only about 25 feet deep there if that) when one ran out of air somehow and the partner left her to go get help. Clearly their training and practice had not been sufficient. Our instructors ran to help but not much could be done for the woman when she was brought ashore. Those instructors were really shaken by it, as we all were, and our class got a bit of a lecture after that, but we really didn't need it.

That's really sad. My dive class practiced buddy breathing both in the pole and in our open ocean dives.

Relative to trusting one's own electronic nav aids, we once had a satnav (predecessor to GPS), that failed by giving erroneous fixes. This was on our 2nd trip out into French Polynesia, and on the approach to Hiva Oa. And it just didn't LOOK right. Finally took some sights, and confirmed it was not Hiva Oa.

I think it is the great accuracy of modern aids that leads to most of the computer assisted groundings. People keep getting too close to the hard bits. The little screen image is not really adequate for situational awareness, plus they can be hypnotizing, and too bright at night to get the best use out of the mark one eyeball.

Sailing by celestial teaches people to be very careful (because it wasn't all that accurate, you had to give the known hard bits a wide berth, and wait for daylight and a high enough sun to see coral heads before entering new places.) It's okay to heave to and wait for day before entering new to you harbors, or just reach back and forth for a few hours, just jogging along, letting the off watch get their rest. It is a sort of boring watch, though.

I think we need to define "good seamanship", because there's more to it than navigation and pilotage. To me, it is a lot about considering what might go wrong, and preventing it from happening. [Here's an example. You're going to anchor for the night and there is a 180 degree wind change forecast. The island has a north and a south anchorage. Do you anchor for the existing wind or the predicted one? and why? If anchoring for the existing wind, how do you prepare for the new place you will be lying?] .... And there may be differences between what is good seamanship for delivery skippers and family cruisers...for the latter, there is usually no reason to have to factor in time constraints, for example.

Ann

[wmcunninghamii]

A bit of reading but this investigation of the Flinders Islet grounding in Tassie is very interesting in terms of GPS accuracy. Occasionally poor GPS spacecraft geometries can lead to fairly severe errors. This one contributed to the deaths of two people.

https://cdn.revolutionise.com.au/sit...p8zgzkrjp0.pdf

Middle of the ocean not such a big deal, anywhere near something hard, skipper has to pay attention to what their equipment is telling them re accuracy.

[Mr B]

In a north south anchorage, I find a place that is out of the direct wind,
A small bay off the channel where I wont get wind at all if possible,
A small horse shoe bay that protects from wind and waves, In all directions,
I like totally flat water to sleep in,

My only concern is if I have enough water under me at low tide,
With only 2 feet of draught, I can be in very shallow water at low tide,
Which makes it very easy for me to be out of wind and wave action,

My depth sound has been calibrated to give me one foot of clearance under my boat at Zero depth,
Plus I drop a stern anchor as well so I dont swing around,

Cheers, Brian,

[JPA Cate]

A small detail, Flinders Is. is part of Tassie, but Flinders Islet is in Port Kembla, NSW.

They sure want to over-regulate everything! Understandable reaction to loss of boat and life, I guess, but possibly an over reaction.

Ann

[Pelagic]

Quote from Ann Cate

" I think we need to define "good seamanship", because there's more to it than navigation and pilotage. To me, it is a lot about considering what might go wrong, and preventing it from happening."

Hi Ann, I think you just gave us a very good definition!

[Pelagic]

Using Ann's definition I'm asking myself what are the things I have done for many years to practise "good seamanship"

In no particular order:

1....Never rely on just one resource for any component that relates to safe operations
Examples:
Verify position with seperate navaids
Use backup safety lines
Anchor alarms
Additional lookouts when things get busy.
Verify Wx forecasts by comparing with your own observations.
Carry sufficient spares

2....Document operations to create a constant record of critical intelligence.

Examples:
Create a variety of detailed CHECKLISTS for equipment operations and getting underway. You should actually check them off the printed LISTS and sign it.

Develop standing orders for person on Watch as to what should be checked hourly and when to call captain.

Make use of a good Log book for watchkeep to bring all critical elements under one cover.

The one intangible part of developing good seananship, is that ability to pour your consciousness into the wellness of the ship.

For me it is a meditative state where I can quietly absorb the workings of the boat and crew, looking for something not quite right or slightly out of place.