B.C. Ferries finds ‘paper charts’ after problem with navigation system

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by requiem

Exactly; larger vessels have chart carriage requirements. Not having up-to-date official copies on properly validated software would be like sailing without your flares/PFDs/fire extinguishers/etc: penalties if caught, and extra liability should something go awry.

And you have to wonder if the 10yr old paper copies they pulled out from behind a file cabinet qualify for the requirements.

Not a safety issue for a ferry but a paperwork issue. Assuming they successfully made the trip and got the chart plotter back up and running, nothing is likely to come of it.

It's certainly not an indication that electronic chart plotting isn't the way to go as I believe the intent of the thread was implying.

[flightlead404]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Paper charts do not have mechanical failures.

https://www.nanaimobulletin.com/news...gation-system/

ALL SORTS of mechanical failure modes with paper charts, a couple that come to mind:

-Got torn
-Folds got worn and detail lost
-Something spilled rendering illegible or damaged
-Blown out the cockpit

I'm sure there are others.

[Oeanda]

Our pet rabbit ate some…

[TrentePieds]

We don't really expect a "reporter" for the Nanaimo News Bulletin to have a grip on any kind of maritime issue, do we :-0)?

For that matter, I wouldn't be too sure that said reporter has any kinda grip on the lexicon of English, let alone on "sailor speak".

Besides, the function of "editorial content" in the NNB is just to fill the "holes" twixt adverts! I think it's a lovely fact that the NNB belongs to an outfit called Black Press. Yes, really! Print journalism ain't wot she usta be!

The way I read the article the ferry didn't PUT OUT from Horseshoe Bay at 0835 as per schedule cos the skipper told the Jimmy to "go find the damn charts", or words to that effect, when the electro-gizmo gave up the ghost. Goodon'im for following policy - let alone the law!

Even on a soggy morning anyone with an ordinary sense of direction and moderately acute vision can feel his way out of HB, cross the Strait and into the ferry slip in Departure Bay without any kinda nav-aids.

Cheers!

TrentePieds

[desodave]

Even on a soggy morning anyone with an ordinary sense of direction and moderately acute vision can feel his way out of HB, cross the Strait and into the ferry slip in Departure Bay without any kinda nav-aids.

As a user of BCF for 55 years, I was impressed that they found the charts to make themselves legal and didn't cancel the trip because of "equipment failure". Seems we lose 1 ferry every long weekend to some kind of equipment failure that screws up holiday traffic. Who knows ... maybe the captain used the trip(s) as a training exercise for the bridge crew ... basic navigation refresher on dead reckonings and running fixes.

[Uricanejack]

BCFS have not gone paperless yet. They may in the future, At this time there is no real advantage to it. Plus they need approval.

So all BCFS vessels carry as required up to date paper charts for the route. In addition.
The larger vessels have full ECDIS and Fully up to date Integrated Bridge systems with two independent ECDIS, Gyros, GPS, AIS ect. So full chart system is available on both ECDIS and on Both ARPA Radars.

The Queen OF Cowichen is one of the older large vessels which may not have been upgraded to a fully intergrated bridge yet. It will have two Radars.

As has already been said while it’s unlikely the reporter knows what they are talking about, it’s even more unlikely the BSFS media spokesperson is any wiser.

If the ECDIS system fails underway, not a big problem the vessel can complete the voyage. Using the paper charts.

The problem with departing if the ECDIS system is down. It’s required equipment.
To do so would be a violation of requirements.

Until the Master calls the classification society to which the ship is delegated and informs Classification of the deficiency and requests permission to sail.

It would be very unlikely permission to sail would not be approved.
There would have to be a contingency plan and a plan for fixing the system.

Which may be the technician is in his van on his way and will meet the ship when it returns from its first round trip,
Or it may be the technician got there but he needs a part which is not available in Canada and is being couriered from Japan, Netherlands ect.

The smaller vessels don’t have ECDIS or full ARPA, because they are not required and are to small,
They all have ECS which is integrated with the Radars which is kind of like a fancy plotter and multi displays.

They also have on board at least the one paper chart for the route. Kept up to date.

Just not type approved as ECDIS

With 35 or 40 ships it’s not uncommon for some minor deficiencies to delay a sailing particularly first thing in the morning somewhere in the fleet.

The crew start work, testing and firing the gear up on the Bridge 30 minutes before sailing time. Not a lot of time to find a problem and resolve prior to sailing.
Actually quite a lot of the bridge crew come in earlier.

If one of the BCFS superintendents or internal Audits can’t find the up to date chart the crew got some explaining to do.
An external auditor would probably shut the ship down until resolved.

The biggest problem with a fully paperless vessel, you are buggered if one of the systems is down. You can’t sail.
It might be worth while on a ocean going vessel. Even with the two fully independent systems required. You wouldn’t be able to depart if one is down,
You would need to have 3 systems. Or accept when one fails the whole operation stops until it is fixed which would be a liability against the ship for cost of all the delays.

The problem with charts is keeping them up to date. But it’s cheep compared to paying for a delayed ship.

As to whither or not anyone still remembers how to plot a position or course, is a different question. LOL

[TrentePieds]

Thank you Jack! That one gets stowed away for future reference :-)!

You didn't usta drive one of those things did you?

Queen of Cowichan is nigh on half a century old. Built by Victoria Machinery Depot, if I recall, along with four sister ships just at a time when the demands placed on "Beastly Ferries" was becoming manifold greater than it had been theretofore. I contracted a serious case of the grumps when the then provincial government did major injury to the province's (and Canada's) shipbuilding industry by engaging foreign yards to build our new ships rather than our native yards that had done us proud a mere thirty years before by expanding the Royal Canadian Navy from nought to the world's third greatest navy in a mere three years!

For the foc's'l lawyers among you (or perhaps more for them wot ain't), here is a nice transcript of the court case that resulted from a Sunday Sailor getting his wife and two kids killed by running under the bows of the Cowichan. Forty years ago, but still worthy of note. It makes in no uncertain terms the case that you may be "dead right" ( in terms of the COLREGS), but you may still be dead!

https://laxtongibbens.com/wp-content...5/11/KWOK2.pdf

TrentePieds

[Uricanejack]

Once upon a time

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

Thank you Jack! That one gets stowed away for future reference :-)!

You didn't usta drive one of those things did you?

Queen of Cowichan is nigh on half a century old. Built by Victoria Machinery Depot, if I recall, along with four sister ships just at a time when the demands placed on "Beastly Ferries" was becoming manifold greater than it had been theretofore. I contracted a serious case of the grumps when the then provincial government did major injury to the province's (and Canada's) shipbuilding industry by engaging foreign yards to build our new ships rather than our native yards that had done us proud a mere thirty years before by expanding the Royal Canadian Navy from nought to the world's third greatest navy in a mere three years!

For the foc's'l lawyers among you (or perhaps more for them wot ain't), here is a nice transcript of the court case that resulted from a Sunday Sailor getting his wife and two kids killed by running under the bows of the Cowichan. Forty years ago, but still worthy of note. It makes in no uncertain terms the case that you may be "dead right" ( in terms of the COLREGS), but you may still be dead!

https://laxtongibbens.com/wp-content...5/11/KWOK2.pdf

TrentePieds

Before I came to BC. A very sad story, Should have been easily prevented.
No amount of money can compensate for the loss.
I’ve been asked about this incident many times.
The public perception is often about the dumb boater.
There are dumb boaters on the water every day. Particularly near Sewall’s.
The guys on the Bridge should have known better. Should have done better.
In a hurry? Aggressive Driving? Complacency? And just plain old negligence?
Around 20 years Later somebody did it again. Departing Swartz Bay.
The boaters who died, were an old couple who had no immediate family no law suit was filed.
The Public perception still the same, dumb boaters.
The same comments would apply.
That was 20 years ago, hopefully, I won’t wake up to the News somebody has done it again.
The truth is I worry about it.

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Paper charts do not have mechanical failures.

https://www.nanaimobulletin.com/news...gation-system/

I would think you could call rotten, torn, deteriorated paper charts a mechanical failure. As far as the chart itself goes. But no, not an excuse for a boat mishap! Not that most people would! But then in Gov't, Medical and other similar thing, there are categories to describe things which dont really make a lot of sense in application.