Death to PAPER ! More Nails in the Paper Chart Coffin . . .

[Don1500]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

well its not what you said, you used the word "guarantee"

In all this debate, lets not denigrate the users of electronics, becuase I use one particular piece of electronics does not make me a better or worse sailer, nor does it " dumb me down". I retain the ability to "look out the window".

The fact is that dumbasses will be dumbasses whatever navigation systems they use, I used to instruct, Ive seen loads of stupid paper charts mistakes too.

Im a fan of "traditional " nav , I can use a sextant, I like paper, I can even do lunar distances. BUT, I can see that it a very short time, electronic charts will dominate the industry, why, cheap, cheap,cheap, convienent, easy to use, and common.

paper charts are expensive to produce, hard to distribute and increasily the underlying survey data is digital anyway. We are in a transistion phase where paper is still available as many hydrographic offices have not finished the full transistion to vector databases. Once that happens, there no future in paper.

Standards bodies , IMO etc, will follow the herd, they have no choice.

we, as lesiure boaters will just tag along behind, taking whatever digital crumbs fall our way.


Debating the pros and cons,on the basis of potential electronic failures is meaningless, equally the "electronics make you dumb" is a ridiculous
argument.




or put a fool or the helm, both are equally bad things, neither are commonly done and most people never have the problem, your issue??
Dave

I said: "As soon as you can Guarantee that there will NOT be a power interruption" Untill then you should not depend on electronic data ONLY.
There will always be fools at the helm, there will always be things that can go wrong, the fools are not known untill after the event, the things that go wrong are not always as obvious as the EXAMPLE I used. But they are there and they do happen, that's why you buy insurance.

As for hard to notice errors: I repaired a digital radar once that was dropping a single bit in the distance calculation. Always the same bit and the result was that every target was off by 1 mile. Near land this was obvious, but when there was no fixed land reference the operator didn't know it, untill he passed within 100 yards of a target the radar showed as over 1 mile away. He looked out the window and avoided trouble. I'm just saying the same type of thing could happen in any electronic gear. It's not the dumb bunny that always uses just electronices and nothing goes wrong, or the wise sailor that has had electronic troubles and worked around them. It's when dumb bunny and broken electronics get together that there are problems.

[jackdale]

Anyone have an update to this 2007 document.

United States of America
Acceptance of ECDIS
ECDIS has not yet been recognized in US national regulations, however U.S. Coast Guard
Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NAVIC) 02 03 outlines the interim acceptance
for meeting SOLAS carriage requirements regarding the use of ECDIS for primary means
of navigation on board foreign vessels in U.S. waters. NAVIC 02-03 is considered temporary guidance until U.S. navigation regulations are formally amended to also include U.S
registered vessels.
Draft regulations are expected to be published for consultation later in 2007
Backup Arrangements for ECDIS
NAVIC 02-03 finds the back up options referenced in SOLAS Chapter V acceptable when
foreign vessel utilize a second ECDIS, ECDIS in RCDS mode with an appropriate folio of
paper charts with respect to transit areas, and paper charts as the sole means for providing backup

http://www.ic-enc.org/downloads/othe..._section_2.pdf

[Dustymc]

Lan Chile 757(?), static port covered with tape

I can't find any reference to that, so I suspect you just made it up. Either way, static ports are connected to mechanical instruments. Death to gears and diaphragms!!

we'd still be riding donkeys

Those things can trip! Death to equids!

of the net being hacked

Yes, especially what with chartplotters not being part of any "net" and all. Death to - err, whatever!!!

digital radar once that was dropping a single bit in the distance calculation....every target was off by 1 mile.

I, for one, completely accept that as overwhelming evidence that we should never use anything that could possibly break. Think how much better off we'd be if we all just sat in our caves and played with smooth rocks!

[NativeUSAindian]

Originally Posted by Don1500

I said: "As soon as you can Guarantee that there will NOT be a power interruption" Untill then you should not depend on electronic data ONLY.
There will always be fools at the helm, there will always be things that can go wrong, the fools are not known untill after the event, the things that go wrong are not always as obvious as the EXAMPLE I used. But they are there and they do happen, that's why you buy insurance.

As for hard to notice errors: I repaired a digital radar once that was dropping a single bit in the distance calculation. Always the same bit and the result was that every target was off by 1 mile. Near land this was obvious, but when there was no fixed land reference the operator didn't know it, untill he passed within 100 yards of a target the radar showed as over 1 mile away. He looked out the window and avoided trouble. I'm just saying the same type of thing could happen in any electronic gear. It's not the dumb bunny that always uses just electronices and nothing goes wrong, or the wise sailor that has had electronic troubles and worked around them. It's when dumb bunny and broken electronics get together that there are problems.

Well we hered of clay tablets and Demention printers 3D modleing abs plastic make your charts and stack them like domanos.

[NativeUSAindian]

Originally Posted by Dustymc

Lan Chile 757(?), static port covered with tape

I can't find any reference to that, so I suspect you just made it up. Either way, static ports are connected to mechanical instruments. Death to gears and diaphragms!!

we'd still be riding donkeys

Those things can trip! Death to equids!

of the net being hacked

Yes, especially what with chartplotters not being part of any "net" and all. Death to - err, whatever!!!

digital radar once that was dropping a single bit in the distance calculation....every target was off by 1 mile.

I, for one, completely accept that as overwhelming evidence that we should never use anything that could possibly break. Think how much better off we'd be if we all just sat in our caves and played with smooth rocks!

Hum yes but plaing with smooth rocks then we have no realality of are world as you sail your ship on the open sea you are ploting the skiy of stars and planets your point on your planet and made a map of the sky and the world. you used x/z/y to navagat the world now use the same to go to space all you need is a good spaceship hall and the right popalion sysyteam and a salf contaned Bio-sphere systeam.

[ActiveCaptain]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I keep finding errors on the electronic charts that I use; errors that are not on the paper charts.

How many sailors buy the upgrades for their electronic charts?

The reality is that almost all governments are creating electronic charts when they're updating their charts today. The paper charts you get are just printings of the electronic data.

There are commercial companies selling their own charts too. I'm sure some errors exist. But I also know that each day, some of those errors go away.

For US charts, most of my electronic charts are updated every month or so. I only lay out my routes on the devices that can use those charts. I have a chartplotter with C-Map chips and that has older data. But 3-4 other devices with current data make up for that. And I can always buck up, spend $300, and get the latest data for that too, probably 1/2 the price of the paper.

I also can continue to navigate with my electronics for a good couple of weeks without power. How much time is practically needed? Guaranteed power seems to me to be of little concern when battery backup is so simple, inexpensive, and available.

[NativeUSAindian]

Originally Posted by ActiveCaptain

The reality is that almost all governments are creating electronic charts when they're updating their charts today. The paper charts you get are just printings of the electronic data.

There are commercial companies selling their own charts too. I'm sure some errors exist. But I also know that each day, some of those errors go away.

For US charts, most of my electronic charts are updated every month or so. I only lay out my routes on the devices that can use those charts. I have a chartplotter with C-Map chips and that has older data. But 3-4 other devices with current data make up for that. And I can always buck up, spend $300, and get the latest data for that too, probably 1/2 the price of the paper.

I also can continue to navigate with my electronics for a good couple of weeks without power. How much time is practically needed? Guaranteed power seems to me to be of little concern when battery backup is so simple, inexpensive, and available.

So let me see sailors or Captens used to make there own charts now there goverment makes them for them? and some of those have erros.
Can we add to the charts or are they riten in stone untell you the word pay for a upgread?

[boatman61]

Nope its down to the laws of commercialism...
Paper charts can last for years and if conscientiously updated be as accurate in the hands of a 'good' navigator... not good business practice...
Electronic however is good profitable commercial sense... built in deaths...
new CP's incompatible with previous chips.. new toys to replace the old etc...
Its not that paper charts are no good... they're just not profitable enough..
Thats the honest truth...

[Mundinho]

As was mentioned by someone else, Electronic Charting Systems are approved by USCG, in line with rules and guidelines from the IMO (International Maritime Organization). This is however only applicable for professional merchant marine, gross tonnage larger then.. etc. etc.

We (weekend, part and full time cruiser types like myself) like to say; electronic charting systems are already since long approved by the USCG on professional vessels, equally we like to mention in the airline industry they have approved already electronic charting so the USCG should allow that on leisure craft as the sole means of navigation etc, We seem to like to make those statements such as “what we use on our tiny boats on our tiny plotter and ipads and ipods is just a good as the paper chart, if not much better etc etc.



Well here it comes; what I never see in these discussions is the fact that what we use on our sailing and motor boats is nothing similar compared to what the professional merchant marine is using. The electronic chart display systems (ECDIS) that are approved by the IMO for large vessels are of a totally different caliber then our chart display systems (ECS). There are two crucial components in an ECDIS system that I very seldom see in an ECS; (A) the size of the screens (two minimally) that the chart is displayed on. IMO has strict rules for minimal physical sizes for screens that display charts. There is a good reason for as extensive studies that where carried out on behalf of the IMO in order to come to the rules that currently define the minimum standards for ECDIS systems clearly highlighted the significant limitations that small screen (I am talking about smaller then 20”, no bother even talking about Ipad screens type dimensions) places on the navigator with regards to the situational awareness. Furthermore IMO requires two screens in order to display large and small scale at the same time.
(B) is with regards to the power supply. There are clear rules defined by the IMO in order to guarantee power supply for a certain period, even in case of a full power black out of the vessel.



Now I am very aware that these IMO rules are unworkable for the leisure market for cost and dimensional reasons. Equally the damage done by a 36 ft polyester sailboat to a breakwater is of a different nature then when a 250.000 Mt Deadweight tanker hits a breakwater, so there is merit for not requiring the same rules for merchant marine versus the leisure market.



What I am trying to make clear here is that if you believe you can have a totally clear and safe navigation system by using a plotter with something like a 10” screen and disregard any paper charts, the studies done for the IMO clearly have indicated that you have undermined your situational awareness greatly. This increase in risk might still have you operating on an acceptable risk level due to your (low) speed and possible safe area of operation (outside typical shipping lanes), however again it is incorrect and foolish to think you will have an equal situational awareness from a 10” LCD screen then from multiple paper charts.
Finally the comparison to the FAA approved Ipads with VFR and IFR approach charts for regional charters is not truly relevant, as was clearly described already by someone else in this tread. What is relevant is the relation to FAA approved digital navigation systems as electronic charting and location devices such as GPS and WAAS. The reason FAA approves these systems is after rigorous testing and based on having other systems in place inside the aircraft already.



What we expect as cruisers is a 100% reliability on e-charting systems that fit on a 7” screen and preferable with radar overlay and then we split the screen for 50% in order to display the fish finder on the other 50%. These type of e-charting systems has absolutely no bearing anymore on what the professional merchant marine is using or equally what the FAA approves. Hey, I like these gadgets, I use a 10” plotter with e-charts and radar overlay. Additionally I have a 19” LCD screen on a laptop for planning purpose. However on top of that I carry the critical paper charts, as I know the IMO studies have clearly proven over and over the situational awareness degradation when using 10” screen in difficult situations as the sole means of charting. If I could install two 36” screens displaying two paper charts on different scales or one large scale and one radar, then I would be comfortable saying I have a charting system in place that equals that of any paper chart system. Unfortunately the 10” screen already gave me headaches in finding a place on our 43 ft boat.



Just some more “fuel” on the e-chart discussion fire. (by the way, I am a Bsc Marine Engineer which has sailed in the merchant marine for several years and a private pilot with IFR rating).



Best regards, peter

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by Mundinho

If I could install two 36” screens displaying two paper charts on different scales or one large scale and one radar, then I would be comfortable saying I have a charting system in place that equals that of any paper chart system. Unfortunately the 10” screen already gave me headaches in finding a place on our 43 ft boat.

Just some more “fuel” on the e-chart discussion fire. (by the way, I am a Bsc Marine Engineer which has sailed in the merchant marine for several years and a private pilot with IFR rating).

Well Peter, you might have sailed for years in the merchant marine but you surely were kept far away from the ECDIS screens because your description is more than flawed. See the picture of the Transas ECDIS below and tell me that this is a dual 36" screen. (It is not)

Actually, the requirement is minimum a single 15" screen size (27x27 cm).

cheers,
Nick.

[Don1500]

Originally Posted by Dustymc

Lan Chile 757(?), static port covered with tape

I can't find any reference to that, so I suspect you just made it up. Either way, static ports are connected to mechanical instruments. Death to gears and diaphragms!!

I don't make things up. I may get them a little wrong at times but I don't make them up. The flight was AeroPeru, not Lan Chile: Aeroperú Flight 603 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Flying out of Santiago, Chile. The left side static port was taped over.

we'd still be riding donkeys

Those things can trip! Death to equids!

of the net being hacked

Yes, especially what with chartplotters not being part of any "net" and all. Death to - err, whatever!!!

digital radar once that was dropping a single bit in the distance calculation....every target was off by 1 mile.

I, for one, completely accept that as overwhelming evidence that we should never use anything that could possibly break. Think how much better off we'd be if we all just sat in our caves and played with smooth rocks!

OH GOD SAVE MY FROM PERFECTIONISTS! Do you have a spare tire in your car? Why? You mean your tires might go flat? Well I guess I'll never drive again. DO YOU THINK THAT'S THE ONLY PROBLEM THAT HAS EVER HAPPENED TO A RADAR?

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by Don1500

I repaired a digital radar once that was dropping a single bit in the distance calculation. Always the same bit and the result was that every target was off by 1 mile.

"Dropping a bit" ?! Assuming we're talking about some digital chip that was faulty, we get a bit that is stuck to either a 0 or a 1. For distance to radar targets this means that on average, half of the calculated distances was right. So... now.. what's the story with 100% was wrong?? starts to sound like a software bug but that can't be "repaired", just replaced by newer software that corrects this bug. I therefore raise my BS flag

cheers,
Nick.

[Therapy]

In the electronic age we use something more sophisticated no?

PS. I am somewhat conservative and also have the old flag.

[boatman61]

Ok.... I'm outa here... I'll leave you 'Radio Shack' lovers to.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNM6IuA87eM

[Dustymc]

OK Don, you have my apologies, and thanks for the link. It's interesting that "nontraditional" instruments (radar altimeter, which WP says was available, or GPS) could have saved them, but I think it reinforces the point that it's always necessary to use all available information. My sadistic primary flight instructor took great pleasure in slapping stickynotes over random instruments while I was under the hood. It's quite possible to fly straight and level with nothing but a ball and GPS airspeed, although I wouldn't want to try it in an airliner full of people for the first time. (But I was sure happy to know that little trick the first time I got in ice at night!) Especially before GPS, Alaska pilots lived (and sometimes died) by radar altimeter - I'd like to think pretty much any sled driver would have pulled that landing off without breaking a sweat.

Boating isn't too much different - there are lots of ways in which you can receive information, and all of them (including - perhaps especially - the ass/seat interface!) are prone to failure and misinterpretation. Part of your job is to know how to use the information you're presented, and that includes detecting abnormalities. To use your example, I can't really imagine how a consistent ranging error in a radar could be much more than a slight annoyance.