Nicholson 38 sunk on Baja Ha-Ha

[requiem]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Whatever chart or instrument he was looking at/using can't be blamed for what is basically incompetent Seamanship.

Very much agree!

There's a lesson here that charts might help with though; I've linked a few below. People often want accurate charts (which is fair, I want them too!) but it can lead to trouble if people start thinking of accurate / not accurate as a simple binary choice. Every chart has some amount of error that must be accounted for.

When looking at the different charts, take note of what's there and what's not there on each, and consider how the description further down might influence a planned route.

• Hand sketch in this post
• DMA chart in this post
• SEMAR chart (you can zoom in)
• Navionics (note: the wreck off Punta Kelp is a new addition and the topic of this thread)

Here is the first part of the description from the NGA's Sailing Directions. I've highlighted a few key parts.

Bahia Tortugas (27°40'N., 114°53'W.), a nearly circular and well-sheltered bay, forms an excellent harbor of refuge. It is entered between Punta Kelp, located 6 miles SE of Punta Rompiente, and Cabo Tortolo, 1.8 miles SE. The entrance channel, which is about 0.8 mile wide, leads between several dangers extending from the entrance points. It is encumbered by numerous shoals and should not be transited without local knowledge.
Monte Bartolome, 265m high, is prominent and rises close N of Punta Kelp, the N entrance point. A light is shown from a framework tower, 10m high, standing on the E side of this latter point.
Foul ground, with numerous rocky patches, exists NW of the N entrance. Mariners should use caution when transiting this area.
Cabo Tortolo, the S entrance point, is the low, rocky NW extremity of a high and narrow promontory. Several rocks, some above-water, lie on a reef, over which the sea breaks heavily, that extends 1 mile NNW from the cape. Roca Azufre, the outermost prominent rock, lies 0.6 mile NNW of the cape. This rock has two dark projecting horns that contrast markedly with its overall light color. A light is shown from a tower, 10m high, standing on Roca Atano which lies close SSE of Roca Azufre.

[h20man]

Originally Posted by requiem

Very much agree!

There's a lesson here that charts might help with though; I've linked a few below. People often want accurate charts (which is fair, I want them too!) but it can lead to trouble if people start thinking of accurate / not accurate as a simple binary choice. Every chart has some amount of error that must be accounted for.

When looking at the different charts, take note of what's there and what's not there on each, and consider how the description further down might influence a planned route.

• Hand sketch in this post
• DMA chart in this post
• SEMAR chart (you can zoom in)
• Navionics (note: the wreck off Punta Kelp is a new addition and the topic of this thread)

Here is the first part of the description from the NGA's Sailing Directions. I've highlighted a few key parts.

Great post.. just want to point out one thing. The hand sketch CLEARLY says "Not to be used for Navigation".

[JPA Cate]

Are the depth on the chart in feet or meters?

And, thanks, requiem, for the informative post.

Ann

[h20man]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

Are the depth on the chart in feet or meters?

And, thanks, requiem, for the informative post.

Ann

Hand sketch in this post (with big disclaimer not to be used for navigation: appears to be fathoms, with some items in feet)


DMA chart in this post (poster says the chart is in meters)


SEMAR chart ( notes in top right claims it is in meters )


Navionics (note: the wreck off Punta Kelp is a new addition and the topic of this thread) ( by default I believe navionics comes up in meters.. but this can be checked by going to menu and seeing settings)

[sv_pelagia]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

Are the depth on the chart in feet or meters?

And, thanks, requiem, for the informative post.

Ann

Navionics: under the MENU tab, one sets the units. Mine initially came up in feet but I changed to metres.



SEMAR (Mexico) raster and paper always in metres. (SEMAR ENC and equivalent O-Charts you can metres, feet or fathoms)

[requiem]

Just to add, the SEMAR chart claims a 2004 survey, no data regarding type/quality. The DMA chart was based on surveys prior to 1930, so if one was being particularly by-the-book a decent margin for error should be allowed. Much of the data is probably good, of course, and the greater risk would be undetected rocks between soundings.

[h20man]

If you use the navionics chart with their 'sonar chart'


you can see more detail. Sonar chart takes data that users submit from their own soundings.

SonarChart is constantly enhanced by sonar logs contributed by boaters such as you. Navionics accepts sonar logs recorded with the vast majority of sonar/plotter brands and mobile devices. These are integrated with existing data, updating SonarChart to reflect the ever-changing conditions of sea, lake and river bottoms.

https://webapp.navionics.com/#boatin...y=azzgDtrf%7CT

[Chotu]

I just happened to see the track. How very odd it is. Instead of going in a more safe, more efficient/faster straight line from Point A to Point B, they hugged the shore at every opportunity.



I may be a bit different than these people, but I see no reason to try to stay as close to the shoreline as possible, altering the course to dip into that little bay

[Kettlewell]

I may be a bit different than these people, but I see no reason to try to stay as close to the shoreline as possible, altering the course to dip into that little bay

It has been reported that they were hugging the coastline to have some shelter from wind and waves, and that they were basically following the 10-meter depth contour. Not justifying this tactic, just reporting it.

[Chotu]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

It has been reported that they were hugging the coastline to have some shelter from wind and waves, and that they were basically following the 10-meter depth contour. Not justifying this tactic, just reporting it.

Ok, so strong easterly winds were beating them up?

Fair enough. I haven’t followed this very closely, but just saw the track.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Chotu

Ok, so strong easterly winds were beating them up?

Fair enough. I haven’t followed this very closely, but just saw the track.

I would not call 22kts of wind strong... and if considered so why not just reef down 1 or 2 reefs and stay in safe water rather than "ease the sails" and head inshore towards danger..
Is this a competent seaman or just one who dreads going to the mast in the dark..
Also the wind was coming off the land so doubt it would have much effect on the sea up to 2-3 miles out to 'beat one up'.

[sv_pelagia]

Originally Posted by h20man

If you use the navionics chart with their 'sonar chart'


you can see more detail. Sonar chart takes data that users submit from their own soundings.


https://webapp.navionics.com/#boatin...y=azzgDtrf%7CT

The Navionics "sonarchart" for Turtle Bay entrance makes no sense. Check out around current topic.



Here in BC, most Navionics "sonarcharts" are fictional, based on interpolations of widely spaced official soundings. NOT to be trusted.


I suspect same here for Turtle Bay.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I would not call 22kts of wind strong... and if considered so why not just reef down 1 or 2 reefs and stay in safe water rather than "ease the sails" and head inshore towards danger..
Is this a competent seaman or just one who dreads going to the mast in the dark..
Also the wind was coming off the land so doubt it would have much effect on the sea up to 2-3 miles out to 'beat one up'.

I was thinking the same. If things aren’t going well, it is odd to get CLOSER to things that can hurt a boat.

And also, charts, as mentioned before don’t reliably show rock outcrops that rise from the bottom abruptly and don’t break the surface. Charts often just say “rocky “ and show kelp. Kelp grows on rocks. Not such a great place to be in the dark.

I am sure he has heard an earful of critique, but discussing it will help others avoid that corner of Turtle Bay now!

[h20man]

Originally Posted by Don C L

I was thinking the same. If things aren’t going well, it is odd to get CLOSER to things that can hurt a boat.

And also, charts, as mentioned before don’t reliably show rock outcrops that rise from the bottom abruptly and don’t break the surface. Charts often just say “rocky “ and show kelp. Kelp grows on rocks. Not such a great place to be in the dark.

I am sure he has heard an earful of critique, but discussing it will help others avoid that corner of Turtle Bay now!

There are many stories about said 'captain' and good information on the other forum.


Most interesting is the closeup of the poor vessel resting in the ocean off Turtle Bay.. No Sails visible..so it had to be motoring.. so could have stayed away from hazards.

[AiniA]

Is it just me, but I don't enter unfamiliar or difficult harbours/anchorages at night. We made it a habit all the way across the Pacific. We always seemed to be on schedule to arrive somewhere an hour after dark. Not hard to slow down or heave-to until dawn.