Leopard 46 lost in French Polynesia - stunning rescue pictures

[sailormed]

The following is from my Navionics chart legal tab:

NOAA Raster Navigational Charts User Agreement

By using the NOAA Raster Navigational Charts (NOAA RNCs‚) distributed here, you acknowledge that you have read, understood, and accepted the terms and conditions stated in this User Agreement. NOAA reserves the right to change this Agreement at any time and without notice. Your use of the Raster Navigational Charts available here shall constitute your agreement to be bound by this Agreement and any changes.

1. Description of NOAA Raster Navigational Charts (NOAA RNCs‚)

The NOAA RNCs‚ distributed here are geo-referenced, full-color images of NOAA's paper nautical charts, published by NOAA in the .BSB format. NOAA updates the RNCs for Notices to Mariners on a weekly basis. They are an official product of NOAA, and meet the S-61 Standard, "Raster Navigational Charts", of the International Hydrographic Organization.

2. Permitted Use

NOAA RNCs‚ are intended to be used in their electronic form only. You may download, use, and redistribute them without restriction, and without payment to NOAA, except as noted herein.

The NOAA RNCs‚ are intended for navigational use. They may be used to meet federal chart carriage regulations published in the Code of Federal Regulations. On November 15, 2005, the regulations were as stated below. These regulations may change, and mariners are advised to check the Code of Federal Regulations for their current status.

1) In December 1998, the IMO's Maritime Safety Committee approved amendments to Resolution A.817(19) stating that some ECDIS equipment may operate in Raster Chart Display System (RCDS) mode when the relevant chart information is not available in vector mode (e.g., NOAA ENC). The amendments state that when used in RCDS mode, ECDIS equipment should be used together with an appropriate folio of up-to-date paper charts to meet chart carriage requirements.

2) On May 2, 2001, the United States Coast Guard amended the United States chart carriage regulations to permit government vessels to use electronic charting and navigation systems in lieu of paper charts.

3) On August 15, 2002, the United States Coast Guard issued a statement of policy to bring its regulations into agreement with SOLAS Chapter V (as amended by the changes taking effect July 1, 2002). The policy statement said that, if a ship has an approved ECDIS installed according to SOLAS, Chapter V, the ECDIS will be considered as meeting the ship's nautical chart carriage regulations. The ships that are affected are:
a. U.S.-flagged ships of 150 or more gross tons that engage on international voyages.
b. U.S.-flagged ships certificated solely for service on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River.
c. Foreign-flag ships to which SOLAS, Chapter V, applies that are operating on the navigable waters of the United States.
This policy is not applicable to U.S.-flag ships engaged only on domestic voyages. These ships must continue to comply with existing navigation equipment requirements until the chart carriage regulations are formally amended.

3. Limitations on Use

NOAA RNCs‚ may be redistributed, but redistributed NOAA RNCs‚ are NOT considered official NOAA RNCs, and do not meet federal chart carriage regulations for regulated vessels. This official status attends only to the original downloaded files. At a future date, NOAA intends to establish a program under which distributors may be certified to redistribute NOAA RNCs‚ such that they will retain their official status and meet chart carriage regulations.

NOAA RNCs‚ and their geoTIF versions (future) may not be used to print commercial products. Individuals may print the NOAA RNCs‚ or their geoTIF versions for personal use, but the result is not a NOAA chart, and may not be used to meet federal chart carriage regulations.

Copying of the NOAA RNCs‚ to any other server or location for further distribution is discouraged unless the following guidelines are followed: 1) this User Agreement is displayed and accepted by anyone accessing the NOAA RNCs, and 2) a reference to this Web site is included so that anyone accessing the NOAA RNCs‚ is advised of their origin.

If these NOAA RNCs‚ are incorporated into any other product in a form other than as provided by NOAA, the producer of that product assumes full liability and must adhere to conditions described in the paragraph above concerning copying.

4. Warnings

Weekly updates to the RNCs are done on a "best efforts" basis. The timing of their availability is not guaranteed. You are responsible for ensuring that your RNCs are the most current edition and that the most recent updates have been applied.

NOAA RNCs‚ were made by scanning the NOAA paper chart printing materials. Any inaccuracies due to old methods of collecting, processing and displaying data on the paper chart were transferred to the RNCs. As a result, the accuracy of modern positioning systems such as GPS may exceed the positional accuracy of the RNC. The impact of positioning accuracies can be minimized by not zooming an RNC beyond the scale of the original NOAA chart.

While NOAA has accuracy standards for each step in the data collection and chart production process, much of the depth information found on NOAA charts is based on surveys conducted before 1940, the shoreline is more than 20 years old, and paper charts used to be compiled manually. For more information regarding the accuracy of electronic charts, click here.

5. Trademarks and Copyright

The BSB file format is the sole property of Maptech, Inc. and as such is protected by U.S. and International foreign copyright and patent laws.

"NOAA" and the NOAA emblem are registered trademarks of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

NOAA RNC‚ is a trademark of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

"Maptech" and the Maptech emblem are registered trademarks of Maptech, Inc.

"BSB File Format" is a trademark of Maptech, Inc.

WARNING: Navionics electronic charts and maps are an aid to navigation designed to facilitate the use of authorized government charts, not to replace them. Only official government charts and notices to mariners contain all of the current information needed for the safety of navigation, and the captain is responsible for their prudent use.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Navionics Coastal Charts are derived, in part, from the products and with the agreement of the hydrographic offices of Australia, Denmark (KMS), Finland (FMA), France (SHOM), Germany (BSH), Greece, Italy, Norway, South Africa, Sweden (SMA), Ukraine (SHSU), United Kingdom, and ANWB (The Netherlands), DPI WA (Australia), GBRMPA (Australia), Imray (UK), MSQ (Australia), NLS (Finland). These companies and hydrographic offices have not verified the product and do not accept liability for its accuracy. For further copyright information please see: www.navionics.com

Navionics HotMaps is produced using the best available source data derived from pro-staffers, Navionics surveys, and leading private and public sources that may include: FHS - Fishing Hot Spots, LakeMaster (Big Watab Lake, Cedar, Geneva, Ida, North Long Lake, North Round Lake, Sugar), Lakewatch, DNR - Departments of Natural Resources, NOAA - National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, USACE - United States Army Corps of Engineers, NHS - Natural History Survey, USGS - United States Geological Surveys, OKDWC - OK Dept. of Wildlife Conservation, VADGIF - VA Dept. of Game & Inland Fisheries, NDG&FD - ND Game & Fish Dept., MADFW - MA Div. of Fisheries & Wildlife Districts (Western, Central, Connecticut Valley, Northeast, Southeast), KSGS - KS Geological Survey, INGS - Indiana Geological Survey, CTDEP - Connecticut Dept. of Environmental Protection, and the Geography Division - Statistics Canada, 2006 Road Network File (RNF), 92-500 XWE/XWF. The incorporation of data sources within this product shall not be construed as constituting an endorsement of such product.

The Canadian Hydographic Service (CHS) Port Search Database - "Reproduced with the permission of the Canadian Hydographic Service."

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY GPSNAVX "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL GPSNAVX BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

Dutch translation by Coen Waasdorp
French translation by Francis Fustier
German translation by Jochen Lührs
Italian translation by Guido Maria Meduri
Spanish translation by Nacho Garcia
Swedish translation by Göran Johansson

Some of the icons by Joseph Wain and Jack Webb

[danielamartindm]

Whenever a vessel is lost, we have a natural first reaction to assemble a list of reasons why it would not have happened to us. As a private pilot, I can tell you the same occurs in the pilot community after a plane crash; but the fact that we would not have made the same mistakes that led up to a given tragedy should not feed the notion that we ourselves could not fall victim under other circumstances. That humility is what keeps us alive. Someone once observed that experience doesn't make us immune to errors, it just allows us to make them less often.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Paul L

So I suspect they had planned to make an early evening entrance at Fare, a few miles up the island on the west coast from the grounding site. As earlier mentioned, most people do this passage as an overnight so they arrive in the daylight morning. This boat instead left Moorea at 6am.

If they were going into Fare, is there a reason to go around the south end (rather than the north)? South looks like a longer way around, and the reef sticks out rather more.

It was some years ago we did this but I seem to remember us going around the north. I guess it could depend if there was a lot of south in the wind direction, then south end could be favored. (which is not the case right now - wind looks to be ene).

I also don't understand their timing if they were going to Fare. They were rounding the south at 8 pm. Were they planning to go thru the pass (and anchor) in the dark?

The guy is a pilot, but none of this seems very "pilot like".

I also do not understand the criticism navionics is getting. Their chart here looks quite accurate, and appropriate. Is there a major plotter supplier (what plotter do these cats come with) that is mis-representing the navionics data layers? I have seen actual real meaningful navionics errors (there was one in the Delaware bay, which sunk a couple boats, until I got them to fix it; and one in the Indian Ocean). But this does not seem to be such an error. Or is the expectation that you can sail by this reef at 10' clearance, at night (note gps position can have greater error than that by itself).

[NoahTreat]

I saw this pop up this morning. I haven't listened yet but it might give us a first hand account of what happened and what the caption was thinking. Linus Wilson from the slow boat sailing podcast interviewed the skipper Dan Govatos.

https://slowboatsailing.wordpress.co...g-podcast/amp/

[estarzinger]

^^ interesting . . . . Personally I think he is overlooking his greatest error, which was not being totally alert on watch at his cpa to the reef.

In the swell they had, this reef could have been seen on radar, and probably could have been heard, might even been seen if there was any moon light. You have to be alert, in order to give yourself a chance to scrape by when bad luck strikes.

One of the big tricks/skills to short handed offshore sailing is knowing when to be hyperalert and knowing when you can stand down a bit (short handed you can not be hyperalert all the time). And small cpa to an unknown reef is definitely time to be alert.

[double u]

how close had they intended to pass the reef?

[cliffdykes]

With respect to keeping watch on these modern cats, I have done over 20,000 delivery miles as First Mate on these boats in the last 4 years.

I ALWAYS keep watch on the raised steering position, whatever the weather or ocean position. I have had skippers telling me it's fine to keep my watch inside the cabin, because of the good vis available there. I happen to disagree (probably my military background). One reason is the loss of one of your key senses - hearing.

I always feel incredibly guilty taking a two minute toilet break, even when 1000 miles from land and having not seen any other vessels for a week! I'm pleased that I feel this way. It is more likely to keep me alive.

I also hate CAT A (ocean going) boats which don't have red lighting fitted as standard. And skippers who use cabin white lighting when I'm on watch! It takes 40 minutes (I have been told) or so to get your full night vision back.

I am puzzled as to why both engines were running when they didn't appear to be in a great hurry. The normal practice is to only run one engine when on passage, but have both running for harbour entrances and close quarters manoeuvring.

I have every sympathy with the crew and have made numerous mistakes of my own over the years. Hopefully they will learn from theirs as I desperately hope I have learned from mine!

Cheers
Cliff

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by double u

how close had they intended to pass the reef?

He says he 'planned' to round on 200' depth contour. In places the 200' contour is less than 100 feet off the reef.

He says he planned to 'hug the reef' because of the rough seas.

Both parts of this (100' margin to a reef at night, and closer because of rough seas - you want to be further not closer) are hmmm pick an adjective. I think he is coming to understand this now.

Still, if he had been doing excellent watch keeping he would probably have managed to have avoided all this. Scheduling dinner (with lights and genset running etc) for exact CPA to an unknown reef = pick another adjective.

I made plenty of mistakes, but we managed to squeak our way out of most of them because primarily Beth was just a super watch keeper - always alert and always on top of situational awareness, and secondarily because I had contingency plans for about everything.

PS, I still dont see any reason here to criticize Navonics. For some other incidents, Yes, but this particular one, no (I dont see it yet).

[jamhass]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

He says he 'planned' to round on 200' depth contour. In places the 200' contour is less than 100 feet off the reef.

He says he planned to 'hug the reef' because of the rough seas.

In their blog their "planning" was for a 10-hour passage, arriving circa 4pm local. They apparently never adjusted their planned timeline or intended route for their late arrival, notwithstanding an uncomfortably and dangerously close CPA in the first place.

[cliffdykes]

He says he planned to 'hug the reef' because of the rough seas.



There are so many things wrong with this sentence I don't know where to start.

Personally I take comfort from the fact that, having never written nor intending to ever write a blog, when and if I make a similar catastrophic mistake, no-one will (hopefully) be any the wiser.

Cheers
Cliff

[a64pilot]

I have more than once planned on an afternoon arrival, to be late by hours and arrive at night, and anchor off short of the objective, once spent the only unpleasant rolly night doing just this.
Now whenever possible I plan on morning arrivals, that way when I'm hours late maybe I'll still make landfall in daylight.
That may seem to be a real simple, obvious thing, but it wasn't to me at first.

Re pilot thing, just like I'm sure there is a huge difference between a recreational sailor and a professional mariner, same for private pilots and precessional ones.

[cliffdykes]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I have more than once planned on an afternoon arrival, to be late by hours and arrive at night, and anchor off short of the objective, once spent the only unpleasant rolly night doing just this.
Now whenever possible I plan on morning arrivals, that way when I'm hours late maybe I'll still make landfall in daylight.
That may seem to be a real simple, obvious thing, but it wasn't to me at first.

You are so right.

When I was sailing around the Eastern Caribbean a decade ago, it probably took me a year to work out that there is an easy part and a difficult part to every voyage.

The easy part is leaving your current anchorage, with which you are familiar. The hard part is arriving at your new anchorage, with which you are not familiar.

Twelve months or so to learn that the ideal should be to do both in daylight, but if you have no choice, you should always do the easy part in the dark, not the difficult part (I'm a slow learner!).

Cheers
Cliff

[Drew13440]

This is a total bummer, to say the least. Glad no one got hurt.


A plug for Nigel Calder's How to Read a Nautical Chart is in order here. In addition to what the little thingies on the chart mean, half the book is about marine cartography's history, chart datum and even modern survey standards. In other words, the inherent weakness of nautical charts. It's a great read.


p.s. for you guys floating around the South Pacific, coral reefs grow about a foot every decade (I think). If your chart is from an 1842 British Admiralty survey, you might consider the arithmetic before assuming you're safe...

[svrodeorm]

The thread goes on, hopefully to enlighten a few and help a crowd!


As for all the posts regarding Navionics;

I do not know on what kind of device they were running it, but I am using it all the time here in FrPol on my tablet ( no name dropping here) due to the "plotter features" it offers. I find that very practical for lagoon navigtiion and also passes.

For the rest of time, we use a Netbook at they Nav.station with Open CPN and A GpS puck on USB. Sufficient for most occassions. I never owned a plotter, and never saw the point in having one until arriving here actually. I first arrived Tahiti after single handing for 11 days IIrC, and found it a bt awkward to climb up and down the companionway to check the chart while negotiating the pass ( the widest on the entire island) and the 4-5 miles in a very well marked lagoon so the tablet found it's way onboard as another aid to navigation.

So, back to Navionics- likely true to all these apps- it takes a bit of playing with it and tweaking ( SETTINGS) to get it to show the way you want it to. Perhaps there are too many possibilities, as different colours, a varying degree of text, depths and so on.

Also, which I believe is true for all electronic charts, you have to zoom in and out frequently to make sure no important info is "hidden" to you.

I am still a bit in the dark as to whether Huahine was their destination. If so the choice of going around the southern point was a very poor one, and if they were on their way to Raiatea or Bora, the rhumb line would have kept them approx. 10 miles south which would have been prudent, and also with a lot better sea conditions.

Would have been a bit of the "washing machine" where they motor sailed.

It's not the ocean, it's those hard spots around the edge....

Oh, and by the way, the Navionics charts show virtually identical info as the C-map I am also using. As they should, give. The source is exactly the same. As been said, no one vendor makes their own charts, they buy the right to use them.

[buzzstar]

Originally Posted by smj

Their insurance dropped them but they decided to continue on knowing they were taking a risk. I'm guessing if they can afford to own a debt free 600-700k catamaran and sail across the Pacific they probably have the $'s to return home. Is it easier to receive funds through "fund me" in the SP than it would be for a relative to wire the necessary funds? I'm all for helping someone if they truly need it, and I'm sure the fellow cruisers are feeding and clothing them, but is the fund me fund necessary?

The insurance company made a business risk decision. So did the vessel owner(s) and captain on a more personal basis. The result was not good for the latter. Everyone should move on from there. Of those who have, some are assisting and helping. Some will not help. Some are silent on all counts.

Me, I am somewhat sad for the loss, but less so than if I'd known any of them. Am I different in this? I believe I've learned from the reports, or at least had prior knowledge reinforced. If I make a similar voyage in my remaining time and under similar circumstances, I'd prefer to find a new way to screw up (you can bet I would) and suffer less seriously or not at all as a result, but still learn the new lesson. Yeah, if I survived, I'd hope for help, and receive any that was given.