I’m by no means an advocate for flying by wire, in fact I don’t think that’s the intention of the discussion here at all, just like any other tool on the bridge, if it’s set up wrong it doesn’t do anyone any good.
Arguing Relative vectors vs true vectors, sure, six of one half dozens the other, you aren’t incompetent for disagreeing. But you can turn the gain all the way down on the RADAR, or you can have it cranked to the max and then a guard zone at .05nm acquiring all the sea clutter, both configurations demonstrate a lack of understanding of how to use the tool, and really aren’t going to do you any good.
Auto Acquiring AIS targes has cases where it’s really useful. It makes it easy to spot Wan Hai No5 doing 10 knots in a sea of Wan_Hai_50% targets, when none of them are showing up on RADAR. The same setting can cause clutter confusion sailing in high traffic areas when everyone is running around behaving themselves.
Unfortunately I think we all know this is the case for most mariners. Circling back to the BRM discussion this thread spawned from, as a junior officer I’m incompetent for having a different opinion than the captain, until I can cite my sources from professional publications, at which point I become an arrogant asshole who only focuses on what is important in his opinion. There are plenty of publications on how to use an ECDIS out there, and they don’t very all that Much.
But at 0200 - that’s when you should fall back on your own preparations and checklists. The ECDIS should work just as well at departure at 1400 or 0200. And at the end of the day the ECDIS significantly reduces the workload, and produces a safer result than it’s paper counterparts.
It certainly has its drawbacks, I’d say mostly stemming from the programing of the ENCs, but with time and as UKHO, OCS, and NGIA are able to shift focus from maintain a paper and ENC catalogue, to just electronic charts, they can address these issues.
Having opinions on nuance of ECDIS theory is okay. “ECDIS Bad paper good” is where it’s frustrating.