That reply was at his statement that “a prudent mariner would only use paper charts”, I don’t care what the navy does with there paper charts after a voyage. I have been on all types of vessels that are approved by there port state and class to be “paper less.” According to this article: http://www.sperrymarine.com/news/electronic-chart-system-first-us-navy-ship-certified-paperless-navigation, there are many US Navy Ships that are currently paperless. If your company or government does not provide you with paper charts are you going to buy them and correct them on your own dime?
[QUOTE=“btm;95343”]@XMSCCAPTAON:To make such a blanket statement in this day in age of class certified “paper chart free” wheelhouses is not a fair statement. Unless you are willing to personally buy and correct every chart needed for a voyage. I am not familiar with this particular vessel’s chart operating situation, but even if you are using just ECDIS, RADAR bearings and fathometer information should also be used.[/QUOTE]
A blanket statement like that can and IS accurate. The navy quartermaster’s job is to do these chart corrections daily. If the navy had a paperless acceptance of electronic charts I bet it has been reversed in the last week!
Plenty of ships have run aground using paper charts.
There is nothing inherently imprudent about using electronic without paper back-up if it results in fewer groundings. It’s a matter of which system is more robust and reliable in practice. Any system can be beat by the dumb and lazy.
Paper charts are no more “real” then electronic ones are. The cognitive resources of the bridge team is a limited resource. Reducing the work required to maintain situational awareness may offset the hazards created by the inevitable glitches the system may have.
K.C.
As much useless spending that goes on in the government, I’m willing to bet if they asked, they would receive the charts.
Any company I know of presently within the industry does indeed have paper charts of areas that need them ( where they operate ). Buy and correct? Depends on what you license is worth to you I suppose. While its true I did retire a while back I still maintain professional connections within the industry. It’s common place to demand from companies paper charts of certain areas ( again dependent in your route). Some mariners think of they have Ecdis they are good to go without paper charts. Not always the case, if you have ENC charts that are up to date that’s one thing, if by chance you are on Transas raster charts you are not operating within USCG or IMO guidelines. News flash, the Ecdis will swap charts on you from ENC to Transas Raster charts without notification. Have a mishap on a raster chart and not a paper back up you are in serious trouble. There are a number of court cases along these same lines. Some expert witnesses have just shook their heads when a fellow mariner suddenly finds these facts out too late. Add to that even if you have an up to date Ecdis what if it fails during a voyage… No paper charts? Are you kidding me? I hope no one here is trying to say if a digital chart indeed had the reef plotted wrong that is an excuse? Hardly the case… Not for the PRUDENT mariner.
So, yes… If I were the master of a vessel transiting that area I would indeed have a chart of the area even if I had to buy it and correct it. The USN has plenty of man power to correct charts. What they don’t have is the knowledge to use them. It’s known in certain professional circles as rectum navigation. Not only the USN practices it.
[QUOTE=Xmsccapt(ret);95352]. Have a mishap on a raster chart and not a paper back up you are in serious trouble. There are a number of court cases along these same lines…[/QUOTE]
If you have a mishap with a paper chart you could be in serious trouble and there are many, many court cases along these lines. The question is which system has the fewest mishaps. Ships using nothing but paper charts have been running aground for hundreds of years.
K.C.
Very true. Not saying paper charts are the end all. One still has to navigate correctly. Let’s say for argument sake we planned a trip. Part of the trip took us near reefs. The Ecdis, Dnc charts showed all was well, but the paper chart showed the vessel track to be in danger. Hopefully you would check out the discrepancy before making the final plan. All I am saying is use all forms of navigation. It would seem in this case a simple voyage plan using all means ( up to and including paper charts ) may have avoided the grounding. It is my personal feeling that if you don’t use all tools to their best advantage you as a mariner are not being prudent. If I presently worked for a company and they would not buy the charts I asked for I’d take my license and go elsewhere. It’s purely a personal call. There are no single silver bullets… But comparing Ecdis and paper charts for hundreds of years is not a comparison. Apples and oranges. What has been happening for hundreds of years are mariners using all forms of navigation to the fullest… And yes even then the worst can and has happened.
[QUOTE=Xmsccapt(ret);95354]Very true. Not saying paper charts are the end all. One still has to navigate correctly. Let’s say for argument sake we planned a trip. Part of the trip took us near reefs. The Ecdis, Dnc charts showed all was well, but the paper chart showed the vessel track to be in danger. Hopefully you would check out the discrepancy before making the final plan. All I am saying is use all forms of navigation. It would seem in this case a simple voyage plan using all means ( up to and including paper charts ) may have avoided the grounding. .[/QUOTE]
Agreed, but here’s the thing. I’ve been navigating for a long time. In fact my navigation education began, a few decades back, at Navy A QM school. I lay down track-lines with DRs, I take fixes at the right interval,using available info use the correct scale chart, resolve discrepancies etc etc etc. But…a lot of the mates I get act like brain dead office workers. The alarm goes off on the hour and they toddle over to the chart table, plot the lat and long on the chart then toddle back to finish the story they were telling the AB before they were interrupted. Prudent mariners are in short supply.
K.C.
I did not need a condescending lesson from you on the difference between vector and raster charts. That being said news flash: I currently work in the industry and like I said have been on tankers, container and passenger vessels who are no longer provided with paper charts. It’s nice to know that you would buy paper charts for your whole voyage at around $30 apiece and pay for the overtime for your navigating second mate to correct them( I know the master would be too busy with their own paper work, not all ocean going vessels carry 4-5 mates, some are approved to run with 2 mates & a master.). That being said ECDID is like any information source: “garbage in garbage out.” If you are not trained in the information being given to you or if the information being given to you is not correct (no approved vector chart for area being transited, GPS on DR mode, GPS antenna position not properly represented in static data or computer virus, etc.) you will probably not have a successful voyage with just ECDIS. I am not defending navigating by ECDIS only, but if it is approved by class and port state as it is now, and you personally don’t have the money to pay for all the charts, what are you to do? Stay home? Companies are saying they can save up to 40% over costs of paper charts. Do you not think a lot of companies will go paperless? Maybe not Military Sealift Command, but I’m sure the other MSC named company will. “A prudent mariner will not relay on any single aid to navigation,” like if I had a paperless wheelhouse I would still take RADAR bearings and ranges, check Fathometer and any other aid that is not fed information by the same GPSs that feeds the ECDIS. I am sorry to say times are changing, even if it is not for the best. My major point in this is that these PAPERLESS wheelhouses are out there transiting the worlds oceans and America’s ports. Mariner be aware.
If you check the link from my earlier post, even if the US Navy has enough people to correct charts, if they don’t have charts, they can’t correct them. It’s nice to say I would demand them from my office but what if they don’t give them to you? Are you willing to sacrifice your livelihood? I’m sure they will just get another Master and they are not doing anything illegal.
P.S. I was on a MSC oiler in 2000 and they still had a grease plotting RADAR aboard. On the other hand the same year a US flagged coastwise tanker I was on had an ECDIS (I believe asked for by charterer). So like anything in the industry change is influenced by economics and by major incidents.
[QUOTE=“Kennebec Captain;95357”]
Agreed, but here’s the thing. I’ve been navigating for a long time. In fact my navigation education began, a few decades back, at Navy A QM school. I lay down track-lines with DRs, I take fixes at the right interval,using available info use the correct scale chart, resolve discrepancies etc etc etc. But…a lot of the mates I get act like brain dead office workers. The alarm goes off on the hour and they toddle over to the chart table, plot the lat and long on the chart then toddle back to finish the story they were telling the AB before they were interrupted. Prudent mariners are in short supply.
K.C.[/QUOTE]
It seens we are saying much the same thing. I too have had watch officers that were brain dead, I then would " adjust their attitude’. Just because you get a few under performers is no reason to lower your professional standards. Not that you are, just a general statement. I don’t know what went wrong on the USS ship, but it would seem like some Basic navigation skills were in order.
[QUOTE=Xmsccapt(ret);95360]It seens we are saying much the same thing. I too have had watch officers that were brain dead, I then would " adjust their attitude’. Just because you get a few under performers is no reason to lower your professional standards. Not that you are, just a general statement. I don’t know what went wrong on the USS ship, but it would seem like some Basic navigation skills were in order.[/QUOTE]
The way I see it is as a percentage thing. For example, most of my career we’ve always switched from “iron mike” to hand steering in certain circumstances.The thinking was the gryo might fail at a critical time. I still switch to hand steering but less often as the gryo has become more reliable when properly maintained but the ABs still put the wheel over the wrong way or go off course at the same rate. It only makes sense to trust the gryo more in some cases.
Sure, you can get some improvement by jawboning the ABs etc but the percentage is “on the mike”
K.C.
Caveat Emptor
[QUOTE=BMCSRetired;95317]I ran one of the first “paperless” bridges back in the 90’s while I was in. Even then I would not allow tracklines on just electronic charts unless they were plotted and approved on paper or run at least twice prior to use. Almost 15 years later and the e-charts are still at issue.
Oh wait, they are issued by the government. You get what you pay for and I did not fully trust them then, not now, and still compare the fathometer at every fix.
Carpe diem or quo basis or whatever buyer beware is in Latin. There ARE NO DO OVERS![/QUOTE]
It looks like the US Navy knew there were issues back in 2006,
Have to wait for the investigation but I sure hope this young Navy LT in Command did a good job and its true that this was a case where the chart lied to the Conning Officer that night.
I hate to see a LT’s career destroyed if this is the case.
Lets see first the hulls of the MCM class ships are heavy wood planking with the later ships in the class having a GRP (glass reinforced plastic) sheathing. While they are very sturdy withstanding shock testing of simulated mine explosions near the hulls they were not intended to be operated atop coral reefs. I would guess that broaching with the entire length of the hull laying along the reef is very bad news for the ship and Davy Jones is preparing to take his dues.
I had plenty of experience with the Navy ECDIS program. First being with Mine Warfare Command when they were operating leased HSV (INCAT) SWIFT. I was the person who gave thumbs up or down for the crew and their navigation practices. I did all the research and recommended the equipment and training levels for the crews. Many of my recommendations were not used (I was refered to as a dinosaur) but we did end up with a nav suite using Transas backed up with a USN ECDIS and paper charts. When I retired from the Navy they were still struggling with the entire “paperless” nav system. I had issues with one system that was being fielded as it didnt have some basic nav info displayed (DR info time to turn etc) and talked to the software developers (SPAWAR Navy Space Warfare Command) who were demo-ing the system. They said that the operating requirements (specifications) didnt include that they add this data and had no plans to change their program. Anyway that one got the delete button. I decided that computer scientists had no business navigating a ship.
Was taking an ECDIS class in San Diego where the instructor seemed to be more of a salesman for the system than an instructor. He would overlook faults in the system and say that it was “accurate enough” for us to use. One issue was correlation of fixes between visual bearings taking while piloting and the system electronic (GPS) input. The fixes couldnt be input with the required accuracy to properly correlate. Almost made the instructors head explode during this class, probably would have been asked to leave if I wasnt senior to him. On NIMITZ we never relied on just the ECDIS we used paper charts and several independant systems to keep the ship safe. Sadly I have a gut feeling that the crew will be found to be lacking in their training and/or execution of navigation practices.
[QUOTE=BMCSRetired;95317]Carpe diem or quo basis or whatever buyer beware is in Latin. There ARE NO DO OVERS![/QUOTE]
That would be CAVEAT EMPTOR, Shipmate!
I don’t trust the electronic Nav system anymore than a politician. I sometimes think that the Navy and the Coast Guard believe the more high tech bells and whistles they have on their ships, the less room for error. Whatever happened to true seamanship, and being a prudent mariner? As a Nav Petty Officer at my local unit, it is my responsibility to update all charts in our portfolio. And yes, we do use ECDIS on board our unit boats, however we use the paper charts as well…corrected up to the latest notice to mariner with tracklines, as well as highlighting every rock, shoal, and wreck in our area. I fear the way of the future “sailor” will depend on to much on “scanty information” and find them hard aground.
The navy “C/O” will hang. The USN is not known for fixing the problem, they fix the blame. Even of the Ecdis was flawed the safety of the ship and crew fall on the one in command. As it should. They will write all sorts of me instructions, hold training and a safety stand down but in the end the USN will be no closer to becoming professional mariners than they are today. Same song, different dance hall.
[QUOTE=Hooligansailor;95446]I don’t trust the electronic Nav system anymore than a politician. I sometimes think that the Navy and the Coast Guard believe the more high tech bells and whistles they have on their ships, the less room for error. Whatever happened to true seamanship, and being a prudent mariner? As a Nav Petty Officer at my local unit, it is my responsibility to update all charts in our portfolio. And yes, we do use ECDIS on board our unit boats, however we use the paper charts as well…corrected up to the latest notice to mariner with tracklines, as well as highlighting every rock, shoal, and wreck in our area. I fear the way of the future “sailor” will depend on to much on “scanty information” and find them hard aground.[/QUOTE]
Easy big fella. Garbage in, garbage out. Like any good tool, if you use it correctly, it will work correctly, like a sextant or an Ensign. As the chart guy, it is your responsibility to correct the charts AND make sure the Navigator is doing his/her job. Once they have the watch it is THEIR responsibility, not yours. You can only lead the horse’s ass to water, he/she has to loosen themself up to receive the enema you are going to give or something like that.
QUOTE=james.hatch;95408 Sadly I have a gut feeling that the crew will be found to be lacking in their training and/or execution of navigation practices.[/QUOTE]
Lacking indeed. There are 2 islets, a BN and a Nav Light within that reef system that could have indicated a problem if visual or RADAR had been employed. Setting Red and Yellow soundings and practicing Fix Expansion would have provided an alarm also. But I suppose they were just poking along on what they thought was another uneventful mid-watch, just glancing at the ECDIS occasionally and at the clock constantly.