Paper Charts

Marin wrote:
markpierce w:

I'm with Marin regarding flying bridges and made it a point not to acquire a boat with one.* This is only a personal preference.

Click to expand...

*A far better configuration than a flying bridge, in our opinon, is a raised pilothouse.* You get the best of both worlds that way--- better visibility with connection to the boat and fast and easy access to the deck if needed.

We have the fly bridge and the raised pilot house which we like and use both.* The rainy season just ended and we didn't using the fly-bridge for obvious reasons.* When we dock and cruise at night, we do it from the pilot house for some of the reasons that Main stated.* But when we are navigating around the reefs, the fly bridge gives us much better color definition.* And when we are fishing it's pretty exciting to be on*the fly bridge to see a dorado or bill fish streaking across the water to hit one of your lures.

As far as paper charts go, we started using electronic charting in 2002 and we still bought paper charts.* As time went on, we found that were only using charts for big picture planning.* Now we only use electronic charts and the most up today cruising guides.* We have 2 back up systems that are all loaded with the same charts and GPS drivers and have never had a critical failure.* When arriving into a new port or anchorage we use the cruising guides, the electronic charts, the VHF radio and eye ball navigation.


-- Edited by Larry M on Monday 9th of January 2012 02:43:45 PM

Till I can have a chartplotter as big as a chartbook...it's just not the same...zoomng in and out for the detail and looking ahead is more distracting than I prefer.* I'm happy with even a tiny chartplotter and a chartbook over just a larger 10-15 inch chartplotter and no paper.

As far as flying bridges I'm not that fond of them...but they beat the heck out of most pilothouse boats when backing out of marinas*when you are hard pressed to turn around or backing into slips.* Granted...either of those can usually be avoided so not a huge issue...but a flying bridge gives better close quarters visability.* Usually that kind of visibility isn't needed for the majority of cruising needs.

psneeld wrote:...but a flying bridge gives better close quarters visability.*

Click to expand...

******* Absolutely true! (Although I don't have one. )

SeaHorse II wrote:psneeld wrote:...but a flying bridge gives better close quarters visability.*

Click to expand...

******* Absolutely true! (Although I don't have one.)

*Yes, it can give better close quarter visability. *I don't think I would go so far as to say that it is absolute. *When we had a Europa style trawler, I always docked from the lower station. *No visibility to the rear from the flybridge. *Quick access to the deck at the lower helm. *I think Larry M may dock from the lower station for the same reasons. *Where I miss my flybridge most is sight piloting through the reefs of the Bahamas. *Although my dermatologist likes me to be inside.

Were we boating in an area where judging passages and depth by the color of the water-- or physically seeing down into the water-- is a major benefit, we would run from the flying bridge. In all the fishing I did in Hawaii in a friend's boat we always ran the boat from the flying bridge for this reason, plus it provided the best all-round view to look for seabirds which is how we found the fish.

But in this area (PNW) the water is almost always too deep for the bottom to have any influence on the color of the water at the surface and the main hazards to navigation are the rocks and reefs, just about all of which are charted if not physically marked with navaids or kelp. So other than the nice view running the boat*from up above has not shown us any benefit.* And the accuracy of our two GPS plotters (C-Map) at the lower station makes it very obvious even in a very narrow and critical*channel like the one going into Comox on Vancouver Island if we are in the right position or not.

And in our case, at least, we find it much easier to judge the boat's close-in position relative to docks and whatnot from down below than from up above. I know we could get used to close-in maneuvering from the flying bridge if we wanted to run from up there--- it's where we ran the GB we chartered. But the advantages to us*of being down below outweigh the advantages of being up above, so we always run from below today.


*


-- Edited by Marin on Monday 9th of January 2012 07:28:26 PM

A flying bridge adds a lot of expense when it duplicates another helmsman position.* It can*increase risk: saw a video of an experienced boater tossed from such crossing a bar and ended up dying from a broken neck/back.* There's lots more movement the farther one is from the center of gravity, and a flying bridge raises the boat's center of gravity*so reducing a boat's stability.* *A proper pilothouse has 360-degree visibility and immediate deck access.* Overhead UV protection is better with a thick steel plate rather than a mere piece of cloth.* A flying bridge can interfere with sails.* Let's just say I'm happy sans flying bridge.

Nice little boat in Bellingham. **Sorry Mark, but I had to do it.*

markpierce wrote:
*a flying bridge raises the boat's center of gravity*so reducing a boat's stability.*

Click to expand...

Not necessarily a negative thing.* Adding a flying bridge or standing up there will reduce the rate of roll, make the boat ride better, and make it less likely that someone will be "thrown off" the deck or the bridge.

There is a lot more to stability than the KG.

Carey wrote:
Nice little boat in Bellingham. *

*Sorry Mark, but I had to do it.*

Click to expand...

*That's the pre-Buehler-revised design and surely a good boat.

RickB wrote:markpierce wrote:
*a flying bridge raises the boat's center of gravity*so reducing a boat's stability.*

Click to expand...

Not necessarily a negative thing.* Adding a flying bridge or standing up there will reduce the rate of roll, make the boat ride better, and make it less likely that someone will be "thrown off" the deck or the bridge.

There is a lot more to stability than the KG.

I'm sure I was a lot more comfortable*with a cabin*on the fourth deck rather than the eleventh while 50-something-foot waves were hitting broadside.** Deck five/six:


-- Edited by markpierce on Monday 9th of January 2012 08:43:37 PM

RickB wrote:markpierce wrote:
*a flying bridge raises the boat's center of gravity*so reducing a boat's stability.*

Click to expand...

Not necessarily a negative thing.* Adding a flying bridge or standing up there will reduce the rate of roll, make the boat ride better, and make it less likely that someone will be "thrown off" the deck or the bridge.

There is a lot more to stability than the KG.

*Right you are Rick!

markpierce wrote:I'm sure I was a lot more comfortable*with a cabin*on the fourth deck rather than the eleventh while 50-something-foot waves were hitting broadside.**

Click to expand...

I'm sure you were but what has that got to do with anything?

You would probably have had a stroke if you knew that they reduced what you call stability on that floating hotel so the decks wouldn't be awash in barf.

That thing had less "stability" than your own boat. The GM was probably around a foot. Let us know what yours is.

Carey wrote:
Nice little boat in Bellingham. *

*Sorry Mark, but I had to do it.*

Click to expand...

I showed Mark some photos of that boat when his Coot was under construction.* Turns out it's owned by a fellow who during the summer*teaches courses in the PNW*aimed at getting master's licenses and such.* The boat is*his office.* He's been wintering it in that same spot for a year or two now.

Carey wrote:RickB wrote:markpierce wrote:
*a flying bridge raises the boat's center of gravity*so reducing a boat's stability.*

Click to expand...

Not necessarily a negative thing.* Adding a flying bridge or standing up there will reduce the rate of roll, make the boat ride better, and make it less likely that someone will be "thrown off" the deck or the bridge.

There is a lot more to stability than the KG.

*Right you are Rick!

*If this is so, why don't sailboats have ballast in their masts rather than the keels?

RickB wrote:
That thing had less "stability" than your own boat. The GM was probably around a foot. Let us know what yours is.

Click to expand...

It's hard to believe from a layman's standpoint*looking at today's*horzontal hotels *that they have any stability at all.* It's my understanding that they have massive active stabilizing systems to keep them relatively level, perhaps even at the dock.

markpierce wrote: If this is so, why don't sailboats have ballast in their masts rather than the keels?

Click to expand...

You have already had enough hints. If you are going to post about stability it is up to you to do your homework..

Marin wrote:It's my understanding that they have massive active stabilizing systems to keep them relatively level, perhaps even at the dock.

Click to expand...

Stabilizers don't add stability, they reduce roll rate for comfort.

The ordinary measure of stability is GM, the distance between the center of gravity and the metacentric height. If the two coincide, the boat is as stable as a beachball. The greater the distance the more stable the boat but the faster the roll ... to the point that things like sat antennae, liferafts, and people start getting flung off the top.

That maritime obscenity or "horizontal hotel" probably had a GM of around a foot after they reduced it as much as prudent in order to keep the self loading cargo from wallowing in puke.

Having fun even if I'm an ignoramous!

*


-- Edited by markpierce on Monday 9th of January 2012 09:19:54 PM

Mark,

Rick is just taking advantage of the fact that he knows something you do'nt. Drawing attention to it makes him look real smart. And about the issue at hand it sounds like he does know a great deal but putting you down dos'nt make him as smart as he looks.

Eric

Marin wrote:RickB wrote:
That thing had less "stability" than your own boat. The GM was probably around a foot. Let us know what yours is.

Click to expand...

It's hard to believe from a layman's standpoint*looking at today's*horzontal hotels *that they have any stability at all.* It's my understanding that they have massive active stabilizing systems to keep them relatively level, perhaps even at the dock.

*Stabilizers on cruise ships are "little wings" underwater.* they work with water flowing over them like air on a plane's wings.* Thus, they don't work while docked, and my understanding is that the stabilizers are withdrawn before docking to reduce potential damage.* Also, the ship stabilizers reduce roll but not pitch.

"If this is so, why don't sailboats have ballast in their masts rather than the keels?"

Interesting that in the Fastnet disaster , they found the boats with heavier rigs survived far better than the light weight rigs.

Seems the moment of inertia , harder to get started and stopped , was a great savior in keeping the mast out of the water.

Most boats that had masts hit the water were left for the life raft.

nomadwilly wrote:
Rick is just taking advantage of the fact that he knows something you do'nt.

Click to expand...

No Eric, I have no "advantage" to gain here or anywhere else. If I wrote a thousand word post telling mark why his concept is flawed it would teach him nothing compared to what he will learn by approaching the subject on his own.

He might be "having fun" but I didn't call him an ignoramous, I gave him hints so he could find his own answers at his own pace rather than continue to post silliness.

I am happy to share information or knowledge. It is a "pay it forward" sort of thing because a lot of talented and skilled people shared their knowledge with me, but I don't have much time for fools and poseurs and I have no reason to try and "look good" to a bunch of people I don't know and will probably never meet and will sure as Hell never make a penny from. Take it or leave it,

Having taught stability at the 100-200 ton masters level (baby licenses but the basics are still the same)*...not sure how adding weight aloft...and not changing ANY other factors would improve stability.* You would be raising the center of gravity and not doing anything to the metacentric height or center of buoyancy....thus reducubg the righting arm.

Granted there are many factors that affect stability and safety...the consensus in my readings that tenderness is never really a good thing.* Plus a*sufficiently long enough roll period is necessary for safe movment around the boat in harsh conditions.

Would love to know why because I'm in the process of redoing my flying bridge.

psneeld wrote:*...not sure how adding weight aloft...and not changing ANY other factors would improve stability.*

Click to expand...

*Who said it did?

Wait, I thought this is a thread on charts?* I'm soooo confused....*

RickB wrote:markpierce wrote:
*a flying bridge raises the boat's center of gravity*so reducing a boat's stability.*

Click to expand...

Not necessarily a negative thing.* Adding a flying bridge or standing up there will reduce the rate of roll, make the boat ride better, and make it less likely that someone will be "thrown off" the deck or the bridge.

There is a lot more to stability than the KG.

*I understand the weight aloft*will reduce the rate of roll and "possibly make the ride better"... however, when you finished off with the stability statement I couldn't decide exactly how you were connecting the two..

nomadwilly wrote:
Mark,

Rick is just taking advantage of the fact that he knows something you do'nt. Drawing attention to it makes him look real smart. And about the issue at hand it sounds like he does know a great deal but putting you down dos'nt make him as smart as he looks.

Eric

Click to expand...

*I don't look at it that way.* I want to know when I'm "wrong."*

psneeld wrote:*I understand the weight aloft*will reduce the rate of roll and "possibly make the ride better"... however, when you finished off with the stability statement I couldn't decide exactly how you were connecting the two..

Click to expand...

KG is the distance between the CG and the keel, if you add weight high on the boat, you*raise G*and bring it closer to the metacenter, M, which is determined not by G but by the location of the center of bouyancy, *B.

Because the distance between a line drawn vertically from*B*to*M defines the righting arm Z, as G rises the distance between G and M (GM) and roll rate decrease and we say that stability has decreased. When G and M coincide the boat is neutrally stable.

the locations of B and M will* begin to move quickly beyond about 10 degrees of roll and at some point (the point of vanishing stability) M will move below G and the boat can capsize. We conduct inclining experiments to determine where stability vanishes. Because different boats have different hull shapes is why I said there is more to stability than the height of the center of gravity above the keel.

I never said raising G increased stability, I said it provided for a better ride due to a slower rate of roll. And that is why I said*decreasing stability is not necessarily a*negative thing.*

markpierce wrote:*I don't look at it that way.* I want to know when I'm "wrong."*

Click to expand...

*Thank you Mark, it was not intended that way either.

Pineapple Girl:

"Wait, I thought this is a thread on charts? I'm soooo confused...."

I'm with you, Girl.* The OP said,

"I use paper charts to double check my Nobletec running on a laptop. I do not update the paper IAW notice to mariners. ...*

My travels are in Washington and British Columbia. Am I in the minority as far as not religiously updating paper charts?"

and no one has responded on topic since page 1.

?

OS*