Canadian Digital Charts

[LenBuchanan]

This is more for the 'Northern' TF groups.
We are planning a cruise this summer from Lake Michigan, up through the North Channel of Lake Huron, down through Georgian Bay through the Trent Severn Waterway to the Thousand Island area.
We utilize PolarView/Polar Navy chartplotter software on a laptop. I have all of the NOAA digital Raster charts for the Great Lakes and digital charts from Canada that I need except for RM-CEN09, Trent-Severn Waterway. I went on the Canadian Hydrographic Survey site and they list it along with many others as 'Withdrawn'.
Any ideas why?
Anybody out there have a CD of RM-CEN09 that they would lend me to load into my software? It would be sent back as soon as it is loaded in.
PM me if so.
I really don't want to have to start looking at new software at this point.
TIA
Len Buchanan

 

[DDW]

I thought the CHS, like NOAA, said some time ago they were getting out of the raster chart business. Both going to vector charts only. They had a timeline for when specific chart sets would sunset.

You are probably going to have to drop PolarView eventually, hasn't been offered or updated in a number of years now. It was a good thing while it lasted. I had to move on to OpenCPN, which is comparable and continues to be developed.

 

[JackConnick]

You can buy Canadian vecrtor charts through OpenCPN for $25 a set.
You can use both vector and raster and the same time with a split window if you want.

 

[LenBuchanan]

Not having ever used OpenCPN, are they seemless going from one chart to the next? What about the 'harbor' charts that are enlarged? With the NOAA Raster Charts, there are embedded charts for harbors that are enlarged to show more detail. Does OpenCPN work the same way?

 

[Portage_Bay]

OpenCPN is seamless between charts if you have quilting enabled. Turn it off to see the details that may be hidden by quilting on a raster chart.For example Notes. I do actually read those, a hold over from paper chart days. I'll dig around in my raster charts to fine one with an inset chartlet to refresh my memory on how those are handled.

Not having ever used OpenCPN, are they seemless going from one chart to the next? What about the 'harbor' charts that are enlarged? With the NOAA Raster Charts, there are embedded charts for harbors that are enlarged to show more detail. Does OpenCPN work the same way?

 

[LenBuchanan]

Another question without hopefully being too annoying. I was on the NOAA site and used the ENC chart viewer for and selected my home area. Unlike the RNC charts the ENC viewer did not show navigation cans coming into my marina or any other marina for that matter. It that a function of the viewer I'm using on the NOAA site and not an actual chartplotter? I thought there would be more detail, although layered with an ENC vs RNC. Isn't an ENC a Vector chart?
I don't want to lose the functionality and detail I see from an RNC. I will probably download OpenCPN and begin using it, I just have my 'old age' doubts.
TIA

 

[DDW]

If you have used PolarNavy, you will find OpenCPN similar in capability. It seamlessly stitches charts, including the CHS ones, even at the boarder with NOAA, even when different scales. Zooming in will select an appropriately scaled chart from the set, so zoomed way in you will have the harbor chart. Unlike PolarNavy, you have more control of which are displayed (sometimes you don't want its choice of chart). If you have the unencrypted CHS CDs, you can load those into OpenCPN. NOAA charts can be downloaded for free right in the app (both RNC and vector).

That said there is a learning curve for OpenCPN, not too bad as these things go, the documentation is pretty good but not perfect. There are other guides and Youtube videos to use as tutorials.

 

[Portage_Bay]

I've not used NOAA's ENC chart viewer so cannot offer any meaningful comment on that.

Regarding detail on ENC. There is both more and less than RNC / raster. With RNC what you see is what you get. Other than what I mentioned above about turning off quilting to see notes it's all there. ENC has quite a learning curve to get the full use of the charts. OpenCPN will let you custom configure what you see on ENC, another learning curve.

I prefer RNC to ENC but we don't have a choice. NOAA is in the process of sunsetting RNC. Raster will be gone by Jan 2025. As far as I know CHS is or already has sunsetted RNC. So, reluctantly, I have to learn how to get what I want out of ENC.

In addition to YouTube a good place to seek help on OpenCPN is Cruiser's Forum where they have a dedicated OpenCPN section.

Another question without hopefully being too annoying. I was on the NOAA site and used the ENC chart viewer for and selected my home area. Unlike the RNC charts the ENC viewer did not show navigation cans coming into my marina or any other marina for that matter. It that a function of the viewer I'm using on the NOAA site and not an actual chartplotter? I thought there would be more detail, although layered with an ENC vs RNC. Isn't an ENC a Vector chart?
I don't want to lose the functionality and detail I see from an RNC. I will probably download OpenCPN and begin using it, I just have my 'old age' doubts.
TIA

 

[CaptTom]

I miss Polar Navy. Another one I'm going to miss is MX Mariner. Easily one of the best chartplotter app I've ever used. But it only supports raster charts, and I don't think it's being updated.

I can't speak for the CHS charts, but the US vector charts are missing a lot of data. Not buoys, soundings, rocks or things like that. But things like place names and shoreside structure. Technically, these are not necessary for navigating, but very helpful if you need to call for assistance. I always liked knowing where I was. I find myself bringing up Google Maps on the cell phone now when I'm off an unfamiliar coast. I guess there's no sense duplicating that data on charts.

 

[Portage_Bay]

Yes, I too find vector charts lacking in some details. But some of what appears to be lacking is the chart plotter and how it is set up. So much to learn.

I never thought I'd say this but in some ways Navionics has NOAA vector charts beat. I'll have OpenCPN on the laptop and Navionics on a tablet or Garmin device. I don't fully trust Navionics but it can help to fill in the blanks.

I miss Polar Navy. Another one I'm going to miss is MX Mariner. Easily one of the best chartplotter app I've ever used. But it only supports raster charts, and I don't think it's being updated.

I can't speak for the CHS charts, but the US vector charts are missing a lot of data. Not buoys, soundings, rocks or things like that. But things like place names and shoreside structure. Technically, these are not necessary for navigating, but very helpful if you need to call for assistance. I always liked knowing where I was. I find myself bringing up Google Maps on the cell phone now when I'm off an unfamiliar coast. I guess there's no sense duplicating that data on charts.

 

[klee wyck]

Yes, I too find vector charts lacking in some details. But some of what appears to be lacking is the chart plotter and how it is set up. So much to learn.

I never thought I'd say this but in some ways Navionics has NOAA vector charts beat. I'll have OpenCPN on the laptop and Navionics on a tablet or Garmin device. I don't fully trust Navionics but it can help to fill in the blanks.

I have no idea how this works in eastern Canada but tend to agree with Portage out here in the West.
For example, I have CHS electronic charts and Navionics for Vancouver Island and North. I find Navionics more useful.

 

[Circumnavigator]

I can't speak for the CHS charts, but the US vector charts are missing a lot of data. Not buoys, soundings, rocks or things like that. But things like place names and shoreside structure. Technically, these are not necessary for navigating, but very helpful if you need to call for assistance.

Agreed. On our canal trip in 2022 I noticed that the raster charts had local detail -- streets, railroads and so forth so you could see where the town was -- on which side of the canal.The vector charts had none of that -- just town names for towns 5-10 miles away, entirely useless.


We also found that the vector and raster charts disagreed about where the canal actually was. At times we were motoring along on land on one and in the middle of the canal in the other. That would be understandable if the presumably later vector chart were always the correct one, but that wasn't the case.


Jim

 

[Circumnavigator]

As for quilting in OpenCPN, it works perfectly across charts, insets, and suppliers. You can adjust the point at which the display shifts to the larger scale chart while zooming in. You can also turn off individual charts that are displayed with two clicks in order to see notes or detail hidden by one.


Jim

 

[DDW]

The problem with vector charts produced by government agencies is they are done in support of commercial shipping. Any recreational use is an afterthought, if it is thought of at all. Rendering of vector charts is a primitive level of AI: what do you draw that is important to the navigator at any point in time? The private versions (e.g., Navionics) seem to have put more effort into this, but raster charts, drawn by humans many of whom understand the needs of navigation, are still much better - and generally much prettier to look at.

 

[Bob M]

I've used NOAA charts and OpenCPN on a Windows PC, but not without some issues.


The first issue is the GPS link, which can be accomplished via a USB attached smartphone and with other devices. Both devices have to be operational while underway.


The second issue is OpenCPN on PC reliability. An otherwise reliable PC would sometimes crash or OpenCPN would sometimes lock up, not a happy thing to happen while underway.


The third issue is NOAA, they don't offer Canadian charts although Canadian charts are available that can be processed (rendered) by OpenCPN. NOAA charts are designed for commercial navigation and are the most accurate charts available. Other data useful for non-commercial navigation often can't be found on NOAA charts.

OpenCPN, like any software, has a learning curve, but the learning time is well worth the effort. However, I don't solely rely on it while underway. I use two navigation systems, one that uses NOAA data and an independent system that uses Navionics data. I look at navigation systems like engines, to mitigate stress, I want two of each.

 

[crusin_canuk]

As has been noted, like NOAA, CHS is in the process of cancelling all its RNCs. The logic being the when the idea of electronic navigation for commercial operators was first proposed, the aim was to have all charts in vector format in order to take the greatest advantage possible of the Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS) software. However, at the time there were no vector charts. So, raster charts were excepted as an interim measure until all charts could be produced in vector format. Well, it took a while, but the International Hydrographic Organization finally convinced/cajoled national hydrographic offices to finish converting their chart portfolios to vector. In CHS's case, this move is also in preparation for the adoption of the new ENC S-100 data exchange format.

And, again like NOAA, CHS's primary focus is on commercial vessel navigation. As such, much of the detail contained in paper charts is being omitted. That said, many of the placenames and feature names that were omitted in the past are being incorporated in newer or updated Canadian charts because even the commercial sailors like to know where they are.

As for the Trent-Severn Waterway, responsibility for surveying and charting the Trent-Severn Waterway actually rests with Parks Canada. However, Parks Canada usually requests that CHS conduct the surveys and revise/compile the charts. I had a look at CHS's chart website (https://www.charts.gc.ca/charts-cartes/purchase-achat/index-eng.html) and it appears that the Trent-Severn Waterway raster charts are still available, but as individual charts, not as part of a collection.

To answer Mr. Len's question regarding the absence of buoys, particularly those marking channels into marinas, CHS is increasingly disinclined to chart private buoys and marks. The exception would be if the buoys/marks were related to commercial vessel operations or omission would compromise safety of navigation, i.e. private buoys marking a channel into a privately owned commercial port facility.

Mr. Bob M, only national hydrographic offices, or their delegates, are authorized to sell their charts, so, no, NOAA will not sell CHS charts.

Yes, OpenCPN handles both CHS RNCs and ENCs. While NOAA and CHS coordinate the production of US and Canadian charts along the international border, it should be noted that the two nations use different chart datums. This should be noted on the chart with the respective datums.

A final note, under Canadian chart and publication carriage regulations, you MUST carry the current, up-to-date, largest scale PAPER chart for the area to be navigated (Navigation Safety Regulations, 2020, SOR/2020/216) , as well as Sailing Directions, Canadian Tide and Current Tables, List of Lights, Buoys and Fog Signals and Radio Aids to Navigation (if equipped with a marine radio).

 

[Bob M]

There is another issue with using OpenCPN on a computer, nits,a unit of measurement used to quantify the brightness of electronic displays. The nit measurement on most PC displays isn't high enough to produce good visibility in sunlight.



I really like OpenCPN, but as noted in my first post, there are issues.

 

[Still Boating]

A final note, under Canadian chart and publication carriage regulations, you MUST carry the current, up-to-date, largest scale PAPER chart for the area to be navigated (Navigation Safety Regulations, 2020, SOR/2020/216) , as well as Sailing Directions, Canadian Tide and Current Tables, List of Lights, Buoys and Fog Signals and Radio Aids to Navigation (if equipped with a marine radio).

Not that it isn't a good idea. I have paper charts too for the admiral to follow along, and to keep my home-brew equipment honest.

Your post, ALLCAPS of MUST and PAPER notwithstanding, does not represent what the law says. Please re-read all of Division 6 - Charts and Publications. Part 1, as found here:

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng...tml?txthl=edition+charted+recent+charts#s-142 on the Canadian Justice Laws Website https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/

Please note first of all:

Exception — less than 100 gross tonnage

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply in the case of a vessel of less than 100 gross tonnage, if the person in charge of navigation has sufficient knowledge of the following about where the vessel is to be navigated such that the safety and efficiency of navigation in that area will not be compromised:

Nowhere does it say "PAPER" in the law.

I would be happy to stand corrected if you quote me chapter and verse of the law from that site. At the Toronto Boat show, a sales rep for those nice waterproof charts insisted that I MUST buy PAPER charts. In the last Power Squadron course I took they said the same, but I can find no support for it in the law.

I was missing a couple of Trent-Severn charts and bought them last year from the first lock south of Peterborough. In fact, in checking on the site https://www.notmar.gc.ca/corrections-en.php?chart-carte=2023&date1=2000-01-31&date2=2023-01-01 for all my charts showed me that many charts have had no updates for decades, and "the latest" was as old as 2008 in one case. So, I am no longer worried about using my 2015 map on an obsolete Garmin.

So, my opinion is that charts are invaluable, and I like to have paper charts, but there is a too much misinformation about what the law says. Let's not confuse common sense with the law.

 

[Bob M]

It's useful when reading the referenced Canadian law to search for the word "printed". CNTRL+F will do the trick, if you are using Windows.


Printed documents are sometimes required, but mostly not for the type of craft I'd be using, particularly since I'd have ENC data and the means to render the graphics on a display.

 

[DDW]

I've been running OpenCPN on a MacBook Pro portable for years, I don't think I have ever seen it crash. The Raymarine MFDs crash more often by far. In a pilothouse, the display is plenty bright enough, I keep it turned down from max brightness to prevent blindness. I don't think I'd depend on it on a flybridge in direct sunlight (and direct rain), but in the pilothouse there aren't any downsides to it, and the price is right (free program, free charts in the USA).

 

[JackConnick]

While I have 2 Axiom+ RayMarine MFD's for actual navigation, I find them tedious for route planning. I use MacENC and OpenCPN for waypoints and routes, then transfer them over via a card to the RayMarine, or even use Airdrop to send to Navionics on my phone or iPad, then sync to the MFDs.


I sometimes follow along on OpenCPN as I find the display of AIS targets better and clearer than the Axioms as they get cluttered.


In other words, use the best tool for the task at hand...


Jack

 

[crusin_canuk]

Still Boating,

I was wondering if someone would cite that section.

I don't want to get into a pissing contest with you or anyone else about this, so this is all I will add. If you disagree, I suggest that you speak with Transport Canada, as it is they who make the rules for safety of navigation in Canada.

What you cited was one of three exceptions to the rule. The rule is defined in section 142 (1):

"Charts, documents and publications on board
142 (1) The master and authorized representative of a vessel must ensure that the most recent versions of the following charts, documents and publications, in respect
of each area where the vessel is scheduled to be navigated, are kept on board:

(a) the reference catalogue and the applicable charts referred to in the catalogue in their largest scale, that are published by or under the authority of (i) in the case of a Canadian vessel in Canadian waters, the Canadian Hydrographic Service, and

(ii) in any other case, the Canadian Hydrographic Service or the hydrographic office or other relevant government institution of a foreign state;..."

There is the "local knowledge" exception, as defined in section 142 (3), which you cited; the exception if the charts, documents and publications are not available, as defined in section 142 (4); and the exception for publications issued by a foreign state, as defined in section 142 (5).

You are correct, the regulation does not explicitly state paper chart, which I found to be ambiguous when I first read it. This ambiguity was causing a particular problem at my last place of employment (the Canadian Hydrographic Service) because it was being interpreted by some of my colleagues to include electronic charts. As a result, there arose an initiative at CHS to cease the production of paper charts, including the digital file used to print charts by the local chart dealers. Both as an employee of CHS and, at the time, a Canadian Power and Sail Squadron Electronic Navigation course instructor, I wanted to be certain exactly what Transport Canada had in mind when they formulated the new regulation. So, I wrote to the individual at Transport Canada responsible for the new regulation and asked if the new regulation allowed for the carriage of any form of official chart, i.e. paper, RNC or ENC. Here is his response:

"Good day,

Electronic charts are only authorized if displayed on an ECDIS, that is accompanied with proper backup arrangements, in accordance with section 143 of the Regulations.

Unless specified otherwise, digital publications are authorized. For example, section 142 (1) (f) requires the International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue Manual, Volume III, Mobile Facilities to be printed. Whereas the Sailing directions could be carried onboard digitally.

Best Regards
Alexandre Lavoie
Radio and Navigational Technical Advisor/Conseiller technique, radiocommunications et navigation
e-mail: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Transport Canada - Marine Safety and Security | Transports Canada - Sécurité et sûreté Maritime
Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada"

So, the use of electronic charts, RNCs and ENCs, are only permitted when used with a $100K+ ECDIS. And, in the absence of a second ECDIS, the backup is paper charts.

Given that there are only three official charts issued by CHS (paper, RNC and ENC), and RNCs and ENCs can only be use in conjunction with an ECDIS, that leaves paper charts as the sole remaining official chart for carriage by mariners. Note also that even if you purchase ENCs/RNCs from CHS, they are not considered official electronic charts if displayed on a non-ECDIS Electronic Chart System, i.e. OpenCPN, and, therefore, do not meet the regulator requirements. The reason being that the ENC/RNC is not considered a "chart" until it is displayed by an electronic navigation system. The only electronic navigation system that can display an official chart is a certified ECDIS. I'm not going to quote you chapter and verse. If you need confirmation, go have a look at the International Hydrographic Organization and International Maritime Organization websites. They are the two international organizations responsible for charting and safety of navigation outside of national authorities. Or, sit the exam to qualify to operate an ECDIS, as I did. Or, if you have nothing else to do with your time, peruse the SOLAS Treaty.


As for the "local knowledge" exception, this is the scenario I used to present to my students when they asked:

You are boating in your usual cruising grounds. You are confident that you know the area well enough that you do not need to carry an official chart. During the course of your journey, you strike a submerged rock that was recently advertised by NtM as a result of a recent bathymetric survey (Believe me, it happens all the time. If you don't believe me, have a look at Canadian NtMs for the last five years for Atlantic Canada.), causing significant damage to your vessel and serious injury to the family and friends you had on board.

After reporting the incident to the appropriate authorities, an investigation is initiated. During questioning, you are asked if you were carrying the appropriate official chart for the area, to which you reply "no." When asked why not, you claim to have sufficient local knowledge of the waters in which you were navigating. To which the investigator asked why you struck the rock if you knew it was there because, by definition, local knowledge includes a sufficient knowledge of all hazards to navigation.

From section 142 (3), Navigation Safety Regulation, 2020, SOR/2020/216:

"Exception — less than 100 gross tonnage Exception — jauge brute de moins de 100

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply in the case of a vessel
of less than 100 gross tonnage, if the person in charge of
navigation has sufficient knowledge of the following
about where the vessel is to be navigated such that the
safety and efficiency of navigation in that area will not be
compromised:

(a) the location and character of charted

(i) shipping routes,

(ii) lights, buoys and marks, and

(iii) navigational hazards; and

(b) the prevailing navigational conditions, taking into
account such factors as tides, currents, and ice and
weather patterns."

Now, think carefully about your response. If you admit that you didn't know about the existence of the rock, you are no longer exempt from carrying a chart. If you admit to knowing about the rock, then you are either reckless for attempting to drive over it or incompetent for having ignored the hazard.

So, which is it? Either way, I'm sure your insurance company will be less than impressed.

The only misinformation out there about the carriage requirements is cause by people not accepting what they are being told by competent sources. You're not being told to carry paper charts because someone wants to sell you one, they are saying so because it's the law. The problem as I see it is that people don't want to fork over $20-30 for a paper chart, after paying $250K for their brand-spanking-new toy. As a mariner, either professional or recreational, you are responsible to follow all the applicable laws and regulations. That includes ColRegs, environmental laws and regulation, and, yes, safety of navigation regulations. If you're not sure about something and you refuse to believe what people are telling you, consult an authoritative source, i.e. Transport Canada, Canadian Coastguard, Environment Canada, CHS.

Nough said.

 

[Still Boating]

crusin_canuk;

It appears that I'm the one to cite that section.

Since you cited chapter and verse I stand educated and corrected. I ought to delete that cartoon on my post but can't because the edit button is no longer visible.

It is indeed unfortunate that even you and the Canadian Hydrographic service were initially misled by the ambiguity, and that you needed further clarification from Alexandre Lavoie.

Question:

You said, "Note also that even if you purchase ENCs/RNCs from CHS, they are not considered official electronic charts if displayed on a non-ECDIS Electronic Chart System, i.e. OpenCPN, and, therefore, do not meet the regulator requirements. The reason being that the ENC/RNC is not considered a "chart" until it is displayed by an electronic navigation system. The only electronic navigation system that can display an official chart is a certified ECDIS. I'm not going to quote you chapter and verse."

I'm looking at https://www.charts.gc.ca/copyright-droitdauteur/index-eng.html which says, "Value-Added Reseller products do not meet the chart carriage and use requirements of the Canada Shipping Act (Navigation Safety Regulations, 2020) and the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. VAR products must carry a disclaimer to this effect." I have seen the disclaimer when buying the O-Charts version.

Does what you said mean that the O-charts have all the information that the ECDIS Electronic Chart System uses, only without the ECDIS certification?

 

[DDW]

There are many practical problems with the CHS carriage requirements, ignoring the legal ones. Among them: the proposed recently discovered rock assumes that the NtM are diligently read the moment they appear, and all paper charts on board corrected to be in line with them. This is rarely (I would say "almost never") done on a recreational yacht.

Second, it requires that the largest scale chart of the area traversed is carried. If you are cruising say the Gulf of St. Lawrence, or the BC coast, this isn't a $20 or $30 chart, this in many hundreds of dollars, or perhaps thousands of dollars of charts at the CHS price.

Thirdly, since the raster charts and files to print them are being discontinued, and the penetration of an ECDIS into the recreational yacht market is vanishingly small, what is the intent of the CHS rules WRT the recreational navigator?

You have clarified the legal requirement, however following it to the letter is as a matter of fact impractical for recreational boaters, and very nearly no one does.

 

[Northern Spy]

As for the "local knowledge" exception, this is the scenario I used to present to my students when they asked:

You are boating in your usual cruising grounds. You are confident that you know the area well enough that you do not need to carry an official chart. During the course of your journey, you strike a submerged rock that was recently advertised by NtM as a result of a recent bathymetric survey (Believe me, it happens all the time. If you don't believe me, have a look at Canadian NtMs for the last five years for Atlantic Canada.), causing significant damage to your vessel and serious injury to the family and friends you had on board.

After reporting the incident to the appropriate authorities, an investigation is initiated. During questioning, you are asked if you were carrying the appropriate official chart for the area, to which you reply "no." When asked why not, you claim to have sufficient local knowledge of the waters in which you were navigating. To which the investigator asked why you struck the rock if you knew it was there because, by definition, local knowledge includes a sufficient knowledge of all hazards to navigation.

From section 142 (3), Navigation Safety Regulation, 2020, SOR/2020/216:

"Exception — less than 100 gross tonnage Exception — jauge brute de moins de 100

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply in the case of a vessel
of less than 100 gross tonnage, if the person in charge of
navigation has sufficient knowledge of the following
about where the vessel is to be navigated such that the
safety and efficiency of navigation in that area will not be
compromised:

(a) the location and character of charted

(i) shipping routes,

(ii) lights, buoys and marks, and

(iii) navigational hazards; and

(b) the prevailing navigational conditions, taking into
account such factors as tides, currents, and ice and
weather patterns."

Now, think carefully about your response. If you admit that you didn't know about the existence of the rock, you are no longer exempt from carrying a chart. If you admit to knowing about the rock, then you are either reckless for attempting to drive over it or incompetent for having ignored the hazard.

So, which is it? Either way, I'm sure your insurance company will be less than impressed.

So what about if we hit the rock which is uncharted (by the CHS)? Can my insurance company be equally impressed with the CHS?

Closest I can find on CanLii.org is Adventurer Owner Ltd. v. Canada in which a commercial vessel was in Artic waters and hit an uncharted shoal. A NOTSHIP had been issued and broadcast for 2 weeks in the local area and posted to the website, but the NOTMAR took 3 years to be published. The Court ruled the NOTSHIP was sufficient.

But interestingly enough, the Court also found that they “should have known there were uncharted shoals”. Which, actually seems reasonable to me, considering the location.

From a recreational boat point of view, the best practice isn't necessarily just meeting the legal obligation, but the due diligence associated with navigation of a vessel. And yes I subscribe to NOTMARS, and listen for warnings on 16. I would hazard that insurance companies pay if you are practicing due diligence.

The interactive map is a great resource in Canada for updates:

https://e-navigation.canada.ca/interactive-map

https://e-nav.ccg-gcc.evouala.com/application/run/950/embedded

Sufficient knowledge includes knowledge gained from other publications, local knowledge, and observation.

I still maintain that I rarely navigate, but pilot, my vessel in my local waters.

 

[crusin_canuk]

Still Boating,

I think the ambiguity arose from the fact that the CHS had recently ceased the printing of paper charts. We were still producing the print-on-demand files, but we were getting out of the business of actually printing charts, leaving that to the chart dealers. So, it seemed to follow that paper charts would eventually go by the wayside.

That, combined with what I consider to be the unnecessary confusion caused by the use of the terms Electronic Navigational Chart/Raster Navigational Chart, thus creating the impression that the digital file is the equivalent of a paper chart, which it is not.



As for the quality of the VAR products, that is entirely in the hands of those producers. I have seen both good and bad. I have seen some data striped out (I suspect in the interest of file size and software performance), while other producers add some very useful information. All I can suggest is that you carefully compare the information in your ECS with the official paper chart. As for O-charts, I have not had the opportunity to examine their products. As well, it's a good idea to use an ECS that has the capability to add the chart corrections provided by NtMs. That way you can keep your charts up-to-date between chart package updates.

DDW,

As Northern Spy noted, it is possible to register to receive NtM updates by email for the charts you are interested in. NtMs are published weekly, but that's not to say that your chart(s) will have updates weekly.

As for the discontinuation of paper charts, cooler heads prevailed once clarification was received. (Not from me, but from much higher up the food chain.) As I was retiring, there were some prototypes of a revised cartographic presentation for paper charts being circulated for comment. As a cartographer, I was not impressed, but things my have changed. The bottom line is that paper charts are required for commercial operators, so their continued existence is assured in some form or another for the foreseeable future.

Yup, you are correct that if you travel far and wide, the required chart portfolio can get pricey, as I discovered when we moved our boat from Georgian Bay to Halifax. At the time, it cost me over $1500 for the RNCs and paper charts. It's the cost of doing business.

Northern Spy,

You missed the point. If the hazard isn't charted, no one is going to hold you accountable. If it is and you run afoul of said hazard, you run the risk of suffering the consequences. And knowing insurance companies, they will use any excuse to deny a claim. Which means that you would have to pursue a legal option. Much cheaper to buy the chart, IMHO.

As for the MV Clipper Adventurer, that incident caused quite a stir at the office. My Regional Director actually ended up testifying at the trial. As with most accidents, the grounding resulted from a number of contributing factors. However, ultimately the master was deemed responsible.

In a nutshell, the navigation officer failed to check for NOTSHIPs because of the NavOs was unaware of the Canadian NOTSHIP system, and the master did not ensuring that the NavO was aware of the NOTSHIP system. That said, you have to understand that Canada was unique in having this system, so it is somewhat understandable that the NavO was unaware of its existence. You may have noticed that the Canadian Coast Guard has discontinued NOTSHIPs. This was a direct result of the MV Clipper Adventurer incident. We now have NAVWARMs, which conform more closely to international practices.

Compounding this, the master decided, in the interest of making up some lost time, to traverse an area that was sparsely, and I mean sparsely, surveyed, as opposed to back-tracking along the route taken to the destination immediately prior to the grounding in order to enter a well known, safe channel that would eventually lead to the next destination. As I recall, there may have been a half dozen leadline sounding lines throughout the area in which the Clipper Adventurer went aground. That said, there were sufficient warnings on the chart in the form of notes regarding the possible existence of uncharted hazards, as you noted.

[FONT=&quot]There's that common sense thing again. A professional, experienced crew ignoring information (notes/warnings) and the obvious lack of information (next to no bathymetic data), in favour of adhering to a schedule. Wasn't there a similar case back in 1912?[/FONT]