Nordhavn salvage

I believe I could pick up and continue after the loss of a boat, although haven't ever experienced it so can't absolutely know. My fear is loss of life. If someone lost their life on my boat, around it, I don't know. I don't know if someone slipped on my patio or if I was in an auto accident with a fatality. But the loss of a life on my boat, entrusting their life to me, I'm not sure I could ever boat again. That is and always will be my greatest fear in boating.

A couple of lessons we are all taking from this tragic loss:

Don't trust your navigation to only one source;

Know that your charts must be zoomed out and in on a regular and frequent basis, so that all levels of detail are obvious.

The lesson for users of vector charts from this and the Volvo ocean race incidents show how bad the situation can get if you fail to zoom in from time ot time.

Sealife said:

Simple solution to the chart debate. I run two plotters, one zoomed out and one zoomed in. I even use different software to cross check by changing which is in and which is out. Works great. Even if your second plotter is just an iPad.

Picked up this trick doing delivery, when I brought my own nav. equipment as backup and the vessel had it's own which continued to work.

Click to expand...

To me, I think the Golden Rule in boating is to cross check everything in as many ways as possible looking for corroborating evidence. And if you find any discrepancy, figure out why.

Exactly how you do the cross checks I think is much less important that just doing them at all. You can cross check paper charts against chart plotter, two chat plotter views against each other....whatever is available to you, and the more the better. Discrepancies should always be red flags until completely explained.

The takeaway for me is that anytime we leave the main marked channel, cross check the route on both raster AND vector chart as we go. We already have both available. I do that now but not at the same time. I plan my route in the morrning on the paper chartbook. Enroute, I mainly just use the Garmin chartplotter. I realize I have been relying on the STAR principle (Shoot That Ain't Right!) to keep me out of trouble. I have to force self compliance until it becomes habit. Then, once a habit, don't allow persceived time pressure to take a shortcut.

Crusty Chief said:

This was a tragic loss and I applaud the couple for taking the time to post this mishap. Not sure I would feel up to posting an incident like this given that they lost a very nice boat and owning up to not only the cause but the end result.

If only more people in this world would accept responsibility for their actions as this couple did. I hope they can get over this and at some point find another boat to continue on.

Click to expand...

He made reference to flying in the blog. I think he might come from an aviation background. And in aviation, one must be immediately accountable. You can tell by his self reflection of the entire ordeal. In aviation we do that via "protected reports". So it is almost natural to report an incident since we have done it so many times(the report...not the accident). Even his policy/procedure of cross checking is exactly how we check an oceanic route.

NOW....we have all read it!!! What is the solution??? We can talk about procedure. But I have a solution that should be very easy. In airplanes we have a GPWS...ground proximity warning system. We kinda have them on our depth sound era except our depth alarms are reactive and not predictive(we have both on airplanes). IOW, a depth sounder can only tell you what is under the boat. Forward looking systems are expensive. Why can't there be a way(or is there) to program a protective and predictive algorithm that would warn us when we are about to hit something or go into water shallower than a preset limit?? It would have to be a function of not just direction/heading, but speed as well. And when I say speed, mean time. In inland waterways we are always pointed at land. But if we were able to set a 30 second to implact type of warning based on speed and course...

I do realize that this would be the last layer of safety and not something to rely upon. I also realize it would only be as reliable as the underlying database. But had they had this, it would not have happened. And it would seem to be an easy algorithm with today's computing power.

Just a thought.... not only an audible alarm but a visual one as well. And one that changed color and heightened alert as impact got closer.

hy can't there be a way(or is there) to program a protective and predictive algorithm that would warn us when we are about to hit something or go into water shallower than a preset limit??

Click to expand...

Depth alarms are available on most integrated systems I am aware of. As are alarms for approaching certain way points, or MARPA for radar targets. There were a few tight and irregulalry shaped anchorages where I liked to set my depth alarm.

caltexflanc said:

Depth alarms are available on most integrated systems I am aware of. As are alarms for approaching certain way points, or MARPA for radar targets. There were a few tight and irregulalry shaped anchorages where I liked to set my depth alarm.

Click to expand...

Not really what I am getting at. Depth alarms are reactive. IOW, It has already happened. This jetty likely had deep water right up until impact. The chartplotter knows we're you are. And it knows where the shallow water is and where the obstructions are. Why not have an algorithm that can alarm you both audibly and visually when you are pointed at something and impact is imminent????

A little history....on airplanes, our radar altimeters are a depth sounder....literally. There is no radar to them...really a radio altimeter that works exactly like a depth sounder. The Original GPWS was based on closure rates to terrain and some other factors. But it was pointing straight down. It was useful but it was limited in that it could not see ahead and predict ahead of time. But then they developed EGPWS where the E stands for Enhanced and it is EXACTLY what I am talking about here. It uses a GPS database and it knows where the terrain and obstructions are. Based on speed and course and altitude, it will give you various levels of warning based on time to impact. If you turn away, the warning goes away. If you climb, the warning goes away. But if you maintain course, it will go from caution level to warning level with increasing audible warnings.

The software and algorithms cannot be too terribly complex to not be able to put them on a chartplotter. Hell, ARPA, seems to be more complex than what I am talking about. I am actually somewhat surprised that something like this is not already out there. Maybe it is a liability issue where someone could litigate that the warning did not go off???

There are plotters now that will auto-draw a route that avoids various depths and any barriers and link to your AP, if you quest for nanny technology. Up until someone puts something in the way, or sinks something or a shoal is created since your chart was last updated....

caltexflanc said:

There are plotters now that will auto-draw a route that avoids various depths and any barriers and link to your AP, if you quest for nanny technology. Up until someone puts something in the way, or sinks something or a shoal is created since your chart was last updated....

Click to expand...

It is not a quest for nanny technology. It is a last layer of safety. A layer that would have likely prevented this incident from happening. Safety comes in layers. And if you have a hole in one layer, then hopefully the next layer will catch it. That's how it works in the aviation world.

And I would say that 90%+ of boat's out there are not on a planned route that was put into the plotter. And I already said that this technology was only as good as the underlying database. But yes, a route that avoids shallow water and obstructions is a start.

Hey, I just figured if it was good enough for a $100,000,000+ airplane I thought it might be good enough for a boat. And I can't imagine it being a complex program for the average chartplotter.

Ah...the Swiss Cheese model of accidents....instead of the neanderthal "accident chain".

Worked with an expert of it when he and his partner were introducing it to the military back in the late 90s. Cool Navy guy...

This guy,... Scott Shappell....

Douglas A. Wiegmann & Scott A. Shappell (2003).*A Human Error Approach to Aviation Accident Analysis: The Human Factors Analysis and Classification System. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. pp.*48–49

Baker said:

It is not a quest for nanny technology. It is a last layer of safety. A layer that would have likely prevented this incident from happening. Safety comes in layers. And if you have a hole in one layer, then hopefully the next layer will catch it. That's how it works in the aviation world.

And I would say that 90%+ of boat's out there are not on a planned route that was put into the plotter. And I already said that this technology was only as good as the underlying database. But yes, a route that avoids shallow water and obstructions is a start.

Hey, I just figured if it was good enough for a $100,000,000+ airplane I thought it might be good enough for a boat. And I can't imagine it being a complex program for the average chartplotter.

Click to expand...

Who said there was anything wrong with nannies? Personally, I think the safety issues are far more complex and far more life threatening in the air than they are on water, particularly pleasure boating in coastal and protected waters. I took some flying lessons back in the day, and flew frequently with friends. Even did a lot of gliding. I determined that I was not cut out for being a pilot, too much dyslexia and ADD; things that led to a variety of "learning experiences" on the water but would have been fatal in the air.

I have the utmost respect for pilots, not unlike guys who can hit major league pitching, another, for me (and I am glad to say the Michael Jordans of the world) impossible feat.

psneeld said:

Ah...the Swiss Cheese model of accidents....instead of the neanderthal "accident chain".

Worked with an expert of it when he and his partner were introducing it to the military back in the late 90s. Cool Navy guy...

This guy,... Scott Shappell....

Douglas A. Wiegmann & Scott A. Shappell (2003).*A Human Error Approach to Aviation Accident Analysis: The Human Factors Analysis and Classification System. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. pp.*48–49

Click to expand...

Now you have me interested so I am going to read it. You can find a PDF version of it here

I did download it but deleted it as I saw the research before the published paper.

try googling the paper title or Swiss cheese accident analysis.

if no joy, PM me and I will get you a link.

caltexflanc said:

Who said there was anything wrong with nannies? Personally, I think the safety issues are far more complex and far more life threatening in the air than they are on water, particularly pleasure boating in coastal and protected waters. I took some flying lessons back in the day, and flew frequently with friends. Even did a lot of gliding. I determined that I was not cut out for being a pilot, too much dyslexia and ADD; things that led to a variety of "learning experiences" on the water but would have been fatal in the air.

I have the utmost respect for pilots, not unlike guys who can hit major league pitching, another, for me (and I am glad to say the Michael Jordans of the world) impossible feat.

Click to expand...

Sorry man. I misunderstood. Usually the term "nanny" as it relates to technology in the automobile safety is a derogatory term. In aviation, we will take all the nannies we can get....

As far as hitting a major league pitch....if you haven't seen it, search youtube for the "anatomy of hitting a major league pitch". They break it down into the .001 seconds since the thing travels from the pitchers hand to the plate in less than a second. I have no clue how they do it.

I think you're onto something here, Baker.

Seems like a perfect compliment to the Navionics Sonar Charts that get crowd-sourced updates autonomously by many compatible chartplotters. A predictive, passive warning system that would not require human programming or intervention until a warning activates. To minimize false alerts, one should be able to control the protective bubble's time, depth and distance parameters.

Baker said:

Sorry man. I misunderstood. Usually the term "nanny" as it relates to technology in the automobile safety is a derogatory term. In aviation, we will take all the nannies we can get....

As far as hitting a major league pitch....if you haven't seen it, search youtube for the "anatomy of hitting a major league pitch". They break it down into the .001 seconds since the thing travels from the pitchers hand to the plate in less than a second. I have no clue how they do it.

Click to expand...

Thread drift, but back in the day when I was young and somewhat able, I got to stand in the box against Vida Blue and then Kenny Holtzman of the great A's teams (many whom were customers of mine at the stereo store I managed, especially Reggie Jackson). They were taking it easy on us in case we couldn't get out of the way of big league chin music. I quickly came to the conclusion that anyone who could simply put the ball into play on a consistent basis was worth big money, and anyone who could hit safely 30% of the time was worth any amount of money an owner could afford.

Peter B said:

One thing that came out of the reef stranding of that Volvo round the world race yacht ( Team Vestas) a couple of years ago, where they grounded on what was, in effect, a small coral island near Madagascar, was that details that are actually potentially visible, may not be if you are zoomed out a bit much, and forget to zoom back in for more detail. That being the big advantage of the paper chart of course, in that not having zoom functions, they have to show everything.

Volvo Ocean Race Team Vestas

Click to expand...

twistedtree said:

I would respectfully disagree that paper charts are the only solution. Most chart plotters can display raster charts as well as vector charts. If you switch to the raster charts, you see exactly what's on that paper chart. So in this example, it's paper or electronic raster chart would show you the same thing.

But even that's not the problem. The issue is that charts at different scales show different levels of detail, and this is true for paper, raster, and vector charts alike. There are lots and lots of large scale paper/raster charts that don't show critical hazards, where the smaller scale chart of the same area does show the details.

So I think the real issues is that you need to check your route at various scales, down to the smallest, to ensure you see everything. This is true with all chart types. I would argue that with electronic charts it's much easier to switch scales vs digging out more paper charts. Where vector charts can lure you into trouble is that the source data has many scales, where raster charts might have 2 or 3 for any given area.

Click to expand...

And with respect, that is not what I actually said. I did not ever say they were the only solution - heaven forbid. I was really just pointing out exactly what you have just said. However, the charts do have the benefit of the fact that what you see is what you get. Obviously it is wise to have the appropriately scaled charts as well.

However, the GPS charts do have the info, just that as you say, it is a case of scanning through the zoom ranges to make sure you are not about to become undone, by assuming you have seen all there is to see.

Baker said:

Why can't there be a way(or is there) to program a protective and predictive algorithm that would warn us when we are about to hit something or go into water shallower than a preset limit?? It would have to be a function of not just direction/heading, but speed as well. And when I say speed, mean time. In inland waterways we are always pointed at land. But if we were able to set a 30 second to implact type of warning based on speed and course...

Click to expand...

I think its easily possible, maybe even relatively trivial software development. Given a rhumb line with vessel speed from a GPS, vector charts know what's in front of you, obstructions, depths, etc. within a given time period.

Our plotter already draws that rhumb line, but without emphasis. Doesn't seem like it would be difficult to make that sucker flash, and/or to fire off some bells, whistles, and hooters if obstructions or shallows are impending.

-Chris

ranger42c said:

I think its easily possible, maybe even relatively trivial software development. Given a rhumb line with vessel speed from a GPS, vector charts know what's in front of you, obstructions, depths, etc. within a given time period.

Our plotter already draws that rhumb line, but without emphasis. Doesn't seem like it would be difficult to make that sucker flash, and/or to fire off some bells, whistles, and hooters if obstructions or shallows are impending.

-Chris

Click to expand...

It could even have a "pop up" feature. Say you are not zoomed into the scale that provide enough detail to show the obstruction... Have a pop up when something dangerous is ahead and have it pop up on the screen in a box already zoomed in.

I do see a problem if you are in a winding/narrow channel or even one with a bend up ahead. The program does not know you are going to turn to stay in the channel and it might be nuisance alerts when that happens.

Step one in warning is this. You use the navigation program to program a route, make adjustments, double and triple check. You look at it in detail, very close. That's a double check as they system is given your draft and warns you of dangers when creating the route.

So now you have a safe route. Then much like not letting a car leave the lane without warning, you have warning for anytime you vary from the programmed route.

The detail looking at the charts is done before leaving the dock or hauling in the anchor. That leaves the operator free to keep their eyes on the road on everything in front, with charts secondary while under way. You also have all your notes from the navigation planning.

Out of curiosity, how do you tell if a boat you're looking to buy had been sunk? Is there an equivalent to CARFAX?