Are paper charts still necessary and relevant?

oceanfroggie said:
Volts, radio signals, Jet A1, etc, have been getting all of us safely around the skies for decades.
Click to expand...

I think we might have goofed and overlooked one potentially lifesaving feature with paper charts that electronics cant offer us...............

1)
Lightning strike takes out all electrics

2)
retrieve the ipad from the oven

3)
engine electrics fried, your immobile

4)
use selotape to join Haydans 3ft chart series of the British Isles together.

5)
Use the reverse of sixty foot square chart and write HELP on it to try to flag a ship down.
 
Last edited:
Well, I said at the beginning that "I still find this done to death debate quite entertaining", and this thread is no exception.
Makes me wonder how many between us have ever been out at sea in a position where a sudden TOTAL loss of ANY navigation tools (and I mean ANY, compass and paper charts included, for good measure) could have created a life threatening situation.
I mean, of course if you're half way from San Diego to Honolulu, you'd better not miss your target, because the next harbour is not exactly round the corner.
But I suspect that most of us moboers are used to cruise along routes/distances where the visual references alone, or at worst the sun/stars/moon position, used with some common sense, would be enough to reach some civilised place without much effort.

After all, plenty of moboers regularly reach the Italian or Spanish coasts from Northern Africa, with vessels and navigation skills/equipments that we wouldn't consider good enough for crossing a swimming pool. And in fact, occasionally they do sink, but surely for none of those poor souls the major concern has ever been the lack of charts - regardless of whether paper or electronic.

Let's face it, any bit of equipment can fail, no matter how simple/complex it is: plotters, seacocks, aircrafts, you name it.
Also paper charts, they can fly away with a gust of wind.
Christ, even when everything works, we could still have a good old heart attack!
Should we stay ashore, closer to a hospital, just in case? :)

Bottom line, the only possible answer to the "necessary" part of the OP initial question is NO, period.
The "relevant" part is obviously more subjective, and it's pointless to look for objective conclusions on any "each to their own" matter.
What I find hard to understand is why many of those who root for the "paper" side try to deny the evidence that paper chart are NOT necessary anymore.

I accept - as anyone else who root for the "electronic" side, as far as I can say - that paper for someone can be easier than plotters or PCs.
I also accept that planning on paper charts can be entertaining for someone, and also that paper fans can feel safer with them.
Otoh, navigation - as well as boating as a whole, actually - for myself is only a mean to an end, i.e. enjoying the sea.
Paper charts used to be the only possible way to achieve this goal, therefore I had to live with them for a while.
But since a faster, easier and most effective way to achieve the same result became available, I stored the charts in a drawer, and they are now history.
Of course, boating mates who think it's unsafe to go at sea without them have always the option to not cruise with us.
But I've yet to find any! :D
 
dear all,
why don't we all agree to disagree and get on with life?

some of the Qs and points put forward by the chart lovers are imnsho 20+yo offtrack and/or refer to 2nd/3rd hand experience.
It's like any facet of life; at some point computing entered by first mimicing the analogue media and then eventually developing it's own means, methods, interfaces, etc more often than not, overtaking the previous methods and techniques.

I have no problem whatsoever with ppl using charts and being exceptionally happy with them, but going a step further and saying that you're irresponsible, a Darwin award nominee, or plain idiot to go about your way without them, that I'm afraid is plain insulting and not entertaining...
On 11pages, it's only Ellesar meeting DAKA to figure out if and how something can be done, the others I doubt managed to persuade one another that they are wrong :D
Further there's no flaming and handbag bashing so no fun from that respect either :rolleyes:

cheers

V.
 
Woud some kind person please just SHOOT this thread and put it out of its misery. 2x12 bore should do it.

parapet.gif
 
Just to say, I nearly never used paper charts to plot a course, but just to see the over view. Mostly, if I used the plotter, which was mainly for going long distances. Or I would some times use the plotter so the auto pilot could lock on to it.

With in a hundred miles of Plymouth, I hardly used anything, except maybe a waypoint on Portland light house, just so I was going straight line.

BUT. There are one or two rocks, in the middle of no where that could catch the unwary out, if not scanned every inch on the plotter.

Yes, my main plotter was old, but it ran the auto pilot and radar. If I changed it, I would have to change the radar and auto pilot. But they were all perfect.

Once out of the charts area, I could use the little garmin, just to check that I had plotted my main Raythion right, but the problem was as I said before. Zoomed in it picked up my close buoy, zoom out and there were no buoys.
 
MapisM said:
And yes, the engines would still be running, 'cause they are completely mechanic.
Click to expand...
You keep saying this Mapism and I keep pointing out to you that in modern diesel engines, the stop solenoid is positively energised so no electricity means no fuel and no engine. As for paper charts, I always have paper charts on board for the area in which I am cruising for the following reasons
1) I have experienced failure of the plotter screen and the GPS engine in the past. In fact, on my last trip on my boat, I experienced an intermittent plotter screen black out. Most boats do not have a completely independent second electronic navigation system so for most people, their only back up is a paper chart
2) Electronic cartography is not always 100% accurate. I have come across far too many inaccuracies in electronic charts to completely trust them. For example, there is a rock the size of a house just outside my home marina entrance in Croatia which is not shown on my apparently up-to-date Navionics electronic chart
3) Plotter screens are small and paper charts are large. It is very difficult to plot the most direct route through an intricate coastline on a plotter screen simply because it isn't large enough and if you zoom out, the detail disappears. You cannot beat a paper chart for this kind of planning
4) Lastly, if you made a claim on your insurance for damaging your boat due to hitting an object marked on a chart, IMHO your insurance company may try to argue negligence if you did not have a detailed paper chart of the area on board at the time. That's maybe a contentious point but these days, insurance companies try to wriggle out of everything
 
yes mike and with a little ingenuity

5) the charts can be sellotaped together, strengthened with gaffer tape in order to form a Bermuda rig :cool:
 
Deleted User said:
You keep saying this Mapism and I keep pointing out to you that in modern diesel engines, the stop solenoid is positively energised so no electricity means no fuel and no engine.
Click to expand...
Ah, but! I did my homework since the last time we discussed that, you know... As it happens, my engines were available with two different types of solenoid, one which worked as you're saying, and the other (AKA "latching type") with three wires instead of just two.
In the latter, aside obviously from the GND, there's one connection which is energised while cranking, to latch the plunger.
And the other one is energised by the OFF button, to unlatch the plunger and turn the engine off.
Needless to say, neither are energised while the engine is running.
In fact, this type of solenoid also has a button to turn the engine off manually, in case of failure of the "OFF" electrical connection.
Now, guess which solenoid is fitted on my engines? :cool:
Not sure about other engine models/makes, but I would think that this was common practice for marine applications, at least before engines became electronically controlled, hence needing current to run anyhow...

Re. your other points, as I understand them, what you're saying is that paper charts are still RELEVANT for you.
Fairenuff, that's an each to their own matter, as I said.
Surely you're not saying that you would never venture in ANY area for which you've got good coverage on the plotter, unless you've got also its updated paper version, or are you?
That's the logical implication of qualifying paper charts as NECESSARY, in my books.
Which also implies that when you moved your previous boat from Spain to Sardinia, and from there to the Adriatic, you should have spent a rather substantial amount for a pile of paper charts which you haven't used anymore since then, and will probably be outdated by the time you might need them again...?!?
 
Last edited:
Ah, but! I did my homework since the last time we discussed that, you know... As it happens, my engines were available with two different types of solenoid, one which worked as you're saying, and the other (AKA "latching type") with three wires instead of just two.
In the latter, aside obviously from the GND, there's one connection which is energised while cranking, to latch the plunger.
And the other one is energised by the OFF button, to unlatch the plunger and turn the engine off.
Needless to say, neither are energised while the engine is running.
In fact, this type of solenoid also has a button to turn the engine off manually, in case of failure of the "OFF" electrical connection.
Now, guess which solenoid is fitted on my engines? :cool:
Click to expand...
Yeah but your engines probably powered Noah's Ark:D Pretty sure that all modern engines have power on fuel solenoids for safety reasons

Surely you're not saying that you would never venture in ANY area for which you've got good coverage on the plotter, unless you've got also its updated paper version, or are you?
Click to expand...
That's correct. As a rule, I wouldn't attempt to enter an unknown harbour, bay or narrow passage without first having consulted both a paper chart and a pilot book, in fact preferably more than one pilot book. Generally I have both the chart and a pilot book with me on the flybridge when I'm helming from there and I do try to regularly cross check them with what the plotter and my own eyes are telling me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm a brilliant navigator, quite the opposite. It is because I know that I'm fallible that I try to assimilate as much information from as many different sources as possible

Which also implies that when you moved your previous boat from Spain to Sardinia, and from there to the Adriatic, you should have spent a rather substantial amount for a pile of paper charts which you haven't used anymore since then, and will probably be outdated by the time you might need them again...?!?
Click to expand...
That's also correct. In fact most of that trip was done by a delivery skipper and yes, I bought a few hundred quids worth of paper charts for him. And yes I have a set of the most detailed local Croatian charts on my boat that I could find. In fact the Croatian Hydrographic Institute produces some very nice small craft paper charts in folio format which come in a handy plastic folder and are very easy to use. And yes, my SWMBO is regularly asking me whether it is really necessary to fill the cupboards in one of our guest cabins with old paper charts but my attitude is that an outdated paper chart is a lot better than no paper chart at all:)
 
Deleted User said:
Yeah but your engines probably powered Noah's Ark:D
Pretty sure that all modern engines have power on fuel solenoids for safety reasons
Click to expand...
Safety reasons? LOL, weren't Noah and his crew those who actually survived the flood?
And with no charts, either... :D
 
MapisM said:
Safety reasons? LOL, weren't Noah and his crew those who actually survived the flood?
And with no charts, either... :D
Click to expand...
For sure, Noah had charts but AFAIK they written on tablets of stone;)
 
DAKA said:
Paper charts ground US mine sweeper
Click to expand...
Seems like it was the failure to consult 2 other paper charts, which showed the reef, which caused the grounding. Also presumably the reef wasn't shown on the ship's electronic charts either otherwise surely somebody would have noticed it?
 
Deleted User said:
Seems like it was the failure to consult 2 other paper charts, which showed the reef, which caused the grounding. Also presumably the reef wasn't shown on the ship's electronic charts either otherwise surely somebody would have noticed it?
Click to expand...

The reef was marked clearly on the most up to date paper chart they were using (just 8 miles in the wrong place).
Of course you are right Mike, they should have plotted their course on their main chart as usual and then plotted the course on each of their old back up charts too. Just plain laziness ;)
 
DAKA said:
The reef was marked clearly on the most up to date paper chart they were using (just 8 miles in the wrong place).
Of course you are right Mike, they should have plotted their course on their main chart as usual and then plotted the course on each of their old back up charts too. Just plain laziness ;)
Click to expand...
The reef was apparently correctly marked on 2 other paper charts they had on board. They chose to use the one chart for the area which didn't correctly mark the reef. Yes, this may have been laziness but it was also bad seamanship in that somebody on board should have been aware that they were in an area known for inaccurate charting and bothered to get the other charts out of the drawer as a double check. It still doesn't alter the fact that it would seem the reef wasn't shown on their electronic charts either so the only charts on board which showed the reef accurately were paper charts. It seems the US Navy agreed that this was bad seamanship because their report criticised the 3 senior officers on board
 
Deleted User said:
2) Electronic cartography is not always 100% accurate. I have come across far too many inaccuracies in electronic charts to completely trust them. For example, there is a rock the size of a house just outside my home marina entrance in Croatia which is not shown on my apparently up-to-date Navionics electronic chart


So you have advised Navionics of this error and will have no regrets if someone hits it because it was shown on the paper chart but not the electronic
Click to expand...
 
Deleted User said:
For sure, Noah had charts but AFAIK they written on tablets of stone;)
Click to expand...

Point of order: Noah most certainly do NOT have up-to-date paper/stone charts due to Flood. Hence the chart would have been just blue, and all the depths wrong. Also his clueless-ness ilustrated by sending out various birds, eventually a dove returning with olive branch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top