Chart and plotter whinge

Minn said:
We did think about that, but at the decision point, at the north end of the Gull Stream, it was 0200 am on a moonless night, it was blowing F8, SW, forecast to veer NW and increase to 9 (which it didn't do, luckily,) visibility wasn't wonderful and I didn't fancy either the un-buoyed Edinburghs or the buoyed but narrow and steep to Fisherman's Gat, and certainly not Foulgers and the windfarm.
Click to expand...

I understand now. I certainly would forget Foulgers, but do not mind Fishermans.
However, the Royal Temple YC can sometimes seem very tempting. I came back from Boulogne last week & stopped there at the weekend for a couple of days. Monday was a lot easier
 
I looked out the UKHO Leisure Folios in comparison to the Imray's Leisure Folio but to Minn's point.

The UKHO folio (5607 series) have two folios that cover the Long Sand Head. 5607-1 is at 1:250,000 scale and 5607.2 at 1:100,000. Most of the others i the folio are 1:25,000 or 1: 50,000.

At '250' the scale of 5607-1 isn't useful for rounding the Long Sand Head. Indeed at '100' isn't really good enough other than a 'Rule of Thumb' judgement. It really needs '50'. Well I think so. If that is right I can understand why there there is no '50' for that area in either in the UKHO or Imray as it would really about the Sunk Gyratory which is really about big stuff, not us. Imray would probably expect users for that area would opt for Chart C1 (Thames Estuary) rather than one of the 'round the coast' leisure folios. Imray do include the Long Sand Head in their leisure folio 2000.2 which is at 1:120,000. Most the other Imray leisure are 1:35,000. The 2000.2 and 5607.1 and 2 are really for passage planning.

I think it is not unreasonable not to have a 1:35,000 folio for the Long Sand Head given the value for the rest of that area but given that 'my' routes do trespass on the margins of the Sunk Gyratory there is a case to support you Minn. But BD! Annoyingly, the Long Sand Head is longer.

E.G. at say 5 kts average north on Springs:

via Foulgers and Black Deep = 6hrs 58 mins
via Foulgers and Little Sunk = 6hrs 39 mins
via Fisherman's and Black Deep = 7 hrs 17 mins
via Fisherman's and Little Sunk = 6 hrs 51 mins
via the Outside route via Long Sand Head = 7 hrs 38 mins

Fisherman's isn't steep too for most of the area and is lovely and wide. The Black Deep is of course and is a super highway - lots of Container Ships at 16 to 18 knots and some over 2kt tides. There are so many choices. Predicting veering NW I think I would opt for the Little Sunk so as to diagonal across the Swin later. Actually I'd be in Ramsgit; I'm frit!

Oh a PS. I think many of the chart 'makers' have little nautical experience. The late Colin Jarman, Cantata and Garth the ECP authors took/take peeps from Imray for a day's jolly and I know they valued the experience as well as enjoyhing it. I have had a nice exchange with one guy from the UKHO who explain he had no practical nautical experience. There is nothing wrong with that but it shows the value of feedback and they like that.
 
Replying to Tillergirl:

Quote


I think it is not unreasonable not to have a 1:35,000 folio for the Long Sand Head given the value for the rest of that area but given that 'my' routes do trespass on the margins of the Sunk Gyratory there is a case to support you Minn. But BD! Annoyingly, the Long Sand Head is longer.

E.G. at say 5 kts average north on Springs:

via Foulgers and Black Deep = 6hrs 58 mins
via Foulgers and Little Sunk = 6hrs 39 mins
via Fisherman's and Black Deep = 7 hrs 17 mins
via Fisherman's and Little Sunk = 6 hrs 51 mins
via the Outside route via Long Sand Head = 7 hrs 38 mins

Fisherman's isn't steep too for most of the area and is lovely and wide. The Black Deep is of course and is a super highway - lots of Container Ships at 16 to 18 knots and some over 2kt tides. There are so many choices. Predicting veering NW I think I would opt for the Little Sunk so as to diagonal across the Swin later. Actually I'd be in Ramsgit; I'm

Unquote

The one thing that I won’t do in a gale is try to enter an artificial harbour! No Dover or Ramsgate and absolutely no Brighton! The decision to go outside was based on the forecast veer to NW and increase to 9, followed by a SW 4-5.

My plan in the event of the forecast veer and increase to 9 was simply to heave to and wait for things to calm down, then resume the passage. To do this I wanted plenty of North Sea under my lee, so the outside passage was logical. We did come up inside the Goodwins so we did some buoy hopping but in that case we were under the land.

I ought to have carried more paper charts rather than just relying on the Imray folios.
 
I certainly wouldn't enter Dover on that forecast. I would hope Ramsgit would have a lee! It's an interesting debate. Certainly with the NW increase, plenty of North Sea lee is very sensible. Which exposes my hope and breaking the rule of 'towards' not 'to'. By opting for the Little Sunk I would run the risk of trying to clear the Long Sand exiting from Fisherman's. And there might be an issue of big ships particularly at that place and time. Thinking of the Little Sunk lies behind an early experience back in Decca days. Fisherman's wasn't buoyed in those days but Decca was easy to find it. We then turned down the Black Deep running nicely until someone pointed out that the Decca said we had 10kts over the ground! TG don't do 10kts so she was flat out and with a lot of tide. And then before I could collect my senses we had past the Little Sunk! So round the Sunk Head and hardened up to get up wind and up tide of the NE Gunfleet and the S Cork. And that became a struggle. You could see a barge off the Naze reduced sail before disappeared in the squalls. Making the S Cork was hard and then we arrive adjacent into a minefield of lobster pots! We made it but it was probably sensible to bear way for the other end of the Cork Sands. But of course trying to make into Harwich would have not been pleasant. Mind you I recall arriving in Shotley Lock that with all the grockles dressed in bikinis and shorts looking at us rather oddly while we were still fully kitted!

I take the point for the 'Outside' route! The duration has to be second to the conditions.
 
Hello, it's Lucy from Imray here. We always like to hear your feedback so please do always talk to us direct in case of any gripes (email ilnw@imray.com).
This sounds like a case of not having the right paper charts on board. Long Sand is included in the Kent and Sussex chart pack (2100) that you were using, but it doesn't extend as far north as Long Sand Head. If you were going up to or down from Lowestoft, chart pack 2000 (Suffolk and Essex) is what you need. Long Sand Head is it's included in that. It's also on many of our Thames/North Sea flat sheet charts. It's in our digital chart pack ID10 North Sea as tillergirl mentions (you can use that on Raymarine plotters, Meridian, or our own chart app Imray Navigator) too.

We're fans of electronic charts as much as anyone, but would always caution to check that you have the correct paper charts on board before you set out just in case your electronics fail.
 
One more PS from us here at Imray, in agreement with tillergirl above. We always consult with sailors before and during the creation of our chart pack schemes, including those that he mentions. Our cartographers are expert when it comes to the actual 'drawing' of the charts, and we also have a very experienced sailor as an editor working in house (Jane Russell) whose nautical/navigational knowledge and input is invaluable. But, we always value what you all have to say as your experiences and knowledge make our charts the best that they can be - you're the people who are using them and so we want to get them just right for you. Do keep in touch!
 
Imray said:
Hello, it's Lucy from Imray here. We always like to hear your feedback so please do always talk to us direct in case of any gripes (email ilnw@imray.com).
This sounds like a case of not having the right paper charts on board. Long Sand is included in the Kent and Sussex chart pack (2100) that you were using, but it doesn't extend as far north as Long Sand Head. If you were going up to or down from Lowestoft, chart pack 2000 (Suffolk and Essex) is what you need. Long Sand Head is it's included in that. It's also on many of our Thames/North Sea flat sheet charts. It's in our digital chart pack ID10 North Sea as tillergirl mentions (you can use that on Raymarine plotters, Meridian, or our own chart app Imray Navigator) too.

We're fans of electronic charts as much as anyone, but would always caution to check that you have the correct paper charts on board before you set out just in case your electronics fail.
Click to expand...

Dear Lucy,

I had your pack 2000 on board, along with the Solent pack and the Kent and Sussex pack.

Where is the chart that shows Long Sand Head? It shows the head of the sand itself but not the buoy.

If that is the Jane Russell who sometimes posts here as Downthecreek, give her my warmest personal regards.
 
Last edited:
Minn said:
Have plotter with Navionics UK and Ireland pack up to date; also carry Imray paper packs for Solent, Kent and Sussex and Thames estuary. What could go wrong?

Hah! Off Eastbourne on passage to Harwich we sailed off the chart onto a blank map so far as the plotter was concerned. Don’t know what happened there, but coverage restarted at Lowestoft. Fat lot of use.

No problem - we’ll use the paper charts...

Guess what Imray choose to leave off their pack of charts - the Long Sand Head!

Problem solved by updating the Navionics pack on my iPhone as we were in cell range passing Dover. £34.99 for information I has already paid much more for on the plotter.

And what cretins stop their coverage of the Thames Estuary just short of Long Sand Head?

Seriously p....d off with Navionics and with Imray.
Click to expand...

Did you review the navionics chart on the plotter before you set off ie; was the blank area always there or did it occur mid passage?
 
No, I didn’t. I did a simple passage plan on the paper charts and I had no reason to assume that the chart card would be defective. It’s not a passage that calls for much planning. Make Nab Tower, keep South of the Owers, avoid the Royal Sovereign shoals, don’t try to go into any of the harbours en route in a SW gale, and turn left at South Foreland, choosing inside or outside the Goodwins depending on the weather at that point, ditto for Fisherman’s Gat/Black Deep or outside everything.

 
Last edited:
Hi Minn, well, apologies are owed in that case. As you say, Long Sand Head itself is shown on the 2000.1 chart but the extent doesn't go as far east as to include the buoy. On on chart C1 Thames Estuary, which obviously isn't in the pack, the buoy is indeed shown.

I'm curious now as to how long the buoy has been there (will talk to Roger about it). If it was after the scheme for that chart pack was devised, that'll be why it's missing. We'll look into it and see if/how we can improve it. A case in point about it being useful to have your feedback. Thanks for bringing it to our attention, and sorry again!
 
Minn said:
No, I didn’t. I did a simple passage plan on the paper charts and I had no reason to assume that the chart card would be defective. It’s not a passage that calls for much planning. Make Nab Tower, keep South of the Owers, avoid the Royal Sovereign shoals, don’t try to go into any of the harbours en route in a SW gale, and turn left at South Foreland, choosing inside or outside the Goodwins depending on the weather at that point, ditto for Fisherman’s Gat/Black Deep or outside everything.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I’m over cautious but I always scroll through the full length of the intended course on the plotter with the paper chart in front of me as well. I compare the key waypoint data on both paper and electronic sources to identify any discrepancies or anomalies. Works for me.
 
Imray said:
Hi Minn, well, apologies are owed in that case. As you say, Long Sand Head itself is shown on the 2000.1 chart but the extent doesn't go as far east as to include the buoy. On on chart C1 Thames Estuary, which obviously isn't in the pack, the buoy is indeed shown.

I'm curious now as to how long the buoy has been there (will talk to Roger about it). If it was after the scheme for that chart pack was devised, that'll be why it's missing. We'll look into it and see if/how we can improve it. A case in point about it being useful to have your feedback. Thanks for bringing it to our attention, and sorry again!
Click to expand...

If I might make a suggestion, whilst I do appreciate that the 2000 pack is labelled ‘Essex and Suffolk’, I did notice that in the Sussex and Kent pack you include a chart labelled «*Thames Estuary Southern Part*», which is a term carried over from UKHO labelling. Could you perhaps include a Thames Estuary Northern Part chart in place of the existing 2000.1 chart and include the whole of what Roger calls the Sunk Gyratory in it? Perhaps a thought to discuss with Roger and Jane?
 
RichardS said:
I don't understand. :confused:

Surely OpenCPN doesn't include any charts for any location and they all have to be obtained separately?

Richard
Click to expand...
I am sure you know the answer so why ask the question?

The notorious much copied and redistributed out of date CM93 circa 2012 world wide charts were a friends only electronic charts during an extended 14 year round world cruise. Wonderful charts but as useless as a chocolate fire guard in many remote Pacific locations. Google maps and forward looking echo sounder were more useful nav aids!
Steve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top