Chartplotters, RADAR, AIS - I Might Not Bother

[Simondjuk]

We've had our current boat since October and have been planning an electronics upgrade. At present there is an ancient Raymarine GPS (no charts, just numbers) which controls the autopilot and gives a lat/long to the VHF. There's also a NASA AIS radar thingy, which as far as I can deduce is more or less a complete waste of space.

I was all set to buy a Raymarine digital scanner and 9" or 12" plotter as a package at a keen price when I discovered that neither display will fit into the binnacle. By the time I'd added on the cost of pods and pod mounts, mast brackets and charts, it all started to look a but unnecessarily expensive just to have RADAR which I've almost never needed to use in anger, so I thought again.

My second thought involved a CP180i, about the only thing which will fit the binnacle, and a new VHF (my current one has a gradually failing LCD anyway) which will feed AIS data to the plotter. Not exactly RADAR, but better than nothing I thought, although perhaps actually, in other ways, worse than nothing. Then I thought about how cluttered a little 5" screen might be with AIS targets all over it and how in fog I'd still be none the wiser as to where lots of fishing and leisure boats without AIS transponders might be and therefore not much better off than without it, so I thought again.

My third thought was just to get the CP180 and forget the AIS. Now I'm thinking that all that gives me is a position on an electronic picture, and I already have something which gives me a position which I can draw onto a paper picture myself in a fraction of a minute, so I won't gain much and I'm thinking again.

So my question is, do we really need all this electronic trickery, or have we just come to feel that we do because it's usual to have it?

Besides, I rather like traditional navigation.

 

[jac]

Do we need it no.

I chartered a boat last year that had chart plotter at the helm - had previously not used one. Very soon saw the benefit. No more questions to the navigator of exactly how far out does that shoal come. Are you sure we're clear etc. I still planned on the charts, worked out CTS etc but for the quick reassurance it's great.

New boat has radar as well. Not used in anger yet but did the course. had a proper play whilst on a buoy off yarmouth and drew great comfort over it picking up ferries and warning me of them, seeing the pier etc.

I take the view that if you have it - you don'lt have to use it. If you don't have it and you suddenly sail into a large fog bank mid channel, would you want it then.

 

[onesea]

For me I would suggest your old Laptop gets some chart software so you can plug it in, when you want decent AIS picture or plotter. I know its below when your on deck not waterproof etc, but if your considering doing without its better than nothing.

Then for chart plotter cheap tablet with GPS (Navionics?), Handheld GPS Garmin Montana? (can also do as sat nav for car and walking maps), mobile phone or similar. This can be your chart plotter in cockpit (handy for pilotages and hopping round shallows, also good when sailing with other people) and back up GPS.

Will still set you back anywhere between 100 - 500 quid depending what you already have but cheaper than a package?

 

[Skylark]

I'm of an age where I have an aversion to anything involving electrickery. I, like you, rather enjoy navigating by log, depth, compass and paper chart. That said, when my boat was approaching 10 years old I updated the aged technology Raymarine. I now have Lowrance HD7 at the helm and an HD8 down below. Both have AIS transponder overlay and broadband radar, too. Staring into a radar screen is difficult to assess unless you use it very regularly, which most of us don't. Radar chart overlay is much more straightforward. I rather like AIS (but then I don't sail The Solent )
I would hate to fall into the trap of navigating by chart plotter and forgetting to use my eyes to look at my surroundings. As an aid to navigation, having the toys is better than not, IMHO.

 

[prv]

So my question is, do we really need all this electronic trickery, or have we just come to feel that we do because it's usual to have it?

We certainly don't need it, and if there's somewhere else for the money to go (how's your ground tackle, for instance - not as sexy, but could prove more important) then it should probably move down the list.

On Kindred Spirit I navigated on paper 95% of the time; I had a CP180i on a portable mount which occasionally got brought into the cockpit, but generally only for entering new harbours at night. Also mounted while crossing the Channel lanes as an AIS display, but I wouldn't really recommend it for this purpose as the software is a bit ****. Won't tell you the range and bearing to a particular target, for instance, which seems somewhat fundamental.

That said, there are definitely times close inshore or inside a big harbour when a quick glance at a moving arrow on a chart at the helm is massively reassuring. I am planning to fit a little Lowrance 4m, not connected to anything else, on Ariam's binnacle for those occasions.

I would recommend having a go with a Yeoman if you go the paper route - it will change your "fraction of a minute" to about three seconds for your own position, and even less for a range and bearing to a charted object. Bear in mind if you try one for the first time that the dance of following the little lights (you'll see what I mean) becomes instinctive and much quicker after half an hour or so's use.

Pete

 

[doug748]

We've had our current boat since October and have been planning an electronics upgrade. At present there is an ancient Raymarine GPS (no charts, just numbers) which controls the autopilot and gives a lat/long to the VHF. There's also a NASA AIS radar thingy, which as far as I can deduce is more or less a complete waste of space.......

So my question is, do we really need all this electronic trickery, or have we just come to feel that we do because it's usual to have it?
.........

A lot of daft money is spent on boats that never actually go anywhere. Good for you, keep what you have.

I would say that the NASA AIS is a very sound piece of kit, don't underate it because is does not look much. It is the Lieutenant Columbo of the AIS world. You need no other.

You might add a cheap handheld with "world map" to your armoury- a seconhand Garmin Map 78 would be good, it has a superb range of screens and configurable information. You can then see where the lumps of land are, add your own Points, Waypoints, Carry it home, Plot trips anywhere, and Fix it where you like on the boat. All for c50 quid.

 

[Kurrawong_Kid]

We certainly don't need it, and if there's somewhere else for the money to go (how's your ground tackle, for instance - not as sexy, but could prove more important) then it should probably move down the list.

On Kindred Spirit I navigated on paper 95% of the time; I had a CP180i on a portable mount which occasionally got brought into the cockpit, but generally only for entering new harbours at night. Also mounted while crossing the Channel lanes as an AIS display, but I wouldn't really recommend it for this purpose as the software is a bit ****. Won't tell you the range and bearing to a particular target, for instance, which seems somewhat fundamental.

That said, there are definitely times close inshore or inside a big harbour when a quick glance at a moving arrow on a chart at the helm is massively reassuring. I am planning to fit a little Lowrance 4m, not connected to anything else, on Ariam's binnacle for those occasions.

I would recommend having a go with a Yeoman if you go the paper route - it will change your "fraction of a minute" to about three seconds for your own position, and even less for a range and bearing to a charted object. Bear in mind if you try one for the first time that the dance of following the little lights (you'll see what I mean) becomes instinctive and much quicker after half an hour or so's use.

Pete

+1 for Yeoman.

 

[Tranona]

So my question is, do we really need all this electronic trickery, or have we just come to feel that we do because it's usual to have it?

Use what you feel comfortable with. Think most people choose the set up which suits their needs within the budget they have and the type of sailing they do.

My set up uses a laptop with charting software, tidal data and AIS plus GPS from a dongle down below and a Navman black and white plotter at the helm, mostly used in the data mode for course speed and Xtrack error plus ability to use chart screen for pilotage. However that came about because of piecemeal purchases as money and need arose and no doubt the same capability could be achieved in a better way.

There was a time when dedicated equipment was the way to go, but PCs and tablets offer much more flexibility now and think if I was staring again would not have any dedicated "marine" kit.

 

[oldbilbo]

I like using paper charts and the associated techniques, to build and maintain a picture of 'what is where'. Having used 'top end' and current Raymarine kit on a new Oyster recently, and a variety of other offerings over a few decades, I'm very wary of 'abdicating to the electronix' by driving the cursor around, which | see many others doing. So I have a Yeoman.... and I also have a Netbook with MemoryMap charting and a GPS feed, together with several other 'position-finding aids'.

I'm very wary of those yotties who charge about into and out of dense sea fog, taking occasional glances at their expensive radar set, and persuading themselves and those around them that they can now 'see' what's out there and somehow avoid bumping into things. Tell that to the crew of the SY Wahkuna ( see http://tinyurl.com/6ceq5h )....

HM Queen spent a lot of your money training me to use radar, to keep me and my fellows alive and to bring home the rivets. In recent years, on boats so equipped, when I've found I needed to keep a radar watch in fog, it was a full-time task scanning, plotting/recording, calculating, adjusting - not something that could be done by the occasional glance down below 'to see if anything is there'. That would be IMHO delusional and dangerous.

However, if everyone thought as I did, shares in Raymarine would be trading at a deep discount.

 

[prv]

I'm very wary of those yotties who charge about into and out of dense sea fog, taking occasional glances at their expensive radar set, and persuading themselves and those around them that they can now 'see' what's out there and somehow avoid bumping into things. Tell that to the crew of the SY Wahkuna ( see http://tinyurl.com/6ceq5h )....

From the MAIB synopsis:

At 1100 UTC on 28 May 2003, the container vessel P&O Nedlloyd Vespucci and the yacht Wahkuna collided in the English Channel in poor visibility. The MAIB was notified of the accident on 29 May, and an investigation started on the same day.

Each vessel had detected the other by radar when at a range of about 6 miles. The container ship was on a course of 255°(T) at a speed of 25 knots. The yacht was on the port bow of the container ship on a course of 012° (C) at a speed of 7.5 knots, and was due to pass about 8 cables ahead of the container ship.

The skipper of the yacht, however, incorrectly estimated from his radar display that P&O Nedlloyd Vespucci was passing 1.5 miles ahead of Wahkuna, and reduced speed by disengaging his engine. This action, which also resulted in a substantial alteration in the yacht's heading as it lost steerage, put the two vessels on a collision course. The actions of the yacht, the CPA of which now appeared as 2 cables to port on ARPA, concerned and confused the master of P&O Nedlloyd Vespucci, but he was reluctant to take any manoeuvring action because he was uncertain of what the yacht would do next.

Minutes later, the vessels collided and the bulbous bow of P&O Nedlloyd Vespucci struck the forward part of Wahkuna's hull, demolishing the first 3m of her hull and dismasting her. Despite having sent a lookout to the port bridge wing, the master of the container ship was not aware that a collision had occurred, and continued on passage. The yacht crew had to abandon to a liferaft, where they stayed for 5.5 hours before being rescued.

A classic example of the sort of relative-motion error that was repeatedly warned about on the RYA radar course I did. Not sure that half-day course (chronologically it was a whole day, but like so many of these there was only really half a day of content) really teaches you what to do, but it does at least alert you to some of what not to do.

I really need to do some practice with the radar on Ariam.

Pete