eNavigation

[lustyd]

I believe it is primarily the third of these that RYA’s announcement was about

Sorry, I should have posted the link
Digital First: The Rise Of eNavigation

 

[ylop]

They are bothered mostly because they are being told the tools they use day in and day out aren’t sufficient despite doing the job well. They are bothered by the additional cost of paying for things they have no intention of using.

Exactly but you said nobody was bothered - they are!

Yes, things need to change, no that doesn’t require strict regulations.

Who said there were going to be strict regulations? The RYA generally seem to lobby government for common sense and relaxed regulations for its members. Compare to almost any other country and you’ll see that if the RYA has had any influence on the rules in the UK over the last century it’s almost certainly been the opposite from your impression!

I said above, if and when issues are found they can be dealt with.

Will you be happy to face the families of the dead to say, “well we could have got a bunch of intelligent people to work out what was needed but instead we thought trial and error would work”.

That shouldn’t prevent current working solutions just being approved for use. People are using them regardless so if it’s genuinely an issue the authorities are currently causing dangerous situations to occur. Obviously there isn’t any danger, so why continue the farce.

Do we know which solutions are currently reliable, which result in people reverting to paper, and which work in some areas but not others?

Yes, some do. Some need to navigate new places too. I didn’t say nobody needs nav gear or that all people use electronics, did I? I said many have no need of nav gear on board as they make the same journey in known waters every day. I don’t use satnav to drive to my local shop either.

Which commercial vessels operating AT SEA (ie outside categorised waters) would you be happy operating with no charts (electronic or paper)? it’s clear some vessel owners will skimp if they can - so without rules to define Lusty’s interpretation as the right one, how will that work? It’s the same in every industry that affects public safety - you can’t trust people to get it right either because ecconomically is profitable to push the limits or just because people don’t know what they don’t know.

How is that relevant? You should be on the committee of grandpa’s with comments like that.

Do you know who’s on whatever committee exists? Are they all men? Are they all old? I’d be surprised by both. However most of the people who complain about the RYA not doing what they think it should are old men!

Specifically why do we need regulations covering what nav gear is needed on board? “Appropriate navigation equipment “ would be absolutely fine in the regs.

Do you think there should be rules for airline navigation system? Would you be happy to get on a Ryanair flight where Michael O’Leary told his pilots just to use Apple Maps - because it seem Ok most of the time!

Regulation often prevents tech advancing and in this case has prevented better tooling from being adopted on commercial vessels for decades for no good reason.

I agree if safety issues are found then regulate (and said this multiple times) but none have been

How do you know this so confidently? Are you on an IMO committee? Do the MAIB run every incident past you to check if it fails the Lusty tighter regulation test?

As are you. This is a forum for people to chat and discuss. If you don’t like that then leave. I’m free to criticise the RYA,

You are shouting a pigeons. If you want the RYA to change, go and talk to them. They are membership organisation. According to you they like the views of grey haired men more than other so you should get a reception!

we have no other body and they’re entirely out of touch.

Not true. The CA represent views of cruisers, both commercial and leisure and there are other organisations offering ICCs. They can only be out of touch with your views if you don’t get in touch with your views.

Whatever the owner/skipper agree is appropriate and safe for the intended purpose. Why shouldn’t they?

Because historically owners and skippers have been shown to make bad decisions. Regulation and standard doesn’t necessarily stop bad decisions but it does remove ambiguity about where the decisions was good enough. Without clear rules owners of commercial vessels face two schools of thought - 1. Over specify everything to be certain they can never be criticised for innappropriate decisions; 2. Skimp and get their lawyers to argue if there is an incident that as appropriate isn’t defined it’s not their fault.

There’s no essential requirement, qualification or training to become a commercial vessel owner and so why would we trust them. One solution could be to allow the surveyors to define the solution for the vessel and its use - but if you’ve ever worked in an ambiguous area of regulation where external assessors measure compliance you will know this is a nightmare. One assessor will tell you one thing and another will see things differently. One persons “might be a good idea” becomes another’s “must have”.

What a load of waffle. Skippers, especially commercial skippers will use systems they trust and that are appropriate to conditions.

Commercial skippers use the systems they are provided with. Many operations use staff paid on a day rate basis and if they don’t like it they don’t get work, or the boat is out of action for upgrade they don’t get paid! Every commercial skipper has been formally trained on paper based navigation. Training on digital navigation may be variable, may need to be software dependant etc.

Would you prefer a situation where a plotter doesn’t dim at night because it rigidly aligned to a regulation that wasn’t updated?

my question would be the opposite - why wouldn’t a plotter being used on a commercial vessel in the hours of darkness require a night mode that minimised the effect on vision and ability to see out the window!

They’re legally obliged to say that, that’s the problem!! Take away that requirement and we’re golden.

They are not legally obliged to say that. Their lawyers have decided it reduces their liability to say that. You sat “eNav” is the defacto standard as primary nav system but all the nav systems in use explicitly say not to be used for that. It seems like the RYA could help the regulator, the industry and individual skippers work out routes to determine which of those systems should have those warnings and which are good enough. Eg I don’t have a clear opinion on tablet based navigation with Navionics, or MemoryMap (I use both on my boat) but I can see the headlines if a small ferry ran aground “ferry captain using iPad App to navigate”.

Why not both? Paper is useful sometimes and to some people. Let the skipper use what’s appropriate. There are many situations where paper navigation isn’t appropriate.

I don’t think anyone is stopping that - otherwise non ECDIS plotters would be removed from commercial boats when they are not. But I would like any commercial vessel I am on to have a fall back position if it experiences total electrical failure or bad actors disrupt gps. That would be my definition of “appropriate” what’s yours?

They do, actually. Why are you so bothered that I called out that the RYA are behind the times?

How are you affected by the commercial rules? I just find it disingenuous for people to rant online about things which they can’t be bothered to do anything about themselves. The rules might well be outdated but what makes you so sure that’s the RYA’s fault and not Whitehall? Or indeed IMO? Which other countries allow small commercial vessels to operate without paper based charts and what systems do they permit? Or are the RYA holding back the whole world?

I didn’t miss the significance. In fact I acknowledged it throughout and stated an alternative view to yours.

this place would be much easier if people included their agenda in post 1 rather than introducing it mid tread.

For some reason you’re unable to process alternative opinions on this matter so instead attack me and my knowledge and look foolish in doing so.

wow, irony overload. I don’t know if you are suffering cabin fever from being locked up in a small space for too long.

I will renew in 5 years if I need an ICC, it’s cheaper. I can simultaneously use a service and consider the organisation out of touch.

I’m not an RYA member - but if I was I would be asking what value people who join every 5 yrs to renew the certificate and then spend the intervening period criticising the organisation bring.

 

[lustyd]

Exactly but you said nobody was bothered - they are!

When did I say nobody was bothered by anything at all? I'm not going to address the rest of your rambling wall of text as you're clearly just here for an argument rather than sensible discussion.

 

[benjenbav]

Sorry, I should have posted the link
Digital First: The Rise Of eNavigation

I rarely mistake the literary output of the RYA for the works of Percy Bysshe Shelley and this is no exception.

If it was titled “The end of paper navigation” perhaps it would have been better, if just clickbaity.

As paper charts are phased out, folks will have to adapt. That seems to me a worthy concern, even if many/most have long since adapted.

Finally, approx 2 degrees north of here on this thread someone pointed out the disclaimers that flash up on opening one’s Garmin/Raymarine etc plotter. It’s not as though Admiralty paper charts don’t come with their own disclaimers

 

[lustyd]

Yes, I think had it been aimed at people clinging to paper charts with the goal of helping them move it would have made sense. Re-reading, it seems that might have been the aim, hard to tell.

I agree about the paper disclaimers. Carrying charts on a coded boat is not sufficient, they need to be up to date too. At least my two plotters and Navionics update automagically in the background with no effort from me!

 

[ylop]

What world are you living in? This is absolute rubbish. We are absolutely free to pootle about with no aim and no plan.

Technically you are not. If you, even as a leisure sailor, operate a British Ship at sea (ie outside categorised waters) then the section of SOLAS V about Passage Planning applies. Your lack of awareness of the law isn’t my problem.

Now a lot of people hearing this get a little panic, and thing that means the plan needs written down, must have certain content etc. the MCA have clarified:
41.4 To note for small vessels and pleasure craft - regulation 34 applies to all vessels. For small vessels and pleasure-craft the degree of voyage planning will depend upon the size of vessel, its crew and the length of the voyage. The MCA expects all mariners to make a careful assessment of any proposed voyage, considering all dangers to navigation, weather forecasts, tidal predictions and other relevant factors including the competence of the crew using appropriate charts and publications. (From MGN 610 (M+F) Amendment 1 navigation: SOLAS chapter V – guidance on the merchant shipping (safety of navigation) regulations 2020)

And the RYA (you know the people you don’t like being so old fashioned) provided some guidance when the rules changed to help pleasure boat operators know what they needed to do: SOLAS V regulations

It’s widely accepted that a plan for this purpose does not need to be written, but as Captain Sensible alluded to if it’s not clearly communicated to your crew it might be a bit difficult to convince anyone there was actually a plan.

 

[lustyd]

If you, even as a leisure sailor, operate a British Ship at sea (ie outside categorised waters)

What an utterly pointless post. You're trying to pool every scenario into one for absolutely no reason. People very rarely pootle about in international waters aimlessly, why would you even suggest they do?

Stop trying to start an argument.

 

[ylop]

What an utterly pointless post. You're trying to pool every scenario into one for absolutely no reason. People very rarely pootle about in international waters aimlessly, why would you even suggest they do?

again it’s not my fault if you don’t know what “at sea” and “categorised waters” means. It’s very much not the same as International waters.

Stop trying to start an argument.

I’m not trying to start an argument - it seems I’m trying to educate you - stop being belligerent and you might actually learn something.

 

[lustyd]

again it’s not my fault if you don’t know what “at sea” and “categorised waters” means. It’s very much not the same as International waters.

I do know, but you seem to ignore what I say to try and argue for some reason.

I’m not trying to start an argument - it seems I’m trying to educate you

You can’t educate me when you’re being this ignorant. Try reading what I say and having a think in future.

stop being belligerent and you might actually learn something.

If there’s a gap in my knowledge, it’s not been identified here.

 

[ylop]

I do know, but you seem to ignore what I say to try and argue for some reason.

You can’t educate me when you’re being this ignorant. Try reading what I say and having a think in future.

If there’s a gap in my knowledge, it’s not been identified here.

Unbelievable! You confuse "at sea" with "international waters" and somehow that's my fault. I provided you the links to both the MGN and the RYA advice on SOLAS V. Yet you claim its ok to go to sea with absolutely no plan.

 

[lustyd]

Jeepers, someone get him his meds.

 

[Blue Seas]

Technically you are not. If you, even as a leisure sailor, operate a British Ship at sea (ie outside categorised waters) then the section of SOLAS V about Passage Planning applies. Your lack of awareness of the law isn’t my problem.

Now a lot of people hearing this get a little panic, and thing that means the plan needs written down, must have certain content etc. the MCA have clarified:
41.4 To note for small vessels and pleasure craft - regulation 34 applies to all vessels. For small vessels and pleasure-craft the degree of voyage planning will depend upon the size of vessel, its crew and the length of the voyage. The MCA expects all mariners to make a careful assessment of any proposed voyage, considering all dangers to navigation, weather forecasts, tidal predictions and other relevant factors including the competence of the crew using appropriate charts and publications. (From MGN 610 (M+F) Amendment 1 navigation: SOLAS chapter V – guidance on the merchant shipping (safety of navigation) regulations 2020)

And the RYA (you know the people you don’t like being so old fashioned) provided some guidance when the rules changed to help pleasure boat operators know what they needed to do: SOLAS V regulations

It’s widely accepted that a plan for this purpose does not need to be written, but as Captain Sensible alluded to if it’s not clearly communicated to your crew it might be a bit difficult to convince anyone there was actually a plan.

I believe that Lustyd (and the rest of us) are perfectly at liberty to legally 'pootle' and indeed to 'Explore'. (Is 'Exploration' now illegal?).
The RAF, Navy, and even nuclear subs do it on a daily basis. "Proceed to practice area ABC where boxes XX, YY, and ZZ are are cleared for you to Dogfight / Loiter and Listen, Conduct machinery trials at will /etc etc.
The leisure equivalent may well be "Depart xx Marina when back from lunch and drift in Whitsands bay fishing, skiing, paddle boarding etc.

In September 1978, HMS Sovereign (a British nuclear sub) engaged in Operation Agile Eagle, with the mission of locating and tracking a Soviet Delta-class submarine believed to be operating in the Eastern Atlantic Ocean. Sovereign acquired the Delta-class submarine on October 6, 1978 and remained in contact undetected for 49 days. What 'passage plan' would you have provided for Sovereign?

From the 1950's onwards Nuclear subs have explored the polar ice caps without GPS, without Charts (who would have published underwater ice charts of the N. Pole?) basically by 'nudging' their way through.

What charts and passage plans were used by Columbus, Cook, Vasco de G?
There is a balance to be had, and you will not find that balance on the desk of a 25 year old MCA Office Wallah.

 

[ylop]

I believe that Lustyd (and the rest of us) are perfectly at liberty to 'pootle'.
The RAF, Navy, and even nuclear subs do it on a daily basis. "Proceed to practice area ABC where boxes XX, YY, and ZZ are are cleared for you to Dogfight / Loiter and Listen, Conduct machinery trials / etc etc.
The leisure equivalent may well be "Depart xx Marina when back from lunch and drift in Whitsands bay fishing, skiing, paddle boarding etc.

And nobody has said otherwise: the plan is to pootle. It's exacly that I said in post 38 which Lusty said was "absolute rubbish". It's what captainsensible was referring to in post 27 which Lusty replied to, saying he had no plan, and then added further confusion by referring to international waters.

 

[ylop]

In September 1978, HMS Sovereign (a British nuclear sub) engaged in Operation Agile Eagle, with the mission of locating and tracking a Soviet Delta-class submarine believed to be operating in the Eastern Atlantic Ocean. Sovereign acquired the Delta-class submarine on October 6, 1978 and remained in contact undetected for 49 days. What 'passage plan' would you have provided for Sovereign?

A bizzare comparison because (1) SOLAS V didn't exist in 1978; (2) SOLAS V doesn't apply to British Warships; (3) I imagine that they were very actively passage planning - it might have been dynamic and constantly changing but it seems unlikely that the captain was chugging away with absolutely no regard for his location, surroundings, etc.; (4) they almost certainly weren't using navigation systems based solely on what the skipper thought were adequate - but which had been discussed, reviewed, tested by "committee".

 

[lustyd]

And nobody has said otherwise: the plan is to pootle. It's exacly that I said in post 38 which Lusty said was "absolute rubbish". It's what captainsensible was referring to in post 27 which Lusty replied to, saying he had no plan, and then added further confusion by referring to international waters.

You brought up going to sea you crazy so and so

 

[Blue Seas]

A bizzare comparison because (1) SOLAS V didn't exist in 1978; (2) SOLAS V doesn't apply to British Warships; (3) I imagine that they were very actively passage planning - it might have been dynamic and constantly changing but it seems unlikely that the captain was chugging away with absolutely no regard for his location, surroundings, etc.; (4) they almost certainly weren't using navigation systems based solely on what the skipper thought were adequate - but which had been discussed, reviewed, tested by "committee".

You seem to be very keen on 'committees'.
Getting away from them was, for many of us, the reason for choosing to be a seafarer in the first place.

 

[ylop]

You seem to be very keen on 'committees'.
Getting away from them was, for many of us, the reason for choosing to be a seafarer in the first place.

No - lusty is obsessed with the idea that there is some committee of grandads at the RYA. Based on the accuracy of the rest of his RYA fantasy I imagine they don’t have an eNav committee either.

 

[ylop]

You brought up going to sea you crazy so and so

It’s your thread - I suggest you read it more accurately, I was not the first person to mention “to sea” or even to highlight its definition.

 

[lustyd]

It’s your thread - I suggest you read it more accurately, I was not the first person to mention “to sea” or even to highlight its definition.

Nonsense. On that specific thread you brought it up hoping to catch me out. It didn’t work so you kept digging and twisting and that hasn’t worked either, you’ve just ended up looking like an argumentative fool.

 

[capnsensible]