eNavigation

[SaltyC]

You're like a broken record. That's only there because the regs require it, not because it's not suitable. That's the whole point of the thread, all they need to do is remove that requirement and those plotters would be compliant and remove the warning. You've yet to identify any actual need that's not met by current systems, nor any actual danger facing the many people currently using those systems. How many commercial/coded RIB or small workboat skippers have you seen in the past 10 years using a paper chart or ECDIS system?

No, it isn't. The system is obviously suitable and any skipper who spends five minutes using it can see that. The onus can be on the skipper to ensure that the system is appropriate and up to date, just like it is with paper. You can't have a paper chart showing the whole UK and claim compliance on a trip from Portsmouth to Isle of Wight, and if that paper chart has not had the latest updates then it is similarly innapropriate. No warning screen for you though, so apparently you'd just plow ahead? Of course you wouldn't.

If you're unable to navigate without a regulatory body telling you every little detail of how to do so then that's a problem in my opinion. Good navigators are able to use and understand multiple tools and adapt as necessary.

The actual requirement they do not meet is they are 'Not to be used for navigation'. IF GPS fails (impossible in your world), you cannot navigate because YOU cannot plot on the screen.
To the best of my knowledge it is a requirement for all coded vessels to carry charts, all charter boats (in Brirain) will carry, usually pristine. Egeryone uses electronics, but it is NOT fail safe.
ECDIS requirements are 2 separate independantly powered systems AND the ability to plot on screen in the event of GPS failure.

I may know more about the future of Electronic Navigation after the RIN & RYA joint conference next Friday, I assume you will be attending?

 

[st599]

The actual requirement they do not meet is they are 'Not to be used for navigation'. IF GPS fails (impossible in your world), you cannot navigate because YOU cannot plot on the screen.
To the best of my knowledge it is a requirement for all coded vessels to carry charts, all charter boats (in Brirain) will carry, usually pristine. Egeryone uses electronics, but it is NOT fail safe.
ECDIS requirements are 2 separate independantly powered systems AND the ability to plot on screen in the event of GPS failure.

I may know more about the future of Electronic Navigation after the RIN & RYA joint conference next Friday, I assume you will be attending?

There is a new MCA Small Vessel ECS but it requires redundant GNSS, automatic chart update, ability to override GNSS with traditional methods, redundant power supplies, minimum display size etc.

At present, there are no implementations of it (and I can't see how a yacht could meet it without having a separate generator just in case the alternator failed) - this is what the RYA are trying to change. The only way for it to be cost effective for sailing schools, charities etc. is for major manufacturers to adopt it within mainstream products - which means international and simple to implement.

 

[lustyd]

The actual requirement they do not meet is they are 'Not to be used for navigation'. IF GPS fails (impossible in your world), you cannot navigate because YOU cannot plot on the screen.
To the best of my knowledge it is a requirement for all coded vessels to carry charts, all charter boats (in Brirain) will carry, usually pristine. Egeryone uses electronics, but it is NOT fail safe.
ECDIS requirements are 2 separate independantly powered systems AND the ability to plot on screen in the event of GPS failure.

I'm not really sure what your point is. The warning doesn't actually make it unsuitable for navigation, it just states that you're not supposed to because of overbearing regulations. Yes, it's because it's a requirement - that's the problem that needs fixing but it doesn't mean plotters aren't suitable, they obviously are suitable and in widespread use.
The talk of GPS failure is so tiring. This is no different to any navigation failure. Fog doesn't take out GPS like it does a handbearing compass. That's not the discussion here, even the authorities recognise the suitability of electronic navigation as a sole means of navigation. I'm not sure what you think you're achieving, we're all aware of the pro's and con's and failure modes and the VAST majority of sensible skippers are quite happy with them. Geem is a well respected member of the site with many thousands of miles under his keel, and he no longer carries the paper charts as he wasn't using them (as he himself states above).

I may know more about the future of Electronic Navigation after the RIN & RYA joint conference next Friday, I assume you will be attending?

No, I would assume it's full of people like you who are trying their best to prevent progress. Didn't you read post 1?

 

[lustyd]

At present, there are no implementations of it (and I can't see how a yacht could meet it without having a separate generator just in case the alternator failed) - this is what the RYA are trying to change.

Never mind yachts, RIBs need something approved.

Why not simply approve the solutions people have actually been using for 20 years? Very few real world issues despite all the hand wringing and whataboutery. Regulating to require backups etc. is absolutely the wrong direction, the regulations are the problem here, not the products.

 

[st599]

Never mind yachts, RIBs need something approved.

Why not simply approve the solutions people have actually been using for 20 years? Very few real world issues despite all the hand wringing and whataboutery. Regulating to require backups etc. is absolutely the wrong direction, the regulations are the problem here, not the products.

Because that's not within the RYA's abilities. All they can do is to represent the issues to the relevant Government departments. MCA have obviously decided that a specification is needed.

 

[lustyd]

Because that's not within the RYA's abilities. All they can do is to represent the issues to the relevant Government departments. MCA have obviously decided that a specification is needed.

Yes. Obviously. That was sort of the point of the thread. A bunch of people highlighting their own importance working on something that doesn’t need doing.

 

[zoidberg]

How far would YOU be prepared to sail without eNavigation?
10 miles?
100 miles?
1000 miles?
Never out of sight of your marina berth?

 

[ylop]

it just states that you're not supposed to because of overbearing regulations

Which regulation?
Is it the same world wide? (If so then IMO etc would be the solution not the problem). But regulations are local and I know of no regulation that requires such a statement - it’s lawyer liability covering not regulatory compliance, but it’s a problem to say “they do what they are designed to do” when the company responsive says it’s not designed for navigation!

 

[ylop]

The talk of GPS failure is so tiring. This is no different to any navigation failure. Fog doesn't take out GPS like it does a handbearing compass. That's not the discussion here, even the authorities recognise the suitability of electronic navigation as a sole means of navigation. I'm not sure what you think you're achieving, we're all aware of the pro's and con's and failure modes and the VAST majority of sensible skippers are quite happy with them.

YOU asked for the unmet need and danger - people provide them and you say you are bored! It’s clear that gps jamming is a greater threat today than it has been at any point this century. It wouldn’t be difficult to make using EP an option (and a basic UI to create a fix). Would I ever use it? Hopefully not (other than for curiosity) just like my liferaft, fire extinguisher, etc will hopefully remain unneeded.

I’m not sure why you are so opposed to backup systems - it was your own answer why your power loss could almost certainly not let you down - because you have alternatives. Surely it makes sense to define your approach as the solution to that risk - but eg does a backup device on an open boat need to be water proof; does a backup need its own power supply etc.

Nobody is going to impose it on you anyway since you are non commercial.

 

[lustyd]

It’s clear that gps jamming is a greater threat today than it has been at any point this century.

It isn't though. GPS jamming is essentially a non issue and spoofing already has a fix in place which can be rolled out if needed (it's not needed). What's tiring is people who prefer one system pretending there are issues with another system when there simply aren't.

It wouldn’t be difficult to make using EP an option (and a basic UI to create a fix). Would I ever use it? Hopefully not (other than for curiosity) just like my liferaft, fire extinguisher, etc will hopefully remain unneeded.

No, it wouldn't. Doesn't that tell you something about how many people are asking for it and how needed the feature might be? If Garmin thought even a thousand customers wanted this they'd have it running in a couple of months.

I’m not sure why you are so opposed to backup systems

I never said I was. Quite the opposite, I detailed my own numerous backup systems in a post earlier. What I'm opposed to is every boat being mandated to have backups when they simply aren't necessary. We do some quite adventurous sailing and big mileage so we carry backups. Most people, even small commercial boats, don't do either and could easily get back to a safe haven if everything went dark on their boat.

Nobody is going to impose it on you anyway since you are non commercial.

Non-commercial is not the same as not coded, and many non-commercial boats also have requirements over and above the basics when above certain size limits. It's also entirely feasible that we will one day get coded and have paying passengers aboard. That doesn't change the real world needs of navigation whatsoever. Same boat, same skipper, same crew, but suddenly a load of requirements to carry unnecessary things.

 

[ylop]

It isn't though. GPS jamming is essentially a non issue and spoofing already has a fix in place which can be rolled out if needed (it's not needed).

Wow, I’m surprised NATO command could spare your time right now! Just this morning you posted on a thread saying US aircraft carriers probably should have automated celestial navigation systems because they are using sextants for exactly this threat.

What's tiring is people who prefer one system pretending there are issues with another system when there simply aren't.

But that’s really not the case here except for you! The people you think you are arguing with who want to preserve paper no matter what pretty much don’t exist. But as you aren’t listening you can’t hear the voices saying the UKHO is trying to find a technical solution and that is good.

No, it wouldn't. Doesn't that tell you something about how many people are asking for it and how needed the feature might be? If Garmin thought even a thousand customers wanted this they'd have it running in a couple of months.

Did the CEO of Garmin tell you that? I’m sure the question would be “how many sales are we losing today” none - don’t bother there. If however the uKHO/IMO said that the one missing feature to declare your product suitable for commercial small craft I’m sure they would!

If one does it the others will likely follow.

I never said I was. Quite the opposite, I detailed my own numerous backup systems in a post earlier.

Post 124 seems to suggest others should not be required to follow your example

What I'm opposed to is every boat being mandated to have backups when they simply aren't necessary.

In your humble opinion - which tells me that many skippers/owners would reach the same conclusion which is why the probably are needed (at least for many areas of operation).

We do some quite adventurous sailing and big mileage so we carry backups. Most people, even small commercial boats, don't do either and could easily get back to a safe haven if everything went dark on their boat.

I am sure many can. But many probably don’t need liferafts or secondary anchors either! It might be the backup can be a mobile phone but you aren’t god so you don’t get to autonomously set the rules. They will be determined through discussion, negotiation and horse trading with commercial operators representatives, regulators, advisors, manufacturers etc. probably in one of your dreaded committee meetings. You can hate it all you want but that’s how it will be done, how it always is done and you aren’t going to change that by bumping your gums here. In fact the only tiny hope you have of changing the system is by engaging with it - but you clearly don’t have the temperament for that.

Non-commercial is not the same as not coded, and many non-commercial boats also have requirements over and above the basics when above certain size limits.

Are you going for a MAJOR upgrade? Retirement must be treating you well. Even if you get to 24m you don’t require to carry charts/plotter.

It's also entirely feasible that we will one day get coded and have paying passengers aboard.

You sure that’s a good idea: what if they don’t bow down to agree with your strongly held opinions or correct any of your factual errors?

That doesn't change the real world needs of navigation whatsoever. Same boat, same skipper, same crew, but suddenly a load of requirements to carry unnecessary things.

Unnecessary… or not needed until something bad happens?

 

[lustyd]

Wow, I’m surprised NATO command could spare your time right now!

How's the sailing in your warzone? Normal people don't sail in warzones. You're really reaching here, what's your actual aim? Are you really so worried by this extremely unlikely event? You really can't work out how you'd navigate in that scenario? This speaks volumes about your own shortcomings.

Did the CEO of Garmin tell you that? I’m sure the question would be “how many sales are we losing today” none - don’t bother there

I have worked with Garmin in a technical capacity, yes. They are not losing sales (and have not been asked for further features) so are not implementing pointless features. Funny that. If you genuinely think you've identified something their many, many customers are missing that would be useful in a genuine real world scenario, they'd love to hear your feedback. I've seen no useful suggestions from you here on what's missing, just lots of ranting and whataboutery from someone who doesn't understand electronic navigation techniques.

Are you going for a MAJOR upgrade? Retirement must be treating you well. Even if you get to 24m you don’t require to carry charts/plotter.

If we code, we will need various unnecessary things. You can't aford a 24m boat?

You sure that’s a good idea: what if they don’t bow down to agree with your strongly held opinions or correct any of your factual errors?

You obviously aren't invited. Most normal people are perfectly happy with what I've said above, especially people who have actually sailed with modern navigation tooling.

Unnecessary… or not needed until something bad happens?

Not needed. As demonstrated by the exceptionally high number of boats using these tools day in and day out. There is no "something bad" that would present danger here and you've failed in all these pages to identify a real world problem. Small commercial vessels for the most part don't get out the paper if their GPS fails, they drive home safely and get it sorted. Many of them using a backup system, but failing that the vast majority just know the way!

 

[ylop]

Lusty - the difference between you and me, is whilst I’m sure you are wrong, I’ve never claimed that I was right or had all the answers. I’d have thought if you wanted to find good solutions then considering the views of a wide range of sailor and their representative bodies was a good solution.

Good luck with your planned charter venture - try not to have an aneurism when you see the rest of the requirements and then have to deal with the public!

 

[lustyd]

Lusty - the difference between you and me, is whilst I’m sure you are wrong, I’ve never claimed that I was right or had all the answers.

The difference between us is that I have knowledge and experience of both systems in practice. You claim that electronic cannot work in the face of enormous evidence to the contrary while I have never said paper should be withdrawn (I do, however, acknowledge that it's withdrawal is imminent).
Perhaps the biggest difference between us is that while you imagine scenarios in which it won't work (and then stop), I discover ways to carry on safely in that self same scenario. It's a mindset thing, being open to change and new situations is critical to adopting new and different things throughout life. As I've repeatedly said, if ever there is an insurmountable issue with the systems we have then it will be reported to manufacturers and solved. There currently are none, and those of us out using the system including myself and Geem amongst many, many others know that.

 

[ylop]

The difference between us is that I have knowledge and experience of both systems in practice.

What arrogant nonsense. I've used both - I am very much a "digital first" navigator, if you digest the information in the thread that will be clear to you.

You claim that electronic cannot work

I've made no such claim, ever in my life, never mind on this thread. This is your problem, you have decided what "the other side" is saying before listening to them.

I have never said paper should be withdrawn (I do, however, acknowledge that it's withdrawal is imminent).

do you accept that boats who are set up to have paper as their back up therefore need an alternative?

Perhaps the biggest difference between us is that while you imagine scenarios in which it won't work (and then stop), I discover ways to carry on safely in that self same scenario. It's a mindset thing, being open to change and new situations is critical to adopting new and different things throughout life.

No the difference is that: 1. I know who is responsible for making the rules; 2. The role of the RYA; 3. That if you want change then you need to engage constructively with the right bodies to drive change not stand on the sidelines saying that change is overdue and they should listen to you despite never telling them your opinion.

As I've repeatedly said, if ever there is an insurmountable issue with the systems we have then it will be reported to manufacturers and solved.

too late once the boat is on the rocks and your passengers are in the water. The regulators job is to make that as unlikely as possible not to learn from its mistakes.

There currently are none, and those of us out using the system including myself and Geem amongst many, many others know that.

Right if you provide actual answers to each of these points - I'll bow out because I've never said I had an issue with electronic navigation, but I did ask where you thought the "line" should be on acceptable / unaceptable (lets say for use on a commercial vessel with paying passengers, and lets say not just following the same track everyday because thats not what vessels are coded to do):

- Where are the regulations which say a plotter manufacturer must display a "not for navigation" message (I believe there is no such thing) so someone needs to convince them their nav tool can be used for navigation - who should that be?
- Is it acceptable to have auto-routing built into the software?
- If it is, should it account for currents/tides? (and be accurate!)
- if it is acceptable then when a user goes "off course" or takes longer than predicted should it be able to auto-recalculate or just go back to the last waypoint?
- Is it acceptable to use chart data from unofficial sources (ie. not UKHO or similar sources)? if so are there any limits?
- Is it acceptable to take data from official sources and filter out some layers of data (not the individual user - but the supplier/distributor) - e.g. not showing overhead cables

 

[lustyd]

It’s entirely pointless discussing with you you’ve made your mind up. Your issues with digital are about as sensible as me suggesting a ship will hit you while you’re down at the chart table. These are things that don't need answers. You continually imply that we need a solution to replace paper while ignoring the one we’ve all been using for 20+ years. I don't even know what your issues actually are after all these pages as your posts are all over the place with the sole intention of arguing that I’m wrong yet without providing any solid reasoning.

 

[newtothis]

In conversation with lustyd and ylop:
https://spokaneriver.net/conf/presentations-2011/monday/TheZaxDrSeuse.pdf

 

[SaltyC]

The opening paragraph from Navionics (Garmin) subscription activation states:-
Use the electronic chart only to facilitate, not replace, the use of authorised government charts. Official government charts and N to M contain all information needed to navigate safely.
This is the reason (as previously stated) ALL plotters state not to be used for navigation, the manufacturers are aware they do noy yet meet international standards.

Yes, most of us use electronics on a daily basis, some believe in the infallibility of electronics and a single source of information, some recognise the possibility of failure and carry a totally independant back up. For peace of mind, or to keep skills alive for rrassurance others carry them to comply with coding rules, to zllow confirmation of position with a Mk1 eyeball?

It is personal preference / compliance with the law, an understanding of Sod's Law of the Sea that failure will happen.

Each to their own, however the fact people carry paper (& use) does not mean they are deniers of progress, those who rely on a single source of position fixing????

Having travelled along a dual carriageway with a Sat nav showing me 100 yds to the east for 30 miles advising to turn right and join road at every junction, was amusing not dangerous, 100 yards off track at night in a boat steering the screen would be reckless - in my humble opinion.

Yes Garmin and other suppliers could provide a plotter with manual plotting which would meet one of the questions BUT they are waiting for a specific requirement, a standard as YLOP has said.

At this point I feel it best to agree to disagree.

 

[lustyd]

the manufacturers are aware they do noy yet meet international standards.

They can’t. Those standards were written to specifically exclude them. All that needs to be done is relax the rules and the wording would change. It’s not a technical or capability issue, and the fact that plotters have been in widespread use for two full decades without updating those standards demonstrates why we should not be overly prescriptive.

Yes, most of us use electronics on a daily basis, some believe in the infallibility of electronics and a single source of information

You have a very weird (And wrong) interpretation of what’s being said here.

Do you consider carrying only one set of paper charts dangerous? Or from only one provider? Why hold electronics to a higher standard? How about if you have to detour and find yourself in an area you don’t have the charts for? Easy enough to do on a Channel crossing in either direction.

 

[Ceirwan]

It won't change until change is forced by a change in the law / regulations.

We live in a litigious society.
The manufacturers know that people will buy their equipment, and will navigate with them, ultimately if they can get away with putting a message that says don't rely on this, then of course they will do.

I doubt the presence of that message makes any difference to none commercial users on how they navigate.
For myself I navigate almost exclusively with chart plotter / OpenCPN.

I have a bundle of old outdated charts that in a worse case scenario I could use to get myself to a well marked channel, but in practice I've never needed them