eNavigation

[lustyd]

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

We live in a litigious society.

It's not a fear of litigation, it's a statement that the regulations prevent their use for navigation. Yes, the regs need to change to remove that limitation, no the regs don't need to specify what can be used.

 

[SaltyC]

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.

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.

Your idea that the rules were written to exclude a section of seafarers is a joke, or you have a persecution complex.
The rules were written for seafarers to be safe with full duplicate electronic systems and power supplies also the ability to navigate by traditipnal methods by plotting on the screens, this facility then removed the need to carry and manually update paper charts on board - the 2nd Mates favourire chore, no wonder they needed a second 'lookout' on the bridge.

You are once again twisting the argument to justify your electronic soapbox.
Who carries 1 chart? You carry charts for where you are going - the same as with electronic charts. Crossing the channel a sensible person will have sufficient charts to cover the area one is heading. You are clutching at straws.

I agree, on passage from Milford Haven to Lands End I would not have detailed charts of the Bristol Channel and Nth Devon Coasts but I have a large scale chart and an Almanac so my back up is sufficient.

With regard to carrying charts from different providers - Why? Please explain. I don't have charts with a disclaimer of 'Not to be used for navigation'. Are you suggesting I need to carry 2 separate sets of electronic charts from different providers?

 

[IanCC]

I think this thread is jumbling up three related but in fact separate things:

1) Rules/laws for UK flagged pleasure vessels - for which, unlike many other countries, we are fortunate to have a very light touch with no formal regulations on what navigation systems and charts we need to carry, beyond the basic SOLAS statement on passage planning.

2) Rules/laws for UK flagged coded vessels - which are set by MCA, not RYA, and have recently mandated via MGN319 either continued use of official paper charts, or use of a new SV-ECS system and only official (very expensive) ENC charts. (I believe that RYA and others have tried to push back on this with MCA to no avail, as yet.)

3) Basis for Yachtmaster training curriculum - this is what RYA rightly play the lead role in defining, and his been teaching electronic methods for many years. The issues here in moving formally to electronic as the primary or sole means of navigation include that a coded training yacht now needs to still carry paper charts or use only SV-ECS and ENCs - which would be different from what the trained skippers would actually use on their own boat (and be very expensive).

I believe it is primarily the third of these that RYA’s announcement was about, which is indeed their core role, but happy to be proven wrong.

It would be helpful if posters could also be clear on which aspect(s) they are referring to.

Finally, it is unclear in my mind what remit if any UKHO have to propose international standards in ANY of these areas. They did recently take a paper to IHO but that seemed to be around their attempts to push for more regulation on all craft and mandating their ENCs, which may not be helpful and not clear what, if any, benefits this might have (other than to official HO revenues).

I have been following this thread with interest.

Isn't all of this discussion just about a boat in UK waters?
I am currently planning a Norway trip and it looks like it is a legal requirement to carry charts.

See link and extract from norwegian pilot.

Electronic Chart Data for Chartplotters

 

[ylop]

They can’t. Those standards were written to specifically exclude them. All that needs to be done is relax the rules

Which is precisely the initiative being alluded to by the email that triggered your opening post. Its not the RYA's fault.

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.

Why are you so sure that the new standards will be overly prescriptive? My 6 questions remain perfectly valid - they are exactly the sort of questions I would expect the IMO and UKHO to be asking themselves. I don't actually have a fixed view on which way they should "fall" on each point, because I'm not arguing the point you think I am which is why you are struggling to get your head around it.

 

[lustyd]

exclude a section of seafarers is a joke

Didn't say that, I said exclude the working systems, which they do. I stopped reading your post there as you're talking nonsense again.

 

[lustyd]

Which is precisely the initiative being alluded to by the email that triggered your opening post.

No it isn't, you're talking nonsense again. The OP was about the RYA trying to come up with a workable solution for electronic navigation. I've said this many, many, many times on the thread but you can't seem to take that in.
There is already a workable solution that 99% of small boats are using happily. All we need to do is acknowledge that and remove the artificial limitations.

Unfortunately, it's full of people like yourself who love committees and telling people what they can't do.

As I said though, it's impossible discussing this with you so I'll give up again.

 

[ylop]

No it isn't, you're talking nonsense again. The OP was about the RYA trying to come up with a workable solution for electronic navigation.

But @dunnedin pointed out many many pages ago that it seemed to be referring to this: Digital First: The Rise Of eNavigation

Nowhere in your OP did you say the "RYA was trying to come up with a workable solution", nor is any such language in the full article on the RYA website. They said they were working to embed it in their training, and I read that as "we are moving the emphasis so that as soon as an official switch over happens, we can be paperless" exactly what you want!

I've said this many, many, many times on the thread but you can't seem to take that in.
There is already a workable solution that 99% of small boats are using happily. All we need to do is acknowledge that and remove the artificial limitations.

And do you not accept that if there are "artificial limitations" those require international cooperation to remove them? And that the UKHO is the party responsible for sanctioning charts as acceptable in the UK not the RYA?

Unfortunately, it's full of people like yourself who love committees and telling people what they can't do.

I don't love committees - I often find them infuriating to get stuff done, but I accept that in the real world with multiple organisations that need to work together, they are a necessary evil to actually resolve issues rather than be the bore grumbling about nobody listening to you despite you having all the answers. You've put a lot of effort over the last few days into arguing for change, if you put the same effort into trying to persuade the people who actually make the decisions through dialogue and carefully listening to their concerns (if they have any) you'd be further towards having achieved the change you want or at the very least actually understanding how the world works and where the barriers are. Assuming, of course, you weren't just asked to leave because every point someone made that needed consideration, you said was nonsense and accused them of being a luddite.

As I said though, it's impossible discussing this with you so I'll give up again.

You refuse to answer questions, that's not the same as "impossible discussing". I'll accept that you can't answer the regulations one because there aren't any - but what about the other 5 questions: if the UKHO were to say commercially available chart plotters are good enough - should there be limits on source data, auto routing, filtering/removing data etc?

 

[lustyd]

 

[westhinder]

I stopped reading your post there as you're talking nonsense again.

No it isn't, you're talking nonsense again. …

Unfortunately, it's full of people like yourself who love committees and telling people what they can't do.

As I said though, it's impossible discussing this with you so I'll give up again.

@lustyd, why do you feel the need to insult people who don’t agree with you? I’ve only quoted your two latest posts, but there are dozens more.
There is absolutely nothing against robust discussions and defending your point of view, but let us please keep it civil. You are dragging down the tone and atmosphere of this forum.
I have decided not to let this pass anymore and speak up, but I won’t be drawn into a further yes/no slanging match

 

[lustyd]

No worse than what’s been said to me on the thread, and if people aren’t engaging with the conversation but instead continually coming up with random nonsense then I decide to call that out.
Many have engaged positively and those discussions were useful.

 

[AngusMcDoon]

I have decided not to let this pass anymore and speak up, but I won’t be drawn into a further yes/no slanging match

Oh yes you will.

 

[ducked]

It’s not “e-Navigation” it’s just navigation. It

Yes it is. Standard terminology with a generally accepted and understood meaning e-commerce, etc.
“””
No it isnt. If it was” just navigation,” that would imply that celestial etc no longer existed or worked, yet the stars still shine.

Yo I r general point seems valid, though Id guess there be a few grandads on ere who could explain the Internyet at a pinch.

 

[SaltyC]

Didn't say that, I said exclude the working systems, which they do. I stopped reading your post there as you're talking nonsense again.

I will assume that means you have no answer.

There are times in a discussion to accept the other view. You meantime appear to want to push your view as the only way, perhaps a job with MCA beckons?

 

[capnsensible]

 

[Ceirwan]

It's not a fear of litigation, it's a statement that the regulations prevent their use for navigation. Yes, the regs need to change to remove that limitation, no the regs don't need to specify what can be used.

The regulations do not prevent their use for navigation on a leisure vessel, as their are no official chart carriage requirements for leisure vessels.
Most (all?) plotters use propriety formats like C-Map, Lighthouse, Navionics, in the UK they build their charts from UKHO data, you're relying on them to do this correctly, so i'm not surprised at all that they want to put a disclaimer there.

Commercial systems can directly display ENCS from the admiralty & other official sources, directly to the screen, they have to meet standards as to how the infomation is used & displayed, as well as the backup & redundancy systems.

And yes the regs would need to specify minimum capabiliies for the plotter. That's how legislation works for everything else, the brake pads on your car have to be e-marked to show they're suitable to be used on the public road, electrical equipment is tested and approved to make sure you don't get electrocuted.
And no doubt whatever legislation comes about will state minimum requirements for the chart plotter.
Who knows maybe they might even be helpful, for example specifying that plotters need to read standard S57 format charts. Although I think that's too much to hope for.

 

[lustyd]

And yes the regs would need to specify minimum capabiliies for the plotter. That's how legislation works for everything else

As I said earlier in the thread, no it doesn’t. Even for commercial use it can just state an appropriate system be used. Commercial skippers must be trained and qualified and therefore the law can recognise them as able to make that judgement.
Comparing to safety marking is unusual since they already receive safety marks as electrical equipment. That’s just a manufacturing standards thing and far less in depth than you’re implying here.

 

[lustyd]

I will assume that means you have no answer

To you making up things I said? My answer was above. If you’re going to go off and have imaginary conversations then no, I’ll not respond.

 

[RobbieW]

I came across this on the BBC yesterday, BBC Radio 4 - BBC Inside Science, Should we rethink navigating by GPS?. A bit of thread drift and only the first 10 minutes is relevant.

It emphasised a conversation I had with an RIN member friend recently, he currently has pretty much a monopoly on teaching yachties astro on the south coast. My early training was in aviation in the 70s, inertial platforms for long haul navigation and Decca for short. Since we now all have an inertial platform in our phones I wonder whether that could augment GNSS systems ?

 

[lustyd]

Seems to just be the same FUD we've seen repeated endlessly on these forums about GPS. In the real world where leisure sailors are operating it's just not a problem and hasn't been for the decades the system has been in use. If Russia (or USA) ever became such an issue that all GNSS systems were inoperable, we certainly won't be leisure sailing so it's not really worth taking into account for our purposes.

I'll repeat: jamming is a VERY local issue and requires a transmitter to overpower all GNSS signals in the area. The location of the jammer is easy to find and bad actors are stopped very quickly in civilised places.
Spoofing is a solved problem in GNSS with certificate signing entirely preventing spoofing. This is not currently available to civilians but if spoofing were to become an issue it could be rolled out in minutes.

 

[ylop]

As I said earlier in the thread, no it doesn’t. Even for commercial use it can just state an appropriate system be used. Commercial skippers must be trained and qualified and therefore the law can recognise them as able to make that judgement.

Why don't we just tell them to use an appropriate boat? appropriately manned? equipped with appropriate medical supplies? an appropriate anchor? an appropriate liferaft and appropriate personal flotation?

The "lowest" level of commercial skipper has a PB2 certificate. You could of course increase that requirement - but then you logic of "its been working fine for years" would be a bit undermined.

Comparing to safety marking is unusual since they already receive safety marks as electrical equipment. That’s just a manufacturing standards thing and far less in depth than you’re implying here.

Nobody knows what the standard might say. That's why its so comical that you are outraged by it - you don't even know what you are upset by, other than the principal that there might be a standard, any standard.