RIN / MAIB "digital navigation" webinar Nov 16th

[lustyd]

Occasionally my plotter shows my position - but is some distance (sometimes critical) away from where I am according to the built in chart. I can understand how handy occasionally drawing electronic lines on an chart would be. If you don't want to use the features - don't use them - but why stop other people wanting to them? I am glad that Tom Cunliffe seems to be pushing development of apps in this direction - all the ones I have seen are a bit simplistic and no sign of this type of development.

Curious that two way chart updates isn't a requirement then, which would be considerably more useful in the long run, and is something that even the Navionics phone app can do. Satellite imagery also would seem to be a useful thing to have in such circumstances.

The problem seems to be that if all you have in your toolbox is a pencil, everything looks like a paper chart. These committees could use some more people with technology experience when putting together requirements.

I wasn't saying we shouldn't put the facility in, just that it's unnecessary to make it a requirement for leisure systems.

 

[dunedin]

https://rin.org.uk/resource/resmgr/groupresources/smallcraft/Proposal_for_EN_system_Rev6_.pdf

The News Release item on the RIN page sets some context for that document ….
https://rin.org.uk/page/SCG

 

[dunedin]

That answers a very different question. I do understand that a committee has decided to put that into the requirements. I imagine that committee room was very much like the YBW forums with a similar demographic.

My question I guess should have been what's the benefit. It doesn't add anything useful for leisure use, and it adds very little for commercial use in practice aside from assuming there's no other equipment on board.

The reason RIN proposed that should be able to plot bearings etc is specifically to handle GNSS (GPS etc) unavailability.
Whilst most of us now carry multiple independent GNSS/GPS devices, the signals are very weak and could be suddenly made unavailable to all devices - by certain natural phenomena or by accidental or intentional human intervention.
Anybody who sails on Scottish West Coast will have seen warnings of GNSS blocking during Naval exercises, for example - and it takes very little to do this.

 

[Sandy]

This is an important consideration. When either the GPS is lagging or inaccurate, or the chart is not aligned to the GPS datum/projection (rare these days), then the ability to fix position by bearing etc. is essential. Also a core requirement for pilotage.

Currently no (or very few?) leisure plotters have this facility.

Have people given up using the Mark I eyeball?

Once I am into a complex pilotage the last thing I look at is the plotter. A wee bit of paper with the buoyage or marks I am using with distances, bearings and a calculated time between each mark is what I use. On simple pilotages it is all done in my head.

p.s. I am a past RIN member.

 

[jlavery]

Have people given up using the Mark I eyeball?

Once I am into a complex pilotage the last thing I look at is the plotter. A wee bit of paper with the buoyage or marks I am using with distances, bearings and a calculated time between each mark is what I use. On simple pilotages it is all done in my head.

p.s. I am a past RIN member.

Good point.

 

[lustyd]

The reason RIN proposed that should be able to plot bearings etc is specifically to handle GNSS (GPS etc) unavailability.
Whilst most of us now carry multiple independent GNSS/GPS devices, the signals are very weak and could be suddenly made unavailable to all devices - by certain natural phenomena or by accidental or intentional human intervention.

Yes that was exactly the type of thing I was referring to. Leisure requirements shouldn't have any of this kind of paranoid excess

 

[requiem]

This is an important consideration. When either the GPS is lagging or inaccurate, or the chart is not aligned to the GPS datum/projection (rare these days), then the ability to fix position by bearing etc. is essential. Also a core requirement for pilotage.

This is also one of my personal requirements for what makes a nav app a suitable "paper replacement". I don't think it's paranoid excess, even some official charts still have warnings about not trusting the plotted position in places. In any case, verifying the GPS position rather than blindly trusting it is good seamanship.

The proper implementation however shouldn't be focused on specific plot types, rather this can be easily achieved with the option to place muitiple bearing lines and VRMs, which can be done with OpenCPN, SEAiq, Coastal Explorer, and probably others. There are also many other reasons one might wish to "draw" on a chart, be it to place a clearing bearing or mark areas as go / no-go (e.g. based on something in a notice to mariners).

 

[lustyd]

verifying the GPS position rather than blindly trusting it is good seamanship.

As I said though, that doesn't require any drawing at all. If you're confirming position then take a bearing to anything you like, the plotter will tell you what that bearing should be instantly, even if the thing you're looking at is a moving AIS or RADAR target.

The RIN really ought to be concerned with how best to use modern tech rather than bending it to old techniques. The use of clearing bearings is designed around a paper chart down below, that you can't see, and doesn't have your position on it. These days we can create a route or waypoint instantly on the plotter and watch as we approach it at the helm.

 

[st599]

I wasn't saying we shouldn't put the facility in, just that it's unnecessary to make it a requirement for leisure systems.

It's a requirement to get a plotter approved for navigation by IMO, which makes it a requirement for MCA coded vessels and possibly even SOLAS vessels once paper charts go. So sailing schools, clubs, charities definitely need it, other boats possibly need it.

This is also one of my personal requirements for what makes a nav app a suitable "paper replacement". I don't think it's paranoid excess, even some official charts still have warnings about not trusting the plotted position in places. In any case, verifying the GPS position rather than blindly trusting it is good seamanship.

The proper implementation however shouldn't be focused on specific plot types, rather this can be easily achieved with the option to place muitiple bearing lines and VRMs, which can be done with OpenCPN, SEAiq, Coastal Explorer, and probably others. There are also many other reasons one might wish to "draw" on a chart, be it to place a clearing bearing or mark areas as go / no-go (e.g. based on something in a notice to mariners).

Those allow you to draw on the chart, they don't then let you tell the plotter to use that as your position.

 

[Alicatt]

There is another scheduled one about Autonomous Vessels I will skip


Thank you once again for registering to join our webinar on 16th November 2023 at 1100 GMT on "The Marine Accident Investigation Branch: lessons for contemporary digital navigation" with David C Robertson, Inspector of Marine Accidents, MAIB.

There are autonomous vessels on trials around the inland waterways over here in the Benelux countries, we get notices of when and where they are going to be sailing

 

[dunedin]

Have people given up using the Mark I eyeball?

Once I am into a complex pilotage the last thing I look at is the plotter. A wee bit of paper with the buoyage or marks I am using with distances, bearings and a calculated time between each mark is what I use. On simple pilotages it is all done in my head.

p.s. I am a past RIN member.

In Scotland, as you may know, the rocks may be about 20m apart - and the nearest “mark” / buoy 60 miles away where the nearest Calmac ferry route runs

 

[requiem]

As I said though, that doesn't require any drawing at all. If you're confirming position then take a bearing to anything you like, the plotter will tell you what that bearing should be instantly, even if the thing you're looking at is a moving AIS or RADAR target.

Sure, you can confirm the position that way, but you're left hanging if it turns out to be a non-confirmation.

The RIN really ought to be concerned with how best to use modern tech rather than bending it to old techniques. The use of clearing bearings is designed around a paper chart down below, that you can't see, and doesn't have your position on it. These days we can create a route or waypoint instantly on the plotter and watch as we approach it at the helm.

People aren't always following routes (for which the XTE might be sufficient); being able to mark up the chart with such reminders is a good aid to situational awareness. Which reminds me... another key feature is setting of the safety depth/contour. As with drawing lines, rectangles, etc it helps provide an at-a-glance "am I in safe water" assessment.

It also ensures everyone/everything is on the same page; I can work up the plan on the laptop and export all those drawings to my tablet, phone, etc, just as you might do with routes and waypoints. Sure, you can scribble those down on a scrap of paper, or keep them in memory, but I'd argue it's far better practice to have a clean workflow that's also clearly documented on the chart.

 

[dunedin]

Yes that was exactly the type of thing I was referring to. Leisure requirements shouldn't have any of this kind of paranoid excess

Do you think leisure craft aren’t at risk of GNSS outages? If so on what basis does your knowledge exceed the RINs.
I would guess the probability of needing non GNSS position is higher than needing to use the liferaft that I carry.

 

[requiem]

Those allow you to draw on the chart, they don't then let you tell the plotter to use that as your position.

True, but drawing is easier to implement compared to implementing full DR functionality, and I'd argue offers far greater value for effort. Being able to re-locate own ship's icon is largely a finishing touch (though might be handy if passed to the VHF for DSC purposes).

One other example... If sailing with others, arranging a rendezvous, marking a search area, etc, being able to mark positions of other vessels, expected tracks, etc. is handy. Again, not something everyone might do, but those are yet more use cases enabled by basic drawing functions.

 

[SaltyC]

That answers a very different question. I do understand that a committee has decided to put that into the requirements. I imagine that committee room was very much like the YBW forums with a similar demographic.

My question I guess should have been what's the benefit. It doesn't add anything useful for leisure use, and it adds very little for commercial use in practice aside from assuming there's no other equipment on board.

My understanding,which may be incorrect, is we need two sources of position. Merchant ships no longer carry paper charts, although run 2 independant electronic systems. However, if GPS fails the plotter has no position. We, the luddites, revert to paper and 2B pencil.

As ships no longer carry paper charts, their systems allow you to plot an EP, bearings (3 point fix) on the screen,hence you have an electronic paper chart. therefore it does add benefit for leisure users with no paper charts.

It does not however address the problemof dead batteries!!

 

[requiem]

My understanding,which may be incorrect, is we need two sources of position.

Precisely. As the saying goes, "the prudent mariner will not rely solely on any single aid to navigation". At sea, you can use GPS and verify with a sextant. On land, you can verify by eye or by radar.

Each boat is different. You may have numerous crew, each with phone/tablet GPS on a modern boat with multiple plotters, each with integrated GPS, or you may have an older boat with a remote GPS sensor connected to the plotter via rusty coat hanger and a crew that still uses flip-phones. The navigation system should be fit-for-purpose, not a toy limited to scrolling charts along a magenta line.

Laptops, tablets, etc tend to bring their own power, even if ship's power fails. Ensuring sufficient backup via power banks, etc is little different from ensuring your car won't run out of petrol on a trip.

 

[st599]

Curious that two way chart updates isn't a requirement then, which would be considerably more useful in the long run, and is something that even the Navionics phone app can do.

Does the IMO allow this for navigation? I thought ENCs had to solely be from national agencies?

True, but drawing is easier to implement compared to implementing full DR functionality

It is, but it's the DR functionality that's required to make the system allowed for navigation.

 

[lustyd]

People aren't always following routes (for which the XTE might be sufficient); being able to mark up the chart with such reminders is a good aid to situational awareness

I'm sorry but this suggests you don't do much electronic navigation. Putting in a waypoint is the way to do clearing bearings with modern kit. You don't have to be following a route to do this.

Do you think leisure craft aren’t at risk of GNSS outages?

No, I don't think they're at any risk at all. The likelihood of all of the major GNSS systems going down at once is infinitesimally small in all but world war scenarios (and you won't be sailing then!). Can you describe the scenario where there is some risk involved for the crew? I can't think of anywhere on earth I would be that I couldn't safely get to a safe haven if the system went down, and that's in the extremely unlikely event that it did go down. This is precisely the problem with committees full of old men, someone thinks up a theoretical scenario and then they all agree it must be dealt with through bureaucracy

It does not however address the problemof dead batteries!!

Firstly, you've immediately started talking about ships again and I explicitly keep saying leisure. Secondly, it would be almost impossible for the batteries or device to cause me to lose position. Any given boat in 2023 is likely to have 2 plotters, a couple of phones, watches, tablets, all of which have GNSS positioning. Personally, I have two fixed plotters, one handheld plotter, two GPS watches with charts, two phones with charts, a tablet with charts. These collectively can run from the LA engine battery, the LiFePo4 house bank, AA batteries, built in rechargeable batteries, direct from solar, direct from alternator. In the extremely unlikely event that all of that somehow fails, I have a compass and a brain, and that's ignoring the paper charts.

The navigation system should be fit-for-purpose, not a toy limited to scrolling charts along a magenta line.

But that's my point, what we currently have is fit for purpose for leisure sailing, no need to add unnecessary requirements that will simply drive up price and complexity for features that literally nobody will ever use. This entire thing is the equivalent of forcing people to carry a motoring cone!

 

[dunedin]

No, I don't think they're at any risk at all. The likelihood of all of the major GNSS systems going down at once is infinitesimally small in all but world war scenarios (and you won't be sailing then!). Can you describe the scenario where there is some risk involved for the crew? I can't think of anywhere on earth I would be that I couldn't safely get to a safe haven if the system went down, and that's in the extremely unlikely event that it did go down. This is precisely the problem with committees full of old men, someone thinks up a theoretical scenario and then they all agree it must be dealt with through bureaucracy

We will have to disagree on the risk of GNSS unavailability then.
You clearly haven’t seen the NtMs that are issued multiple times a year announcing GNSS blocking during naval exercises in UK waters where I sail. Nor be aware of cheap GPS blockers available on the internet. And perhaps think satellite signals are stronger than they are, and do not have risk of various interferences.
As noted, the probably of GNSS outage underway is low - but not any lower than other risks for which we carry life rafts, EPIRBs etc.

 

[lustyd]

Perfectly aware, thanks. Still not seeing much of a real world risk