Originally Posted by TakeFive
If, OTOH, you're looking for speculation of experienced sailors who have some keen insights, this is your place. But part of that speculation will have to include chartplotters and other navigational tools, since their speculation includes technology as enabling factors in this and other accidents.
I'm really perplexed why some appear to so strenuously reject the simple notion that today's technology might have been a contributing factor to an incident such as that involving RULE 62...
A cruiser today who chooses to transit a reef passage such as Ranguana in Belize at night, for example... If it is not GPS and a set of waypoints that "enables" him to do so, what IS it, then? The charts remain the same, still based upon hopelessly outdated British Admiralty surveys, and no navigational aids have been added...
A bigger set of balls than the cruiser of a few decades ago? Or, a smaller brain? Pure, dumb luck?
Or, is it only a successful, uneventful
such passage which should be considered to have rightfully been "enabled" by electronic navigation? But, in the event it would have gone pear-shaped, and the boat wound up on the reef instead, the navigator's reliance on GPS should therefore be disqualified as a contributing factor to such a mishap?
When we routinely see sailors now taking chances in waters where "visual piloting rules only" previously applied, then exactly what is it
- if not modern technology - that is allowing them to do so?