SailNet Community banner
  • SailNet is a forum community dedicated to Sailing enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about sailing, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, repairs, reviews, maintenance, and more!

Paper Charts or Electronic Navigation

8K views 93 replies 15 participants last post by  outbound 
#1 ·
Does anyone still use paper charts or do you rely on your Navigation equipment. I learned by hand as enjoy working with charts but see the ease of plotting a course via Navigation. Whats your preference?
 
#2 · (Edited)
Electronics for sure.

But, I also have a home chart making set up. I use mostly free source info like NOAA charts and Google earth. Build custom laminated 8.5x11 charts in booklet format for specific trips and cruising areas with notable waypoints and routes entered.

The booklet is stored in an out of the way area on the boat in the event of a total electronics failure. Which actually happened to me this march.

Pulled out my booklet and kept navigating with my precalculated routes and compass for a day or two until I was able to get my cell phone with Navionics back on line (never did get my chart plotter working again, but didn't try that hard either).

But yes, definitely electronics for primary navigation.
 
#3 ·
After a circumnavigation and many years doing deliveries and ocean crossings professionally with celestial, I love my electronic navigation equipment. So far, and this may not hold true for the next area I sail to, my Garmin's charts have been spot on everywhere I've already been, except the ICW. I have a few charts, but rarely use them and I'm not even sure where they are on the boat.
But, in my opinion, the most useful navigation tools after the chartplotter are cruising guides. They offer much more information on any area you might be sailing in than paper charts and many have updates on their websites, so one can easily keep them current. Doing the corrections to charts was always one of my least favorite chores.
 
#4 ·
Makes sense. i like playing with paper charts but underway I can see the benefit of having real time location and navigation. I'm just bored on a rainy day looking at NOAA charts and getting frustrated with Marina's that cant seem to respond to a basic question via email.
 
#6 ·
I like paper, but I use digital far more often. My preference is to have both, but in reality I've been cruising with digital-only for some time now. Partly it's due to cost -- paper charts are crazy expensive up here in Canada. For the price of a 1/2-dozen I can get the digital charts for all of North American. How does that make any sense :confused:.

For the record, we have three independent digital chart sets on board. I've never had one fail yet, but I think three gives me adequate backup.
 
#7 ·
Electronic, hands down. Paper backup down below. I've never needed it for backup, even when primary nav dies, as my iphone also has a backup. As I think about it, I'd need to lose 3 devices aboard (chartplotter, ipad and iphone), before needing the paper.

I used to mark my position every so often on a paper chart, in case I lost electronics, along with speed and direction to be able to recreate position. I rarely do anymore. I simply take a periodic screen shot of my nav app on my phone. Everything is on it.

However, cross checking electronics is a habit I'd never break. If my gps based chart says something visible should be in a certain place, I check that it actually is.
 
#10 ·
Have redundancy on electronics. MFDs, IPads, laptop etc. but still have paper cruising guides. Often have several different sourced electronic charts up and a guide open when approaching a new unknown landfall. Not infrequently they disagree. Then resort to”if it’s blue go on through. If it’s brown run aground.” Still have a log and a drop line as well. Grass, debris floating in the water, turbulence and other things can give false depth readings. Depth can be different in front or back of the boat.
Really only use a plotting chart with any frequency. And that’s on passage. Good to see progress. Use who’s on watch’s initials. May write in pencil weather information on it as well as where weather router wants us to be by what time. Although drop waypoints with same information on electronic charts for that paper is a nice quick way to reference. Use multiple colors and symbols so don’t get confused when doing that on electronic charts.
 
#11 ·
Have redundancy on electronics. MFDs, IPads, laptop etc. but still have paper cruising guides. Often have several different sourced electronic charts up and a guide open when approaching a new unknown landfall. Not infrequently they disagree. Then resort to"if it's blue go on through. If it's brown run aground." Still have a log and a drop line as well. Grass, debris floating in the water, turbulence and other things can give false depth readings. Depth can be different in front or back of the boat.
Really only use a plotting chart with any frequency. And that's on passage. Good to see progress. Use who's on watch's initials. May write in pencil weather information on it as well as where weather router wants us to be by what time. Although drop waypoints with same information on electronic charts for that paper is a nice quick way to reference. Use multiple colors and symbols so don't get confused when doing that on electronic charts.
Where do you get your cruising guides? i'd love to get one for the long island sound.
 
#13 ·
Onboard electronics may not fail... but the GPS system can or be turned off for "military purposes. Electronic navigation gear is so robust these days and quite user friendly... maybe too user friendly. Being able to navigate was a skill that kept some jerks off the water. Not so these days... more jerks BECAUSE of electronic navigation.

I keep a chart kit on board and my old Caribe charts... rarely look at them.
 
#17 ·
Losing GPS might be annoying, but wouldn't prevent me from using my electronic tools to plot DRs or fixes. If you're using "Fisher Price" software that removes almost all functionality beyond "looking at the pretty pictures" then keeping paper might be wise.

In my opinion technology has reached the point that many requirements for paper chart carriage may actually reduce safety. Yes, even when that technology enables the unskilled to get on the water.
 
#19 · (Edited)
Both also. With electronics you can determine and monitor COG and distance, and location and SOG and ctosstrack error, etc.. etc. But for coastal use you need paper to easily reference that the path to your next mark is clear of obstacles and thus safe. On most electronics, the display is too small or the scale too large for the user to easily confirm that the course being set is free of danger. Best I know no current nav technology is smart enough to red flag a dangerous course.

If the most talented sailors with the best electronics can put the boat on a reef, what lesson should us folks take?
https://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/...am-vestas-wind-went-aground-volvo-ocean-race/
Tapatalk
 
#21 ·
On most electronics, the display is too small or the scale too large for the user to easily confirm that the course being set is free of danger. Best I know no current nav technology is smart enough to red flag a dangerous course.
There is this feature called "zoom", and many of us aren't navigating on 5" displays. Several plotters now are smart enough to flag a dangerous course. Our Furuno, for example, "runs" a route zoomed in and flags potential hazards. Of course, the best way to do this is to not create a route over hazards at all. This is true paper or electronic, and is the responsibility of the person creating a route regardless of the type of chart used.

If the most talented sailors with the best electronics can put the boat on a reef, what lesson should us folks take?
https://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/...am-vestas-wind-went-aground-volvo-ocean-race/
Tapatalk
If your takeaway from that event was that the "best electronics" used by the "most talented sailors" put a boat on a reef, then you either do not understand electronic charts and charting well, or your personal worldview biases your comprehension of what really happened there.

Mark
 
#32 ·
I have had electronic charts show me aground when I wasn't too, but in practice it has never been a big deal because any time this has happened I was using visible land mark's (and RADAR when available) to find where the channel/deep water actually was.

There was a time when I found paper charts better for big picture over view, but electronic charts have gotten so good. I haven't bought a new CHS chart since 2015 and my newest NOAA chart is even older.

If some one wants to try autorouteing, I find Navionics autorouteing to be good, it does flag hazards. You still need to zoom in to an appropriate scale and fly the route yourself but autoroute on Navionics can find an appropriate route in seconds for what would take me hours to do with paper and pencil. You save your vessels particulars; draft, mast height, beam etc and it calculates a route for you. I have used it in some fairly complicated areas like 10000 Islands in Florida and Thousand Islands in Canada and I have had no issues.
 
#33 ·
Another issue is many people never did a DR plot nor learned how to get the most out of their radars or understand its limitations nor followed a contour line on their depth nor plotted a great circle nor learned the many nav skills that were required in the past. Hence without that background they don’t know when their electronic aid is misleading them.
Examples
Had Gulf Stream overlaid on chart. Wanted boat turned 12degrees to port when entered. Crew did turn. I came up and dropped thermometer in water. No rise. Go back to original course.
Down below napping after doing night watch on way to Maine. Heard waves breaking on shore. Came right up. Dense fog with light drizzle. Heard breaking waves . Grabbed helm from crew and made sharp turn. Retrimmed and carried on. Crew yells at me why did you do that. Explain he was going to put boat on the rocks. He yells no MFD said 1/4 m off, radar just a lot of returns. Switch filters on radar. He sees shoreline and says “oh” .Tell him to use his ears. He hears breaking waves say “oh”.

People also get screen hypnosis to the point they don’t use their god given senses. Don’t hear the sails out of trim, see debris in the water, small boat traffic, change in water color. We ask every crew to take out the earplugs and do a slow 360 of the horizon very 5-10m on passage, always when coastal. Ask they don’t depend on AIS or radar guard zones but supplement with their senses. Regardless of vendor because the code writers must justify their salaries there’s so many mostly useless features on current MFDs you can get lost and miss the important things in your situation playing with menus, overlays and various features. Often when taking the helm from someone else spend time clearing off the clutter so the important stuff stands out.

Would wish people learn paper charting before moving on the electronic. I very rarely take out the paper except for cruising guides on new to me landfalls but use my 5 senses always.
 
#34 ·
I agree, it's never been a problem for me to have the charts a bit shifted. But that's because I (we?) don't expect them to be perfect. So we're always compensating with eyes, ears, smell, and also with direct electronic measures like sonar and radar.

It's essential that people understand that a chartplotter is at least two steps away from showing actual reality. They show an approximate (GPS) fix that can easily be out by many 10s, if not 100s of feet. This is overlaid on a chart which could have an error of a mile or more.

This has never been a problem up till recently. Human senses, and other direct measures, easily compensated for any errors in charting. But now we're all being trained to believe that the little boat moving on the digital screen IS showing reality. It is not, but it's easy to fall into the trap of believing it is.

Here's a screen shot from my iPad using iNavx with Navionics charts.
 

Attachments

#39 ·
I agree, it's never been a problem for me to have the charts a bit shifted. But that's because I (we?) don't expect them to be perfect. So we're always compensating with eyes, ears, smell, and also with direct electronic measures like sonar and radar.

It's essential that people understand that a chartplotter is at least two steps away from showing actual reality. They show an approximate (GPS) fix that can easily be out by many 10s, if not 100s of feet. This is overlaid on a chart which could have an error of a mile or more.

This has never been a problem up till recently. Human senses, and other direct measures, easily compensated for any errors in charting. But now we're all being trained to believe that the little boat moving on the digital screen IS showing reality. It is not, but it's easy to fall into the trap of believing it is.

Here's a screen shot from my iPad using iNavx with Navionics charts.
It seems like a lot of people look for instances where situations occur when electronic charting is used, then falsely equate them with not occurring if only paper charts were used.

In your case (this post isn't meant to be directed at you specifically - it was just easy to quote you), I fail to see how a paper chart would be any different. In Outbound's case above, I fail to see how a paper chart would prevent a crewman from using earplugs and not hearing a breaking shore. The Vestas case cited earlier is the silliest of all in laying blame on electronic charting.

So far, in all situations and cases presented here where electronic charting was determined to be a problem, none of them were preventable by paper charts. Eyes, ears, smell, etc still work with electronic charting, and can actually be attenuated with paper charting, where one is often doing so away from the helm with focused attention on the chart for far longer than would be for an electronic chart.

In fact, pretty much all of the situations presented so far would have been exacerbated by paper charts. For example, if Outbound's crew had to go below for several minutes to chart position regularly, they would not be at the helm to see the floating dangers or hear the breaking reef. In an example like you present, a person could easily be aground while discovering a chart error by hand after 30min before they realized the situation.

I bet not many could manually plot positions on a paper chart to an error less than 100'. Our GPS provides position data 20x every second. At 8kts, the time-lag error on the plotter is unmeasurable. It's actual precision is almost always within 2 meters, and coupled with the fast data rate, is almost always within 1 meter.

To lament that people should learn paper charting before using electronic charting is misplaced. The same lament was being cast when Loran was taking over celestial, and again when GPS was taking over Loran. Instead, one should simply be urging people to learn to navigate in general - not with any particular set of tools.

After all, that 6yr old you see playing on the boat over from you, will grow up in a completely different navigational world, mastering completely different tools, that will make all of us here look like grumpy old salts complaining about nobody using hemp, saltpork, and oilskins anymore.

Mark
 
#35 ·
As far as I know... there have been no comprehensive GPS survey produced digital charts. What you have is digital charts made from existing paper charts or some charting software use scanned paper charts. Therefore you are dealing with quite inexact presentation.

Satellite images could be, may be employed, but again there are geometry issues in converting a curved surface to a flat presentation. Overall accuracy is damn good, but not perfect as one might imagine it should be.
 
#38 ·
This discussion has been more informative than I expected. One observation is that each perspective is affected but where they sail and how they use their boat. For example, my sailing grounds are long Island Sound and the southern New England coast. These waters are very well charted and the paper and electronic charts agree very well. I have never encountered some of the accuracy issues others have reported. And I rarely go into a place I haven't been before. This all has a big impact on how I use electronic and paper charts.
 
#47 ·
Mark with all due respect I think because you have the baseline nav skills and ingrained good protocols you don’t appreciate the major change in gestalt that’s occurred. When social contact, work, monitoring home, and many of the activities of daily living are done on a screen the screen becomes a surrogate for reality. I could hear the waves, see the white wave streaks on a background of white fog, smell the seaweed on shore. Crew argued with me I wrong to believe my ears, eyes, smell because a d-mn screen convinced him of a reality (virtual) which was not the true physical reality. This level of dogmatism is a increasing occurrence.
The screen slave shuts off their awareness of the outside world as they fiddle with settings and various presentations. With their head (and focus) on a screen and earbuds in they are transferring their day to day onto the boat. But they’re not on the boat, not fully alive and aware. Situational awareness decreases. Risk increases.
If elsewhere in your life the screen is the reality seems more likely it will be the same on the boat.
Had a 20 something as a visitor while cruising the leewards which at that point I knew well. She wanted to helm. Had the same head down in screen nonsense. I turned off all the MFDs for her stay.(Left depth and wind instruments on). End of day she said it was wonderful. Just line of sight sailing. More relaxed. More in the moment. More aware. Sure I did this in a known to me area, during daylight and favorable weather. But it was a whole new world for her. Simple tasks like looking for a changing bearing on a potential intercept instead of flipping to the AIS data screen for point of closest approach. Sure get the clue from a nav aid. Then if possible confirm it with your senses. Our get the clue from your senses and confirm electronically. But for many the screen is the god.
Now insist on no earbuds while at helm and only one if in cockpit. I love music. But also love the song of the sea, wind and occasional bird. Sure I listen to music when the engine is on and I’m slugging through a lonely solo watch. But soft enough I can hear the boat. Even so it goes on mute for a careful listen time to time. Now if in the cockpit no headlamps (cockpit can be fully red lighted). White on black reading on pads. Dramatic improvement in crew performance and decrease in crew stress. Maybe humans don’t have great night vision but in the absence artificial light we do remarkably well. Many red lights in headlamps do decrease low light accommodation. Get a headlamp straight in face when someone inadvertently switches on white light it takes a 1/2 hour to get back to your best night vision. Amazing how well you can see crap in the waters ahead when you’re at full performance.
So many of our aids greatly expand our capabilities. So many can decrease our real world performance. Distracted driving being a prime example we can all agree upon.
 
#49 ·
But it was a whole new world for her. Simple tasks like looking for a changing bearing on a potential intercept instead of flipping to the AIS data screen for point of closest approach. Sure get the clue from a nav aid. Then if possible confirm it with your senses. Our get the clue from your senses and confirm electronically. But for many the screen is the god.
Some months back I was reading a bit about similar issues with aviation accidents. I think the distinction between working with the computer to navigate, and letting the computer navigate, is a critical factor that often gets lost. Telling people "don't trust the computer" may be good advice, but I question its effectiveness as a teaching method. Many people might not get it until they run into a real-life example.

Teaching the paper methods also runs into the "why do we have to learn this?" problem, which then leads easily to the "and I never used it since" case. It doesn't help that toy software creates the impression that there's nothing more to electronic navigation than playing "follow the arrow". Restructuring instruction to frame the relationship between human and computer as more of a partnership might help; i.e. "you are responsible for X, and Otto's job is to handle Y", particularly as AI improves.

(It would also be interesting to smear outlines on charts with a color gradient to reflect the quality of data. People might treat a wide gray smear differently from a precise black line.)
 
#48 ·
Outbound, I think your post is well stated. I agree on most, though I'm a bit tougher about distractions like ear buds on night watch, which I do not allow.
I also require the person on watch to be at the helm, even if the AP is operating, not tucked up under the dodger, rain squall or no.
On our second to last trip to Trinidad I was standing at the helm wide awake and attentive, as we were humming along (actually going too fast as we arrived well before daylight) close the Hibiscus rig at 7 to 9 knots on a close reach. All of a sudden cabin and deck lights came on abeam of us on an anchored Venezuelan fishing boat. We were so close to him I worried we'd hit his anchor line as we went by. Many of these boats come up to Grenada, Carriacou, and Chatham Bay for bait and they use any old anchor on line only rodes, so they have to use a lot of scope.

He had no lights on at all and it never occurred to me any boat would anchor there, so it was a huge adrenaline moment. I still have nightmares about it and can't even imagine what would have happened had we been just 30' or 40' further west!

Sometimes even your best seamanship practices aren't enough and it just comes down to blind luck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SanderO
#51 ·
I agree with Capta. On my last trip ever, I damned near ran into an anchored cargo ship that had experienced an overall power failure while transiting the bay at night. The captain dropped anchor a few yards outside the main shipping channel just above Pooles Island. No lights, no AIS, a 100 percent overcast night. All the night vision in the world would not have helped me that night, and my night vision is excellent.

I was motor sailing north, and had encountered lots of commercial traffic that night, far more than usual. An unusual image appeared on my GPS/Plotter with radar overlay. I had the GPS scaled down to just 5 miles, which I figured was pretty safe. The image appeared to be as large as a building, but it flickered on and off as I got closer. I thought it may have been a false echo on the radar, and I have seen them from time to time in the past. Well, the captain must have fixed his power problem, and suddenly, just 50 yards away, he fired everything up and powered into the channel, crossing directly in front of me. I veered just in time to avoid tragedy. Had I continued on the same course, I would have broadsided a 600-foot cargo ship.

As for the electronic chart errors in the ICW, those are the same errors as are on the paper charts. When the ICW was proposed, particularly the dredged, man-made canals, they encountered problems when it came to the procurement of certain lands. In some instances, the actual channels are up to 150 feet from the locations on the charts. And, because the electronic charts are merely digitized copies of the paper charts, the degree of error is identical. I'm not sure how accurate most paper charts really are, and have only run the ICW twice in my lifetime. With that in mind, I would NEVER run the ICW at night, even during a full moon. Just not worth the risk, regardless of the accuracy of your nav system.

All the best,

Gary :cool:
 
#52 ·
It sounds like electronic navigation (radar) helped there, not hindered. In Capta's example, I was also wondering about radar. Ours is on all the time, and at night the plotter is dedicated to it. Unlit boats are common in many places. One can say they keep their eyes and ears peeled at night, but it isn't very realistic in practice.

Mark
 
#54 ·
I think learning manual navigation insures one understands the concepts. One should at least be able to dead reckon. However, the thought that electronic navigation is inferior or secondary only sounds like a romantic notion to me. All the large commercial ships and every aircraft are navigating electronically. There is nothing that requires one to shut their senses off. Just the opposite, in fact, as one should always cross check any electronic instrument. You engage in finding something that confirms.
 
#56 · (Edited)
No question electronic nav aids are the bees knees. Can’t be much arguing about that but like with credit card sailors a recipe for disaster if there’s full dependency or if it’s use decreases situational awareness.

As a aside - the north coast of PR has a high density of local small fish boats. The are commonly in wood, have very low freeboard, no metal except the outboard and extremely poor radar targets. Seeing them 50m out isn’t that unusual. On occasion they’re just drifting. Sometimes with the fisherman asleep. With any kind of sea clutter regardless of settings on your radar there maybe only intermittent returns and sometimes no returns. Although the radar is on a split screen (prefer that to an overlay personally) presence of a visual watch remains important. Same with island hopping at night. Although a small bouy pops up as a excellent target all to often local boats may not. The absence of any running lights or any lights at all makes it even more fun. Have sailed by cruisers with no one on deck. Boat on AP and I presume MFD screen relayed to a pad as crew lies in their bunks. Depending on the zone alarms to keep them safe.
 
#61 ·
No question electronic nav aids are the bees knees. Can't be much arguing about that but like with credit card sailors a recipe for disaster if there's full dependency or if it's use decreases situational awareness..
Yes, full dependency is using the tool incorrectly. You personally must remain on watch.

Maybe it's all the lobster pots and fishing nets/pens in New England that train one to watch ahead, fog or no fog.
 
#62 ·
Yes, but only when information is supplied in adequate volume. There is a science developing around this. Obviously, incorrect information can be posted, but with sufficient entries, it can be weeded or context for it can be understood.

My fav example is Trip Advisor. I saw two ratings, for the same restaurant: 1 star and 5 star. How could they be so different? The 1 star rating said the food was mediocre and the service was poor. The 5 star said the prices were very low and the portions were huge. I got it.

If I'm going to a new anchorage and two people give me conflicting information, it's still better than none. I can have both in my mind, as I sort it out.

I'd much rather have a lot of crowd sourced in real time, than stale, vetted info. I'm afraid most of the shoreside info in the Maine cruising guides isn't very current.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top