[Mabinogion]

Volvo Ocean Race 2014-2015

Its a few pages long and the omissions may be deemed as interesting as the inclusions

 

[sailvayu]

ii. There were also deficiencies in the cartography presenting the navigational dangers on the small and medium scales of the chart system in use.

This is a common problem with electronic charts and one of the many reasons I still carry paper charts.

ii. That the providers of the chart system used and the manufacturers of one of the on board navigation software systems be advised of the perceived deficiencies.

My guess is this will not be news to them. Question is will the issue be addressed?

 

[capecodda]

Perhaps the key item in the report:


"70. The Cargados Carajos Shoals were investigated on the electronic chart and were determined incorrectly to be a 40m seamount. At different times the navigator zoomed in on the electronic chart and came to the same incorrect conclusion. This was likely due to a prominent spot charted depth in the north-central area of the 200m depth area that was 46m (Figures 9 and 11). It is unclear whether this zooming in on the Cargados Carajos Shoals took place on the navigation/performance computer or on the weather/routing computer. The navigator said he used both. The weather/routing computer did not have detailed charts and therefore was unable to display the islands and drying areas associated with the shoals, but would have shown the 46m and a 20m charted depth at the south end of the shoals."

 

[Mabinogion]

Yes, unfortunately it appears to be a bit of a mix of obfuscation and absolute fact.

The commissioning of an 'independent' report by the very organisers themselves may be indicative of the power of corporate institutions with vested interests (no pun intended).

The 24/7 10 second data dump including a variety of telemetry and its apparent lack of monitoring in high risk areas at night is not addressed any more than the lack of oversight of the skipper with reference to basic seamanship.

The whole report does appear to have been compiled of too much irrelevant information, ending up a wee bit short on relevance to baseline navigation and seamanship issues.

I suppose he who pays the piper calls the tune which may account for the delay in completion of the report and its being issued. I do agree with the report not having a blame culture though there are many unanswered questions and maybe too much irrelavent background, better minds than mine will maybe wish to read and digest the many pages?

 

[capecodda]

Here's one more key point from the report:

"200. Vestas Wind ran into Cargados Carajos Shoals not because they were inaccurately depicted on official paper charts, and not because they were missing entirely from the C-Map database, but because they were not shown at several scales when the C-Map data was displayed on Expedition software (Levels A and B and most of C)."

 

[Mabinogion]

For those with the inclination there are some interesting questions raised on the SA forum as well as one or two answers!

 

[capecodda]

The report is an interesting read. I think a lot of sailors like to toss each other under the bus when things go wrong. Interesting comparison to pilots, who in training are encouraged to read accident reports and learn from them, and mostly just hope not to repeat the error. And since a mistake in flying is so often deadly, most decent people tend not to want to dance on graves.

This report outlines a number of factors that I know I've seen in passage making and maybe others have too:

1. Beware of zoom level on electronic charts.
2. Be extra careful if you change the plan late in the game, after your land based planning (they moved the exclusion zone to avoid piracy in this case). It's so easy to have a situational bias towards everything is fine.
3. Assign tasks, but have someone check your work if you can. In flying, they call this crew resource management.
4. Use all methods of navigation available, if they don't all agree figure out why.
5. Have a checklist...particularly important when you're going fast and everyone is tired.

Lot's of interesting lessons, and a worthwhile read IMHO.

Yea, I'm sure there are insurance and liability issues...and people have to be careful what they say, and lawyers are involved...etc...etc. But there's enough good lessons that it's a worthwhile read IMHO. These where pretty darn accomplished sailers who messed up. This wasn't the guy who bought the boat on Ebay for 10K and immediately left New England mid winter as a named storm was approaching.

 

[smackdaddy]

Reading through it now. Thanks.

 

[chall03]

So it was C Map's fault.

C map to be advised to put big frowning emoji's on every obstacle in the world regardless of zoom level as you can't expect professional, elite sailors to not hit charted reefs unless the computer explicitly tells them not too.

ISAF responds to report by forming an extra special committee to establish extra special regulations that in a 80 page document will detail how to zoom in on C map and how not to hit things. All Cat 7 and above races will require 50% of crew to attend the "do not hit things seminar" at $300 a weekend.

 

[mbianka]

Here's one more key point from the report:

"200. Vestas Wind ran into Cargados Carajos Shoals not because they were inaccurately depicted on official paper charts, and not because they were missing entirely from the C-Map database, but because they were not shown at several scales when the C-Map data was displayed on Expedition software (Levels A and B and most of C)."

It's a drifting time, people are fascinated by screens,
No idea what's on the other side.
We stare at doom like an uptight groom,
And live our lives like a drunken bride.
Tonight I feel something on the wind,
Deep inside where we have to die or kill.
Something I know I didn't know I knew,
I learned from Billy from the hills

Goes to show how a little too much trust in the electronics can really bite you. Sad that just a quick look at a paper chart of the area might have raised some questions about the planned course and started a closer investigation from those on board. Such a small oversight that had such big consequences.

 

[JonEisberg]

As far as lessons to be learned, the single most important takeaway BY FAR, for me, is the following... (emphasis mine)

129.
Safe navigation depends upon continually checking different sources of information and,if they do not agree,finding out why. In a harbour this can be a simple check that what you are seeing with your eyes confirms what is displayed on a chartplotter.

There is always a risk if the navigator relies on a single source of data. In preparing major passages most electronic chart presentations should be checked against the paper charts and the Sailing Directions. Unfortunately, the attractive presentation of electronic data creates a misplaced air of confidence in the accuracy of what is presented. There can be a false sense of security and a belief that further checks are not necessary. This can be a mistake.

130.
Producers of electronic charts and navigation software systems provide cautions about the use of their products. As an example, Jeppesen, the manufacturer of C-Map, has the following warning as part of the Jeppesen Data License Agreement:

"UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED BY NATIONAL MARITIME AUTHORITIES, THE DATA LICENSED HEREUNDER IS INADEQUATE AS A PRIMARY MEANS OF NAVIGATION, AND SHOULD BE USED ONLY AS A SUPPLEMENT TO OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT CHARTS AND TRADITIONAL NAVIGATION METHOD"

131.
Some people dismiss these warnings as 'the Lawyer's page' and what is necessary in today's litigious society. This may have some validity but it is stated very clearly and the manufacturers of private electronic chart and navigation systems stand by the statements and use them to protect their interests.

132.
The best source of additional information is paper charts with a proven record of the generalisation of dangers between different scales. In particular mid-scale charts are extremely useful for passage planning especially when used in conjunction with Sailing Directions. This demonstrates good seamanship, good navigation and follows the advice of the manufacturers, to identify any dangers and ensure that they are displayed on the electronic navigation systems. The route planning software usually allows the dangers to be noted as 'race notes' or 'pins' or 'marks' that show through on all levels of zoom and draw attention to the danger.

One of the more surprising omissions for me, unless I missed it, was any mention whatsoever of the charted navigational aids - in the form of the lighthouses on both Coco and Albatros Islands - that are visible on the BA chart of the entire western part of the Indian Ocean, and covering the entire route of Leg 2. I still find it difficult to believe that Wouter ever looked at a paper chart while "noting the existence of Cargados Carajos Shoals", and its interesting that none of the other competitors mention a reference to a paper chart as being the source of their awareness of their existence, either - although one boat noted them after reading the Sailing Directions for that region... It appears all the others were simply 'lucky enough' to have zoomed in a bit further than the guys on VESTAS did...

 

[jzk]

One thing I like about Navionics is that one can either display the navionics chart or the government chart.

The problem was not that they relied upon a single source of data, but that they were not actively engaging use of that data.

 

[Mabinogion]

The SA forum is beginning to polarize into predictable groups with some interesting questions continuing to be raised.

Some of the queries relate to the obvious absence of monitoring of the stated 10 second 24/7 tracking ability whilst others relate to the apparent lack of veracity of the report, lack of a chart table for the paper charts and a variety of seamanship issues.

No doubt the arguments will continue and predictable sides based on 'revenue' vs what may be expected to be raised on a site including anarchy in its title will provide entertainment for some time to come.

There are many positives though and the report has made some excellent suggestions as to how to improve matters in future.

 

[jeremiahblatz]

The fact that these type of issues constantly come up amazes me. All that is required is to modify mapping/chart plotting software to always show the existence of shallow water and land at every zoom level. This is not actually difficult*, yet for some reason none of them do it.

If the chart plotters did this, you would always have a clear visual warning that you were near danger until you zoomed in far enough to actually see the distance between you and danger. As it is, the chart plotters show "all clear" unless you zoom in enough to see the danger, which is insane**.

* I was a professional developer for over a decade, including working on GIS and other data visualization systems.
** I have a degree in interface design, so yes, this is my professional opinion.

 

[smackdaddy]

The fact that these type of issues constantly come up amazes me. All that is required is to modify mapping/chart plotting software to always show the existence of shallow water and land at every zoom level. This is not actually difficult*, yet for some reason none of them do it.

If the chart plotters did this, you would always have a clear visual warning that you were near danger until you zoomed in far enough to actually see the distance between you and danger. As it is, the chart plotters show "all clear" unless you zoom in enough to see the danger, which is insane**.

* I was a professional developer for over a decade, including working on GIS and other data visualization systems.
** I have a degree in interface design, so yes, this is my professional opinion.

Sounds like you might have a gig...if C-Map is at all smart. Right now they are looking like serious chumps.

At the end of the day though, this really needs to rest more squarely on Nico's shoulders. He's the skipper. He told his crew, who were seeing problems off the port side, that everything was cool. He was wrong. No way around that. I think they are just going light on him because he will get back in the race. Wouter screwed up - and so did C-Map - but they weren't the skipper on deck.

 

[JonEisberg]

The fact that these type of issues constantly come up amazes me. All that is required is to modify mapping/chart plotting software to always show the existence of shallow water and land at every zoom level. This is not actually difficult*, yet for some reason none of them do it.

If the chart plotters did this, you would always have a clear visual warning that you were near danger until you zoomed in far enough to actually see the distance between you and danger. As it is, the chart plotters show "all clear" unless you zoom in enough to see the danger, which is insane**.

* I was a professional developer for over a decade, including working on GIS and other data visualization systems.
** I have a degree in interface design, so yes, this is my professional opinion.

You seem to be overlooking the limitations imposed by the size of PIXELS on electronic displays...

This British Admiralty chart of the entire route of Leg 2 clearly and legibly shows the lighthouses on both Coco and Albatros Islands, and the reef on the periphery of the Cargados Carajos Shoals... VESTAS wound up on the reef within about 1.5 NM of the charted light on Coco Island...

How large do you suppose a chartplotter or computer screen would have to be, to display that level of detail on a chart of the same scale and area of coverage?

The simplest and quickest way this mishap could have been averted, would have been for Verbraak to have put his eyeballs on BA 4072, and glanced at the area between Mauritius and Oman ... IN AN INSTANT, he would have noted there was more to the Cargados Carajos than just an indistinct blue blob that shows up on C-Map...

 

[capecodda]

Maybe I'm alone here, but I can imagine this happening to anyone.

On offshore passages, sleep patterns are disturbed. You get tired. Maybe you don't in your offshore cruising boat, try it in a boat doing 18kts or more, sounds rattles like a tin can off waves, and you need to strap yourself down to the head to stay attached while the boat drops off a wave. You've got situational bias to think you're in the clear. The race committee moved the piracy keep out zone and you did your route planning on the beach way before the race started, and on the old route the obstacle wasn't close. Your chart plotter didn't lead you wrong all the way from the Med. You should double check, you know you should, zoom in, get out your paper charts, get your sailing directions out, but you are tired and you don't. You should ask someone aboard to check your work, but they are all tired too. It's dark. Looks like a sea mount at the level of zoom you're at, 40 M deep. Crew reports disturbed ocean ahead at night near where the sea mount should be. You're doing 18kts, so things are happening fast. Yea, that must be the sea mount, will be rough but you are not expecting (situational bias) to hit the bricks. Bang!


Anyone else made mistakes out there? I confess I have. Yea, haven't hit the bricks like these guys did, but maybe I was just lucky.

Lot's of good lessons in this story. I'm not defending these guys, inexcusable big mistakes were made, but I take no solace in the thought that it could never happen to me, because I'm more accomplished than these guys, cause I'm not. YMMV.

 

[JonEisberg]

Sounds like you might have a gig...if C-Map is at all smart. Right now they are looking like serious chumps.

C-Map has proven themselves to be pretty "smart" over the years, their cartography has been one of the gold standards, particularly in the northern high latitudes and remote regions of the world... don't blame the tools for the worker who misuses them, or isn't always aware of their limitations...

At the end of the day though, this really needs to rest more squarely on Nico's shoulders. He's the skipper. He told his crew, who were seeing problems off the port side, that everything was cool. He was wrong. No way around that. I think they are just going light on him because he will get back in the race. Wouter screwed up - and so did C-Map - but they weren't the skipper on deck.

I know the guy is a great sailor and all, and his actions subsequent to the grounding and getting his crew through that night and off the boat safely were nothing short of exemplary... But how a guy "without detailed knowledge of navigation" gets a gig skippering a boat in an around the world race is a bit of a mystery in the first place, for me... But, how he keeps that gig, after the navigator is fired, is perhaps even more perplexing...

As Jeremy McGeary has rightly noted on another forum, that's not the way it would have worked if he were the skipper of a naval vessel, or a merchant or cruise ship...

It really is astonishing, the number of levels on which the navigation was screwed up... Here's a very good breakdown, posted on another forum:

I realize that we probably came away with different perspectives on this, but I found these parts of that report interesting:

1. While they did have full CMap charts on board, they were not using them. Instead, they were only using the base world map for charting - not the detailed individual charts that would be unlocked/loaded had they inserted one of their two key FOBs as was expected. This is pretty much equivalent to using a paper plotting sheet, hitting a reef, and blaming it on paper charts. I will say this, though, I think manufacturers using key FOBs for chart unlocking/loading is really bad and actually dangerous (not to mention so "1990's").

2. Even on the basic world base map, there were visual and textual warnings on dangerous areas, warnings about larger scale charts being available and visual economic outlines around land masses. Any one of those would have alerted them to the danger they faced. Team Vestas DELIBERATELY turned off the ability to display these warnings in their navigation software.

3. The two B&G chart plotters they had on board were using different cartography and clearly showed the reef and land they hit at small scale levels. They inexplicably had the charting on one of these turned off and it was only being used to control lights(!!), and they simply did not look at the other one. Even the base map on these plotters showed the shoals - from the report: "The chartplotter default world-coverage map does include a depiction of the Cargados Carajos Shoals. When the navigator awoke after the grounding he went to the nav station and could clearly see the reef on the MFD and the boat next to it. This was possibly his first indication of what had happened."

4. The CMap charts certainly could have been better in this area. However, the official hydrographic office electronic vector ENC charts were very detailed - and clearly showed land masses and more detail when zoomed way out - and an example is shown in the report. That warning you posted above is common for commercially-produced charts. "Official Government Charts" in that warning does not exclude electronic versions, and does not mean solely paper. Choosing inadequate electronic charts is no different than choosing inadequate paper charts. That warning is also given in private chartpacks, chartlets and guidebooks. Paper chart people generally do not rely solely on these types of charts without also having official charts.

5. The sailing directions and pilot books talk extensively about these shoals, but were never consulted by the navigator.

So to sum up the above, they were not even using their electronic charts - instead relying simply on a world base map plotting sheet. They had deliberately turned off all warning and safety-checking systems in their navigational software. They had FOUR chart plotters on board, two of which clearly and unambiguously showed the dangers. They chose only to use/look at one of them (and picked the wrong one). They did not choose to use official HO ENC charts on their software, which show these dangers at all levels, although it seems in hindsight that they wouldn't have been anymore successful if they did.

So, while I expect that most here will see in this report a damning of electronic charts, I see absolute navigational idiocy - lower than amateurish. If I were the navigator of this boat, I would be deeply ashamed and embarrassed by the findings. I certainly would not continue to hang on the "electronic charts were the problem" excuse.

Let me state this again: two of the four chart plotters on board clearly showed the land and shoals at all levels (on only their world base map, no less!), while they failed to even load the electronic charts they did have into the other two computers being used as their "main" chart plotters. Failed to load the charts!

One has to work very hard in contortions to blame this on electronic charts.

Mark

Some interesting tidbits you didn't report:

 

[jeremiahblatz]

Jon,

I don't mean to suggest that a chartplotter will be able to display the level of detail that a paper chart has.

Currently, the way chartplotters work is that if something is too small, it's not shown. My proposal is that if a *landmass* or *shoal area* is too small to be displayed, it's displayed anyway. That way, you look like you're in danger until you zoom in far enough to see the full detail level.

Yes, in areas with archipelagos and heavily shoaling, it'll look like you're on the hard when zoomed out, but that beats the hell out of looking like you're in the clear when you're about to hit a reef.

 

[fryewe]

... don't blame the tools for the worker who misuses them, or isn't always aware of their limitations...

... how a guy "without detailed knowledge of navigation" gets a gig skippering a boat in an around the world race is a bit of a mystery in the first place, for me... But, how he keeps that gig, after the navigator is fired, is perhaps even more perplexing...

Exactly.

And a Skipper who would put a Navigator in a position that the ship is one person deep in the nav planning department is an imprudent and dangerous skipper.

...sleep patterns are disturbed. You get tired. Maybe you don't in your offshore cruising boat, try it in a boat doing 18kts or more, sounds rattles like a tin can off waves, and you need to strap yourself down to the head to stay attached while the boat drops off a wave. You've got situational bias to think you're in the clear. The race committee moved the piracy keep out zone and you did your route planning on the beach way before the race started, and on the old route the obstacle wasn't close. Your chart plotter didn't lead you wrong all the way from the Med. You should double check, you know you should, zoom in, get out your paper charts, get your sailing directions out, but you are tired and you don't. You should ask someone aboard to check your work, but they are all tired too. It's dark...

All true, and the Skipper owns the responsibility for evaluating all these things and, above all, setting the limiting conditions for them that demand erring on the side of caution. When a trip point is approached, he has to make the decision, without reluctance, to keep ship and crew safe.

But if you don't know enough about navigation to execute your duties as Skipper in that regard, but simply "assign" them to someone else, risks rise.

Probably thought to be acceptable risk prior to grounding. Perhaps not so much after.

The report's emphasis on the limits of electronic navigation and shoreside evaluation tools is misplaced...the emphasis should be on the human errors. If accurate paper charts were in use and not used properly rather than accurate electronic charts in use but not used properly (as was the case), the report would not have "indicted" the paper charts in the manner it tries to do with electronic charting.