Old-school pencil-on-paper vector piloting is key to crossing the Gulf Stream

https://www.cruisingworld.com/how-to/seamanship-how-to-plot-your-course-across-the-gulf-stream/

by bryanrasmussen • 4 years ago

32 16 4 years ago

cruisingworld.com

bryanrasmussen• 4 years ago

Title and subtitle are:

Seamanship: How To Plot Your Course Across the Gulf Stream

Old-school pencil-on-paper vector piloting is the key to crossing the Gulf Stream.

But I figured the subtitle would probably be of more immediate interest to the HN crowd.

Kon-Peki• 4 years ago

The takeaway is that you are sailing your boat perpendicular to a very strong current. Modern technology will try to fight/overcome it; the suggestion is to let nature exert her forces. Don’t point the boat at your destination!

ZeroGravitas• 4 years ago

Feels like a missing optimization in the navigation software to me.

I'm assuming they already take account of predicted wind?

nicwolff2• 4 years ago

Actually the best popular software for routing that gives you course-to-steer based on wind and current is called PredictWind – the subscription that adds that feature starts at $250/year.

jmole• 4 years ago

This is one of those articles where a map or graphic would speak well in excess of 1000 words.

nicwolff2• 4 years ago

At least the online version of the article would be brought to life with links to show the Gulf Stream

https://www.windy.com/-Currents-currents?currents,25.760,-78...

and the current wind direction and speed

https://www.windy.com/?25.760,-78.989,8

so you can "play along" and imagine planning a crossing right now.

upsidesinclude• 4 years ago

In the same way that having contacts in our phones has prevented people from memorizing numbers or using digital maps weakens spatial orientation and reasoning, using autopilots and computers in navigation over time will dumb down the herd. Eventually we come to the point where no one will be able to do this simple calculation.

Fortunately, for much of the professional maritime industry plotting navigational charts by hand is still standard practice

Shorel• 4 years ago

I have a contacts application in my phone and I memorize a few numbers still.

Mainly my own number, which I actually never dial.

So I had to use the contacts app to check it, and after about the fifth time, I had memorized it. By surprise, as I did not intend to do it.

samatman• 4 years ago

I've never had difficulty finding a number with personally mnemonic substrings.

Example: my latest number has (of course) the state area code, then three numbers which are the same as my area code growing up, followed by the two-digit year I got the number, leaving me two digits of pure entropy to memorize.

Do I have any other numbers memorized? Lol, I do not. It would be a good idea to memorize one number I could call from jail (things happen), but those have to be land lines, and I don't think I know anyone with one of those anymore.

cameronh90• 4 years ago

I remember my own number for much the same reason, but I don't remember any others.

Interestingly I still remember the (long dead) numbers for my childhood friends, grandparents and parents house.

bennyelv2• 4 years ago

The new set of dangers that are introduced by electronic navigation should be well understood, so nothing in this article should be news to anyone who’s learnt how to navigate.

That said, navigation is now so “easy” that you can get complacent. As demonstrated by this professional crew in 2014 in one of the most prestigious ocean races when they hit a reef in the pacific because they hadn’t zoomed in enough on their plotter to identify the hazard:

https://www.yachtingmonthly.com/sailing-skills/electronic-ch...

This is a set of circumstances where the UX of the modern device is subtly far worse than the old pen and paper way, with some quite spectacular results. Ultimately the blame falls on the navigator and the skipper, but I can’t help but feel sorry for them.

pm215• 4 years ago

On a similar note, last year the UK's Marine Accident Investigation Branch published a safety study on electronic chart system use: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/application-and-u... It's based largely on structured interviews with people who actually have to use the system, and it flags up some of the UI problems that they run into. I'm neither a mariner nor a UI designer, but I thought it was a pretty interesting report.

LeifCarrotson• 4 years ago

This is a set of circumstances where the UX of the modern device is subtly far worse than the old pen and paper way, with some quite spectacular results.

I understand why, when helping a user navigate from one side of a dense city to the other, a mapping app might not draw in small alleyways that would make the big picture illegible. But why in the world are tiles/pixels on the map that, if zoomed in, contain navigation hazards, shown to contain no hazards?!? Take a look at this Google Maps view of the shoals in normal view, with pale blue everywhere:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/2K27Bfp9C5YN7cDu7

Maybe you see two tiny landmasses, maybe your screen doesn't show them. Zoom out far enough to 20 mile tiles and they go away completely. Zoom in close and see a tiny stripe of tan land. Then turn on satellite view...Does it match what you expect to see?

If the map is already as dense as possible, it makes sense to simplify the least relevant details - it should be obvious that zooming in would be useful. But if it's almost featureless, there's no reason to simplify it to be completely feature-free, that implies there's nothing at any scale!

Ultimately the blame falls on the navigator and the skipper, but I can’t help but feel sorry for them.

Certainly the proximate cause and liability for the grounded vessel fall on the navigator and skipper, it was in their hands and is their responsibility, but this is an easy and understandable mistake that will be made by someone else again if the root cause - bad UI on the chart plotter - is not also addressed.

bobowzki• 4 years ago

Didn't their system didn't contain some sort of collision avoidance warning?

bennyelv2• 4 years ago

Generally no - these things are designed for navigation at sea where you can generally go in straight lines between things. I’m not aware of any plotters that let you put in the depth you require and plot a route for you. You’d rely on a depth sounder to tell you that you were getting into danger, but if you’re not expecting any dangers why would you be paying any attention it?

longbrass• 4 years ago

Prudent practice with a digital plotter includes reviewing the most current chart datum on paper or digitally and inputting potential hazards and waypoints in advance.

In navigation, you can plot hazards and assign vectors as “danger bearings.” These are commonly NLT or NMT for No Less/More Than so that you know where not to point the bow when you are in the vicinity of a specific hazard. I suspect those of us who grew up using substantially worse UI in digital plotters may be better off than those completely reliant upon them.

Old-school pencil-on-paper vector piloting is key to crossing the Gulf Stream

Related Stories