Charts and Pilots

[Obi]

Hi,
Just joined and have been readin up a bit on here and now want to ask a question of my own.

Im hoping to set off for the Med from the UK shortly, Ive found a collection of mainly admiralty charts for sale, some 290 in total for biscay to the med, although I dont have the specific details of the what age charts they are all later than 1970..lets assume not updated.
Ive met liveaboards who have been through the med with old charts but I would rather hear some views on this from here before considering a purchase.

I know wrecks appear, sand shifts, harbours change and 1970 is a long time ago etc etc which to me suggests like I should get all new charts.

Any comments?

Thanks
Mark

[lenseman]

Hello Mark

Notwithstanding the fact that wrecks appear, sand shift, harbours change, I doubt you will be drawing much more that 1.6 metres or probably a lot less. Therefore any chart will do as coast lines and visible and prominent landmarks (including lighthouses, church steeples, power stations) have not altered drastically for millennia.

Trinity House and others do a splendid job or placing coastal guides to a safe haven and Notice(s) to Mariners can update you of any recent obstructions along the way.

Go ahead and enjoy yourself [BTW - Welcome to the YBW forums]. [img]/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I've been in the Med for five years and sailed down via Biscay.

I keep paper on the table at all times when at sea yet I use C-Map (some quite old) for my main nav. None of this stuff is really correctable unless you love working with Notices every week and you cannot update C-Map anyway. Lumps of rock don't move and soundings are seldom updated, anyway. The main things that change are local regulations -- no anchoring, fishing, landing, etc., and, far more importantly, the lights.

So my solution (I'm sure there are others every bit as good or better) is to keep old paper on the table so I can draw a pencil line and keep a log in pencil on the chart, use C-Map (or your preferred electronic system) for main nav and buy new pilots regularly -- the local equivalents to Reeds -- e.g. Bloc Marine -- have all the latest regs around anywhere you are likely to want to anchor. Most will give you the lights and you can do a quick correction on your paper for those lights you are likely to be interested in.

I am firmly of the view that electronic systems are the way to go...they are so accurate you can find a buoy in zero viz and planning takes just a few minutes for even a complicated passage.

If you are heading down to the Med you might like to consider joining the Cruising Association, which has a very active Med section.

[JamesFrance]

I once did most of the South of France coast using an AA roadmap, as my charts were on my old boat in Port Grimaud and I was going there to collect them.

As long as visibility is good and the water is clear, you are unlikely to have much problem in the Med, as it is just a case of point and go and you should get to your destination.

I did get a surprise last year though, passing Barcelona in a heavy rainstorm and my chart plotter thought the main harbour wall was at least a mile closer to the shore than it now is. Saw it before hitting it fortunately.

There do seem to be a lot of prohibited areas now which won't be shown on old charts, so I would stay well out from the coast.

[jeremyshaw]

290 for Biscay alone is an awful lot of charts to store and manage.

I agree with Lemain - what you really need is a good recent pilot (Imray's have downloadable updates, maybe others too) which will give you current harbour charts. A pilot will also advise on TSS's in the area.

Then you just need some decent passage planning charts (age pretty much immaterial) and ideally some more detailed charts for areas you will be visiting or where navigation is more tricky (Brittany coast for example).

I did UK to Turkey without any detailed charts, just passage charts. I would have preferred more detail, and insisted the owner buy pilots and a chart for the Messina Straits. Just remember as well as passage planning you need to know:
a) What am I likely to hit? Rocks, buoys, tidal gates, sandbanks, reefs etc.
b) Who might give me trouble for being in the wrong place?
c) How do I get into harbour safely? Not just your intended harbours, but any that might be a safe haven when you turn to Plan D.

If you are short crewed and closing the coast then you will want up to date buoyage on your charts, but that's less vital if you will be keeping a good watch.

You might have 290 charts for Biscay and be unable to answer those questions (though unlikely). You might answer them with less than 5 and a pilot.

[Richard10002]

I use Imray Charts to comply with the paper chart requirement, and have a cheap Lowrance Plotter which came with software for UK to Gib. Another £150 or so bought the software for the Med. And a few quid on Pilots, which you should have in any case. Job Done for about £700 or so. Served me well to Malta, and will do the same back to the UK over the Summer.

Admiralty charts will cost thousands to do the same job.

[laurance]

Whilst many have given examples of getting by with uncorrected charts, insufficient charts and even road maps, a situation that is still an improvement on what our forebears had to work with, it should be pointed out that up to date chart folios of the intended area of operation are a religion in the commercial sector, as any Third Officer to whom the unenviable task of endless corrections invariably falls. You will say this is merely to satisfy the requirements of the regulations but it should be remembered that in this instance, the regulations reflect the seriousness of the view taken by the professional seafaring community of the need for updated folios and their impact on the safe conduct of vessels. It is interesting the many of those above advocating compromising this ideal will no doubt be holders of various Certificates of Competence and will therefore be aware of this.
What their view really reflects is the reality that paper charts are cumbersome, expensive and that it is unrealistic for the recreational seafarer to keep them updated, especially if online corrections are not available to him or her.
Many of us who got our C o C's some years ago and possibly have a few miles under the keel will feel a strong attachment to the simple and stoic use of the navigators traditional corrected paper charts but it can no longer be denied what a huge improvement even quite small charts plotter's are for all seafarers and their chances of a safe passage. Interface this with an AIS and you are as safe as you can currently be, good seamanship notwithstanding.
So my advice would be to buy the biggest screened plotter with the easiest to up-date chart software together with a set of new passage charts for planning, manual plotting - and against the day for when the gadgets go tits-up - and pilot books.
Your 1970's paper charts will no longer be corrected by Admiralty Chart Agents who are now not correcting beyond four years back. Though you could do this yourself with online corrections the very thought of such a task makes me weak at the knees.

Why do you feel that the plotter should be interfaced to an AIS? In my experience as a yachtsman in the Med (where the OP is going) practically every time I have to give way to another vessel it is a very small fishing boat or another yacht, neither of whom have AIS transmitters fitted. Furthermore, AIS is not a navigational tool, it is a collision avoidance tool. I'd rather have a radar than an AIS any day and a radar is a navigational tool.

[laurance]

I'd rather have both, particularly if the RADAR were a stand alone model. A well installed correctly setup RADAR may see your small fisherman or yacht in poor vis, at other times the mark 1 eyeball is usually pretty good at that.
In a small boat I would rather be a detailed electronic marker on a ships bridge than the indistinct blob of a RADAR target.

Ah, I see you mean fitting a yacht with an AIS transmitter? That wouldn't be linked to your plotter, though, and it isn't related to navigation or charts. I wonder whether the professionals will/would be delighted if/when all yachts carry AIS transmitters! Entering the Solent, the AIS is going to be pretty pointless -- indeed, I wonder whether the system (channels, timing, etc.) has been designed to accommodate such a large number of vessels in such a small area?

As for radar, not only is it an excellent anti-collision tool, it is quite sufficient to make an entry into a harbour in any weather conditions. Radar/plotter together is magic, of course, but thinking of nav in the event of failure of the GPS-based system, which was your point, the radar (especially with good old RDF from NDBs) works well.

[laurance]

I was was thinking of an AIS transponder which can be interfaced with plotter or RADAR or both. Failing that, an AIS transmitter.
You make a perfectly valid point about AIS and a congested area such as the Solent. Though my experience is that the equipment can handle a very large number of targets and of course ships already cope with highly cluttered RADAR screens in these areas.
I would argue that the plotter AIS combination improves on RADAR's performance in terms of accuracy and ease of use when compared with a RADAR used for collision avoidance and as a navigation tool. I do not mean to to detract from RADAR's great strengths, particularly its ability act as a parallel navigation system and provide a check on what the plotter is telling you, and as you say, it would get you out of a scrape in the event of a plotter GPS failure.
We seem to be drifting of the point of the tread though, which is perhaps my fault for bringing up AIS when the question was about charts. Perhaps Obi already has an array of gadgets and our thoughts on these things are not helpful.

Well, threads drift...

Is there such a thing as an AIS transponder? I thought that the transmitters transmitted freely but after listening for a gap, according to a defined protocol? e.g. if you sail across the Pacific, your AIS transmitter will be firing off constantly. If you have other transmitters around, it will listen to the others and transmit when there is a gap. While you can buy transmitters designated for yachts, they are uncommon. Some people have a receiver, sometimes called an 'AIS Radar' -- a term that upsets many as it suggests functionality that it doesn't have. You certainly could (and probably can) interface an AIS receiver to your plotter but the downside is that all it shows is the larger vessels and then only those whose AIS transmitters are actually working! (Not all do). I'd be quite happy to have AIS linked to MARPA, so that my MARPA box could display more accurately course and speed. That would give better CPA and TCPA. I don't need to know the vessel's name, MMSI, etc....why would I call the bridge of a ship unless I needed help urgently? If I did, I would make a pan pan or mayday, on Ch16 or after a DSC alert. I just don't see that AIS is especially useful on a yacht and could give a false sense of security. On the other hand, I have heard that some people love it. I suppose that if I went back to plodding across the Channel or the Staits of Dover it would be quite useful but in the Med I doubt whether it would ever be of any great use.

[laurance]

It is possible that your knowledge of AIS is not up to date.

[ QUOTE ]
It is possible that your knowledge of AIS is not up to date.

[/ QUOTE ]Very possibly. Where have I gone wrong?

Edit:-- I've just looked it up on the Wiki (not a 100% reliable source, I accept) and my understanding is essentially correct.... funny thing is that they talk about 'transponders'. A 'transponder' is a device that transmits in response to a received signal. For example, a RACON is a transponder; the RACON transmits a pulse train after it has received a pulse from a radar. If there are no radars around, the RACONs don't transmit. I believe that there is a transponder mode within the AIS system but the normal mode of operation is free transmission.

Please correct me if I am wrong -- this isn't my field of expertise.

[Dayspring]

Apologies for gate-crashing a thread about something else. Living and sailing in the Solent I can assure you that my Simrad A150 AIS transPONDER is extremely useful. As an old classic boat, I don't want an unsightly radar dome, and this AIS is specifically designed for small yachts - no bigger than a chart-plotter, it transmits and recieves, new to the market last year and costs about £800. It interfaces with most newer chartplotters, but also has it's own GPS antenna, and the screen isn't too cluttered even in such a busy shipping area. Marvellous piece of kit.

[laurance]

Yes it is all rather confusing. I referred to a transponder and a transmitter to differentiate between the type that broadcasts and receives, fitted to all ships >300grt and passenger ships since December 04, and the type intended for fishing and pleasure craft that only broadcast.
In fact my comment referred to your views on AIS in use. After using it almost since its inception on both commercial and pleasure vessels I have come to value its contribution safety of navigation and to see for myself where it scores over RADAR as aid in collision avoidance. This seems to be the majority view amongst regular users.
As you seem less convinced I wondered if you had actually had a chance to use it much yet?

No, I have never used AIS and don't have it fitted. My comments are entirely 'theoretical'. But then again, I can't see why I want a system that shows only large-ish vessels, leaving out all the smaller ones, and yachts, and land. But I bow-out of the discussion at this stage as I have no personal experience with the system. I would be concerned that anyone would consider it as a collision avoidance aid, though, other than between quite large vessels. There are those here who think they can have a debate with the OOW of ships, via VHF, to decide who is going to give way ... [img]/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[laurance]

The real strength of AIS is its ability to deliver to the watchkeeper the CPA/TCPA of targets just as MARPA/ARPA from your RADAR but free from the inherent inaccuracies of that system. Additionally AIS requires little in the way skills and training, unlike ARPA.
For the first time ships bearing down on the vulnerable yachtsman/woman are no longer anonymous threatening chunks of steel; knowing their names, flag, destination, true course CPA etc is somehow very empowering. We have all asked ourselves the question when standing-on with a big ship "has he even seen me?" for yachts fitted with AIS the answer is more likely to be yes.
For the OOW, the small yacht fitted with AIS is a moving icon or label on his/her chart screen, it is often that you will be apparent on the screen before he/she has found you with his or her binoculars. To the vigilant OOW you are simply more likely to be seen and seen earlier. Think of the benefit of this in restricted visibility when you would otherwise be left with the hope that your RADAR reflector is being effective and that the OOW of that VLCC bearing down on you still doing 20kts has his RADAR tuned correctly.

I don't find it very empowering to know details about a ship. All that matters to me is the relative bearing, range, and rates of change. Why on earth would I want to know its flag or destination? As for the 'stand-on vessel' thing it is pretty academic other than in thick fog. In thick fog I find that ships are very professional and follow the colregs to the letter. In good viz -- night and day -- few give way. It isn't a great problem, you accept it. It's not the way it is supposed to be but it is the way that it is. So mostly I don't care if a ship has seen me or not; he isn't going to hit me because I am going to alter course if there is a conflict. There is no rule that prevents a yacht from altering course at any time....and +30 degrees for a short while solves all manner of issues.

In the Med, which is what we are discussing, the main conflicting traffic is not ships but other yachts and small FVs, which do not have AIS.

[Conachair]

[ QUOTE ]
But then again, I can't see why I want a system that shows only large-ish vessels, leaving out all the smaller ones, and yachts, and land.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I can´t speak for the med but in the Atlantic I´m pretty sure that anyone who has used ais would never go back. Any bar discussions here people who have them are in agreement that they are a good black box to have. For just over couple of hundred quid (I have the nasa standalone) and very low current draw you get to see exactly what the big boys are doing, in my case between 6 - 12 miles. Unless 200 and a bit quid is going to break the bank i can´t see much of an argument against fitting one. Next time you go across Gib Straits you´ll be kissing it [img]/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Richard10002]

[ QUOTE ]
In thick fog I find that ships are very professional and follow the colregs to the letter.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I was a lowly 3rd officer, on a container ship with a schedule, the skipper wouldnt allow us to slow to a speed "commensurate with the prevailing conditions"... we carried on regardless. Skippers who didnt meet the schedule were demoted!!

Not sure if things have changed... but ships will still have schedules to keep.

After we bought the Nauticat we did quite a few cross-Channels September to February, long, overnight, often in thick fog. The ships slowed right down to a crawl....you'd hear the foghorn and see the loom of the lights as the ships slid slowly across your bow at around five knots. Round here we don't really get fog...or ships, come to that.

We used to cross the Channel often. Conflicting traffic was never a big issue -- radar and visual watch. Use MARPA and the HBC. In the Straits of Gibraltar, there is a special rules zone (well, there is in Algeciras Bay, I don't know it it applies across the Straits but assume it does) which decrees that all pleasure yachts must give way to working vessels...and that includes sail giving way to power. All you need to know is whether it is conflicting traffic, and if so, alter course. I imagine that those who do oceans would value AIS. I can see the benefits there.

[Bilgediver]

Yes it is all rather confusing. I referred to a transponder and a transmitter to differentiate between the type that broadcasts and receives, fitted to all ships >300grt and passenger ships since December 04, and the type intended for fishing and pleasure craft that only broadcast.
*************************************************

Be much easier to use the correct term and call the simple one an AIS receiver cos that is all it is !!!! A transponder transmits .Hence you confusing us with your contradiction.

[img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[laurance]

Yes you are quite right to tell me off: AIS transponders class A & B are the full works and AIS receivers let you see but not be seen.
Once you are thus equipped it will be perfectly apparent when near commercial traffic in restricted visibility just how many ships continue at speeds far in excess of what could be described as 'safe speed'
To pick up on Lemain's remark about calling a ship's bridge in a close quarters situation, an MCA examiner told me recently that it is now regarded as an acceptable answer in an OOW/Masters oral exam to list calling the other vessel as part of your actions to avoid collision. This is on the basis that since AIS allows you to be sure which other ship you are calling there is no longer the risk that where you have called a ship and decided on a particular course of action, it then becomes apparent you were not calling the right vessel. The result could sometimes be what has been called 'VHF assisted collision'
I have to say I am ambivalent about this aspect of the AIS revolution.