Great story about the +- of active cap and charts.
- Thread starter starcrafttom
- Start date
Gene&Mary
New member
Very interesting and informative article . Thanks for posting.
Yes indeed very interesting: Slow Boat calls out "Kayley" as perhaps someone who plagiarized the Hemingway-Douglas guides. Also makes the acquisition that "Kayley" probably never visited these coves. I can remember discussing with Jeff Segel about the lack of posts in Active Captain in the SE AK area. At one time, then a large number of posts appeared, which I was told was by a local boat....
Pretty serious allegations. Certainly all guides and charts are often wrong. But at other times, people interrupt them as being wrong, and they are not... Charlies charts were first done over 30 years ago, and Charlie is long gone...his ife kept up the publications for a while. Hemmingway-Douglas guides I believe are now close to 25 years old-but still excellent. Absolutely the NOAA, Navionics, Garmin C maps, D maps etc all have errors...and many of us propagate them. We all have different experiences, and different perceptions, some based on more reality than others!
A few years back a Willard trawler (4 foot draft) hit a rock in Dundas inlet and claimed it was not on his Garmin chart plotter. I was going to SE in my then C Dory 25, and had been by that rock in my Cal 46 (6' draft), and knew it was accurately portrayed. I attempted to replicate the conditions the Willard had encountered, same tide, about the same time of day, and lighting. It was clear that the rock was well shown on the Garmin chart plotter, and that the shoal water was clearly visible. I'll let the reader surmise why a yacht owner would say that a rock was not clearly on the chart....Even with our marvelous GPS, and very "accurate" maps, boats run aground--it seems with almost as much frequency as it was before all of this wonderful electronic stuff!....(Maybe more!) I never am ceased to be amazed on multimillion dollar yachts with paid crew or ferry boats and professional crew, seem to find rocks and reefs to hit! It happens to all of us!
Some material to ponder in the article.
Pretty serious allegations. Certainly all guides and charts are often wrong. But at other times, people interrupt them as being wrong, and they are not... Charlies charts were first done over 30 years ago, and Charlie is long gone...his ife kept up the publications for a while. Hemmingway-Douglas guides I believe are now close to 25 years old-but still excellent. Absolutely the NOAA, Navionics, Garmin C maps, D maps etc all have errors...and many of us propagate them. We all have different experiences, and different perceptions, some based on more reality than others!
A few years back a Willard trawler (4 foot draft) hit a rock in Dundas inlet and claimed it was not on his Garmin chart plotter. I was going to SE in my then C Dory 25, and had been by that rock in my Cal 46 (6' draft), and knew it was accurately portrayed. I attempted to replicate the conditions the Willard had encountered, same tide, about the same time of day, and lighting. It was clear that the rock was well shown on the Garmin chart plotter, and that the shoal water was clearly visible. I'll let the reader surmise why a yacht owner would say that a rock was not clearly on the chart....Even with our marvelous GPS, and very "accurate" maps, boats run aground--it seems with almost as much frequency as it was before all of this wonderful electronic stuff!....(Maybe more!) I never am ceased to be amazed on multimillion dollar yachts with paid crew or ferry boats and professional crew, seem to find rocks and reefs to hit! It happens to all of us!
Some material to ponder in the article.
Pat Anderson
New member
Whether "Kayley" is real or how it is that her AC entries for SE seem to mirror the Douglass guides is something we can only speculate on, but we can know for sure is that an AC entry with only one review (the person creating the entry has to make the first review) is probably not trustworthy. We found that over and over again on the Great Loop. On the other hand, an AC entry with 20 reviews is usually going to be quite trustworthy - I never have seen them split half negative half positive, the majority of all reviews of that entry tends to be the same.
starcrafttom
Active member
pat this article was about the west coast so its good to hear your experience on the east coast. I think that active captain is a lot more popular on the east coast due to far better cell phone and internet services. I know you can up date to the site when every you want but the majority of people tend to interact with hone based APPs while in the moment. hence the higher user rate on the east coast. Well that the higher population.
Why don't we all come to face the facts. When we're 'out there', it's a calculated
risk. No guarantees. We want to wish for the best and can the negatives. Enjoy
the day, adventure, company and scenery.
What most don't realize is we are out of our element. Hence, without extensive
training or experience, things can and do go wrong and all the pre-planning
and arm chair thought can go out the window in a moment. Face it. Even experts
fail in Mother Nature.
So, what do you do? Not dare to go? That's an option. For those who feel well
prepared and in the know, go knowing we may not return.
Some don't return. That's life. Something will end it sooner or later.
I prefer not to stay frozen on shore rather follow my passions and take it as it
comes.
Aye.
Grandpa used to say, "It's not over until it's over."
risk. No guarantees. We want to wish for the best and can the negatives. Enjoy
the day, adventure, company and scenery.
What most don't realize is we are out of our element. Hence, without extensive
training or experience, things can and do go wrong and all the pre-planning
and arm chair thought can go out the window in a moment. Face it. Even experts
fail in Mother Nature.
So, what do you do? Not dare to go? That's an option. For those who feel well
prepared and in the know, go knowing we may not return.
Some don't return. That's life. Something will end it sooner or later.
I prefer not to stay frozen on shore rather follow my passions and take it as it
comes.
Aye.
Grandpa used to say, "It's not over until it's over."
I’ve never used Active Captain & at present have no plans on starting. My favorite places to explore are where the chart detail is the least & I have to learn the area as we go. In these places more than ever, I never totally trust the charts or where the gps puts the boat on them. In SE Alaska, overall I have found the charting more accurate than expected. On the more outlying areas, I have found some inaccuracies, but more so just lacking detail or the gps positioning of the boat on the chart not accurate. I also enjoy exploring areas during the highs & lows of tide swings, especially when on the extreme ends. To me it’s possible to know to much about an area before going there & much pleasure comes from learning areas on my own.
This year in SE Alaska when preparing to explore Kootznahoo Inlet on Admiralty Island, I was told by a local older Indian Native, that I would end up loosing my lower units & damaging the fiberglass boat bottom if we attempted it without local quides & he wasn’t trying to work me for money or prevent me from entering an area of Native ownership of the land around the water. He really believed we would damage our boat or worse. We found the area very well charted & the exploring of it while fun, nothing compared to the Yukon River in its hazards.
I have found the older Hemmingway-Douglas quide book perfect for my past use in SE Alaska. This year it was never opened on the entire trip as in most places we now know more detail then it provides, especially in relationship to a very small cruising boat.
The Slowboat crews do an excellent job of detailing the areas they explore & I would trust there present documentation more then any cruise guide information presently available. In helping friends planning on a first cruise to Fords Terror, I used a combination of our own experiences & their drone photos & write up to help them out.
Foggy, I agree with your post.
Jay
This year in SE Alaska when preparing to explore Kootznahoo Inlet on Admiralty Island, I was told by a local older Indian Native, that I would end up loosing my lower units & damaging the fiberglass boat bottom if we attempted it without local quides & he wasn’t trying to work me for money or prevent me from entering an area of Native ownership of the land around the water. He really believed we would damage our boat or worse. We found the area very well charted & the exploring of it while fun, nothing compared to the Yukon River in its hazards.
I have found the older Hemmingway-Douglas quide book perfect for my past use in SE Alaska. This year it was never opened on the entire trip as in most places we now know more detail then it provides, especially in relationship to a very small cruising boat.
The Slowboat crews do an excellent job of detailing the areas they explore & I would trust there present documentation more then any cruise guide information presently available. In helping friends planning on a first cruise to Fords Terror, I used a combination of our own experiences & their drone photos & write up to help them out.
Foggy, I agree with your post.
Jay
One technique we used when we had the Cal 46 (6' draft), was I would go with the RIB first thru an area. Some difficult ones, we both rode thru in the RIB (which had a good depth finder), and then Marie would run the big boat only a few feet behind me, and I would go first in the RIB. Communication by VHF radio.
Yes voyaging can be "dangerous"--but the goal is to minimize any danger by preparing. I also like to have as much information as possible. I thought that the Hemmingway-Douglas books were a good resource. The first one appeared when we were circumnavigation Vancouver Island and was on the inland passage in 1995. We only used it to review parts of the inland passage, on the West side of Vancouver Island. There were a few errors from what we observed.
Yes voyaging can be "dangerous"--but the goal is to minimize any danger by preparing. I also like to have as much information as possible. I thought that the Hemmingway-Douglas books were a good resource. The first one appeared when we were circumnavigation Vancouver Island and was on the inland passage in 1995. We only used it to review parts of the inland passage, on the West side of Vancouver Island. There were a few errors from what we observed.
Bob, if My cruising in SE Alaska had been in a boat like your Cal 46 it would have been done with methods like you & Marie used. We of course have much more leeway maneuvering in the smaller shallower water areas in the CD 22. Where we have always had to be more cautious has been avoiding the dangerous wave conditions brought on by weather & tides & also breaking seas caused by bigger swells breaking in shallow water areas that are no problem with small swells. Even with the maneuverability & shallow draft of the CD 22, we still like you used a inflatable dingy or Mokai to first check out some of the more intricate places or following anchoring used the dingy to see if a more favorable route, then we made to the anchorage was possible. As I posted, exploring the unknown is to me challenging & enjoyable, but I also agree fully with you that preparation is the key to improve the odds against bad luck. Risk assessment needs to be made & in extremely hazardous conditions like our exiting of Dry Pass on the outside waters of Chichagof Island this year, I prepared by not only doing much previous reconnaissance of the area in the C-Dory & inflatable boat, but had also climbed the bluffs above for a visual & downloaded satellite photos of the Pass on my IPad, so I would know exactly where the blocking kelp was located & just where the boat needed to be placed. Even that preparation would not have been worth much if the boat was not properly driven through the rocky maze, kelp & narrow exit into the 6 foot swells at the entrance. In 2007, we exited this Pass the 1st time at 4 AM in light fog & worse sea conditions with only the incorrect information in the Hemmingway-Douglas guide book & a quick visual the previous day at low tide for preparation, which goes to show luck can be useful just not dependable.thataway":2r9qodd8 said:
Jay
The entrance to Beaverstone Bay (Ontario) on Canadian charts is wrong - the track shows you going through the rocks. There are a couple of places in Northern BC that have issues. On both our lap top (open cpn running NOAA charts) and our chart plotter (Garmin 2010C) our route was on land for most of our trip on the St John River in Florida (it was at at least near the river). Many, many places in Glacier Bay (AK) are completely wacko - locations were pretty close but the depths were not even in the right ball park - again the Garmin and NOAA agreeing with each other but not with reality.
Until you have been there, is is a good idea to look outside the window (and/or radar) and at the depth sounder.
Having said all that, for most places we have been, the charts have been dead on.
John
Until you have been there, is is a good idea to look outside the window (and/or radar) and at the depth sounder.
Having said all that, for most places we have been, the charts have been dead on.
John
On our 3 trips on the St. John's River in Florida, ranging from Palataka to the navigable head (and beyond), we found our position on up to date Garmin Charts to be very close--and only in some tributaries out of the river by a very short distance
When everything is off, often there is a Datum disparity between the chart plotter and the chart.
I have a RayMarine C120 plotter and I also use a small Garmin GPSMAP640 that has both Navigation and Fishing charts. When I get to looking into tiny spots for anchoring, (which I try to do at low tide), if both the RM and the Garming do not agree (like where the rocks or shallow lines are) I will back in, very slow. Remember, I am looking at anchoring in about 5 - 10 feet, and with the sounder mounted on the transom, I can almost drift in, watching the depth and frequently standing in the cockpit. In 10 feet of water it is usually easy to see the bottom and any protrusions.
Harvey
SleepyC :moon
Harvey
SleepyC :moon