This is a well know effect and you can even see it in something as
easy moving as a kayak. Find a tapered sandbar and a spot where there
is two to three inches of clearance over the bottom. Then paddle fast
over it. You will stick hard, stop, and then float off. The waves
that roll in and break will show you how much water even a kayak
moves. It's a very interesting demonstration of hydrodynamics.

--

Roger Long



"Garland Gray II" wrote in message
news:K%HGd.77623$Jk5.65403@lakeread01...
What I recall reading about the QE2 hitting the rock there (divers
confirmed
that there was recent bottom paint scuffed on the rock, and I don't
think
there was an indication that the rock had less water than the chart
showed)
is that she was running at too much speed for that little clearance
between
hull and sea floor. The hydrodynamic forces from speed in shallow
water will
pull the stern down. I see this happen frequently, and when it does,
besides
thinking about QE2, I know I'd better head to deeper water, or slow
down.
I just couldn't believe the captain didn't think about this when he
was
steaming along near the rock.

"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
Yeah, the QEII (I think) ran aground about 20 years ago just off
the
Elizabeth Islands on Cape Cod and in one of the most heavily
traveled
areas of New England. The chart turned out to be wrong.

--

Roger Long



"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:mgwGd.21097$EG1.17828@lakeread04...

http://www.goupstate.com/apps/pbcs.d...NYT02/50115036
0/1051/NEWS01

Not that any of us will be cruising at 30 knots 500 feet below
the
surface
but navigating soly by GPS you are just as blind. Many of the
charts we use
are from surveys over 100 years old.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress
(or
lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

In article ,
says...


Yeah, the QEII (I think) ran aground about 20 years ago just off the
Elizabeth Islands on Cape Cod and in one of the most heavily traveled
areas of New England. The chart turned out to be wrong.

Yes, it was the QE2 in Buzzard's Bay. Several million dollars in damage and
ther usual whinbinbg from some passengers about how badly treated they were.
Noi doubt they sued. The rock is now charted as "Queen's Bottom Rock."

In article ,
says...


Yeah, the QEII (I think) ran aground about 20 years ago just off the
Elizabeth Islands on Cape Cod and in one of the most heavily traveled
areas of New England. The chart turned out to be wrong.

Is that the case? I heard about something similar but not a case of a
chart being wrong. A cruise liner enroute to Boston was under autopilot
but the gps lost lock for an extended period of time. During that period
the course was continued with the unit doing its own dead reckoning. By
the time it regained lock it was well off course and the new course to
the next waypoint took it over some rocks. None of the crew had noticed
the system had lost lock and all were trusting that the "gps referenced
autopilot" was safely steering the ship waypoint to waypoint. They also
did not bother to look and see that their course was now taking them
over the rocks.

That was a different case from the QE2. Equally instructive.

When cruising in The Bahamas, our chartplotter showed us
sailing over land on a fairly regular basis.

Doug
s/v Callista

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:mgwGd.21097$EG1.17828@lakeread04...
http://www.goupstate.com/apps/pbcs.d...60/1051/NEWS01

Not that any of us will be cruising at 30 knots 500 feet below the surface
but navigating soly by GPS you are just as blind. Many of the charts we
use
are from surveys over 100 years old.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

Roger Long wrote:
When did these incidents happen? I lived on the Cape in the late 70's
so I may be transferring the memory back to that association. When
did they start installing GPS on big ships?


As systems developed they were installed on ships. "Sat Nav" in the
70's, "GPS" in the 80's.
Nowadays you are seeing a greater usage of integrated systems (GPS,
radar, chart plotter, AIS, Doppler).
The biggest problem (aside from the mistaken total reliance) is that the
chart display and GPS don't always match exactly.
BTW, squat has been known about for many, many years .... it just hasn't
been given as much attention as it needed by those in "open water"
conditions. Since the QE2 incident you see far more ships with "squat
tables".

otn

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...
Jim Donohue wrote:



Got it...3AM blowing 35...12 foot seas...Check for the disturbed waves
and current swirls...yeah right. Watch the little birds...if they land
it probably is not deep.

Still at the old game otnmbrd? Would you really reverse course under
those conditions? Would you turn the boat across the wind?

Jim Donohue

LOL I see you're still looking for the simple cure-all answer to
navigation.
Sorry Jim, it doesn't exist.
You'll note I said use ALL means at your disposal. Sometimes those means
are limited due to conditions, be they visibility or sea conditions.
However, frequently there are any number of things you can look for under
many varied conditions which may help you determine that you are "standing
into danger" and your god, GPS will not tell you these things.
So, yes, I'm still up to the old games ..... if in doubt, stop, turn
around, sail across the wind, if those things are possible.
Don't keep going blindly based on a GPS fix ..../ use whatever other tools
may be available to you, be they natural, mechanical, or electronic.
Only a fool relies on one means of navigation and only a bigger fool
discards all the older methods which served and still serve, many of us
well, even if in a limited capacity.
G Maybe someday you'll learn to take your eyes off the GPS and see
what's going on around you.

otn

You are still full of BS otn. I make no suggestions not to use all
techniques...just that under many conditions all you got is the GPS.

Survival at sea is probabilistic. If the Gods are on your case no amount of
deciphering the currents and wave shapes will save you. You really think
you can detect a floating container when you can't see the bow?

In most circumstance it is probably 80 or 90% GPS/chart...10 or 20% to all
of the other things you can do. In heavy weather and deep water it is
pretty close to 100% GPS.

Under any circumstances the chart situation in some places is pretty sad.
For instance of the errors in the Pacific Coast of Mexico have been known
for many years...but we still await a fix. The purveyors deny responsibilty
shifting it to the charting agencies. The charting agencies show no desire
to fix the problems in our lifetime. Mostly Gov at its worst.

And to risk a broach because you feel uneasy? Because the waves don't look
right? Becasue you think you hear something? Sometimes I think you have
never been to sea...the number of people who hear or see things at night is
well known. Had a Captain on one occassion deploy his anchor in a 1000
fathoms because he could hear the freeway and knew we were about to go
aground. Sure he was extreme but virtually everyone has the problem to
some degree. It would take a very clear indicator before I risked my boat
against a GPS/Chart position.

Jim Donohue

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:59:01 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote:

When did these incidents happen? I lived on the Cape in the late 70's
so I may be transferring the memory back to that association. When
did they start installing GPS on big ships?


Much more recent. The NTSB hearings report from the Nantucket Shoals
grounding just appeared in Professional Mariner last fall.

The QE2 grounding was in the early 90s, and the course was agreed on
by the skipper and the pilot. If the chart had been correct, squat
would not have made the ship hit anything. With the actual reef that
was(is) there, the ship would have hit no matter how slowly it was
moving.

It was an incomplete survey, pure and simple.



Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC J36 Gjo/a


"Be careful. The toe you stepped on yesterday may be connected to the ass you have to kiss today." --Former mayor Ciancia

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:06:21 -0500, Rodney Myrvaagnes
wrote:

It was an incomplete survey, pure and simple.

====================================

And it happened right down the road, so to speak, from the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institute. Fortunately I've never ownned a boat that
draws as much as the QE2, otherwise I would have surely left my mark
in many more places.

Jim Donohue wrote:

You are still full of BS otn.

LOL Of course I am, I'm a career seaman. The difference between us is, I
know when I'm BSing, but you have neither the experience or knowledge to
know when I am, else you'd know I never BS about navigation safety.

I make no suggestions not to use all
techniques...just that under many conditions all you got is the GPS.
...... and as just as many conditions, all you got is the "old"
methods..... i.e., it's a rare case when you can't make helpful use of
the natural conditions occurring around you, if you know what they are
and how to use them.

Survival at sea is probabilistic. If the Gods are on your case no amount of
deciphering the currents and wave shapes will save you.

Not always true .... often true, but not always.

You really think
you can detect a floating container when you can't see the bow?

You want to explain what that has to do with navigation? The discussion
is navigation, not collision/allision avoidance.


In most circumstance it is probably 80 or 90% GPS/chart...10 or 20% to all
of the other things you can do. In heavy weather and deep water it is
pretty close to 100% GPS.

Depending on the vessel and navigational equipment available, there's a
good chance that if you were in charge of a watch, for me, you would
change your ways real quick or find a new berth at the first port.


Under any circumstances the chart situation in some places is pretty sad.
For instance of the errors in the Pacific Coast of Mexico have been known
for many years...but we still await a fix. The purveyors deny responsibilty
shifting it to the charting agencies. The charting agencies show no desire
to fix the problems in our lifetime. Mostly Gov at its worst.

G I can't disagree with any of this. However, from involvement in
creating a new chart, I do know that many cartographers are trying with
limited resources to correct and upgrade our charts, with results that
could indeed be better, but their failure has more to do with idiot
politicians, than dipsquat beauracrats.


And to risk a broach because you feel uneasy? Because the waves don't look
right? Becasue you think you hear something? Sometimes I think you have
never been to sea...the number of people who hear or see things at night is
well known. Had a Captain on one occassion deploy his anchor in a 1000
fathoms because he could hear the freeway and knew we were about to go
aground. Sure he was extreme but virtually everyone has the problem to
some degree. It would take a very clear indicator before I risked my boat
against a GPS/Chart position.

LOL I think I said this once before ..... you must be a lawyer.
Go back and read what I said again. I said "if it's possible". You do
what is right for the conditions and vessel you are on .... and this MAY
involve risking a broach. YES, if the waves don't look right, you weigh
your options and proceed. YES, if you think you hear something you
shouldn't, you weigh your options and proceed ("proceed" may mean "stop").
One thing I've learned from reading your post.... you may know
celestial, you may know radar, you may have some deep sea time, etc..
BUT, the only thing you MAY be any GOOD at, is reading a GPS, and I'm
not too sure of that.
BG As to having been to sea ..... EG "I've wrung more salt water out
of my socks than you've ever floated on", to quote an old Bosn I knew.


otn

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...
Jim Donohue wrote:

You are still full of BS otn.

LOL Of course I am, I'm a career seaman. The difference between us is, I
know when I'm BSing, but you have neither the experience or knowledge to
know when I am, else you'd know I never BS about navigation safety.

I make no suggestions not to use all
techniques...just that under many conditions all you got is the GPS.
..... and as just as many conditions, all you got is the "old"
methods..... i.e., it's a rare case when you can't make helpful use of the
natural conditions occurring around you, if you know what they are and how
to use them.

Survival at sea is probabilistic. If the Gods are on your case no amount
of deciphering the currents and wave shapes will save you.

Not always true .... often true, but not always.

You really think
you can detect a floating container when you can't see the bow?

You want to explain what that has to do with navigation? The discussion
is navigation, not collision/allision avoidance.


In most circumstance it is probably 80 or 90% GPS/chart...10 or 20% to
all of the other things you can do. In heavy weather and deep water it
is pretty close to 100% GPS.

Depending on the vessel and navigational equipment available, there's a
good chance that if you were in charge of a watch, for me, you would
change your ways real quick or find a new berth at the first port.


Under any circumstances the chart situation in some places is pretty sad.
For instance of the errors in the Pacific Coast of Mexico have been known
for many years...but we still await a fix. The purveyors deny
responsibilty shifting it to the charting agencies. The charting
agencies show no desire to fix the problems in our lifetime. Mostly Gov
at its worst.

G I can't disagree with any of this. However, from involvement in
creating a new chart, I do know that many cartographers are trying with
limited resources to correct and upgrade our charts, with results that
could indeed be better, but their failure has more to do with idiot
politicians, than dipsquat beauracrats.


And to risk a broach because you feel uneasy? Because the waves don't
look right? Becasue you think you hear something? Sometimes I think you
have never been to sea...the number of people who hear or see things at
night is well known. Had a Captain on one occassion deploy his anchor in
a 1000 fathoms because he could hear the freeway and knew we were about
to go aground. Sure he was extreme but virtually everyone has the
problem to some degree. It would take a very clear indicator before I
risked my boat against a GPS/Chart position.

LOL I think I said this once before ..... you must be a lawyer.
Go back and read what I said again. I said "if it's possible". You do what
is right for the conditions and vessel you are on .... and this MAY
involve risking a broach. YES, if the waves don't look right, you weigh
your options and proceed. YES, if you think you hear something you
shouldn't, you weigh your options and proceed ("proceed" may mean "stop").
One thing I've learned from reading your post.... you may know celestial,
you may know radar, you may have some deep sea time, etc..
BUT, the only thing you MAY be any GOOD at, is reading a GPS, and I'm not
too sure of that.
BG As to having been to sea ..... EG "I've wrung more salt water out
of my socks than you've ever floated on", to quote an old Bosn I knew.


otn

Actually I am by training and a long career an engineer. It is what
seperates us OTN...you react I go for understanding.

Sure your socks are soaked in salt...so perhaps is your brain. I think with
your long time frame at mis-understanding this stuff you are very well
qualifled for say Chief Officer on the Royal Majesty. He did a truly fine
job of successfully identifying the unidentifyable...as I am sure you would.
But he was really salty.

Wish you could have been on our little trip with the "freeway" Captain...you
could have helped him set the anchor.

I prefer to navigate around floating objects as well as fixed ones. If you
ignore the floaters I assure you something you would rather avoid is likely
to occur.

Jim