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 rings a bell and I think you might be right. The shoal being
shallower than charted may have been a secondary factor.

I don't think it would have been GPS in those days. Probably Loran.

--

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.

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.

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:17:11 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote:

That rings a bell and I think you might be right. The shoal being
shallower than charted may have been a secondary factor.

I don't think it would have been GPS in those days. Probably Loran.


Can't tell what you are talking about. Both the QE2 and Nantucket
shoals incident are quite recent. The QE2 was a chart problem, since
corrected, and had nothing to do with autopilot or any other automated
gear.

The Nantucket shoals incident was from a system that ran on DR for
600+ miles with the GPS disconnected.



Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC J36 Gjo/a


Capsizing under chute, and having the chute rise and fill without tangling, all while Mark and Sally are still behind you

The Nantucket shoals incident was from a system that ran on DR for
600+ miles with the GPS disconnected.

THAT is the story I was remembering. None of the crew noticed. No one
was running their own plot.

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?

--

Roger Long



"Rodney Myrvaagnes" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:17:11 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote:

That rings a bell and I think you might be right. The shoal being
shallower than charted may have been a secondary factor.

I don't think it would have been GPS in those days. Probably Loran.


Can't tell what you are talking about. Both the QE2 and Nantucket
shoals incident are quite recent. The QE2 was a chart problem, since
corrected, and had nothing to do with autopilot or any other
automated
gear.

The Nantucket shoals incident was from a system that ran on DR for
600+ miles with the GPS disconnected.



Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC
J36 Gjo/a


Capsizing under chute, and having the chute rise and fill without
tangling, all while Mark and Sally are still behind you

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

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.

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:34:23 -0500, Rodney Myrvaagnes
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:17:11 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote:

That rings a bell and I think you might be right. The shoal being
shallower than charted may have been a secondary factor.

I don't think it would have been GPS in those days. Probably Loran.


Can't tell what you are talking about. Both the QE2 and Nantucket
shoals incident are quite recent. The QE2 was a chart problem, since
corrected, and had nothing to do with autopilot or any other automated
gear.


I heard they had more of a squat problem. As in they forgot to figure
in the ship's squat at their speed over the shoal.
Mark E. Williams

snip

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:45:54 -0600, Maynard G. Krebbs
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:34:23 -0500, Rodney Myrvaagnes
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:17:11 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote:

That rings a bell and I think you might be right. The shoal being
shallower than charted may have been a secondary factor.

I don't think it would have been GPS in those days. Probably Loran.


Can't tell what you are talking about. Both the QE2 and Nantucket
shoals incident are quite recent. The QE2 was a chart problem, since
corrected, and had nothing to do with autopilot or any other automated
gear.


I heard they had more of a squat problem. As in they forgot to figure
in the ship's squat at their speed over the shoal.
Mark E. Williams

Right! The pilot and the long-time skipper colluded to make an
elementary mistake. Look at the chart, before and after.

It is possible that squat may have lengthened the tear in the hull,
but if the chart had been correct they wouldn't have touched at all.

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