I think that incident occurred several years ago. The QE2 did suffer from a mysterious power
ailment and found itself adrift for several hours in the 1980's while cruising thru an area known as
the Bermuda Triangle... but I will leave it at that. The QE2 grounding was also found to be
exacerbated by a previously unknown condition the ship had while at speed, it was found to "squat"
down 6 feet.

"Roger Long" wrote:
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.

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

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."

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:04:38 -0500, "Glenn Ashmore"
wrote:

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.

If I might use an analogy.

How many out there are prepared to drive their car using GPS only?

Jack

__________________________________________________
Jack Dale
Swiftsure Sailing Academy
Director/ISPA and CYA Instructor
http://www.swiftsuresailing.com
__________________________________________________

Several students of DeVry Institute of Technology in Calgary, Alberta, Canada did just that with
four GPS receivers, a computer, and some specialized software. Four inch accuracy. **No kidding.**
I don't know if they had DGPS units for the experiment. The experiment snowballed from an earlier
experiement that won them some sort of international championship in 2001 when they got an
automated, computer guided model helicopter to lift off, fly 3 meters and hover over a four inch
target, hook onto it and then fly back and land. No manual control what-so-ever. Pretty neat if
you ask me! (But I heard they had to drive at only a walking pace).

"Jack Dale" wrote:
How many out there are prepared to drive their car using GPS only?

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 05:13:19 GMT, "Richard P." wrote:

Several students of DeVry Institute of Technology in Calgary, Alberta, Canada did just that with
four GPS receivers, a computer, and some specialized software. Four inch accuracy. **No kidding.**
I don't know if they had DGPS units for the experiment. The experiment snowballed from an earlier
experiement that won them some sort of international championship in 2001 when they got an
automated, computer guided model helicopter to lift off, fly 3 meters and hover over a four inch
target, hook onto it and then fly back and land. No manual control what-so-ever. Pretty neat if
you ask me! (But I heard they had to drive at only a walking pace).

"Jack Dale" wrote:
How many out there are prepared to drive their car using GPS only?

I live in Calgary. I hope they send out a notice to drivers when they
do it.

My lack of faith in GPS was reinforced when the chartplotter showed
my boat on land while safely anchored stern-to in Princess Bay on
Wallace Island.

On the other hand, I did navigate through the rocks in Race Passage in
last year's Swiftsure using GPS. I had a paper chart in front of me
while I did it.

Jack

Jack Dale wrote:


My lack of faith in GPS was reinforced when the chartplotter showed
my boat on land while safely anchored stern-to in Princess Bay on
Wallace Island.

On the other hand, I did navigate through the rocks in Race Passage in
last year's Swiftsure using GPS. I had a paper chart in front of me
while I did it.

Jack



This is the problem/situation that many are noting, especially those
using chart plotters.
During most piloting exercises where we're underway, many minor
discrepancies between the chart plotter position and actual will not be
readily apparent as they are relatively small and due to the fact you
are normally giving a "safe berth" to most points you are passing, of
little consequence.
However, once you are anchored or moored or even working around a tight
docking situation, these discrepancies DO become readily apparent.
In most cases, I'm dealing with chart plotters on different vessels (all
gyro stabilized) that are using same/different/similar electronic
packages and unknown chart data (some charts I know to be older versions).
Depending on the vessel, I've noted errors of from @10' - 100' of a
variable nature (sometimes between trips, sometimes between vessels).
in this particular port. The most obvious being when alongside the dock.
Personally, when piloting, naturally my first choice is eyeball, but if
I have a GPS readout handy to where I'm standing I use it to confirm
speed and get a backup to my sense of set and drift, and where I have a
chart plotter to look at, I glance at it for a "birdseye" view, though I
put more weight on the "birdseye" view from the radar where accuracy is
concerned, as long as the particular radar picture is clear.
Naturally, what I'm discussing is for a particular port. Each port and
set-up will vary/differ .... my main point is that you should use
everything at hand, be aware of possible drawbacks to each and make
maximum use of the positives.

otn

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:59:40 GMT, otnmbrd
wrote:
I've noted errors of from @10' - 100' of a
variable nature (sometimes between trips, sometimes between vessels).
in this particular port. The most obvious being when alongside the dock.

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

There are fixed errors also. I live on the south side of a 120 foot
canal. Four different WAAS GPS units consistently show the boat
docked on the north side. Most likely chart error but who knows?

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:59:40 GMT, otnmbrd
wrote:

Jack Dale wrote:


My lack of faith in GPS was reinforced when the chartplotter showed
my boat on land while safely anchored stern-to in Princess Bay on
Wallace Island.

On the other hand, I did navigate through the rocks in Race Passage in
last year's Swiftsure using GPS. I had a paper chart in front of me
while I did it.

Jack



This is the problem/situation that many are noting, especially those
using chart plotters.
During most piloting exercises where we're underway, many minor
discrepancies between the chart plotter position and actual will not be
readily apparent as they are relatively small and due to the fact you
are normally giving a "safe berth" to most points you are passing, of
little consequence.
However, once you are anchored or moored or even working around a tight
docking situation, these discrepancies DO become readily apparent.
In most cases, I'm dealing with chart plotters on different vessels (all
gyro stabilized) that are using same/different/similar electronic
packages and unknown chart data (some charts I know to be older versions).
Depending on the vessel, I've noted errors of from @10' - 100' of a
variable nature (sometimes between trips, sometimes between vessels).
in this particular port. The most obvious being when alongside the dock.
Personally, when piloting, naturally my first choice is eyeball, but if
I have a GPS readout handy to where I'm standing I use it to confirm
speed and get a backup to my sense of set and drift, and where I have a
chart plotter to look at, I glance at it for a "birdseye" view, though I
put more weight on the "birdseye" view from the radar where accuracy is
concerned, as long as the particular radar picture is clear.
Naturally, what I'm discussing is for a particular port. Each port and
set-up will vary/differ .... my main point is that you should use
everything at hand, be aware of possible drawbacks to each and make
maximum use of the positives.

It would seem interesting to investigate what caused the errors in the
charting systems. My experience with non-charting WAAS receivers is
much tighter. At the slip we have used for the past few years, the GPS
not only tells us we are in our own slip, and not either adjacent, but
whether we are bow or stern in.

You did say the source for chart data was unknown.

I haven't purchased a charting system because I would still have to
keep paper charts even if I did. I am interested to read of your
experiences, and thank everyone for this thread.



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