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