On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 08:52:15 +0200, "Steve Lusardi"
wrote:

You make this stuff sound wonderful, but in fact it scares the hell out of
me. Navigation using uncertified charts? Since when is this progress? Sounds
like stupidity to me. Close your eyes and imagine the court ruling in an
accident liability case when you tell the court you were using uncertified
charts from the internet after causing massive property damage and or loss
of life.

Yes but the courts will be more impressed with the zip lock bag
marinization technique.

Jeff,
Much of what you say is true. The real cost of the certification of these
professional systems is testing and verification, not the technology. So, if
you elect to use these chart plotters and you test and verify the accuracy
in the waters you sail, then the risk factor of using them is greatly
diminished in those waters ONLY. Just keep in mind that YOU are the ultimate
certification authority for use. Isn't this the same methodology that Bill
Gates uses for his software? Nobody can deny the validity and cost
effectiveness of the process, but the end user must be aware of this and
unfortuately, most are not.
Steve

"jeff" wrote in message
. ..
Steve Lusardi wrote:
Jeff,
I absolutely stand by what I stated. Please do not confuse my comments
with the dedicated and certified professional chart systems that are
available and in use, but those are not what Larry has spoken about.
Those professional systems are very expensive and they are supported with
maintenance subscriptions for continuous updates for both software and
source data without which, certifications are no longer valid.

In other words they are expensive and only available to large ships and
expensive yachts, not the recreational sailors in this group. So you
claim that the readers here to not deserve to have chartplotters.

Please also
note that they are NOT ever used without paper chart back up.

On this point I would agree; I don't leave the slip without a paper chart
on deck. However, the new chartplotter means the paper is hardly ever
used.

This is not hypothetical, please recall a couple of years back the USAF
DC9 that was transporting a US Senator in Yugoslavia using electronic
Jepperson Plates looking for a local airport and flew into a mountainside
in poor visibility because the Plate was in error and that system was
certified. Even the professional systems are subject to same limitations
I mentioned before.

Well that sure proves your point! Air navigation in Yugoslavia certainly
has a lot in common with Larry's marine navigation in Charleston. And was
the problem that the mountain had moved since the last chart was made?

Sure, they are fun to play with, but they are unreliable, inadequately
tested, often in error and are dangerous if taken as the last word. Use
them at your own risk.

I'm not debating the merits of the homebrew, low power systems. In fact,
I admitted I'm playing with one that I don't expect to replace any other
gear. However, the current generation of mid-price chartplotters,
$600-$1200, are a great boon to recreational sailors, whether weekend
warriors or cruisers even though they don't come close to your standards.
One thing I've noticed of the last 10 years is a great reduction in the
number of simple groundings - I attribute that to an increase in the use
of small chartplotters.

Moreover, the number of fatalities and injuries related to groundings are
tiny compared to other causes. Its hard to prove that poor navigation,
regardless of the cause, is a significant problem at all.


Steve

"jeff" wrote in message
...
Steve Lusardi wrote:
Larry,
No, the chart source is only one issue in the certification process, it
is not getting through to me. The risks are still there and the more
elements involved, the greater the risk. I appreciate your enthusiasm,
but I for one could not rely on any electronic display for critical
navigation anywhere. The basic limitations are there as well, like 100+
pixels per linear screen inch at best, as opposed to 2400+ on a
lithograph printer. In order to express the detail, it is necessary to
drill down and that info may or not be there. When it is, that's all
you see, the big picture is lost. If your hobby is computers and
networking, enjoy it, but do not rely on this technology, it is not
robust, it is not everywhere and it simply is not ready for prime time.
So, are you claiming that anyone who uses a chartplotter is a danger to
himself and those around him? While I'm still not ready to give up on
paper, my new Garmin 545 (5 inch, hi res) was a joy to use during a
mostly fogbound Maine cruise last summer. The biggest change over my 10
year GPS is the speed at which it can zoom in/out.

OTOH, I've been playing with a low power Linux laptop with a GPS puck
running chart software, and while its fun, I've not been convinced it
can replace a dedicated machine.

Steve Lusardi wrote:
Jeff,
Much of what you say is true. The real cost of the certification of these
professional systems is testing and verification, not the technology. So, if
you elect to use these chart plotters and you test and verify the accuracy
in the waters you sail, then the risk factor of using them is greatly
diminished in those waters ONLY. Just keep in mind that YOU are the ultimate
certification authority for use. Isn't this the same methodology that Bill
Gates uses for his software? Nobody can deny the validity and cost
effectiveness of the process, but the end user must be aware of this and
unfortuately, most are not.
Steve

Again, I'll say that I'm not a fan of charting software layered on
commercial, general purpose systems. Nor do I like using a normal
laptop at the helm - far too many issues from stability to screen
quality to weather resistance. My primary issue is your claim that the
smaller dedicated offerings, such as those from Garmin, are not worth
having.

But, here's a few things to consider: Gates probably spends orders of
magnitude more on quality control than the "certified" systems do; its
just that his software is far more complex, and used in a quite
different way. And it wouldn't surprise me if the "certified" software
is layered on Linux, possibly even the the same version that Larry is
using.

The high cost of the certified stuff is not due to a large amount of
quality control; its due to the custom installations, bullet proof
hardware, training, and continuing support. All worthwhile attributes,
but they don't mean the actual charting is any better.

Also, the chart quality available on the "certified" system is the same
as what's available on the "lesser" systems. Of course, many people
with chartplotters don't bother to always get the latest upgrades, just
as most boaters don't upgrade their paper charts with the periodic
"Notice to Mariners." However, its probably easier and cheaper for the
generic PC users to do this. In fact, modern PC software is
continuously hitting the 'net to find newer charts.

I'll leave you with a good example of a "certified" system that failed
it's users:
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1997/mar9701.pdf

On Jun 5, 5:42 am, Larry wrote:
By the way, Roger and every other Time Warner customer on this newsgroup,
Time Warner will stop providingusenetservice very soon.
....
It's all about preventing users from actually using bandwidth they paid
for. ...

Apparently it's actually, at least nominally, about blocking child
porn in a handful of alt.* groups. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9964895-38.html.
This is odd as it is easy to just block alt.*. Lots of news servers
do. Apparently they will not block known offshore porn web sites...
Okay, maybe Larry is right about this...

-- Tom.