Flying Pig Float Plan


Our current plan is to depart on the falling tide on Monday, July
28 afternoon. Our best forecasts of currents and winds at this
time are for us to go directly East from St. Mary's River to the
Gulf Stream, taking advantage of the offshore currents to get us
there, rather than angling north to take the longer leg of the
triangle. We anticipate picking up the Gulf Stream early
Tuesday. Current in that area can be viewed he
https://oceanography.navy.mil/legacy.../145/0-0-17/16

Once in the Gulf Stream, weather and currents allowing, we'll
stay in it through approximately 38-00N/70-00W, about halfway
between Cape Charles and Cape May's latitude, then turn from its
eastward bend to Northeast, approaching Cape Cod. Current in
that area can be viewed he
https://oceanography.navy.mil/legacy.../145/0-0-17/24

At approximately 40-37N and 69-00W, we'll turn north, to go
through the Great South Channel off Cape Cod, and once clear of
the shoal areas, turn slightly northwest to go to Portland.
Depending on what time we arrive, the currents could be very
favorable or heavily against us. You can see those he
https://oceanography.navy.mil/legacy.../145/0-0-17/32

We intend daily reports via sailmail, as well as having our SPOT
(http://share.findmespot.com/shared/f...PLcZGvSb3 nMe)
on continuously during our passage. We'll also send "OK"
messages via Spot on a daily basis.

At this time weather, wind and currents all look very good for
our passage, but in the event that changes, or there are
equipment difficulties which suggest otherwise, we'll not
hesitate to come in from wherever we are at the time.

See our log listings for the daily reports...

L8R

Skip and Lydia (and Portia, of course!)


Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig KI4MPC
See our galleries at www.justpickone.org/skip/gallery !
Follow us at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheFlyingPigLog
and/or http://groups.google.com/group/flyingpiglog

"You are never given a wish without also being given the power
to make it come true. You may have to work for it however."
(and)
"There is no such thing as a problem without a gift for you in
its hands. You seek problems because you need their gifts."
(Richard Bach, in The Reluctant Messiah)

On Jul 28, 7:02*am, "Skip Gundlach" wrote:
...
At this time weather, wind and currents all look very good for
our passage, but in the event that changes, or there are
equipment difficulties which suggest otherwise, we'll not
hesitate to come in from wherever we are at the time.
...

IMO, this is the best part of the plan. I'm a big fan of the Navy and
NOAA wx products, but having used them for years I don't expect them
to be correct. I know they are digital and look lovely, but remember
that the NOAA guys look at all of these same models and more and have
years of experience and still mess up the forecast as often as not.
At sea the forecasts are __much less reliable__ than they are near
shore or on land. So, I suggest looking at the sky, the barometer,
the thermometer and the sea and if they don't agree with what the
computer or your router say then the router and models are wrong! The
models often change radically run to run so if it isn't working to
plan get the newest run. Also, remember that the meso scale models
piggy back on the GFS; if the GFS is wrong, so are they. So, it is a
good idea to do your macro scale checking against a different model
family (eg. NOGAPS) and, if you can, an IR sat picture.

-- Tom.

On Jul 28, 11:27*am, " wrote:
On Jul 28, 7:02*am, "Skip Gundlach" wrote:
... At this time weather, wind and currents all look very good for
our passage, but in the event that changes, or there are
equipment difficulties which suggest otherwise, we'll not
hesitate to come in from wherever we are at the time.

...

IMO, this is the best part of the plan. *I'm a big fan of the Navy and
NOAA wx products, but having used them for years I don't expect them
to be correct. *I know they are digital and look lovely, but remember
that the NOAA guys look at all of these same models and more and have
years of experience and still mess up the forecast as often as not.
At sea the forecasts are __much less reliable__ than they are near
shore or on land. *So, I suggest looking at the sky, the barometer,
the thermometer and the sea and if they don't agree with what the
computer or your router say then the router and models are wrong! *The
models often change radically run to run so if it isn't working to
plan get the newest run. *Also, remember that the meso scale models
piggy back on the GFS; if the GFS is wrong, so are they. So, it is a
good idea to do your macro scale checking against a different model
family (eg. NOGAPS) and, if you can, an IR sat picture.

-- Tom.

I find exactly the opposite to be true. The NOAA forecasts are much
more reliable off shore than they are on-shore where land effects can
significantly modify the wind patterns. I believe that they even
state that the forecasts are for 12+ miles off-shore.

-- Geoff

On Jul 28, 8:34*am, GeoffSchultz
wrote:
...
I find exactly the opposite to be true. *The NOAA forecasts are much
more reliable off shore than they are on-shore where land effects can
significantly modify the wind patterns. *I believe that they even
state that the forecasts are for 12+ miles off-shore. ...

I don't know where you sail. However, my guess is you are not using
the correct weather product. In most places in the USA NOAA provides
marine forecasts in zones. The zones tend to be along the lines of
near-shore, coastal and offshore with near-shore zones being the
smallest and having the highest detail the offshore the largest and
least detailed. The near shore and coastal products do take land
effects into account. For instance, there are nine zones for which
NOAA produces marine products in the bay and sea areas around San
Francisco. That's pretty typical. The reason they go to all that
trouble is that the wx is often quite different in each zone. So, yes
it is likely they do provide a product that is only valid 12+ miles
off shore in your area. But, if they do then they almost certainly
also have one for the near shore waters and the reason they have
another zone is that they expect the wx to be different nearer shore
and the near shore. It shouldn't come as a surprise that the 12+ mile
out forecast does a poor job of predicting things closer in.

If you want to geek out on this then you will want to look into the
meso scale modeling. You can get NAM and COAMPS grib data from NOAA
for the coastal waters of North America. If you check it out I think
you'll see that the models do take local geographical features into
account. Near shore your local wx dude has these high resolution
models, radar, reporting stations, and so on giving him the best
information to build his forecast from and a small area to
prognosticate over. As the forecast area moves offshore and gets
larger he has less detailed information and has to average the
forecast over a larger area and, IME, the results are, as you would
expect less accurate. YMMV.

-- Tom.

On Jul 28, 10:41*am, wrote:
...
I've heard others say the same thing, but the truth is, it matters
where you sail. In the Long Island Sound and surrounding area, NOAA
marine forecasts are worthless. After years of checking 5 different
forecasts including NOAA whenever I needed one, I finally determined
that Accuweather is the most reliable forecaster in my area. I don't
know the reason, but that's the situation here.

Don't get me wrong. My first point was that weather forecasts are not
very reliable and, even if they come in slick digital packages, need
to be checked against the reality of conditions around you. The
argument I was trying to make in the post you replied to was that if
the forecast is bad near shore it will probably be worse offshore all
else being equal. Here in the Pacific doing my own routing and
helping others with theirs my experiences with NOAA's ocean forecasts
and wx faxes has not been good. One nice feature of NOAA forecasts is
that they are signed by the forecaster and I have found that some
forecasters are better than others and some are more interested in
marine weather than others. Reading the "discussion" can provide a
feel for the local abilities and bents. Some of the NOAA guys do way
worse on average than the models. If you are in one of those places
and it matters to you I'd suggest making an effort to get meso scale
model data, particularly NAM.

FWIW, I get my NAM charts from buoyweather.com (I find the slp/rain
chart very useful). I think it's worth the subscription fee. You can
get the data in lots of wrappers for free from NOAA but it is based on
an LC projection so it doesn't work well with my viewer or with the
saildocs chopper. I get COAMPS free from saildocs. I find it a
little less good on average than NAM and the Navy doesn't put COAMPS
out when they are using their computers for other things so it isn't
always available.

Anyway, my motivation for all this typing is that every year I hear
the new guys getting all excited about their GRIBs and so on at the
start of the voyaging season only to hear them complain bitterly when
it turns out that the GRIBs are actually less accurate than the local
wx products they've been dising for years. Yes, every year the wx
forecasting seems to get a bit better but it is a long way from
reliable and it is important to be skeptical and keep a weather eye
open. It sounded to me like Skip was pretty excited about all his new
wx inputs, and I'm glad he's got them, but I wanted to point out that,
regardless of how much they cost or how pretty the charts, they need
to be looked as the very fallible things they are.

-- Tom.

On Jul 28, 12:08*pm, Dave wrote:
...
Ya mean the private service does better than the gummint one? Amazing!

Don't know if it changes your feelings but accuweather is wholly
dependent on the US government for the basic wx data they use.

Also, FWIW, I hired a private wx router for my last passage (Honolulu-
San Fran) and fired him less than half the way across since he was
doing much worse than I was with just the government info that I had
access to while underway. He seemed incompetent to me but he's been
in business for years. IME, if the marketplace were working perfectly
the guy I hired would be doing something else for a living...

-- Tom.

On Jul 28, 12:42*pm, " wrote:
On Jul 28, 8:34*am, GeoffSchultz
wrote:
...

I find exactly the opposite to be true. *The NOAA forecasts are much
more reliable off shore than they are on-shore where land effects can
significantly modify the wind patterns. *I believe that they even
state that the forecasts are for 12+ miles off-shore. ...

I don't know where you sail. *However, my guess is you are not using
the correct weather product. *In most places in the USA NOAA provides
marine forecasts in zones. *The zones tend to be along the lines of
near-shore, coastal and offshore with near-shore zones being the
smallest and having the highest detail the offshore the largest and
least detailed. *The near shore and coastal products do take land
effects into account. *For instance, there are nine zones for which
NOAA produces marine products in the bay and sea areas around San
Francisco. *That's pretty typical. *The reason they go to all that
trouble is that the wx is often quite different in each zone. *So, yes
it is likely they do provide a product that is only valid 12+ miles
off shore in your area. *But, if they do then they almost certainly
also have one for the near shore waters and the reason they have
another zone is that they expect the wx to be different nearer shore
and the near shore. *It shouldn't come as a surprise that the 12+ mile
out forecast does a poor job of predicting things closer in.

If you want to geek out on this then you will want to look into the
meso scale modeling. *You can get NAM and COAMPS grib data from NOAA
for the coastal waters of North America. *If you check it out I think
you'll see that the models do take local geographical features into
account. *Near shore your local wx dude has these high resolution
models, radar, reporting stations, and so on giving him the best
information to build his forecast from and a small area to
prognosticate over. *As the forecast area moves offshore and gets
larger he has less detailed information and has to average the
forecast over a larger area and, IME, the results are, as you would
expect less accurate. *YMMV.

-- Tom.

Most of my sailing is in the Caribbean with the majority of it being
in the NW Caribbean. I utilize GRIB files with GFS and/or NOGAPS
modules. There are no localized forcasts for on/off-shore.
Everything is off shore and on a macro scale. It's amazing how many
"small" scale systems move through that never make it onto any chart.
If you're coastal US, then I would believe that the localized coastal
forecasts should be fairly accurate.

-- Geoff

OK...

I promised...

So, those of you who feel we're a danger to boaters and want us to
maintain a minimum of the sort of distance demanded by the US sub
fleet, mail me directly with your lat/long and I'll honor your wishes.

OTOH, if you'd like to get a look at the crazies aboard Flying Pig,
stay tuned. Next stop Portland, ME area, ETA 10-25 days, or earlier
shore points as dictated by circumstance. LMK where (this bunch of)
you are, and we'll try to rendezvous.

FWIW, I've only hit rocks (once) and mud (many times) with Flying Pig,
but we'll anchor and let you raft up if you're nervous :{))

--
L8R

Skip

Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig KI4MPC
See our galleries at www.justpickone.org/skip/gallery !
Follow us at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheFlyingPigLog
and/or http://groups.google.com/group/flyingpiglog

"You are never given a wish without also being given the power to
make it come true. You may have to work for it however."
(and)
"There is no such thing as a problem without a gift for you in its
hands. You seek problems because you need their gifts."
(Richard Bach, in The Reluctant Messiah)

"Skip Gundlach" wrote in message
...

Flying Pig Float Plan


Our current plan is to depart on the falling tide on Monday, July
28 afternoon. Our best forecasts of currents and winds at this
time are for us to go directly East from St. Mary's River to the
Gulf Stream, taking advantage of the offshore currents to get us
there, rather than angling north to take the longer leg of the
triangle. We anticipate picking up the Gulf Stream early
Tuesday. Current in that area can be viewed he
https://oceanography.navy.mil/legacy.../145/0-0-17/16

Once in the Gulf Stream, weather and currents allowing, we'll
stay in it through approximately 38-00N/70-00W, about halfway
between Cape Charles and Cape May's latitude, then turn from its
eastward bend to Northeast, approaching Cape Cod. Current in
that area can be viewed he
https://oceanography.navy.mil/legacy.../145/0-0-17/24

At approximately 40-37N and 69-00W, we'll turn north, to go
through the Great South Channel off Cape Cod, and once clear of
the shoal areas, turn slightly northwest to go to Portland.
Depending on what time we arrive, the currents could be very
favorable or heavily against us. You can see those he
https://oceanography.navy.mil/legacy.../145/0-0-17/32

We intend daily reports via sailmail, as well as having our SPOT
(http://share.findmespot.com/shared/f...PLcZGvSb3 nMe)
on continuously during our passage. We'll also send "OK"
messages via Spot on a daily basis.

At this time weather, wind and currents all look very good for
our passage, but in the event that changes, or there are
equipment difficulties which suggest otherwise, we'll not
hesitate to come in from wherever we are at the time.

See our log listings for the daily reports...

L8R

Skip and Lydia (and Portia, of course!)


Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig KI4MPC
See our galleries at www.justpickone.org/skip/gallery !
Follow us at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheFlyingPigLog
and/or http://groups.google.com/group/flyingpiglog

"You are never given a wish without also being given the power
to make it come true. You may have to work for it however."
(and)
"There is no such thing as a problem without a gift for you in
its hands. You seek problems because you need their gifts."
(Richard Bach, in The Reluctant Messiah)

On Jul 28, 2:59*pm, GeoffSchultz
wrote:
...
Most of my sailing is in the Caribbean with the majority of it being
in the NW Caribbean. *I utilize GRIB files with GFS and/or NOGAPS
modules. *...

You had me confused. I thought you were using NOAA text products.
Just so you know, COAMPS is available for all of the Caribbean at 0.2
degree resolution @ 3 hour intervals through saildocs or viewfax.
COAMPS is the meso scale version of NOGAPS (both kindness of the USN)
and it has the same availability problems that NOGAPS has. But when
it it there it should provide a more local view than NOGAPS and will
take sea/land interaction into account. Check it out, you might like
it. I think NAM only goes to Puerto Rico. Too bad, as it is better
yet.

-- Tom.

On Jul 28, 2:03*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:11:43 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
On Jul 28, 12:08*pm, Dave wrote:
...
Ya mean the private service does better than the gummint one? Amazing!

Don't know if it changes your feelings but accuweather is wholly
dependent on the US government for the basic wx data they use.

I'll bet that Wolfgang Puck can make a better dinner than you can, using the
exact same ingredients.

I'm not taking that bet! But, I might bet that accuweather is
just giving you straight meso model output as provided by NOAA and it
is better than the local NOAA wx guy because the wx guy is degrading
the data.

-- Tom.