<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>gCaptain - Latest Comments in Poll of the Week: Electronic vs Paper&amp;nbsp;Charts</title><link>http://gcaptain.disqus.com/</link><description>A blog about ships!</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2007 09:10:26 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Poll of the Week: Electronic vs Paper&amp;nbsp;Charts</title><link>http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/poll-of-the-week-electronic-vs-paper-charts/#comment-1343955</link><description>On most vessels, there should always be a paper chart back up.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;A few years ago, I was the commercial operator of a tanker that was struck by lightning about 600 nm off the coast of Spain.  They lost all electronic navigation instrumentation and used celestial and terrestial navigation to get to Cadiz for repairs.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;One type of vessel in particular that renders paper charts completelyobsolete are Fast Ferries.  At high speeds (40 kts +) you are completely reliant on the ECDIS.  Especially in high traffic areas, where fast ferries typically operate.  &lt;br&gt;A casualty like a lighning strike could cause a similar loss on a fast ferry.  However, the operational parameters that fast ferries operate under (High Speed Code)  mitigate this risk very well.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Andrew</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2007 09:10:26 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Poll of the Week: Electronic vs Paper&amp;nbsp;Charts</title><link>http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/poll-of-the-week-electronic-vs-paper-charts/#comment-1343953</link><description>There is something satisfying about a paper chart. The nice feel&lt;br&gt;disappears when the mariner or pilot needs to interface with modern&lt;br&gt;navigation (GPS) and position indicating (radar) and situational&lt;br&gt;awareness (AIS) hardware. The other problem is that it may be a full&lt;br&gt;time job for someone to annotate paper charts with the corrections&lt;br&gt;promulgated in Notice to Mariner publications. Nothing like a "failure&lt;br&gt;to update a chart" presented as evidence in an admiralty court. The&lt;br&gt;argument for paper may disappear as display devices get larger while&lt;br&gt;maintaining the same resolution. Design engineers are using high&lt;br&gt;resolution 30-inch displays  (2560 x 1600) on the desk  top these days.&lt;br&gt;Size has to be accompanied with resolution for these to be effective.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I think that your survey does not address the necessity for the&lt;br&gt;maintenance of the paper charts. An alternative is the possibility of&lt;br&gt;maintaining current versions of paper charts in electronic form with&lt;br&gt;the ability to print on demand, notwithstanding the fact that  large&lt;br&gt;sheet printers are not cheap. The advantage of electronic charts are&lt;br&gt;lost if they are not updated regularly as well.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;This reminds me of a discussion I had with a radiology professional&lt;br&gt;many years ago. He swore that film would never be replaced by&lt;br&gt;electronic displays (CRTs at that time) "They  did not have dynamic&lt;br&gt;range required for proper interpretation". Of course, in modern&lt;br&gt;hospitals today you will see very little, if any, film.&lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;The local radiologist may have been outsourced to India as well.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">x</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2007 02:14:36 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>