Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sig who wrote (96352)	1/22/2005 5:48:28 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793841

Hi Sig, I don't know how else to say this except by coming right out with it. Satellite imagery mean almost nothing to a sub captain in regard to chart preparation or navigation, unless that information is passed to the folks running the Notice To Mariners system, and they in turn publish it. The system is maintained by the NGA. Here is their website. pollux.nss.nima.mil The world charting system has been run basically the same way for the better part of 50 years. When a Mariner notices an uncharted sea-mount, or a moved light, or a wreck, or a host of other small and large items, they are encouraged to submit the information to the NGA, who in turn publishes it for everyone via the "Notice To Mariners". When a chart gets too many corrections, they will publish a new Edition chart which incorporates all the previous information. The website is updated weekly, a pamphlet is published weekly, and every person operating a large craft on the open seas examines their charts for the latest corrections, and applies those corrections they believe are important. Every Naval craft operating in the high seas is required to make every NTM correction to every chart they use. Including a bunch of other short duration items which are referred to as NAVAREA's, HYDROLANTS, HYDROPACS, MODUS, and LOCAL NOTICE TO MARINERS. It's a painstainkingly exacting hand process. In the example I posted, a person has to physically grab some dividers, plot the lat and Long and write the sounding information on the chart in the precise spot indicated to apply the correction. Now, what I have just described is the paper charting system, the old school way if you will. The world is currently moving rapidly toward electronic charts and electronic updates to the databases. There are basically two types of charts, 1) Raster 2) Vector. Raster charts are replications of old charts, and Vector are newly created electronic charts based on the WGS 84 grid system. This could get real boring but I'll press on a bit more. :) In the submerged world of navigation, you're dealing with a three dimensional problem. So, the transition to electronic charts is a huge order of magnitude more difficult. And more importantly, it's being done by government institutions, which tend to move slowly and methodically. Especially when compared to the civilian surface sector. As a comparison, your typical oil tanker uses all electronic charts to navigate. This allows many of the largest oil tankers to carry crews of less than 10 people. The Navy hasn't fully gone that route yet, due to the safety factors, fear of liability, and the fact that the systems of updating corrections have not been proven reliable. So it's a mis-mash of electronic and paper. Typically both operate simultaneously to ensure maximum safety.

To: Sig who wrote (96352)	1/23/2005 10:11:29 AM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 793841

Something doesn't make sense in the reports thus far. In this report from the N.Y. Times, they suggest the crash site is at 7 degrees, 45.1 minutes north latitude and 147 degrees, 12.6 minutes east longitude. nytimes.com "The exact location of the crash remains classified. But the undersea mountain shows up on the satellite images at 7 degrees, 45.1 minutes north latitude and 147 degrees, 12.6 minutes east longitude. Now, in this report from the Navy Times they suggest a correction to the chart was 5 kilometers off. They also suggest the chart used was chart number 81023. However, when you bring up all the corrections for chart 81023, no correction is within 15 miles of the suggested crash/satellite site. I've bolded the closest possible depth correction. navytimes.com navytimes.com Corrections to chart 81023 pollux.nss.nima.mil 81023 5Ed. 8/12/89 NEW EDITION 42/89 (DMAHTC) 81023 5Ed. 8/12/89 LAST NM 42/89 12/90 Delete Legend “CONTINUED ON 81005” 11°59.0'N 146°25.0'E (MCNM1000/90) 81023 5Ed. 8/12/89 LAST NM 12/90 1/93 Add Depths 20 meters 8°03.4'N 147°45.9'E 31 meters 8°05.3'N 147°45.2'E (14(1059)92 Taunton) 81023 5Ed. 8/12/89 LAST NM 1/93 34/93 Delete Islet and enclosing dotted-line circle 8°34.0'N 151°21.5'E Add Islet and blue tint area enclosed by dotted-line circle 8°33'N 151°20'E (MCC1268/93) 81023 5Ed. 8/12/89 LAST NM 34/93 41/95 Delete R Bn (AERO) 7°27.2'N 151°50.3'E (BA RA) 81023 5Ed. 8/12/89 LAST NM 41/95 10/96 Add Depth 30 meters 8°24.8'N 148°12.5'E 16 meters 8°03.4'N 148°33.8'E (3(201)96 Taunton) 81023 5Ed. 8/12/89 LAST NM 10/96 46/96 Delete Depth 684 meters 6°04'N 147°47'E 795 meters 6°01'N 147°46'E 1136 meters 5°51'N 147°38'E 1289 meters 5°46'N 147°34'E 1467 meters 5°39'N 147°25'E 1476 meters 5°31'N 147°25'E 1478 meters 5°24'N 147°24'E 1384 meters 5°17'N 147°24'E (GIMM047/96) 81023 5Ed. 8/12/89 LAST NM 46/96 18/02 Add Depth 575 meters 6°53.0'N 144°49.0'E (6(59)02 Wellington) My analysis is 1) the crash site is different than the one believed by the Navy Times or N.Y. Times, or 2) there were no corrections which applied to the chart. If there were no corrections to the chart, then the skipper and crew are blameless. They wouldn't have plotted the shoal spot unless it showed up in the NTM corrections for the chart. The other possibility is the chart is different than the news reported chart.