Don't forget, Sea Doo also makes and sells boats. ;)

GPS doesn't work if it can't see the satellite
 

rain, moisture, fog, heavy cloud cover (any atmospheric condition that is "conductive") can attenuate RF. So it isn't necessarily a matter of "failing", but a degradation that may result in less frequent positional updates due to weak(er) signals. In the extreme, yes, loss of signal could occur which would render the device inoperative.

Cloud Cover
 

I know my Garmin has a hard time "Locating Satellites" when it I turn it on if there are storm clouds and rain; but it eventually comes on-line. It sometimes messages "Waiting for Better Accuracy" if it is really cloudy.

Technically, Jet Ski is the brand name for Kawasaki I believe.

His statement doesn't seem that far fetched. GPS systems receive signals from satellites. When there is weather, it stands to reason that the already relatively weak signals could be affected, making it harder for the device to lock on and get an accurate reading.

There are many reasons why things like GPS and LORAN-C should be considered navigational AIDs and not replacements for familiarity with the water you're operating in.

OK I guess... I've never had it happen to my Standard Horizon in any cloud cover whatsoever, or rain. I also had a hard time finding evidence of failure of GPS in rain and clouds online. I'll take your word for it that it has happened to you though.

Waas
 

The problem I have had with GPS accuracy on the lake is the loss of "WAAS" (Wide Area Augmentation System) which keeps your GPS accurate within 3 meters. For the life of me I can't understand why in such an open area I keep losing the WAAS signal on my GPS, and for some reason it seems worse this year than last. Does anyone else have this problem on the lake???

Without WAAS, accuracy can be as much as 100 meters off and I have personally seen this inaccuracy on my GPS. I have rarely loss total GPS / satellite signal however.

GPS is a another extra wonderful tool to HELP with navigation but should never be relied upon totally. It is NOT fail proof and it is never 100% accurate.

Dan

this might answer a few questions.
 

see this article

http://www.landairsea.com/gps-tracki...-gps-accuracy/

I have had issues with my Standard Horizons (I have had the CP155C, CP175C and currently have a CP180I) in the past on crappy nights. It does happen. Sometimes they have problems acquiring a link in inclement weather.

Imagine...
 

Can you imagine being on the boat that night if a false GPS reading was indeed the cause of the accident?! Holy Christ! Stop and think about it for a second...try to put yourself there.
Cruising along, happy to be with good friends, and laughing about the prank you had just pulled. Maybe a small "glow on" from a beer or three (come on now, we've all been there) trusting your GPS in the fog and rain, because, well, it has never failed you before, not once. Blasting along, but keeping a close watch on your GPS screen, staying right on course, and then out of nowhere, AN ISLAND! Way too late to do a darn thing, except thing, "Wow, this really going to suck!"

Basic rule of seamanship...
 

While all of this talk of GPS accuracy and anomalies is fascinating we must all remember one thing:

Regardless of GPS, RADAR, compass, depthfinders or the like a captain, at all times, must maintain a proper lookout. Maintaining a proper lookout is one of the most basic rules of seamanship that everyone must master and understand before taking the helm.

Failure of an installed navigational aid, or the inability to interperet such aid accurately is never an excuse for not maintaining a proper lookout, or operating your craft at an appropriate speed with regards to surrounding water & atmospheric conditions!

Here's some more GPS WAAS info
 

greetings all,

here's another link to check out

http://www8.garmin.com/aboutGPS/waas.html

I am not relating this comment to the accident referenced in this thread specifically...

IMO, anyone who needs a TV screen to navigate at night needs to stay off the damn water. GPS, especially on a small inland lake, is a sanity check, not an auto pilot.

So, no, I cannot picture the scene you describe because there is no way I would EVER trust an electronic device to guide me in close quarters at speeds that could cause harm to vessel or person if it malfunctioned.

GPS accuracy
 

Another thing you should keep in mind about GPS accuracy. The DOD owns and operates the Global Positioning System. in case of an attack on the US govt. DOD can and will change the gps algorithm. This is too confuse the enemy/attacker(s) if they use GPS for tracking their 'smart' ammunitions.

A buddy od mine who serve in the Armed Forces told me this little tidbit.

If your GPS goes crazy we must be under attack! :eek:

For those of you who might like a little better GPS reception...

http://www.gilsson.com/

Woodsy

misunderstand
 

I think you may have misinterpeted my intent...it was not to offer an excuse as to what happened, or even an explanation. Also, it was not to say needing a GPS (day or night) is right or wrong. The post was for none of those things...I simply said "imagine" if this is what happen. And how shocking an event it would have been.
You say you cannot picture (imagine) the scene I describe? Do you lack an imagination? How do you watch TV, Movies, or read books????

Best point made yet! It is scary to think about someone with their head buried in a 12 inch screen cruising along at night!!!:eek:

I understood what you meant sa meredith and yes I agree if that were ever to happen I could imagine the boater being scared to death... if they survived the impact.

of course
 

Yes, of course it is wrong to be cruising along, with your head buried in a screen...or even really NEEDING the screen in the first place. No one could argue against that. Wrong and dangerous.

I was simply sharing an image that popped into my head.
Not trying to start any trouble.

Had an airplane with GPS in it. Have thousands of hours IFR and hundreds flying in the rain and the GPS never failed (due to the rain). We have Direct TV and it has been known to fail during heavy rain and thunderstorms.

No worries, I understood where you were coming from. You usually seem to be rational, so I got the spirit of your post. My reply wasn't meant to be lobbed at you in an accusatory manner, sometimes text doesn't translate very well, and I often tend to be kind of direct in my replies.

Could I "imagine" it from the perspective of another person, yes, of course. Could I imagine myself in that scenario? Not really?

Different frequencys react differently to weather. My XM radio antenna can have 1' of snow on it and work fine. Direct TV hardly works at all in the snow. I would say GPS is pretty resiliant. Mine works great all the time even in some heavy snow when snowmobiling.

Maybe she was "flying on instruments"....

As everyone knows, the Diamond Island boat crash took place on June 16, 2008, at about 2am, which is one year ago today.

For the driver of the boat it's had to be a very long year, but for her deceased close friend it's had to be a forever year. Nothing that happens in the Belknap County legal process will bring her back.

I completely agree. GPS gives people a false sense of security, and when they are heads-down, they may be going the right way, but not aware of other boats around - which unfortunately don't show up on GPS. And even if there is radar on the boat, not all boats show on radar. I think "instument flying" at night on the lake is a huge problem, and with the proliferation of GPS, it's only going to get worse.

There is no substitute for first hand knowledge of the lake and a good current chart. The GPS is as stated in other posts a nice double check, but can't be the primary means of getting around at night. You need your head up, your night vision, and a strong ability to navigate using any visible landmarks and nav aides. If you can't, you shouldn't be on the water at night - you are risking not only your life but everyone else in the area's as well.

GPS useful tool
 

I use GPS to fix my position at night and then constantly check against what I can see. For example, if the GPS says I should be approaching a flasher I locate that flasher and lock on to it visually until I can locate my next point of reference. If my visibility is compromised the first thing to go is SLOW DOWN! probably to headway speed until I can obtain another visual fix.

In essence, when traveling at significant speed I can always see my next visual marker AND I can always confirm my position on GPS. If I lose confidence in either I slow down until I am confident in both again. I also use a general compass heading as confirmation. I know that heading home is generally a N heading and check that every now and then as well.

Night-Vision Displays Ahead...?
 

I guess we'll hear eventually of any GPS involvement in this collision: It's my understanding that a GPS can record the passage it has taken.

Even when equipped with radar, fathometers, and incredible measures to preserve night vision, the U. S. Navy ran three ships aground one foggy winter night in Canada. Occurring within 1 mile and 10 minutes of each other, that 15-kt collision with land was the subject of the book, Standing into Danger, by Carrie Brown. (Available at Amazon and elsewhere.) The two smallest ships were of the Navy's Destroyer class!

When Googling the book's availability, results included night-vision (Coast Guard .pdf files), and then to invention. The Dutch have apparently invented night-vision imagery that makes night appear as though "shot in broad daylight"—in full color!

Will technology introduce still another screen to the helm that will make "heads-up" night boating obsolete?

What a concept! :confused:

I use a similar technique when night boating. You must use all the data you can when boating in limited visibility. That means your eyes, and your GPS or radar (if equipped). I also use my depth finder. If the GPS says it should be 50 feet deep and my depth finder says 20 feet, I slow down figure out what going on. Usually its the depth finder whacking out on something. You have to be a fool not to use all the tools you have, none of them are perfect, all of them can give you false data once in awhile, even your own eyes.

I think that's what's most important here. Some fixate on GPS or whatever being the only thing that's right or wrong. But even during the daylight hours, it's important to be aware of everything around you, including what's up front and behind, a complete 360 viewpoint. It's equally dangerous to either fixate your eyes on a screen while piloting a boat as it is to have your eyes peeled dead ahead, with no regard to the port or starboard viewpoints.

Obviously, some folks have a deep felt dislike of all things electronic, while others believe 100% in them. But I think most of us have a valuable cynicism that understands what you just stated. Our own eyes can betray us sometimes just as a GPS can. It pays dividends to understand that, and proceed with caution.

Skip, thanks for injecting a dose of common sense into this part of this thread. Anyone who fixates on a GPS while driving a boat is an accident waiting to happen. The first and most important thing to do while navigating a boat is to watch where you are going. This includes at night. The big lake theory of collision avoidance doesn't work. You are sharing the lake with thousands of other people, your attention should never be fixated on a gps screen or any other screen for that matter. Your main focus should be in front of or around your boat using the gps and other tools as reference/backup.

Simple Nav error
 

I think I mentioned this very accident sometime earlier in the thread. So to put some balance back into the discusssion it might well be argued that visibility was limited (to ground level) but not "zero" that night and Erica seeing the shoreline lights, thought she was the proper distance from shore. I've run the route I now believe she was taking that night countless times and the shoreline isn't dark in that area. Most nights I don't consult the GPS (coming back that route) until after I'm home and find that my deviation from the programmed route is negligible. So could it have been a simple error ... sure. Again the testimony of her friend onboard and Dr Rock as to the conditions that night will narrow a lot of the speculation as to what happened.

Simple Error --- not!
 

Failure to maintain a safe watch and going too fast for the conditions.

If you can't see something bearing dead ahead and consequently hit it with such force that you destroy the boat, kill a passenger and severely injure the two other individuals in the boat (including yourself), it's no simple error. It's reckless behavior by the operator and a clear violation of a number of fundamental boating laws. Seems to me, the only question here is whether she was legally impaired by alcohol and therefore compounded her legal problems that night. The rest appears pretty open and closed.

I think we all feel sympathy for the situation. It's a huge tragedy for all involved. No, she didn't head out that night planning to crash her boat and kill her friend. But she did operate the boat in a manner that was reckless given the conditions and CAUSED an major accident with a fatality as a result. Yes CAUSED it. It was entirely avoidable and she alone owns that. She needs to be held accountable for her actions and boaters need to learn from this so it doesn't happen again.

We can't just excuse this away as some random "could have happened to anyone" situation. If you think this could happen to you, then you should consider the possibility that you are taking extreme and unnecessary risks when you boat at night and are potentially a hazard to yourself and others. We should all believe we're operating in a manner where this type accident COULDN'T happen to us. Because it really shouldn't be possible if you are a competent, cautious and sober captain.

Wow its amazing, why even have a trial, just read a few newpaper articles, write a few forum posts, talk to some friends and then start building the gallows.

Short Memory?
 

Remember this?


I'm not saying that she is innocent, just that without evidence of intoxication, this is far from a slam dunk. My guess is if the BAC evidence is excluded she walks with no jail time. Probably will be a plea bargain.


You wrote it in this thread. I guess it's okay for YOU to have an opinion that she will walk based on your slant on the information, but everybody else is off base if they take an alternate view?

Little hypocritical, don't you think??

Maybe, but I was guessing at an outcome, not declaring her guilty or innocent. Maybe a subtle difference.

I still think she will get off pretty easy, if the booze evidence is surpressed or if she wasn't drunk. I still think she will easily be convicted if she was drunk.

If she was drunk, she is pretty much automatically guilty in my opinion and in practice and in that case I hope she goes to jail.

If she was not drunk, then I would really like to hear all the evidence before I made an decision. It gets into degrees of negligence and visibilty and conditions and a whole bunch of other factors. Accidents do happen, even to competent, cautious and sober captains.

Out of curiousity, what charges should have been brought against the person mentioned in JustSold's recent post ? Sure there wasn't a death and I don't believe any alcohol was involved but still he hit Rattlesnake hard enough to break bones (if that matters).

Just curious about your comment of shoreline lights in that area. Diamond Island does not have electricity last time I checked, so unless someone was running a generator or had a crapload of candles going that island would have been pitch black. There is not a lot of houses in that area of the island either. I have been to Dr. Rock's house before. If you are talking about lights on the mainland I can understand however visibility was crap that night and that would be misleading... Just sayin'

Developing and Trusting the Senses...
 

While in Long Island Sound's notorious fog, I've had occasion to stop altogether and use my ears. Though what I heard was actually traffic noise along the shoreline, I thought it was surf along the shoreline. (No matter, my location was then plotted to suit the shoreline).

I've learned to develop and to trust my senses and among all the senses—to trust my eyes the most.

One example of using those senses was just last Tuesday: Totally unexpected, I smelled cigar smoke wafting off a calm, quiet, and empty lake. :confused: I turned upwind and there—about ½-mile away—was an oversized cruiser at anchor! :rolleye2: :cool:

I'm at a loss to describe any Jet-Skis or bass boats running onto Winnipesaukee shorelines—especially as their number is so large here!

Bass boats in particular run in dim morning fog: Because of the nature of their respective helms, they are focused dead-ahead all the time.

In taking that first drop of alcohol, the first casualty will always be Judgment.

It's because of that fact that I proposed that docks be fitted with a blue-colored solar light—right here at the forum in 2005. :cool:

There was, of course, the usual skepticism: :rolleye2:
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...48&postcount=5

I wonder how this skepticism plays out this June? :rolleye1:

Point being: Even at the darkest hour—in fog—on a lake—in June—and with the moon in the night sky, the sky overhead will provide a lighter contrast against which to silhouette shorelines.

__________________

Accidents
 

I guess it's how the term is used. Accident that is. Preventable accident? Accident caused by reckless behavior? As I said earlier, I don't think this is a "could of happened to anyone" situation and the way we throw around "accident" makes it sound like it was just fate that caused this tragedy. No blame need be assigned.

The reality is that the accident happened because the captain made some terrible judgements -- and killed someone as a result. Had she followed even the most common sense rules of boating, this would never have happened. That's the real tragedy here. It highlights the dangers of boating at night and in bad weather and the heightened level of caution required by the captain in those situations.

Unless there's some new evidence (mechanical failure, etc.) that we haven't heard yet, then, yes, I am highly confident she will be convicted of the primary charges. What does she have as a defense?

It's the BWI charge that's more difficult to prove, though it sounds like the State has a much better case (stronger direct evidence) here than they did with Mr. Littlefield. Lose on that charge and the penalty will be much harsher.

I expect that the court will take into account her suffering, contrition, etc. but I'll be surprised if she walks with no jail time at all. Someone died as a direct result of her actions. Personal suffering or not, that's a pretty serious crime. Even some modest jail time will highlight for everyone that this wasn't "just an accident".

Lights on shore
 

I agree that Diamond I is usually very dark, in contrast with Rattlesnake which often has lights, especially that house that has the "runway" lighting. But my reference was to the shoreline lights on the mainland. IIRC there's a mooring feild with a fairly well lit cluster of condos on the shore before you get to Diamond I. Now if visibility was bad enough that these couldn't be seen then you have to wonder about the wisdom of being on plane. If they were seen and she was using them to judge her distance from shore then it becomes a more understandable mistake.

I hope this wasn't on a clear morning with good visibility :confused: Fog is a very real hazard, both on land and at sea.



Two points here. I know personally that bass boats and Jet-Skis typically do not run at lower cruising speeds. So you point out that two classes of craft, both that typically run at faster speeds than most (bass boats typically at Much faster speeds, and you say they are "focused Dead-Ahead all the time". So we have craft going fast that never look to the sides or behind them? I agree that they should concentrate the majority of their attention to what's in front, but boats coming in from the port or starboard side, out of their concentrated field of vision can be hazardous to their health.

I'm amazed that these two craft classes, which you point out are in large numbers, haven't been involved in many accidents. Would this indicate that their speeds aren't a dangerous factor, that maybe something else might be in play as to why other boats that are operating at slower speeds, and are presumably in lesser numbers, have more accidents?


BTW, I think your suggestion for lights on docks is a very good one. Excellent idea.

I think one of the reasons regarding bass boats and jet skis not being involved in many accidents might be the fact that jet skis are not legal at night, and there typically are not a lot of bass boats on the water at night. They are usually in bed, since they have to get up so early in the AM to do their fishing! ;)

Another reason for jet skis might be the maneuverability of the craft. They can see all around them and avoid potential probs fairly easily-if the operator is looking around and not only straight ahead. ;)