Real Charts and Paper Charts.

I love how paper chart crusaders use any accident to argue for paper charts. You don't know what kind of charts the captain was using. Perhaps they were paper. Maybe even out of date paper. We don't even know charts of any sort had anything to do with this accident since as of now we don't know the cause.

Paper charts are neither inherently better or worse than electronic. They are almost always less current. Now the ability to read electronic my be limited by your monitors. We have monitors as large as paper charts. The point I would make with charts is to use more than one source. We use at least two electronic charts at all times plus an electronic version of the most current paper chart. We print out paper when we want to look at it, but that's not often. We also make notations in advance on the charts we'll be using for the next leg.

Also the inference that those of us who prefer electronic, don't know how to use paper is entirely wrong. We know how. All our captains know how. When this topic surfaced elsewhere yesterday, I pulled up a list of all updates to paper charts in the area we were navigating in the last 60 days. It was a long list. So if we were going to use 60 day old paper charts, the first task would be to go to them and make all those updates. That's why when we do use paper, we print it the day or two before and only have one day updates.

As to your analogies with diving, I don't dive so no nothing about them.

I'm a big believer in using paper charts, that being said they are almost always being used in conjunction with the electronic chart plotter, which is responsible for most of the navigating duties.
Seeing as you brought this up in conjunction with the Spencer grounding, I think using paper charts on this type of vessel is not practible and most likely more dangerous than electronic. That boat is most likely good for 35+ knots, trying using and keeping up with your position at that speed on paper.
Today's electronic charts are more accurate and up to date than paper charts, as older boater eluded to.
Today's navigation world is getting away from paper and going to all electronic paperless bridges with dual ECDIS displays.
Now don't get me wrong, I still use and enjoy paper, nothing makes my day more than turning the chart plotter off and making today's youth use the paper!

I like to have paper charts.
I feel comfortable plotting on paper and tracking my position on paper.
I use the chartplotter to confirm my situational awareness and projected course.

Regarding updating, I don't constantly update my paper or my chartplotter.

How many of us feel confident plotting a course (current, set, and drift) using paper charts and a magnetic compass?
How many regularly practice this perishable skill?

It is so easy to plot a course on the chartplotter and hit "NAV" on the autopilot

We update for every trip. We print new updated paper charts current to that time. We download the updates to all electronic charts. We also can pull the paper charts up electronically to a monitor as large as we want, so they're 100% or even enlarged. As ychtcptn alluded, we do have dual ECDIS displays and we are trained in their use. I have nothing against paper charts, unless they're years outdated and the user isn't reviewing notices. I've seen people terribly confused on the ICW with old paper charts they were given when someone else bought new and I've seen someone equally confused with Garmin charts that came on the boat which he'd just purchased used. They were apparently original to the original 20 year ago purchase.

One thing I'd note too, that compass calibration and checking GPS accuracy against other sources are important whether electronic or paper.

As to Kafue's comment about paid crew, I'd note that both my wife and I are 200 Ton Masters and do a large percentage of the navigation and taking the helm. In the last three years we've covered over 50,000 nm. We were probably at the helm for about 20,000 of that time but involved in it all.

We know the chances of any single chart to be off so we do pilot with our eyes open, using all equipment and using more than one chart system along with more than one GPS.

I just feel that taking this accident and blaming it on the lack of use of paper charts is a bit of a stretch. I don't know what charts if any the captain was using, if he was steering or on autopilot, if he was sober or drunk, if he was awake or asleep, if he was alert or distracted, if he was healthy or had a heart attack. I also don't know where exactly he ran aground to know if it's marked on paper, electronic, all or none.

OB,

I dont think anybody is placing blame on current incident.

And it seems like you are quite experienced and have a reasonable and safe method of navigation and you have mitigated risk to minimal.

I think Kauff is pointing out the dangers (owners and professionals) of what he perceives is overly relying on electronics and getting chartplotter blindness.

For me, my chartplotters are one tool in my situational awareness as I navigate.

I am constantly confirming position and course with GPS, chartplotter, paper charts, radar, depth, aotopilot, magnetic compass, AIS.

I like to see all the data matching from the different sources, including D/R.

Oh, btw, one of my pet peeve paper chart limitations: it seems like the "seam", or "next page" page if using a chart book is always in the wrong spot!

I don't feel challenged by it. I simply disagree with it's basic premise as I read it, which is saying one must use paper charts and implying they are somehow more "real" than other charts. That's all. You stated your opinion. I stated mine.

You're right and even sometimes marina web sites give you details of the best entry. Another source that we're never hesitant to seek is local knowledge. Often from marina's and the best if in doubt is tow captains. It's especially helpful if there have been recent storms or disturbances.

The prudent mariner will not rely solely on any single aid to navigation!