Mariners of my generation were taught to take positions by visual bearings (Yes, I know I am turning grey) and practise it as radar was only to be used in fog. While apprentices and cadets may be able to plot a fix with three lines of position through a single point, more experienced (and less supervised) navigators were satisfied with a triangle. However, the triangle gave them a good indication of the precision of their position fix. This together with the positioning relative to the land was considered to be a safe way to navigate. The experienced navigator knew what he could expect from the chart (depths from leadline or a single beam echosounder). He was also careful about relying on bearings taken from opposite shores.
GPS/GLONASS with their worldwide coverage and greatly improved accuracy have changed this navigation practise completely. Today, mariners just plot the geographical co-ordinates (no more relative positioning) and expect the accuracy of the chart to be equal to the accuracy of their positioning system. We all know that it is not, unless the chart has been recently surveyed. Unfortunately, the accuracy of an electronic chart is even more over-estimated by false reasoning of the user: ‘it is coming from a computer’.
During my at-sea career, whilst transiting to and from the survey-area I told my officers to navigate visually to get/maintain their experience (‘seaman’s eye’). If I see two landmarks in line I still want to check if it is in line with the real-time position displayed on the electronic chart system or with the position plotted on the paper chart.
Over recent years, I see increasingly less of those landmarks on the paper charts. Perhaps this is due to the desire of the cartographer (who sees his work as ‘the art of omitting’) to produce a less cluttered chart. After all, ‘Mariners are using GPS’, and ‘the information we put on the chart has to be maintained’. When vector charts are being built, there is another circumstance under which details may be left out on purpose: where and how to display?. For instance, I have seen ENC’s with almost no geographical names. The answer of the Hydrographic Office for this was: S-57 does not make specific requirements for geographical names. However, having few geographical names on your electronic chart makes voyage preparation a bit awkward if you do not know exactly where your next port is situated. While a ferry captain operating in an area with many islands complained to me: ‘How can I efficiently report where a leisure boat is in trouble?’
The mariner (and many others as well) expects a reliable GPS/GLONASS position, but is he aware of the vulnerability of the system and what if his receiver is not working properly? It is not of much use to have a (required) functionality to plot visual bearings in your ENC if landmarks are not no longer charted. Personally, I like to look outside and bring reality in connection with my chart. But if you have got the impression that I am against the use of electronic charts, you are wrong. I love them. When used properly they are a magnificent tool for safe and efficient navigation. Once you have sailed with them and experienced the benefits, you do not want to sail without them anymore. Primar Stavanger realises this very well by offering free ENC-trials. Enjoy reading - and if you want to know more about electronic charts, I recommend the newly published book: The Electronic Chart.

Enjoy reading.