I realize that we probably came away with different perspectives on this, but I found these parts of that report interesting:

1. While they did have full CMap charts on board, they were not using them. Instead, they were only using the base world map for charting - not the detailed individual charts that would be unlocked/loaded had they inserted one of their two key FOBs as was expected. This is pretty much equivalent to using a paper plotting sheet, hitting a reef, and blaming it on paper charts. I will say this, though, I think manufacturers using key FOBs for chart unlocking/loading is really bad and actually dangerous (not to mention so "1990's").

2. Even on the basic world base map, there were visual and textual warnings on dangerous areas, warnings about larger scale charts being available and visual economic outlines around land masses. Any one of those would have alerted them to the danger they faced. Team Vestas DELIBERATELY turned off the ability to display these warnings in their navigation software.

3. The two B&G chart plotters they had on board were using different cartography and clearly showed the reef and land they hit at small scale levels. They inexplicably had the charting on one of these turned off and it was only being used to control lights(!!), and they simply did not look at the other one. Even the base map on these plotters showed the shoals - from the report: "The chartplotter default world-coverage map does include a depiction of the Cargados Carajos Shoals. When the navigator awoke after the grounding he went to the nav station and could clearly see the reef on the MFD and the boat next to it. This was possibly his first indication of what had happened."

4. The CMap charts certainly could have been better in this area. However, the official hydrographic office electronic vector ENC charts were very detailed - and clearly showed land masses and more detail when zoomed way out - and an example is shown in the report. That warning you posted above is common for commercially-produced charts. "Official Government Charts" in that warning does not exclude electronic versions, and does not mean solely paper. Choosing inadequate electronic charts is no different than choosing inadequate paper charts. That warning is also given in private chartpacks, chartlets and guidebooks. Paper chart people generally do not rely solely on these types of charts without also having official charts.

5. The sailing directions and pilot books talk extensively about these shoals, but were never consulted by the navigator.

So to sum up the above, they were not even using their electronic charts - instead relying simply on a world base map plotting sheet. They had deliberately turned off all warning and safety-checking systems in their navigational software. They had FOUR chart plotters on board, two of which clearly and unambiguously showed the dangers. They chose only to use/look at one of them (and picked the wrong one). They did not choose to use official HO ENC charts on their software, which show these dangers at all levels, although it seems in hindsight that they wouldn't have been anymore successful if they did.

So, while I expect that most here will see in this report a damning of electronic charts, I see absolute navigational idiocy - lower than amateurish. If I were the navigator of this boat, I would be deeply ashamed and embarrassed by the findings. I certainly would not continue to hang on the "electronic charts were the problem" excuse.

Let me state this again: two of the four chart plotters on board clearly showed the land and shoals at all levels (on only their world base map, no less!), while they failed to even load the electronic charts they did have into the other two computers being used as their "main" chart plotters. Failed to load the charts!

One has to work very hard in contortions to blame this on electronic charts.

Mark

Pic - the HO electronic ENC chart"