I belive that although Hanermo has some good points, but that many or our
experiences are different than his.  For starters, he has only been involved
with the industry for less than 20 years (the first recreational boat GPS was
not available until 17 years ago--I believe I transported the first one to
come into Australia in 1990--at least that is what Aussie customs and the
manufactuer told me).

I am only aware of Puma Yachts due to some of the racing sailboats they have
built--but that is not typical of passagemaking power vessels.  Certainly Sea
Ray is not at all any type of example of a passagemaker.

There are many well built boats which have survied muliple voyages and met
their intended purpose very well.  Some Yacht builders do extensive testing
and design analysis.

My experience over the last 40 years is that yachting equiptment is actually
very reliable and definately fit or the purposes.  I have never finished a
voyage without all of the equiptment on the vessel working well.  I am amazed
at the beating that some of the gear has taken and continued to function well.
I currently have two Radars, and 7 chart plotters.  All of them have
functioned well since I purchased them.  They are in frequent use; at least
once a week, if not more, even if I am not full time voyaging.  During the
last week, twice, I have had to navigate in extremely limited visability and
due to radar and GPS chart plotters was able to safely continue on at full
speed thru a very narrow channel as part of the voyage.

I certainly dispute that modern electronics are of poor design.  As a person
who started navigating with a compass, lead line and chip log, plus a
chronmeter and Sextant; the modern electronics are true miracles.  I suspect
that Hanermo did not have these same experiences.

Although I have no proof of the numbers which he gives, I suspect that they
are not entirely accurate--but it depends on the defination of "recreational",
size limits and "passage".  For example there are multiple boats which race
offshore, or do signficant coastal cruising, which comes into the offshore
category and may be missed.  So one must define the size of vessel,  length of
the passage and the distance offshore.

I do agree that an auto pilot is an essential, and I personally carried two,
because of its importance in a short handed offshore passagemaker.  But just
as important is the redundancy of electronics--even though my Omega, Lorans,
or Sat Navs, SSB/Ham Radios, VHF radios, Depth sounders, GPS's never failed.
For coastal navigation a chart plotter has real value--For the passagemaker,
it becomes of less value, except when closing the coast--then it is very
valuable.

I also disagree on the % of sailboats which circumnavigate or do passages
carrying radar.  Even 25 years ago, the vast majority of boats from the West
Coast of the USA doing passagemaking carried Radar--not 1%.  It is higher now.
Radar was very reliable 25 years ago (at least in our experience then, as it
is currently).  If you want to go back 40 years, then it was less affordiable
and perhaps less reliable.  The reason that Radar (and now AIS) are very
valuable tools is to prevent being run down by a larger vessel (or collision
with another vessel).  I personally know of of over 10 people who have died
due to such collisions, and know of multiple near misses (including about 6 in
our own case) by commercial vessels.  I consider radar as essential.  If you
take the stand that all voyaging is done in trade wind belts, where fog and
prolonged rain is rare, and often the boat is out of the shipping lanes,
perhaps an arguement can be made for not having radar---but the reality is
that there  are risks, and especially in coastal and shipping lane crossings,
radar remains essential--it is cheap and very reliable.

Yes, skill as a mariner, knowlege and common sense are essential in all of
boating.  But one needs to use all which tools are available.  I agree that
some boat owners take it to an extreme, and that $20,000 will give a very
adquate set of electroncis.

I am not sure I entirely agree with the redundant wiring.  If taken to this
extreme, you have the risk of ground loops and some negitives from that. If
you have a "test point"--that adds another layer of complexity which is of
questionable value (another set of connections which might come loose, cause
resistance, etc). You will add considerablly to the cost of the boat.  If the
primary wiring is done properly, there is no reason for double wiring.  I do
agree with labels and diagrams.  I often add a second heavy set of primary
cables from the batteries to the navigation station, but that is because many
builders do not put in adequate size wiring for boats when you add the
redundant electronics.    I personally like to have the electronics batteries
isolated from sources which will cause voltage drops and spikes (like engine
starting).

I don't understand the cooling and moisture proof enclosure.  How does one use
the electronics?  You have to get to the knobs and switches.  I agree with
simple systems, and with large screens, plus a back up, kept in a sealed steel
container (GPS, VHF and EPRIB).  Not mentioned, is the desirability of easily
disconnecting antennas, grounds and power cables in the event of lightning
storms.  In many parts of the world, lightning is a far more frequent cause of
electronics mortality, than "inadequate cooling, or moisture".

Left out of the electronics is an EPRIB--which I feel is essential.  We carry
two EPIRBs.  I also feel that AIS is a valuable tool which should be strongly
considered as a suppliment to radar.

Our thoughts on these subjects are often tempered by our experiences.  But I
would caution about making statements about "facts" which are difficult to
substantuate.

Regards,

Bob Austin

I'll take Bob Austin's lifetime of experience over anecdotal data anytime.

On reliability, you have to work hard to produce a bad GPS. My Deluo
miniature hockey puck with Sony Siirf chipset is amazing. It agrees with an
old Garmin and two Furuno GPS units (37 and 32.) In the beginning, everybody
used the Navy Research Laboratory/Rockwell chipset and the only thing
different was the control and display software.

Similarly, radar has progressed from numerous components on a circuit board
to VLSI chips (Very Large Scale Integration) Like GPS, commercial interests
and governments depend upon this technology so development and reliability
is not just driven by the pleasure boat market. It is the other way round -
we benefit from their driving and paying for development. We mostly pay for
marketing. {;*))

Ironically, highly complex ship's radars probably have more problems than
our less complex radars. Some of theirs are consoles which you stand to
operate and require more frequent calibration.

Where Hannu may have a point is on the quality of the installation and setup
on some boats. I once saw a Palmer Johnson electronics installation on a PAE
Mason 54 sailboat. In addition to the instruments fitting into a welded
aluminum framework enclosed in metal screening, there were numerous computer
fans. The average sailboat underway in the Summer and/or the Tropics may not
have air-conditioning on and the instruments are behind a wooden panel in
the navigators station - problematical. Also, note that Bob mentioned his
method of supplying power to his instruments - very important. As safety
chair of a sailing club, I had two technicians survey the VHF installations
on 43 boats. Almost all had inadequate electrical power being delivered to
their radios. Over half had defective or poorly installed antennas. Only one
VHF was defective in its final and it was ancient.

I noticed on the Diesel Duck Forum (ducktalk) that there were three Seahorse
customers concerned with the temperature of their electronics in the
pilothouse. Two were in the building stage and one's boat was just being
started. They were concerned that pilothouse temperatures would exceed the
specifications of their planned instruments.

So, outside of solid state electronics and CRT infant mortality, the real
concerns are installation and setup. As far as what one "needs," as a
singlehander, I use radar as a daytime crutch and nighttime necessity.
Although all of us can navigate the ICW with a pair of binoculars and a
compass, a chartplotter really lowers the stress level.

So it is not what you can do without, rather it is what will make your
journey safer and more relaxing.

Ron Rogers
1985 Willard 40FBS
AIRBORNE
Lying Washington, NC

John, you may be on to something as the DD guys are pushed to the Seahorse
default of Raymarine suites.

I have Furuno and my helm space dictates exposed units.

Ron Rogers
1985 Willard 40FBS
AIRBORNE
Lying Washington, NC