Choosing between two bad options

When the US Coast Guard asked for public input regarding a proposed reduction in the northeast USA to navigational aids, they noted how these buoys were redundant given modern navigation. While public outcry has been significant, is there more to it?

What’s worse, a comprehensive buoy system that is not maintained, or a reduced system that is? Two bad options, but counting on something that is not there is pretty bad. The argument is how electronic navigation can fail, but what about moved or unlit buoys?

Is this federal agency dealing with a lack of manpower or money to service the current system? Here’s a letter to the USCG from Charlie Enright, US Sailing CEO:

As the national governing body for the sport of sailing, US Sailing represents the interests of sailors across the country, who operate boats of all types and sizes.

While we support the Coast Guard’s goal of modernizing and streamlining the Aids to Navigation system, we share the concerns of many boaters about the impact the removal of physical AtoNs may have on local navigation and safety.

One of the stated goals of the program is to “support the needs of the 21st century prudent mariner,” who the Coast Guard assumes will have a variety of electronic navigation aids, such as GPS, AIS, e-charts, mobile apps and radar.

In fact, many boaters operate safely without electronic navigation, relying instead on the traditional lateral navigation system of buoys, daymarks and lights. As we know, electronic systems do fail occasionally.

Encouraging these mariners to rely more heavily on electronic screens rather than maintaining the highest level of situational awareness by “keeping their heads out of the boat” seems to us ill-advised and counterproductive.

We urge the Coast Guard to give the strongest possible consideration to the responses of mariners who navigate their waters regularly and whose local knowledge is both broad and deep – in many cases gained through a lifetime of experience.