Tuesday, November 17, 2020

How to Report Nautical Chart Corrections

One great virtue of electronic charts is their ability to be updated quickly by both NOAA's Office of Coast Survey (OCS), who makes the charts, and then the mariners who use them on the water. Electronic Navigational Charts (ENC) are updated weekly by OCS. All type-approved ECDIS (electronic chart display and information system) software as well as many ECS (electronic chart system) used by recreational mariners such as OpenCPN, Coastal Explorer, and Time Zero products offer an automated chart update service built right into the navigation software. 

You can configure the nav programs to check for new charts every time you start the program, or you can update manually. Then if you are online at the time, the program logs into the right NOAA web page, checks for latest charts, and downloads new ones. NOAA provides the needed application programing interface (API) for programmers to use for this.

An important caveat to this process is: for this to work, you must have loaded the charts in the first place using the program's own chart loading function. Most nav programs with the auto-update option have two ways to initially load a chart: select it from a list of charts they provide and then the program gets the charts for you, or it lets you load charts manually by simply telling the program where charts are located on your computer. Loading charts manually can bypass the auto-update functionality. It is important to understand how your own ECS handles these updates. Using OpenCPN, for example, this means using the Chart Downloader plugin for all charts you want to automate, and then store all such charts in the same folder selected in that function.

To illustrate the power of modern chart updating options, we take a look at how mariner's can take part in the process with what is effectively "crowd sourced" chart updating. We will look over the submission process for a user reported chart correction, and then follow through on it showing up in subsequent charts. We posted an earlier article on this process featuring a UKHO app designed for this. The US counterpart described there has since changed to what we show here, but the UKHO app is still available, and as far as we know could still be used to report comments on US charts, although the procedure shown here is the most direct.

What led us to return to this topic is we ran across a prominent naming error on ENC number US4WA11M (Puget Sound, Northern Part) that mis-labeled Montlake Cut at the west end of the Ship Canal that leads from the Puget Sound via the Ballard Locks into Lake Washington. On that chart it was called Montauk Cut—a famous maritime name for sure, but from NYC, not Seattle. Chart US4WA11M is scale 1:80,000, which is within the scale band 5 that spans scales of 1:50,000 to 1:150,000.

Here is the location we discuss within Puget Sound, followed by the object of interest shown on a chart.




This is the object as we first found it, with an insert showing the chart ID. This is viewed in OpenCPN, showing part of the "cursor pick" display seen when right clicking the Cut—this is the way you access object data on an ENC. The more general chart info shown is usually at the bottom of the display, seen with a click on the chart bar.

Montlake Cut can also be seen on scale band 5 chart US5WA13M, which is 1:25,000. If we zoom in to that scale we see that the Cut and Bridge are labeled correctly on that chart, so the only issue is US4WA11M.  


As noted above, at one point NOAA/OCS had a dedicated webpage for reporting chart errors, but they have updated that, now combining chart error reports with their generic page for comments and questions that we find at 


At this page, we select the Report an Error tab, and then just go down the line of entries.


There is a full NOAA interactive catalog in the right side panel, so you can find the exact Lat-Lon of the error with a button click. You can then include a screenshot of the error. 

I do not know how long the error on US4WA11M was there, but I noted it on Monday, Nov 2, 2020 and sent in that form at about noon, Seattle time.  I was surprised to then get this back at 3:35 PM the same day:

From: NOAA Coast Survey Customer Response for Ticket #148408 

3:35 PM Monday, Nov 2, 2020


Thank you for your inquiry into NOS products.  You are right, the name of the waterway was incorrect on US4WA11.  It has been revised in our database from Montauk Cut to Montlake Cut.  An update for US4WA11 (Edition 41, Update 7) should be available for download within a week.  Again, I'd like to extend my thanks to you for pointing out this error, so that it could be corrected.


Sincerely,


[name given]


Original Message:

-----------------------------------

"Good day, I would like to point out that on US4WA11 the Montlake Cut is misprinted as "Montauk Cut." This does not show up on US5WA13, as noted in the attachments. Please let me know that you have received this, and if you can, please give me an estimate of when we might expect this to be corrected.  Thanks very much. David Burch / Starpath School of Navigation / Seattle"

I am not sure when the actual update was made, but three days later on thursday we checked by doing a chart update for US4WA11M, and found the following:



So we see that it was indeed already fixed!  The new one is edition 41 /7. We can go the charts list to check when it was actually made (see link at www.starpath.com/getcharts):


It looks like the new update was issued on the same day of the report and actually built into the zipped ENC file on the next day. 

I doubt we can expect that type of turn around in general, unless it is a simple one like this one that is easy to see and fix. But they do have the chance to issue a new update every week.

If you see things on a chart that are not right, or you have documented info to improve the charted data, then this is an easy way to submit it. Our feeling has always been that even though the ENC take some practice to get used to, in the end they will be superior to the RNC and offer mariners very much more information about the waterways.

Note added Nov 23:  Another way to follow up on your proposed correction is a new webpage they have on  weekly chart updates: 


It takes a bit of practice, but you can look for updates per date nationwide or home in on specific charts or specific weeks.  A nice new edition to these modern times of weekly updates.  This may not be an advertised public site yet, but it is active.

Before submitting your proposed correction, it could be, depending on the correction, useful to check the latest USCG Weekly Notice to Mariners to see if the error has already been reported. And indeed, if the error is potentially hazardous to navigation, you might also report it to the Aids to Navigation office of the local USCG.

We have related ENC notes online at  Naming and Boundary Conventions in ENC.

For more details on the structure and use of ENC, see Introduction to Electronic Chart Navigation.











Wednesday, November 11, 2020

Into the Weeds with Abbreviations

There is a nuanced twist to navigation terminology that is ever more likely to be confronted... if you might care to ponder such things. It relates to a hierarchy in the specificity of abbreviations. 

mb, Pub., WA are abbreviations. We write them as letters and then read them or pronounce them as the words they stand for, "millibars," "Publication," "Washington."  We can think of these as abbreviations, level 1.

GPS, ENC, COG are initialisms.  They are abbreviations we read and pronounce letter by letter, without saying, or maybe even knowing, what they stand for. We might call these abbreviations, level 2.

And then there is RADAR, ECDIS (pronounced "ekdis"), ATON (pronounced "ay-tahn"), which are acronymsThese are abbreviations that have been elevated to actual words that we pronounce as they are spelled.  Level 3!

Beyond this tidy arrangement, there is at least one loose cannon floating around the nav station.

NMEA, representing the National Marine Electronics Association, is often used as an acronym, which for some unknown reason is commonly pronounced "neema," which has nothing to do with what was once an unambiguous acronym (NIMA) for National Imagery and Mapping Agency  (1996 to 2003) that had replaced the Defense Mapping Agency, known by the initialism DMA.  NIMA was replaced with the NGA, the initialism for National Geospatial Agency, which serves an expanded function today, including the production of many useful nav pubs.

Years ago we proposed the name "erble" be used to elevate the abbreviation for electronic range and bearing line (ERBL) to an acronym. This does make reference to it more tidy,  but I am not sure if this ever caught on much. The longer the abbreviation, the more attractive an acronym becomes.

We got into this abbreviation minutiae today as we prepare our new online course on echart navigation, which focuses on ENC, electronic navigational charts. These are the vector charts that will replace all traditional paper charts and RNC (raster navigational charts) by the end of 2024, which is not that far away — it is now Nov 10, 2020, and many folks are at this moment well aware of  how long 4 years is!

Everything displayed on an ENC is an object, and every object is described by several attributes. Every object on the chart has a 6-letter abbreviation: landmark is LNDMRK, lateral buoy is BOYLAT. We learn what these attributes are when reading an ENC by clicking the object, called a cursor pick, which brings up a list of the objects at that point (usually several) as well as their attributes.


The attributes are also each given a 6-letter abbreviation. Thus, object BOYLAT has attribute BOYSHP (buoy shape), which has 8 possible values; attribute CATLAM (category of the lateral mark), which has 4 possible values; plus attributes for color, color pattern; etc.  There are 27 possible attributes of an object BOYLAT, which you can see defined at this online
ENC Object Catalog from Caris.

One of the first things we might note on that wonderful Caris reference, is they call the abbreviations "acronyms." For the most part, this is not right. We might get by with BOYLAT or CATLAM, but what about the crucial object used to describe rocks: UWTROC (underwater/awash rock). The vast majority of the abbreviations for objects and attributes are awkward at best to pronounce. Caris cannot be blamed for their use of the term. The International Hydrographic Organization  standard for ENCs (IHO S-57)  calls them "acronyms."

The point at hand here is that some abbreviations for objects and attributes will nevertheless inevitably become acronyms right out of the box, such as the attribute that nearly all objects have called SCAMIN (scale minimum,  maybe pronounced "ska min"). You must be zoomed into a scale equal to the SCAMIN or larger in order to see the object on an ENC. Recall that chart scales are defined as ratios: 1:40,000 (1/40,000) is a larger scale (fraction) than 1:80,000 (1/80,000). A lateral beacon (BCNLAT) with a SCAMIN of 44,999 will show up on a 1:40,000 display, but will disappear off the chart when you zoom out  to 1:80,000.

But I wander into the charting here, when the topic is abbreviations. The point is this: as we learn more of the 500 ENC objects and the 400 ENC attributes that can be used to describe them, we will first confront the fact that they look the same, each abbreviated with 6 capital letters, then we will most likely bump around a bit as we decide which of these should be honored with acronyms, and if we want an acronym for an abbreviation we can't pronounce, what word do we invent for it—in the spirit of NMEA.  

If we have friends working in the government, we can ask them for help. They are experts at this... think of NOAA (noah), but that is just an ice crystal on the tip of the iceberg of government speak.

For completeness, I might note that the IHO has a standard for what must be in an ENC called IHO S-57 and another standard on how this information should be presented to the mariners, which is called IHO S-52. In the latter they discourage the use of the abbreviations for objects and attributes in lieu of  full names that they refer to as "human readable language." 

Consequently, many echart programs do not use the abbreviations at all, however, my own work with ENC has shown a certain value to having these available. OpenCPN, for example, uses both the abbreviations and the full names for the objects, but only abbreviations for the attributes. Other programs do not use abbreviations at all.




Saturday, September 26, 2020

Detecting Fast Winds Aloft... and why we care

The winds aloft at about 500 mb (18,000 ft) play a key role in the winds we ultimately feel on the surface. The relationship is discussed in our textbook Modern Marine Weather. In short, the direction of the winds aloft tell us which way the surface Lows will approach us, and the speed of the winds aloft are a measure of the speed of the surface Lows (about 30 to 50% of the winds aloft speeds) as well as the severity of the surface winds we can expect.  The seminal explanation of the practical relation between winds aloft and surface winds is by Joe Sienkiewicz and Lee Chesneau.

Short of having an actual map of the winds aloft (which is easy to come by if we have wireless connections), we can gage both speed and direction from visual observations. Again, I refer to our text for details, but one way to spot direction is to note that the winds make waves in high cirrus clouds, much as wind makes waves in water. These waves show up as fine ripples in cirrocumulus clouds, called mackerel sky. The direction of the winds are, as is the case with water waves, perpendicular to the waves,  inline with the motion of the waves.

The speed of the winds aloft can be judged from other cirrus cloud patterns, such as prominent mare's tails. The very existence of a prominent and persistent wave pattern is some indication of at least a well defined wind pattern, but a more positive sign is the topic at hand. Namely, if you can actually see the high cirrus clouds moving, then the winds must be fast.  We mention this in several books, but this is not a very common observation, although we do indeed often see cirrocumulus in neat wave patterns.... as if waves in sand—as opposed to the much broader and more common patterns seen in altocumulus waves. 

Note that most internet discussion and many books and some glossaries assign "mackerel sky" to altocumulus patterns, and there is no particular problem with that, but those clouds (waves in altocumulus) are not forecasters of strong winds, and not what was meant in the old saying "Mackerel skies and mare's tails make tall ships set low sails." This refers to  cirrocumulus patterns, indicators of the winds aloft.  Altocumulus patterns are determined mostly by boundary layer winds (~850 mb) that reflect what is going on now, not what is coming over the horizon. 

Actually, let me take that back. There is a problem with the misidentification of the clouds that go with that famous forecasting jingle. Namely it dilutes our ability to do useful onboard forecasting based on what we see alone without weather maps or official forecasts at hand. In short, to use modern jargon, such discussion is fake news that can lead us astray. In any event, once you see that error in place, it is fair warning to be careful about other things stated in that reference. Sometimes we need to make the difficult distinction between high-end altocumulus and cirrrocumulus. See notes at the end about cirrocumulus v. altocumulus cloud waves. The importance of cirrus clouds for forecasting was known in the late 1800's.

The difficulty with spotting the cloud motion at sea is we need a reference to judge the motion by. Here on land, and in the sample below we have a building to use. 


To follow up on this observation, which was made in Seattle at 1700 PDT, Sept 25, 2020, (00z on Sept 26),  we can go to the FTPmail folder of weather maps. Strangely enough, the OPC, which makes these maps, do not post the most recent 500-mb map on their own web page. They include a 24h and 48h forecast instead, but we can get the map valid at 00z 9/26 from the link above. At that link, go to Pacific / Upper Air Charts / 500 mb / Most Recent, which is shown below.... you will of course not see this when you do it as this will no longer be the most recent!



We see that the winds aloft we were viewing to the S at the moment could be as large as some 85 kts (exact values not clear as they are not labeled overhead and I have not tried to compute how far south these were at 40ยบ high in the sky). The model winds on this map, however, are indeed high winds aloft speed (average may be closer to 60), although they can be much higher (>100 kts), but on the average they are lower.  

If we look at the surface analysis at this time, we do not see much activity as shown below.


But the forecasts for the next two days do show a large storm developing in the Gulf of Alaska.



By this time, the winds aloft have backed down to the SW from the westerlies we were observing, a direction you can discern in the surface forecast from the orientation of the isobars in the warm sector of the accompanying frontal wave—and they are predicted to get even faster.


We won't see the effect on high clouds here in Seattle as, our winds aloft will be from the NW at moderate speeds, and we are well sheltered from that Low, but anywhere within that great sweep of the SW winds aloft, S to SE of the Low, should show some pretty dramatic cirrus patterns.

__________________

Cirrocumulus waves vs. Altocumulus waves. 

Here are a couple sample comparisons from the remarkable WMO International Cloud Atlas.



The altocumulus above right are high ones where the identification becomes harder, but this example shows what we often see in altocumulus waves, namely indications of many different wind directions. This is a giveaway that this sky does not reflect the high winds, which will typically present a consistent, unique direction... although all such wave patterns are transitory.









Wednesday, August 5, 2020

Correcting Add East—An Overview of Compass Conversions

A true direction is the bearing of a target from your location measured relative to true north (000 T). True north is the direction on the horizon that is directly below the pole of the sky that all stars rotate about. It is the direction from any point on earth toward the North Pole, the one point on earth that is at latitude 90ยบ exactly. Standing at this point, the true pole of the sky is overhead and every direction from there is south! True north is always placed at the top of standard nautical charts, which are made on a Mercator projection. Due east true is on the right side; due south on the bottom; and due west on the left side.

(Note that true north is not the direction to the North Star, Polaris. Polaris is overhead on latitude 89ยบ 20' N, so it is about 40 nmi south of the true pole at any time. This makes its actual bearing vary from about 359 T to 001T depending on the date and time of night.)

A magnetic direction is the direction of a target from your location relative to a special direction  called "magnetic north" at your location. This direction is not unique, like true north is, but instead varies continuously across the surface of the earth. It is the direction of the strongest horizontal component of the magnetic field at the earth's surface. In short, it is the direction that any compass needle would point at that location.

Also unlike true north, magnetic north is not the direction to any specific point on earth. If we take a simple hiker's compass and look at the needle, it is aligning with the earth's magnetic force lines at this location, pointing to our local value of magnetic north.

(Note that magnetic north is specifically not pointing to the geomagnetic north pole of the earth; nor is it pointing to the magnetic north pole, which is actually a completely different concept, which we leave for now to the Wikipedia. When most of us say magnetic north pole, we actually mean geomagnetic north pole—as Trump says when he learns something for the first time "Not many people know that."

Since mariners rely on compass bearings to find their way across a chart, we must know for each point on earth what the difference is between magnetic north and true north.  Then we can read a magnetic direction from the compass and correct it to get the true direction that we can plot on the chart relative to the top or sides of the sheet.

The difference between true north and magnetic north is called variation or magnetic variation. Its ENC object name is MAGVAR. Magnetic variation is a well known number for all points on earth, but there are rare isolated regions, usually small, of anomalous values.

The numerical value of the variation varies from 0ยบ to about 25ยบ for most navigable waters below latitude 70ยบ N. Variation is labeled East if magnetic north is to the east of true north. For example, if magnetic north is located at a direction of 016T, then this is to the east of true north at 000T so this would be var = 16 E, which is typical of the Pacific Northwest. In Northeast US waters, on the other hand, magnetic north is in the direction of about 348 T, which is 12ยบ west of 000T, so this is var = 12ยบ W.

To see how this works with variation of 16ยบ E, if we are told that a target is at bearing 050 Magnetic, we know that means it is located 50ยบ to the right of 000 Magnetic,  the direction of the local magnetic north. We know from the variation that magnetic north is 16ยบ to the east of true north (000T), so this bearing of 050 M is pointing in the direction 050 + 16 = 066T. In short, regardless of the bearing around the compass card, the way to get true bearing from magnetic bearing will always be:

True direction = Magnetic direction + Variation East.  

When the variation is west, we subtract it from the magnetic bearing to get true bearing.  These rules are summarized below.

compass direction is the bearing of a target (or the bow of the boat) from your location read directly from a compass. These are bearings relative to 000 on the compass card. Ideally this would be identical to the magnetic direction, which is afterall defined as the direction a compass needle would point. But that is assuming the needle is feeling just the earth's magnetic field. We assume the compass is not being disturbed by any external magnetic fields.

If you have a compass sitting in a clean position, not near any magnetic materials, then 000 on the card will point in the direction of the earth's magnetic field, and indeed bearings read from this compass will be the same as magnetic bearings.  But set a magnetic screwdriver near that compass and you will see the needle move to a new direction, which is not the correct magnetic direction.

The difference between magnetic north and compass north at any time, on any vessel heading, is called the deviation of that compass on that heading. Deviation is labeled E if the compass bearing is east of the correct magnet bearing. Thus if a compass bearing is 050 C when the correct magnetic bearing is 045 M, then this deviation is 5ยบ E. The conversion is the same as with variation:

Magnetic direction = Compass direction + Deviation East.  

When the deviation is west, we subtract it from the compass bearing to get magnetic bearing.  These rules are summarized below.

Here are the rules

CORRECTING
True heading = Magnetic heading + Var E
True heading = Magnetic heading – Var W

Magnetic heading = compass heading + Dev E
Magnetic heading = compass heading – Dev W

UNCORRECTING
Magnetic heading = True heading – Var E
Magnetic heading = True heading + Var W

Compass heading = Magnetic heading – Dev E
Compass heading = Magnetic heading + Dev W

Maritime training has traditionally called going from Magnetic to True or going from Compass to Magnetic as "correcting" and going the other way as "uncorrecting." Neither are very tidy terms, but we feel it is best to not generate new terminology in this arena.

On the other hand, individual mariners are welcome to create whatever rules work for them.

I have always used the one rule "correcting add east." From this I understand that "uncorrecting" would call for adding west, and if the variation or deviation is west and not east, then the adding goes to subtracting—but I do not say this in my mind or on paper.  One short rule goes into the mind: "correcting add east"—then if anything changes, the add goes to subtract.

With all that said, on a long trip where you are likely to be tired when navigating and the local variation is say 17ยบ E, it pays to just write somewhere prominent in the nav station that
TRUE = MAGNETIC + 17ยบ
MAGNETIC = TRUE – 17ยบ
Then you are less likely to make a mistake when tired, and others at the nav station can see this to keep it in mind as well. This is especially true on a long trip that covers new waters for you, where you will not know the variation by heart. This saves looking it up every time you need it. Then just update your note as the variation changes. We learned this trick well on a trip from Long Island Sound, NY to San Juan Islands, WA down through the Canal.

If you have failed to do that and end up really tired and maybe a bit seasick on top of that, and the conditions are terrible and it is hard to think, then just look at a compass rose and draw a line across it to get the conversion done for you.

Doing a compass conversion with the compass rose for variation 17ยบE



We tend to concentrate on variation, but the deviation is handled the same way. On a non-steel boat we should be able to adjust all of the deviation out of our compasses.  Below we work a generic example with both variation and deviation.

As a minor point with regard to these conversions, in our course we do not use the term "compass error." The official US maritime definition (Bowditch, Dutton, etc, and see Note 1 below) of "compass error" is the algebraic sum of the deviation and variation. To me this is a muddy concept, which is to be avoided. First and foremost, variation is not an error in any sense. It is the deviation alone that is an error.

Secondly, it combines two completely different effects. Variation is a well-defined physical property of the planet earth at that location and date that applies to all compasses, everywhere on the vessel. We can look variation up very easily from numerous sources beside the chart, including phone apps.

Deviation, on the other hand, is a totally nebulous quantity, difficult to measure, unique to a specific compass, different on every vessel heading, and likely to change over a single long voyage. In short, we recommend keeping these two concepts completely separated and not to ever combine them into a single "compass error."

One way to remember the terms if you are new to the subject is to ponder the thought that "God makes Variation; Man makes Deviation."

We propose trying the one simple rule (correcting add east) for all conversions, which I will illustrate in a moment, but many mariners have found a form solution useful. They typically look like:

True           ___________
var              ___________
Magnetic    ___________
dev             ___________
Compass    ___________

You put in what you know and go up or down the form to find the missing values. In this form the var and the dev will have labels E or W. Going up this form is correcting, going down is uncorrecting.

Here is another more practical form of the form


In other words, "going up" is finding Magnetic from Compass so Dev E is +, and finding True from  Magnetic so Var E is +

The jingle used is Can Dead Men Vote Twice... at elections, which reminds of the correcting sequence with "at elections" reminding us to add east when correcting.

Here is a set of practice exercises from our Navigation Workbook: 18465Tr



This is 9 practice exercises in carrying out various compass conversions. In an extended career in navigation, you might actually run across any one of these, although it is more rare on non-steel boats. Again, on non-steel boats, we should be able to make all compasses free of deviation, but that does not mean they will stay that way.  A lightning strike, for example, is a rare event that can indeed disturb the compasses, as can loading the vessel in new ways, or installing equipment without thinking about the compasses.

In modern times, we tend to have a lot of compasses (electronic and magnetic), and it is rare to have them all agree, so we have to then track down which ones have deviation and what it is, and generally to do that we have to have complete control over these types of conversions.

Example (A) is pretty basic. We are at sea at a known Lat-Lon, time, and date and we want to check our compass for deviation. We point the vessel to a star and the compass reads 296 C. For this time and place, we then use celestial navigation to compute the true bearing to that star, which is 280 T. We know from our chart or software that the variation at this location is 16ยบW. So what is our deviation?

Dev is the difference between compass and magnetic, so we have to compute the magnetic from known true and variation. This is called uncorrecting and the rule is uncorrecting add west, so magnetic is 280T + 16W = 296 M, which is the same as compass, so the deviation is 0.

Example (B) would be the case where I was told that the proper course to stay on the entrance range is 014 M, so i need the compass course to steer, knowing the compass has a deviation of 5E on that magnetic heading, and I want to check this information on the chart, but the only chart I have does not have a magnetic compass rose, so i need the true heading as well, in an area where the variation is 21E.

We want True from known Magnetic and var, so this is just correcting add east, or  T = 014M +21E = 035T. Getting the Compass from known Magnetic and dev is uncorrecting, so C = 014M -5E = 009C.

Example (C) We want to find the local variation, because we do not have a chart with it, nor the software to compute it. We point the boat toward an object we know the true bearing to (ie 007 T), which we could get from a chart in coastal waters or at sea from a cel nav computation.

We read our compass heading and we know the dev at this heading, so we can find the Magnetic heading by correcting 354C - 8W = 346M. The rule is correcting add east, but this one is west, so we subtract.

So now we know True = 007 and Magnetic is 346 M, and we know the difference is the var, which is 346 to 360, which is 14ยบ and then on around by 7ยบ more, so the total difference between Magnetic and True is 21ยบ.  Then we choose the label of the variation by noting that 346 + 21 = 007, so since it is plus in the correcting direction it must be East. Ans 21E.

Since this one more involved, let's see if the form helps:

True    007
var      ___
Mag    ___
dev      8W
Comp  354

We get Magnetic going up, which is correcting, which is add east, subtract west, so we now have

True    007
var      ___
Mag    346
dev      8W
Comp  354

And we are back to figuring the difference between Magnetic and True as before, which we know is 21ยบ, so the form now looks like

True    007
var       21 .... now is this E or W?
Mag    346
dev      8 W
Comp  354

And at this point, form or no form, we have to reason through the label E or W.  Thinking in terms of correcting, we have 346 ± 21 = 007.  This has to be +, so the label has to be E, based on the the rule "correcting add east."

In summary, we have to ask ourselves if a form helps with these conversions or can we do variation corrections and the deviation corrections independently and then combine these results when needed.

The question is, does the form help, or can we do it with just "correcting add east" and then knowing what we mean by correcting.

Here are the answers for more practice.


A related article: Compass Bearing Fix: An Overview


Note 1.  We have yet to find an "official" British Admiralty definition (The Admiralty Manual of Navigation, Vol 1 does not use the term "compass error."), but in the British book Self Instruction in the Practice and Theory of Navigation, Vol. 1 by the Earl of Dunraven (London, 1900) on page 66 he states: "Error is caused by Variation or by Deviation, or by both combined. We shall consider the effect of Error from whatever causes it to arise."