Navigating with grains of salt
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Roger Long - 17 Jan 2005 12:18 GMT The post about taking your charts with a grain of salt and using all available information brings up the conundrum I'm facing as I return to sailing after nearly 20 years.
Most of my command time was in simple, traditional, boats. The most complex instrument on board was my usually watch. I didn't even have a depth sounder or speedometer and navigated clock and compass exactly as was done 100 years ago. Since I sailed in Maine, I saw a lot of fog and made a lot of long runs this way.
Never in a boat have I felt more aware and in touch with my surroundings then when enveloped in that gray cocoon with buoys and ledges occasionally moving through it, usually right on schedule. The faint sound of a wave on rock, the darkening of the fog where a headland blocked the light, a change in wave patterns as I passed a gap in a protecting chain of islands or ledges, all helped confirm that my chart work was right.
Some of the later boats I chartered had Loran but I never turned it on. I didn't want to be distracted by learning it and using the old ways was a big part of the enjoyment of cruising. I used (and taught when I was a piloting instructor) very simple methods that would be less likely to let me down when tired or busy. Instead of speed and distance calculations, I would just set my dividers to the boat's speed on the scale and then do everything in time.
On one of my last charters, a hurricane threatened. We were way downeast and the owner insisted that we had to get sixty miles back to his mooring in dense fog instead of tucking the boat into a hole and riding it out. It was one of the thickest fogs I have ever seen. We ran through most of Fox Island Thoroughfare without seeing either shore. It was a memorable day.
I learned how to fly airplanes a few years later and that put navigation in a whole new light. The plane had Loran and GPS but I refused to turn them on for the first three years so that I would develop the map and eyeball skills and a feel for the distances and speed. Now I use the magic boxes all the time but, in some ways, my situational awareness is less. I track a position that I can transfer to the paper map it the power fails but it is different. I used to be flying over the land and identified fixes below. Now I am flying over the map. You get lazy fast, especially with all the other things to attend to in an airplane.
Now that I am about to return to boat piloting, I'm unsure about the place of GPS in my life. The old ways were a big part of cruising for me. Ride a cable car up a mountain in Switzerland and you may see people with ropes hanging by their fingernails trying to get the same place you are going. The rational is similar. I'd also like my video gaming kids to learn what the human mind can accomplish without the aid of a microprocessor.
But, is it responsible? It certainly won't be seen as such if I ever hit anything. On the other hand, I know of many aircraft accidents that were clearly caused by the pilot trying to use the box instead of his mind. I always used to know where I was. I'm not sure narrowing it down with an electronic cursor will significantly increase my safety in most circumstances.
The strongest rational I can see for relating my place in life to invisible satellites instead of the landscape I can see around me is backup for my macroprocessor. If I should fall overboard or become incapacitated, the kids can either tell the Coast Guard, "We're right here", or follow the cursor home. I'd like to think I could teach them to do the same thing the old way but, face it, they know about GPS, they aren't going to be very interested in learning that, "other stuff".
I like gadgets though. I have an old aviation GPS that will give me latitude, longitude, and waypoints. I can't knowingly leave it ashore. I'll have to buy a marine unit for my new job as Harbormaster. I won't leave that behind either. Once I turn them on, I know I'll be hooked and something very rich and rewarding will have passed from my life forever.
 Signature Roger Long
Wayne.B - 17 Jan 2005 12:32 GMT >Once I turn them on, I know I'll be hooked >and something very rich and rewarding will have passed from my life >forever. =================================
Nicely put Roger. I started cruising on small boats back in the 70s when an RDF was high tech, and we always went everywhere we wanted to go, including Maine and the fog. The new gadgets are great however and they have their own rewards, not the least of which is always knowing exactly where you are. That leaves more time for other things like looking out for the lobster pots.
Roger Long - 17 Jan 2005 13:30 GMT I probably saw more lobster buoys when I studied each one intently as I passed to see if there was any current change to account for than I will when I'm just checking the GPS track.
OTOH, my new boat is going to be a warp catcher so I'll be looking for them.
 Signature Roger Long
>>Once I turn them on, I know I'll be hooked >>and something very rich and rewarding will have passed from my life [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > things > like looking out for the lobster pots. Jim P. - 17 Jan 2005 13:40 GMT A smart boater doesn't give up the charts. You still have to know where you are, and where you are going. I always lay out my course on the paper chart and track it on paper too. In a boat GPS is just another tool and should never be used as the only source of navigation. I always have in my mind, course, speed, and time, with GPS it's from waypoint to waypoint, just a change of terms. I always know what the heading should be from one waypoint to another and have caught many errors because I did know. The biggest mistake new boaters make is not learning basic navigation skills. I boat in the western end of Lake Erie, there are to many reefs, and islands that will not let you just look up a waypoint to where you want to go and enter it in a GPS and launch off on the trip. More than once a season a boat will end up on the beach or on a reef, many time killing one or more on board. Why, because they entered the waypoint they wanted and took off at night, and sure enough that island was right on their straight line course. They would have known that was the case if they would have charted it first, before leaving. The other problem is that the units can fail half way thru the trip and at night or in even a heavy haze, you'd have no clue as to where you were if you didn't back the GPS up with the tried and true methods. The only difference today with GPS you don't have to be quite as careful ploting and tracking. The only thing I totally rely on my GPS for is "time to go", I have to go thru a draw bridge to get to my dock, it opens on the half hour, so I set my speed to be on time. The problem if the GPS screws up, I sit for a while waiting for the bridge to open, no big deal. So if you're smart you will still have and use the paper charts.
Roger Long - 17 Jan 2005 16:34 GMT I agree 100%. I would never give up the paper charts and always will consider them the primary navigation tool. It's a question of constantly updating from GPS fixes or from time, distance, and cross bearings.
 Signature Roger Long
Wayne.B - 18 Jan 2005 04:20 GMT >I agree 100%. I would never give up the paper charts and always will >consider them the primary navigation tool. It's a question of >constantly updating from GPS fixes or from time, distance, and cross >bearings. ============================
Roger, there seems to be a misconception evident on this thread, not necessarily yours, that using a GPS means giving up charts. Far from it in my experience. The paper charts may be safely stored below for emergencies but I always have at least one set, frequently two sets, of electronic charts at my disposal, both fed from separate GPS sources, and both maintaining a running track.. My Maptech BSB format charts on the laptop look exactly the same as the paper charts and are used the same way also, just more convenient, and with some electronic bells and whistles thrown in. Who has the time to maintain a manual DR track when running at any kind of speed in congested waters?
Roger Long - 18 Jan 2005 12:51 GMT > Who has the time to maintain a manual DR track when running at any > kind of speed in congested waters? My experience has been that waters are usually only congested when the navigation and visibility are easy enough that you don't need to keep a running plot on paper. I'm sure there are places that this is isn't true and I would have the best GPS I could afford if I spent much time in them. A larger vessel constrained by draft in traffic that was ranging over a larger area with few fixed navigation aids would be a good example.
Piloting without GPS now comes into the realm of a sport in itself (sort of like making a vessel go somewhere without an engine). The mountain climbing analogy holds. You do it in specific places for the experience and satisfaction of achieving it. You wouldn't try to get to a job interview in Manhattan that way.
Speed is also a factor. I spent a couple months trying to decide whether to buy a power boat or a sail boat. I always envisioned the power boat with a big GPS, radar, and all the stuff I'm used to from these boats I associate with professionally:
http://home.maine.rr.com/rlma/WHOIrv.htm
I'm used to congested waters. I used to go out on a busy Sunday afternoon in a Soling on Boston harbor with someone (usually a girl) who had never been in a boat before, set the spinnaker, and sail around. I used to think I was a hot sh.t. Now I'm old enough to know that I was just arrogant. I never had a problem with the spinnaker though and have only returned to the mooring with a hole in the boat once in my life (on the port side, fortunately). That was the day I met my wife.
 Signature Roger Long
Rodney Myrvaagnes - 18 Jan 2005 18:04 GMT >> Who has the time to maintain a manual DR track when running at any >> kind of speed in congested waters? [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >once in my life (on the port side, fortunately). That was the day I >met my wife. Was your future wife the one that made the hole in the Soling? :-)
Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC J36 Gjo/a
"Be careful. The toe you stepped on yesterday may be connected to the a.s you have to kiss today." --Former mayor Ciancia
Roger Long - 18 Jan 2005 19:20 GMT > Was your future wife the one that made the hole in the Soling? :-) No, but talking to her may have made me slightly less attentive:)
Actually, I saw the other guy but Boston Harbor used to be (and probably still is) full of hotshots who like to skim your transom on port tack like they were in a race. By the time I realized he wasn't going to do this, it was too late to take evasive action. The burdened boat is supposed to maintain a predictable course anyway although there is a fine line between doing this and failing to take action to avoid a collision. I fault myself for not verifying that I saw a pair of eyes, or at least a head, and learned.
His story was that he was in a channel and I was crossing it so he had the right of way. It was arguably a channel because the area is heavily buoyed and ones in the area were arranged to guide larger boats to the gaps between a couple of islands but it was not charted as such and we each would have had 20 feet of water under our keels anywhere within half a mile.
 Signature Roger Long
Wayne.B - 18 Jan 2005 21:33 GMT >I never had a problem with the spinnaker >though and have only returned to the mooring with a hole in the boat >once in my life (on the port side, fortunately). That was the day I >met my wife. ======================
What kind of boat did she port tack you with?
Wayne.B - 19 Jan 2005 01:34 GMT >Speed is also a factor. I spent a couple months trying to decide >whether to buy a power boat or a sail boat. I always envisioned the >power boat with a big GPS, radar, and all the stuff I'm used to from >these boats I associate with professionally: > >http://home.maine.rr.com/rlma/WHOIrv.htm ==========================================
Nice video of the Tioga hauling a*s up Vineyard Sound past West Chop. I just installed the same Furuno integrated charting/plotting/sounding package on my trawler and am very impressed with it. What kind of power is in the Tioga?
Roger Long - 19 Jan 2005 01:59 GMT  Signature Roger Long
>>Speed is also a factor. I spent a couple months trying to decide >>whether to buy a power boat or a sail boat. I always envisioned the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > package on my trawler and am very impressed with it. What kind of > power is in the Tioga? Roger Long - 19 Jan 2005 02:01 GMT Detroit Diesel, inline 6's, electronically controlled, 710 hp each. She's only doing 17 knots in the video but did 21 on trials. She'll go 18 knots all day long with a 10,000 payload.
 Signature Roger Long
>>Speed is also a factor. I spent a couple months trying to decide >>whether to buy a power boat or a sail boat. I always envisioned the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > package on my trawler and am very impressed with it. What kind of > power is in the Tioga? otnmbrd - 17 Jan 2005 18:29 GMT You can find any number of cases where someone had an accident because they "eyeball" navigated and ignored their instruments. You can find any number of cases where someone had an accident because they "electronically" navigated and ignored their "eyeball" You rarely (note "rarely" .... not always) find a case where someone had an accident when they were using all means available. There's nothing wrong with many of the "old" methods, but they required training and experience and the knowledge of their drawbacks. Even at night, you could tell when the seas shortened and became steeper as you approached shallower water. Even at night you could identify currents by increased whitecaps or disturbed water. The problem with many of these methods is they aren't always available and you need to know what to look for, if it is.
otn
Rodney Myrvaagnes - 17 Jan 2005 23:06 GMT >The post about taking your charts with a grain of salt and using all >available information brings up the conundrum I'm facing as I return [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] >and something very rich and rewarding will have passed from my life >forever. I have transited the Fox I Thorofare without seeing anything but buoys, but that was with a loran c. I have done shorter and less unlikely DR passages in total pea soup in the same area of the Maine coast without electronics, and I am glad I did.
After that we chartered a boat that had no loran a total of 8 weeks in 5 years, departing from Northeast Harbor. But that was in May and September, when the fog is much less frequent.
Now I wouldn't dream of leaving the GPS turned off. Using all the info at your disposal requires that. I also use the radar if it socks in.
Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC J36 Gjo/a
"Be careful. The toe you stepped on yesterday may be connected to the a.s you have to kiss today." --Former mayor Ciancia
Wayne.B - 18 Jan 2005 00:03 GMT >I have transited the Fox I Thorofare without seeing anything but >buoys, but that was with a loran c. Yep. We once did the same thing eastbound on Eggemoggin Reach, never even saw the bridge as we went under.
>Now I wouldn't dream of leaving the GPS turned off. Using all the info >at your disposal requires that. I also use the radar if it socks in. I certainly agree with that. Good navigation requires using all the tools at your disposal and GPS/WAAS is about as good as it gets. Chart error is the primary issue for us these days. Take a look at the following GPS track, all of which was done in deep water and recorded with a WAAS GPS:
http://tinyurl.com/5utpw
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/hoonosehoo2003/detail?.dir=256d&.dnm=66dc.jpg
Dave - 18 Jan 2005 00:29 GMT >I'd like to think I could teach them >to do the same thing the old way but, face it, they know about GPS, >they aren't going to be very interested in learning that, "other >stuff". Not my experience. I'm teaching navigation to my 26 year old daughter, and she's thrilled with how she can verify our position with an LOP and look at her DR plot and correlate it to the objects she sees. We have a LORAN aboard, but so far it hasn't interested her.
Jim P. - 18 Jan 2005 01:51 GMT That is good. GPS is a tool, not the way to navigate.
Roger Long - 18 Jan 2005 12:27 GMT Well, she's nearly twice the age of my kids and didn't grow up with video games. Besides, she's a girl, uh, woman.
I'm actually sure my kids would be thrilled to learn the same things but it would be harder to get them to focus on them, be as interested, or understand the necessity when the GPS was right there.
 Signature Roger Long
>>I'd like to think I could teach them >>to do the same thing the old way but, face it, they know about GPS, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > LORAN > aboard, but so far it hasn't interested her. Den73740 - 18 Jan 2005 15:47 GMT >>I'd like to think I could teach them >>to do the same thing the old way but, face it, they know about GPS, >>they aren't going to be very interested in learning that, "other >>stuff". I used to work on an oceanographic ship, the CO would tape cardboard over the GPS during watch and have his ensigns use only DR and celestial .
Dennis
Roger Long - 18 Jan 2005 15:54 GMT Which ship was that? Oceanographic vessels are my primary professional interest.
 Signature Roger Long
>>>I'd like to think I could teach them >>>to do the same thing the old way but, face it, they know about GPS, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Dennis Jim Donohue - 20 Jan 2005 04:51 GMT >>I'd like to think I could teach them >>to do the same thing the old way but, face it, they know about GPS, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > her DR plot and correlate it to the objects she sees. We have a LORAN > aboard, but so far it hasn't interested her. Ohh stop...what utter nonsense. Interesting navigation occurs when you can't see anything and there is nothing for the radar to see. Then do that for 6 days. Then end up within 10 meters of where you aimed for.
On what does she base her LOP? Wishful thinking? A voice in her brain? For the sake of rationale behavior teach her how to use the real tools than you can teach her the hobby backups if she cares.
Jim Donohue
Roger Long - 20 Jan 2005 13:10 GMT I beg to differ. For learning it isn't nonsense at all. Your use of "all the tools" will be more competent and you will have back up skills for power failure, fire that wipes out all your systems, etc. if you know how to get around without any magic boxes. I don't think anyone is saying not to teach or use electronics but that learning the old skills and keeping those skills sharp is of great value. I know I'm a much better aircraft navigator for having kept the Loran and GPS dark for the first three years I flew the plane.
 Signature Roger Long
> Ohh stop...what utter nonsense. Interesting navigation occurs when > you can't see anything and there is nothing for the radar to see. > Then do that Jim Donohue - 21 Jan 2005 00:24 GMT Sorry Roger...but the guy is not teaching all methods...he is teaching some version of DR and coastal. He is deliberately not teaching GPS and Loran. So he is busily training a 1975 sailor.
I would strongly hold for teaching all useful methods...but the important ones first. In fact the first skill is the ability to read and interpret a chart...which is I think the skill that is often missing in beginning sailors. Then GPS. I would certainly teach DR and coastal...but as a secondary to GPS.
How far do you plan to go on "teach all methods"? I can interpret and use an old Loran with the delay numbers...but I would not teach it. Celestial is the obvious issue. Would you teach celestial today to a prospective cruiser? What level of celestial? The full set of star/moon techniques? How about RDF?
As an aside virtually all Pacific cruisers as of a year or so ago had a sextant on board...but virtually none had shot a positon in the last year.
Jim Donohue
>I beg to differ. For learning it isn't nonsense at all. Your use of "all >the tools" will be more competent and you will have back up skills for [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> can't see anything and there is nothing for the radar to see. Then do >> that Jeff Morris - 21 Jan 2005 01:01 GMT > Sorry Roger...but the guy is not teaching all methods...he is teaching some > version of DR and coastal. He is deliberately not teaching GPS and Loran. > So he is busily training a 1975 sailor. Sailors in 1975 were much better navigators than today.
> I would strongly hold for teaching all useful methods...but the important > ones first. In fact the first skill is the ability to read and interpret a > chart...which is I think the skill that is often missing in beginning > sailors. Then GPS. I would certainly teach DR and coastal...but as a > secondary to GPS. That makes as much sense as teaching 4th graders how to use a calculator assuming they will figure out long division later. If someone was insisting on receiving no more than an hour or so of instruction before heading out, I might be tempted to show them a GPS, but if someone wants to learn the basic methods they should learn them first.
Further, to fully appreciate a chart you must learn the basics of piloting. You can explain variation and bearings, but they has no meaning to beginners until the plot LOPs.
> How far do you plan to go on "teach all methods"? I can interpret and use > an old Loran with the delay numbers...but I would not teach it. Celestial > is the obvious issue. Would you teach celestial today to a prospective > cruiser? What level of celestial? The full set of star/moon techniques? > How about RDF? These are silly comparisons. Basic DR and piloting techniques are used all the time even in our GPS oriented world. Loran and celestial are not. However, a few of the basics should be taught - I'm surprised at how many people can't instantly find Polaris, or know the approximate bearing of the rising or setting Sun or Moon.
> As an aside virtually all Pacific cruisers as of a year or so ago had a > sextant on board...but virtually none had shot a positon in the last year. Is there a point here? I'll bet that the majority of them knew the basics of DR and piloting. Or are you claiming they don't bother because they have faith in their GPS?
Jim Donohue - 21 Jan 2005 05:23 GMT >> Sorry Roger...but the guy is not teaching all methods...he is teaching >> some version of DR and coastal. He is deliberately not teaching GPS and >> Loran. So he is busily training a 1975 sailor. > > Sailors in 1975 were much better navigators than today. OK...There is a bold and clear statement. Lets see your reference. Let's see a study that indicates the ability of sailors to navigate has gotten worse than it was in 1975. You have apparently sailed at least a few times Jeff...why would you make such a singularly stupid assertion.
>> I would strongly hold for teaching all useful methods...but the important >> ones first. In fact the first skill is the ability to read and interpret [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > piloting. You can explain variation and bearings, but they has no meaning > to beginners until the plot LOPs. Heading and bearing are perfectly reasonable and understandable terms even for the beginner. They are perfectly explainable in the context of a GPS location. One need not plot LOPs when one knows the position. It would be better to be positon centric. What we use to do was deal with the fact that the fix was to a line and not a position. That is not a desirable outcome...merely the result of technical limitations. Crossing to lines is simply a way to get to the information that is directly avalable from the GPS. Why would you want to determine position by crossing to lines when it is available directly from an instrument?
Variation is simply compensation for instrument error that no longer exists. Why would you feature it in your early instruction? As we cannot yet get rid of the magnetic compass it is still neccessary to explain why there are two heading systems. It should be handled for what it is...an instrument error to be compensated when using the compass for heading.
>> How far do you plan to go on "teach all methods"? I can interpret and >> use an old Loran with the delay numbers...but I would not teach it. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > people can't instantly find Polaris, or know the approximate bearing of > the rising or setting Sun or Moon. Oh? So as long as it is on your hobby list it is basic and required? Otherwise it is not? The discussion is to use all available methods. Why would you not want Loran? A lot more accurate than DR or any piloting techniques I know of. And you calculate drift angles all the time? What for? You find it intellectually stimulating to calculate it rather than have the GPS read it to you? My point is actually simple. The proper primary instrument is the GPS which tells you where you are and which direction you are heading. You guys are trying to assert it should be the magnetic compass. You simply are backing a dead horse. It is over. Get over it. Teach reality not your hobby views.
>> As an aside virtually all Pacific cruisers as of a year or so ago had a >> sextant on board...but virtually none had shot a positon in the last [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of DR and piloting. Or are you claiming they don't bother because they > have faith in their GPS? The point, which was listed as an aside...is that the real cruiser population uses GPS effectively exclusively and their ability to revert to celestial is probably not there. DR is a silly argument in this context...it is simply a way to determine how lost you are...It is probably less effective than following airplanes in most of the world.
Jeff Morris - 21 Jan 2005 15:13 GMT >>>Sorry Roger...but the guy is not teaching all methods...he is teaching >>>some version of DR and coastal. He is deliberately not teaching GPS and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > see a study that indicates the ability of sailors to navigate has gotten > worse than it was in 1975. I cite myself as an expert witness. With a Texaco chart, an AM radio and a spinning neon bulb the navigator of 30 years ago had much better basic skills than today.
> You have apparently sailed at least a few times > Jeff...why would you make such a singularly stupid assertion. Are you actually claiming that the average newbie boat owner knows even the basics of navigation nowadays? Yes, with a GPS everyone is an "expert navigator." Take it away and half the boaters need Seatow to get back home.
>>>I would strongly hold for teaching all useful methods...but the important >>>ones first. In fact the first skill is the ability to read and interpret [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > for the beginner. They are perfectly explainable in the context of a GPS > location. You're confusing "explaining" with "learning." Anyone can nod their head while listening to a 5 minute explanation. Knowing how to do something requires practice.
> One need not plot LOPs when one knows the position. It would be > better to be positon centric. In other words, its impossible to determine a bearing to point B from point A unless you're actually at point and can ask the GPS? And you're saying its easier to punch in the Lat/Lon of point B than to look at a chart?
> What we use to do was deal with the fact that > the fix was to a line and not a position. That is not a desirable > outcome...merely the result of technical limitations. Crossing to lines is > simply a way to get to the information that is directly avalable from the > GPS. Why would you want to determine position by crossing to lines when it > is available directly from an instrument? So your point is that as long as you have a GPS other forms of navigation are unnecessary and therefore shouldn't be taught? And when the GPS fails? Right - Call Seatow!
> Variation is simply compensation for instrument error that no longer > exists. Why would you feature it in your early instruction? Without taking it into account a heading is off by 16 degrees in Boston. More than enough to get you in trouble when following a compass course. Unless you think compass skills are not important, it must be taught. You can't dismiss it as "just instrument error" since it varies with the location.
> As we cannot > yet get rid of the magnetic compass it is still neccessary to explain why > there are two heading systems. It should be handled for what it is...an > instrument error to be compensated when using the compass for heading. What's your point? If the compass is important Variation must be taught. Its part of basic piloting skills. You seem to be agreeing with me.
>>>How far do you plan to go on "teach all methods"? I can interpret and >>>use an old Loran with the delay numbers...but I would not teach it. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Oh? So as long as it is on your hobby list it is basic and required? They are on my "hobby list" but since a novice is would not likely use them, they need not be taught. The basic piloting skills can (and should) be used every time you leave the dock.
> Otherwise it is not? The discussion is to use all available methods. Actually, I only took exception to your comments about basic DR and piloting skills. "All available" is pretty far reaching, but the basic skill can be used all the time.
> Why would you not want Loran? When I've cruised on boats that have a Loran I've turned it on to reminds myself how they work.
> A lot more accurate than DR or any piloting > techniques I know of. Accuracy is not the point. There's is no doubt that GPS is usually much more accurate than any other method. This reminds me of the time I watched a trawler run aground on the ICW. He started screaming on the radio that he was "right on the magenta line!" I was following my depth sounder and was in 20 feet of water. Who was more accurate in this case?
> And you calculate drift angles all the time? What > for? Calculate precisely? No. But I do manually adjust my bearing for a crosscurrent. Are you saying you don't know whether its flood or ebb without using the GPS???
> You find it intellectually stimulating to calculate it rather than > have the GPS read it to you? I call it good seamanship. If you're crossing a harbor with strong currents its nice to be able to predict the affects in advance. Waiting for the GPS to tell you you're screwed is just plain stupid. And this is the essential fallacy of your argument.
> My point is actually simple. The proper > primary instrument is the GPS which tells you where you are and which > direction you are heading. You guys are trying to assert it should be the > magnetic compass. WRONG! The primary instrument should be your brain!
> You simply are backing a dead horse. It is over. Get > over it. Teach reality not your hobby views. Reality is that GPS fails. The power line corrodes. The batteries die. Lightning zaps it. The are gaps in the charting. Features are mis-plotted. Handhelds get dropped. Antennas get loose.
Further, unless you have an expensive system, its tedious to setup a complex route, and hard to make adjustments on the fly. If you are practiced in piloting you can get an approximate heading from a chart in a few seconds - much faster than you can in a small GPS.
For planning purposes basic skills allow you to quickly determine headings and ETA's. Knowing whether a day trip will be a reach or a beat - this is much easier to determine with a chart than a gps.
And how useful is a GPS while weaving through a twisty channel? Often is is more of a distraction than an aid.
>>>As an aside virtually all Pacific cruisers as of a year or so ago had a >>>sextant on board...but virtually none had shot a positon in the last [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > population uses GPS effectively exclusively and their ability to revert to > celestial is probably not there. Celestial is a complete red herring. We're talking about novice navigators, not passage makers. You can make a good case that GPS has made Celestial obsolete. You can't make the same case that piloting skills are obsolete.
> DR is a silly argument in this > context... DR skills are used all the time. While plotting DR's on a chart may be a vanishing art, every time you make a guesstimate of how far you've gone, you're practicing DR.
> it is simply a way to determine how lost you are...It is probably > less effective than following airplanes in most of the world. Following airplanes? Again you're confusing offshore navigation with piloting.
Wayne.B - 21 Jan 2005 18:18 GMT >Sailors in 1975 were much better navigators than today. ========================================
That's probably a true statement as far as it goes. We had to be "better" navigators in terms of skill breadth and techniques. It was a matter of survival. To some that was all part of the challenge and fun, to others it was just something that had to be done so that you got where you were going. Reality is however, that many of those skills are doomed to obsolesence except among those who keep them alive as a hobby, just like knowing how to shoe your own horse or brew your own beer. Is that a bad thing? Perhaps, but there is a good side also. It is REALLY nice to know where you are at all times, and if practiced prudently, is a lot safer also.
Sailing in the 70s was not always experienced navigators skillfully finding their way no matter what. I still remember calls to the Coast Guard from those lost in the fog asking for a RDF bearing to their boat. The USCG actually offered that service in the early 70s believe it or not, and could sometimes provide an approximate two bearing fix. The one thing they would not do was provide directions for obvious liability reasons. They would come out and try to find you however if it looked like you were in danger as a result of being lost, and it was not uncommon. Every person I know from that era, regardless of skills, quickly jumped on the latest technology breakthrough as soon as it became available at a reasonable price.
Jeff Morris - 21 Jan 2005 18:50 GMT >>Sailors in 1975 were much better navigators than today. > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > skills, quickly jumped on the latest technology breakthrough as soon > as it became available at a reasonable price. You're bringing back memories with this. But who could afford a radio in the early 70s? I thought I was well equipped with a spinner and a Ray Jeff RDF. I think I finally got VHF (with 6 crystals) around 1980.
Wayne.B - 21 Jan 2005 20:23 GMT >You're bringing back memories with this. But who could afford a radio >in the early 70s? I thought I was well equipped with a spinner and a >Ray Jeff RDF. I think I finally got VHF (with 6 crystals) around 1980. ========================================
I had the same setup in the 70s. Still have the RayJeff RDF out in the garage but think I chucked the VHF w/crystals when I cleaned out up north and moved to Florida. I had 2 receive crystals installed in the RDF for 2182 and 2670. Boats would call USCG on 2182 for a direction check and then get switched to 2670 while they homed in on them. It was pretty humorous listening at times. The REALLY well equipped boats in the 70s had a double sideband MF marine radio and an aircraft type VOR unit for direction finding. It was a big pricing breakthrough when Motorola came out with a frequency synthesized VHF for around $300. That unit sold with one of my old sailboats.
Dave - 21 Jan 2005 23:12 GMT >I thought I was well equipped with a spinner and a >Ray Jeff RDF. Yes. I well remember coming back from Cuttyhunk to Pt. Judith in a fog using RDF. Sure was glad to see the openings in the harbor of refuge breakwaters appear out of the fog.
Wayne.B - 22 Jan 2005 00:55 GMT >Yes. I well remember coming back from Cuttyhunk to Pt. Judith in a fog using >RDF. Sure was glad to see the openings in the harbor of refuge breakwaters >appear out of the fog. ==========================
Ahhh yes, another sea story from the past. We did the same trip under similar circumstances back in the early 80s, probably when we still had the Westerly 28 and the kids were young. The closer we got to Pt Judith, the foggier it got until we were down to total pea soup conditions. Eventualy we could hear the surf on the breakwater and see the spray flying. Following the breakwater around to the western entrance, we DR'd our way to the channel buoys and upstream, where the fog eventually eased up a bit. We found a place to dock on the western side and shared a small dock with another sail boat. Talking with them later in the evening we learned they had been there 5 days waiting for the fog to lift! Next morning they were still there waiting. We proceeded on down to the breakwater, once again navigating in heavy fog, while dodging incoming ferrys and fishing boats. Several miles from the breakwater the fog lifted again and it was clear sailing all the way back into Long Island Sound. One of our family jokes is speculating on whether or not the other boat is still in Pt Judith waiting for the fog to lift.
engsol - 22 Jan 2005 03:37 GMT I'm a bit baffled by those who say you need nothing more than GPS. Is GPS accurate? Of course it is. But make sure the GPS is set to the earth model the chart is. Oh, and make sure you never transpose numbers when entering waypoint data. One more small item...check the route to make sure there are no rocks/reefs in the way..the GPS will cheerfully run you aground. But you've already thought of those factors. Are DR nav methods, charts, hand bearings, etc. less accruate than GPS? Of course they are. Should one rely ONLY on GPS and chart plotters? If the answer is "yes", then that inplies you believe the electronics will never fail. And the IRS will never audit you..right? Is there something *wrong* with suggesting/teaching mulitple methods of navigation? I don't think GPS/radar have feelings...it won't mind if you confirm position by other means. Since I'm in a cranky mood, I'll tell you that the biggest risk to a boat is not deploying the Mark One Eyeball in close waters. For example, I've told students over and over again to do something as simple as looking behind them once in awhile when in the islands. But no, they look ahead for the waypoint coming up. Imagine their surprise when that big ferry or freighter toots it's horn a 1/4 mile aft. Happens a lot in these waters. Norm B
otnmbrd - 21 Jan 2005 02:00 GMT Read Jim D's post..... and I'm sitting here shaking my head in a negative fashion. I'd comment on your comments, Jim, but I've come to realize that you just don't get it. Shame of it is, there's so many more like you out there ....
BTW, Your aside? That's a stupid excuse, not a reason.... you sure you're not a lawyer?
otn
Jim Donohue - 21 Jan 2005 05:30 GMT > Read Jim D's post..... and I'm sitting here shaking my head in a negative > fashion. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > otn Why with professional luddites like you and your ilk I am required for progress otn.
The aside points out that the real amateur sailor with sufficient skill to cross oceans uses GPS otn...and have a likely non working celestial capability. It is in no way an excuse of any type...merely an observation on how life actually is. You likely don't like it otn but you really don't get a vote.
Ji m
otnmbrd - 21 Jan 2005 07:02 GMT > Why with professional luddites like you and your ilk I am required for > progress otn. As stated, "you just don't get it". In truth, I'm a prolific user of GPS, both the basic readout and connected to a chart plotter, making use of all the information it supplies. However, especially in the coastal waters I mainly traverse nowadays, it's NEVER my sole source of position information and in fact, plotting a GPS position isn't all that much quicker or necessarily as accurate as a simple radar range and bearing, or eyeball fix.
> The aside points out that the real amateur sailor with sufficient skill to > cross oceans uses GPS otn...and have a likely non working celestial > capability. It is in no way an excuse of any type...merely an observation > on how life actually is. You likely don't like it otn but you really don't > get a vote. You use your survey as an EXCUSE for not learning or using celestial. <G> By "non working" I assume you mean they have the ability but don't use it. That's their choice, just like it's the choice of many ship Masters making ocean crossings to require their people to occasionally take celestial fixes and when in sight of land or radar range, to take visual fixes as well as radar fixes and compare them to the GPS. I also note that in another reply, you are still not comfortable using radar for navigation.... that's too bad.... you're missing out on a great tool.
otn
Bruce in Alaska - 21 Jan 2005 20:08 GMT > > Why with professional luddites like you and your ilk I am required for > > progress otn. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > otn I would like to add a simple note here.
OTN talks about using Radar and the Mark One Eyeball to get position fixes while navigating in coastal and inshore waters. Ok, that is common practice, and has been for MANY years.
Now consider the accuracy of those fixes, as compared with the accuracy of an Electronic Position Fixing Device. Mark One Eyeball.... Taking a sight with binocs even over a compass card will usually get a line within a degree or two, IF the guy is really good at it or is using one of those old WWII TBT's... Ok, now figure that your going to have to do that on at least two bearings, and better yet, three or four. Ok, now you have to go plot those bearings on the chart using the reverse bearing from the marker you sited on, and then figuring in the time difference between the bearings, and the speed of advance, of the vessel, and you don't get a REAL FIX, but an AREA of FIX that IS "Orders of Magnitude" bigger than the REALTIME GPS Fix.
Radar..... Same thing here, except that your bearing will tend to be better, depending on the Horozontal Beamwidth of the antenna, and the distance, and area of the target which the bearing is to. Again, the AREA of the FIX will be smaller for the radar because the time to get the bearins, (two or more) will be shorter, but the plotting times and the speed of advance will be the same. Again the Area of fix will be "Orders of Magnitude" larger than the REALTIME GPS Fix.
GPS Fix..... even with out WAAS, this should be in the 30 foot centered circle, and the speed of advance isn't even a problem due to the small amount of advance in the one second cycle times of GPS Calulations. The same can be said for LORAN-C with modern day Receivers, that have builtin Lat/LONG Calculators, especially if the route has been run before, and Know Anomalies in the TD's are already accounted for.
Now all the above really is mostly not a GIANT Issue at 7 - 12 Knots, as there is always enough time to figure this all out. However, I defy anyone to show me how anything but a Very GOOD GPS Based Navigation System can be used on a Fast Ferry doing 35+ Knots inside Boston Harbour. Speed KILLS, and the faster these guys go, the faster one of them is going to run the rest of us over, because the navigator isn't watching where he is going, because he is busy PLOTTING his position.
Explain to me why this isn't a problem......
Bruce in alaska
 Signature add a <2> before @
Jeff Morris - 21 Jan 2005 21:29 GMT Bruce in Alaska wrote:
>>>Why with professional luddites like you and your ilk I am required for >>>progress otn. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > advance, of the vessel, and you don't get a REAL FIX, but an AREA of > FIX that IS "Orders of Magnitude" bigger than the REALTIME GPS Fix. On the other hand, if you punched in in the wrong destination, or if the antennae fell off the GPS, an Eyeball LOP, however inaccurate, may show the problem.
> Radar..... Same thing here, except that your bearing will tend to be > better, depending on the Horozontal Beamwidth of the antenna, and the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the speed of advance will be the same. Again the Area of fix will > be "Orders of Magnitude" larger than the REALTIME GPS Fix. Again, if the GPS position is faulty in any way ...
> GPS Fix..... even with out WAAS, this should be in the 30 foot centered > circle, and the speed of advance isn't even a problem due to the small [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > anyone to show me how anything but a Very GOOD GPS Based Navigation > System can be used on a Fast Ferry doing 35+ Knots inside Boston Harbour. I don't think the high speed ferries are allowed to do 35 knots inside the harbor. They are supposed to slow to 8 knots when the turn the corner into the inner harbor. The odd thing is that the Salem ferry doesn't use the main ship channel; it comes down the narrow side channel (Lower Middle) to save a few minutes. When its coming up your butt at 20 knots you have to just hope they know what they're doing.
> Speed KILLS, and the faster these guys go, the faster one of them is > going to run the rest of us over, because the navigator isn't watching > where he is going, because he is busy PLOTTING his position. > > Explain to me why this isn't a problem...... I don't think anyone would claim the the High Speed Ferry should turn off their GPS, but I do hope that they look out the window on occasion.
> Bruce in alaska otnmbrd - 22 Jan 2005 01:37 GMT Bruce in Alaska wrote:
> I would like to add a simple note here. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Now consider the accuracy of those fixes, as compared with the accuracy > of an Electronic Position Fixing Device. <BG> Dang! I gotta find this place you guys are navigating through, that requires instant position data, within a few inches.....
> > Mark One Eyeball.... Taking a sight with binocs even over a compass card [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > advance, of the vessel, and you don't get a REAL FIX, but an AREA of > FIX that IS "Orders of Magnitude" bigger than the REALTIME GPS Fix. First off, the "Mark One Eyeball" method of navigation, can be many things. What you describe above, is just one of them. The accuracy of that same method can vary, from, exceeding GPS, to useless, but on average,will be well within the needed parameters to safely navigate an area under normal conditions. Needless to say, this method tends to suck in restricted visibility. With all due respect Bruce, it's obvious from your above that you are not all that familiar with the method you are discussing.
> Radar..... Same thing here, except that your bearing will tend to be > better, depending on the Horozontal Beamwidth of the antenna, and the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the speed of advance will be the same. Again the Area of fix will > be "Orders of Magnitude" larger than the REALTIME GPS Fix. Here, you are using only one of the methods available to you (in fact, the time consuming one). Sorry Bruce, but like Jim, your radar navigation needs work, also. Stand beside me under most coastal navigation areas in Alaska, take a reading on a GPS fix, at the same time I take a range and bearing via radar ... betcha I beat you plotting said fix and the only discrepancy between the two positions will revolve around how sharp my pencil was (unless of course the chart is in error, in which case my position is more apt to keep us out of trouble). BTW, forget the "speed of advance" junk .... it's a lame argument at the speeds we are talking about for most cruisers.... unless, of course, they've screwed up and gotten too close to a nav hazard, to begin with.
> GPS Fix..... even with out WAAS, this should be in the 30 foot centered > circle, and the speed of advance isn't even a problem due to the small > amount of advance in the one second cycle times of GPS Calulations. > The same can be said for LORAN-C with modern day Receivers, that have > builtin Lat/LONG Calculators, especially if the route has been run > before, and Know Anomalies in the TD's are already accounted for. If, for the most part, your navigation requires you to be within a 30' centered circle, then I have to question your "route planning". Granted, there are times when you need precise distance information and you are navigating in narrow areas such a marina's and harbors where you have to work between docks, but in those areas, I'll take radar every time, because it doesn't care if the charted positions are correct.
> Now all the above really is mostly not a GIANT Issue at 7 - 12 Knots, > as there is always enough time to figure this all out. However, I defy [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Explain to me why this isn't a problem...... Sorry, haven't ridden any fast ferries in Boston. Rode the ones from Hyannis to Nantucket. From what I saw, most "general" navigation was done by "eyeball" and "radar"..... Why?....For those running a familiar route, it's faster and generally, more "spatial awareness" accurate for the operator. When a chart plotter is available, it's a fantastic third tool that frequently changes ranking in importance over the radar and eyeball..... so, in answer to your question, it IS a problem that various operators need address, though a simple GPS without a chart plotter is NOT the solution.
otn
Rodney Myrvaagnes - 22 Jan 2005 04:57 GMT >> > Why with professional luddites like you and your ilk I am required for >> > progress otn. [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > >Explain to me why this isn't a problem...... The ferry service between Stockhom and Helsinki was dependent on GPS with its own diferential setup back in the 1980s, years before the USCG had differential beacons, never mind WAAS.
They were threading a lot of islands really fast in all visibilities, including zero. And their schedules were much faster than before GPS.
Differential at that time was crucial for cancelling the effects of SA. Of course, they could survey the route themselves and verify the correspondence between GPS and chart.
And, their differential system would have alarmed immediately on any GPS failure.
Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a
For your upscale SUV: Dingle-balls hand knit of natural Icelandic yarn
Dave - 20 Jan 2005 15:47 GMT >> Not my experience. I'm teaching navigation to my 26 year old daughter, and >> she's thrilled with how she can verify our position with an LOP and look [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >can't see anything and there is nothing for the radar to see. Then do that >for 6 days. Then end up within 10 meters of where you aimed for. Whatta jerk.
Interesting navigation is in the eye of the beholder, and to someone who hasn't done it before it is as I described.
>On what does she base her LOP? Wishful thinking? A voice in her brain? >For the sake of rationale behavior teach her how to use the real tools than >you can teach her the hobby backups if she cares. Same thing people doing piloting have been basing an LOP on for years. Bearing taken with the hand bearing compass.
What seems to be your problem, Jim, wrong time of the month?
Only a fool would teach someone to navigate by GPS alone.
Jim P. - 20 Jan 2005 17:58 GMT I agree that no accomplished boater would teach someone to navigate with GPS alone. But it's the Newbies that buy a new boat, with all the bells and whistles, except a chart, and fire out across the western end of Lake Erie, only to run aground on a reel. Or like the boat last year that ran into an island, at night, killing all 6 on board.
Wayne.B - 20 Jan 2005 20:52 GMT >But it's the Newbies that buy a new boat, with all the bells >and whistles, except a chart, and fire out across the western end of >Lake Erie, only to run aground on a reel. Or like the boat last year >that ran into an island, at night, killing all 6 on board. ======================
Tragic but that kind of accident has been happening for a long time, since well before the advent of GPS, LORAN or even RDF. It's just Darwin doing his thing.
Jim Donohue - 21 Jan 2005 00:37 GMT And anyone who would teach a sailor to navigate without GPS is not only incompetent as a navigation teacher but is willing to risk the well being of another for some hobbyist view of the skill.
As soon as your student hits limited visibility she becomes a hazard to herself and others.
Jim Donohue
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:51:28 -0800, "Jim Donohue" > <jimnews@donohueteam.com> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Only a fool would teach someone to navigate by GPS alone. Jeff Morris - 21 Jan 2005 01:16 GMT > And anyone who would teach a sailor to navigate without GPS is not only > incompetent as a navigation teacher but is willing to risk the well being of > another for some hobbyist view of the skill. Gawd, what a stupid statement! Are you trying to replace Jax as our resident idiot?
> As soon as your student hits limited visibility she becomes a hazard to > herself and others. And you would send a novice out in the fog because they know how to turn on a GPS?
The bottom line is that a large number of sailors never go venture outside of a relatively protected area. For example, hundreds of sailors sail around Boston Harbor every day. I doubt that many of them even have a GPS on board, but I hope they know the basics of piloting.
Your ludicrous statements only make sense if the student is headed out tomorrow on their own boat; in reality most will not leave the harbor on their own for a few years.
> Jim Donohue > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >> >>Only a fool would teach someone to navigate by GPS alone. Roger Long - 21 Jan 2005 03:10 GMT I taught just one coastal piloting class and then got promoted at my day job and gave up being a sailing instructor on the side.
This was before even Loran was common on smaller cruisers so use of electronics was not an issue. I had the people for about five sessions followed by a short day trip to get them ready for sailing around Boston Harbor and the adjoining coast so it had to be pretty basic.
I started by saying, "I'm going to teach you to do about six simple things. It doesn't sound like much but I want you to be able to do them when you are tired, when you are seasick, when you are confused, and when you are scared. I want you to practice and do them all the time in good weather. If you wait until you need this knowledge and haven't practiced, it isn't going to do you much good. There is no such thing as finding out where you are, there is only keeping track of where you are."
In all the sailing I did in New England, including long runs in fog, I never really used much more than I taught in that class. I'm a great believer in keeping it simple.
 Signature Roger Long
Jim Donohue - 21 Jan 2005 05:58 GMT I don't know Jeff but your present tone begins to bear a significant resemblance to the Jax.
Limited facts and very strong opinions are his hallmarks. You are sure getting close.
>> And anyone who would teach a sailor to navigate without GPS is not only >> incompetent as a navigation teacher but is willing to risk the well being [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > And you would send a novice out in the fog because they know how to turn > on a GPS? And you would send her out knowing only DR? I think your IQ must be lower than mine.
More seriously all newbys eventually end up in fog. It is often not a planned act. Now tell me...caught in an unexpected fog would you rather your student have GPS or DR skills?
> The bottom line is that a large number of sailors never go venture outside > of a relatively protected area. For example, hundreds of sailors sail [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > tomorrow on their own boat; in reality most will not leave the harbor on > their own for a few years. Are we teaching them to enter into oceans or swimming pools?
If they are going to drive around a protected harbor give them a road map. I see little use for GPS or DR on a park lake. Most of these would do OK if we would teach them not to drink too much.
Jim Donohue
engsol - 21 Jan 2005 03:20 GMT All a GPS will tell you is where you are. The sailor still has to relate what the GPS tells him to where he is is to "stuff" around him....i.e., a chart. Learning to use a chart, with the attendent DR, fixes, etc is step number one. One has to walk before runs. Plus, as has been said a zillion times...GPS is only ONE method of navigationg, and not to be used to the exclusion of all other methods.
Case in point...when I was flying, I used to set up all the automated nav gear for enroute *guidance*, but I'd still keep a chart on my lap and do DR.
Remember...GPS and radar have no fear of disaster. Norm B
>And anyone who would teach a sailor to navigate without GPS is not only >incompetent as a navigation teacher but is willing to risk the well being of [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >> >> Only a fool would teach someone to navigate by GPS alone. Jim Donohue - 21 Jan 2005 05:47 GMT It is fascinating. I have been sailing coastally for 25 years. I have done the entire west coast from British Columbia to Acapulco. Most of it multiple times. Maybe 12000 miles or so. I have gunkholed a whole lot of the coast in between. Done Catalina a few 100 times. I have never found a situation where a hand held compass position was useful. Yes I learned to do one and actually bought one early on...may still have it in one of the boat bags...but no I have never found a single place where it was useful.
I have entered San Francisco in heavy fog. I used GPS for navigation and radar for collision avoidance. That passage could not have been done safely without GPS and would have been very uncomfortable without radar.
I have entered Bahia Maria north of Cabo in the middle of the night with a storm raging. It is not the world's most challenging entry but it offers you the opportunity to kill yourself if you are not careful. And it is known the charts have a substantial inaccuracy. With GPS and radar it is a reasonably safe task.
Why would one not teach the skills that lead to success rather than those which involve unacceptable risk?
Jim Donohue
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:51:28 -0800, "Jim Donohue" > <jimnews@donohueteam.com> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Only a fool would teach someone to navigate by GPS alone. Dave - 21 Jan 2005 15:51 GMT >And it is >known the charts have a substantial inaccuracy. With GPS and radar it is a >reasonably safe task. OK, how is that GPS going to help you avoid hitting that rock that's shown in the wrong place on the chart?
Jim Donohue - 21 Jan 2005 16:15 GMT In many places you use the numbers from last time. Many of the numbers are published in guides or privately. You can also set up the course to minimize exposure.
In general the errors are area wide. You work out the correction from known objects. You use radar and the bottom to assure yourself you did it correctly. Go slow when in doubt.
Jim Donohue
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:47:14 -0800, "Jim Donohue" > <jimnews@donohueteam.com> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > OK, how is that GPS going to help you avoid hitting that rock that's shown > in the wrong place on the chart? Jeff Morris - 21 Jan 2005 16:50 GMT > In many places you use the numbers from last time. Many of the numbers are > published in guides or privately. Local knowledge is handy.
> You can also set up the course to > minimize exposure. You mean, like plotting a course using piloting techniques?
> In general the errors are area wide. You work out the correction from known > objects. You use radar and the bottom to assure yourself you did it > correctly. You mean, like using piloting techniques?
> Go slow when in doubt. Why would you have any doubt? Don't you have absolute faith in your GPS?
Jim Donohue - 21 Jan 2005 21:24 GMT >> In many places you use the numbers from last time. Many of the numbers >> are published in guides or privately. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You mean, like plotting a course using piloting techniques? I mean like plotting the GPS waypoints on the chart. For a difficult segment of a voyage I would certainly plot the course even if the primary navigation is a chart plotter. I would have the waypoints in a secondary GPS.
>> In general the errors are area wide. You work out the correction from >> known objects. You use radar and the bottom to assure yourself you did >> it correctly. > > You mean, like using piloting techniques? You cerrtainly back up your GPS course by what you have available particularly when the charts or waypoints are suspect.
> > Go slow when in doubt. > > Why would you have any doubt? Don't you have absolute faith in your GPS? I have far more faith in a GPS, particularly a redundant pair, than I do in a LOP from a physical target. I have complete faith in nothing. The use of a GPS still involves risk...little things like entering a waypoint wrong can play havoc with the best of plans. I generally set up a system where waypoints are transferred from the chart plotter to a hand held and the the handheld waypoints are then plotted on a chart. I have twice found courses that attempted to sail through or very near small islands.
I would also note that dredging barges can appear in the damndest places...and the radar image can be difficult to understand particularly against prominent background. Slow right down until we figure it out.
Jim Donohue
Wayne.B - 21 Jan 2005 18:20 GMT >Go slow when in doubt. ==========================
Good advice.
Less damage to the rock, less damage to the boat.
Dave - 21 Jan 2005 21:45 GMT >In many places you use the numbers from last time. Many of the numbers are >published in guides or privately. You can also set up the course to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >objects. You use radar and the bottom to assure yourself you did it >correctly. Go slow when in doubt. Not responsive to the question. The question was:
>> OK, how is that GPS going to help you avoid hitting that rock that's shown >> in the wrong place on the chart? The responsive answer would be that a GPS is as likely to send you into that uncharted rock as any other method, but there are other ways to avoid the rock that's somewhere other than where the chart shows it, like a depth sounder, and plotting a course well away from known rocks.
Jim Donohue - 22 Jan 2005 00:47 GMT You phrased the question badly. If everything is displaced along with the rock it is rather straight forward to correct if you know of the error. If a rock is mischarted or uncharted you are correct. I think mischarted rocks are very rare. Mostly placed badly with everything else or missed completely.
On the west coast we often deal with rapidly rising land masses...often at angles of more than 60 degrees with reference to the horizontal. You better be going real slow if you expect to get a depth sounder alert.
This is actually a place where the GPS operator is at a disadvantage. A piloting operation is relative to local landmarks while GPS is absolute...so if the GPS guy is not aware of the error he has a problem in comparison to a piloting operator.
On the other side of the equation in is reasonably easy for a gps operator to maintain someting close to optimal clearance of hard stuff. It is a complex and difficult task for a pilotage operator to do the same.
Jim Donohue
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:15:10 -0800, "Jim Donohue" > <jimnews@donohueteam.com> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > rock that's somewhere other than where the chart shows it, like a depth > sounder, and plotting a course well away from known rocks. otnmbrd - 22 Jan 2005 02:17 GMT > <SNIP> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Jim Donohue LOL Only part I think needs clarification. In coastal navigation (especially on much of the US West Coast), if the operator knows what he/she is doing, it is neither a complex or difficult task to maintain optimal clearance of hard stuff, under normal "piloting" conditions.
otn
Jim Donohue - 22 Jan 2005 03:09 GMT And you mislead outrageously. It is of course quite simple on the west coast. It is the nature of the coast. However we are dealing with a
>> <SNIP> >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > otn While I do agree that the west is easier than the east one must still remember that piloting in navigation involves frequent or continuous determination of positon or a line of positon relative to geograhic points, and usually requiring need for close attention to the vessel's draft with respect to the depth of water. Iti is practiced in the vicinity of land, dangers, etc. and requires good judgement and almost constant attention and alertness on the part of the navigator.
Which part don't you understand otn?
Jim
otnmbrd - 22 Jan 2005 03:43 GMT > And you mislead outrageously. It is of course quite simple on the west > coast. It is the nature of the coast. However we are dealing with a Nothing misleading.... mayhaps beyond your comprehension?
> While I do agree that the west is easier than the east one must still > remember that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Which part don't you understand otn? I understand it all quite well.... which part don't you understand? It doesn't matter what method you are using to determine your position under piloting conditions. The point is, (East coast, Gulf coast, West coast... I've done them all) that piloting, using eyeball or radar methods, is NOT necessarily all that more complex or difficult a problem to remain at optimal clearance to the hard stuff compared to GPS. All your arguments tend to do, is confirm that your piloting skills are limited, your radar skills are limited, your celestial skills are limited, since you keep looking for excuses to make GPS your sole source of navigation. Truth be known, your 25 years sailing and 12,000 miles coastal navigation is great and beyond what many have done, but obviously, like me, you're still learning, but I'm afraid you're not grasping many of the lessons.
otn
Jim Donohue - 23 Jan 2005 03:18 GMT There you go again leading the charge of the luddites otn.
You comments on my skills show you lack of the mental attitude that leads to good navigation. You know what you know...and nobody is going to tell you different. You really are qualified for a deck officer role on the Royal Majestic. They showed exactly your sort of know it all attitude..why facts when you can postulate your opinion?
Luckily technology and time over-rules you OTN. The march to GPS centric navigation is going to succeed whether you like it or not. Any the principle of position rather than bearing navigation is a certainty. And the ATONs are going away otn...25 years from now there will be practically none and all those will be in harbors or shifty situations like the ICW. And the magnetic compass is on its last legs. Ten years? Maybe 15?
We will likely live long enough to see most of this occur and watch as you gnash your teeth otn.
Jim
>> And you mislead outrageously. It is of course quite simple on the west >> coast. It is the nature of the coast. However we are dealing with a [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > otn otnmbrd - 23 Jan 2005 06:13 GMT > There you go again leading the charge of the luddites otn. <G> I find it interesting/amusing, that from my comments below, and others of my past post that you are responding to, you consider the term "luddite" applicable to me.
> You comments on my skills show you lack of the mental attitude that leads to > good navigation. No, my comments on your skills are based on reading your explanations of various navigational procedures and your conclusions regarding their viability based on your experience and skill or lack thereof.
You know what you know...and nobody is going to tell you
> different. <G> To a high degree, this is true. I also know what I don't know and where I may be weak on a subject in which case I listen or ask questions.
You really are qualified for a deck officer role on the Royal
> Majestic. They showed exactly your sort of know it all attitude..why facts > when you can postulate your opinion? <G> I believe you mean the Royal Majesty. You're right, I'm qualified to be that ship's Master. There is one difference between me and them however. Long ago, as we started getting more and more types and "complicated" electronic Nav aides on board, I started making it a habit to do "system" checks as I took over the watch, to be sure I was comfortable everything was functioning as advertised. When I became the "Boss", I made sure my officers did the same, and especially in piloting waters, that more than one system was being used and compared. Plus, having run that particular Safety Fairway, I would generally come up and confirm we had entered it correctly.
> Luckily technology and time over-rules you OTN. The march to GPS centric > navigation is going to succeed whether you like it or not. Any the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Jim I'll say it again. I love GPS. I make maximum use of GPS. I'm not gnashing my teeth, I'm waiting in anticipation of the next great Nav Aid that makes GPS outdated. The argument we are having and have always had is about Navigation safety. You want to make all navigation "GPS centric", in the sense that you discard all other forms of navigation and carry a bunch of GPS handhelds and spare batteries for when and if your main unit fails since most other forms of navigation cannot match GPS for overall speed and accuracy (note "overall"). I, on the other hand, do not agree with relying solely on one SYSTEM!! (The Royal Majesty is a prime example of why)My experience/opinion is, you use ALL MEANS AVAILABLE to check and double check your position. The fact that those older systems may have drawbacks, may not be as easy, may not always be as accurate, may not always be available, is immaterial .... they have to save your butt only once, to make them well worth the learning. As for the magnetic compass..... Lord willing you make it to a ripe old age with a sound mind. If you do, on your death bed, try to remember to ask someone if we are still using the magnetic compass in some form. My guess is that your response to their answer will be ..... Chit!!
otn
>>>And you mislead outrageously. It is of course quite simple on the west >>>coast. It is the nature of the coast. However we are dealing with a [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >> >>otn Jim Donohue - 23 Jan 2005 23:25 GMT >> There you go again leading the charge of the luddites otn. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > various navigational procedures and your conclusions regarding their > viability based on your experience and skill or lack thereof. Ahh Bull otn...I use the same navigational procedures as you otn...and I understand why the work something you do not. The eye is a most important piece of navigation...unfortunately it does not work at all a great percentage of the time. Radar is fine under some circumstances but not very good under others. Only GPS works with accuracy all (for practical purposes)the time. It is therefore the first of many tools employed.
> You know what you know...and nobody is going to tell you >> different. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > forms of navigation cannot match GPS for overall speed and accuracy (note > "overall"). And you again utterly misstate my position. GPS is the first skill taught...it should be the centerpiece of the navigation system. Then others. Certainly even the dullest of students can learn to check a chart position via eyeball or radar. Neither has the accuracy to verify the position and bnoth are compromised under some conditions but both are good checks for at least gross error. A fathometer provides a way to verify that the depth is where it should be for the position. Disagreement calls for caution. I use a second GPS to protect against a failure and to help resolve anomolies.
I would not teach RDF or some of the more exotic piloting techniques. I would not teach time delay loran though I would point out that a working LORAN also provides a gross check on the GPS.
I would not teach VOR/DME...though I have used VOR in navigating a boat.
I would teach limited celestial for a student with the right mission.
Now exactly what is it that you don't agree with and why otn?
> I, on the other hand, do not agree with relying solely on one SYSTEM!! > (The Royal Majesty is a prime example of why)My experience/opinion is, you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > .... they have to save your butt only once, to make them well worth the > learning. The Royal Majesty had at least five systems on which it was relying. It had GPS, Loran, Depthsounder, radar and eyeball. Its procedures required their use. The chief officer in fact lied about crucial visual sightings. You would have fit right in otn all the right system, an easy call but no nothing navigators who screwed it up. The message of the grounding was that given a sufficient level of incompetence you can screw up the simplest of tasks. It also demonstrated the level of utter incompetence available among the "cream" of professional navigators.
> As for the magnetic compass..... Lord willing you make it to a ripe old > age with a sound mind. If you do, on your death bed, try to remember to > ask someone if we are still using the magnetic compass in some form. My > guess is that your response to their answer will be ..... Chit!! We will see otn. You really do not understand science. You simply can't project can you?
Jim
Jeff Morris - 24 Jan 2005 01:46 GMT ...
> Ahh Bull otn...I use the same navigational procedures as you otn...and I > understand why the work something you do not. The eye is a most important > piece of navigation...unfortunately it does not work at all a great > percentage of the time. Radar is fine under some circumstances but not very > good under others. Only GPS works with accuracy all (for practical > purposes)the time. It is therefore the first of many tools employed. Anyone who has been on a boat knows that a GPS *DOES NOT* for all practical purposes work all of the time. I've had a GPS fail several times, I've seen charting inaccuracies a number of times. Similar things have happened to almost every cruiser I know.
None of these incidents were a major problem for me because I was using other techniques and was able to recognize the situation and compensate.
The issue here is not which technique is the most accurate, or which should be used to the exclusion of the other. Continuing to cast it in these terms make you look like a jaxian fool.
The issue is that you claimed it was foolish to teach someone basic piloting, even when the person was eager to learn. This attitude marks you as a complete fool, Jim. I hope I never meet one of your students on the water.
...
> And you again utterly misstate my position. GPS is the first skill > taught...it should be the centerpiece of the navigation system. Then > others. Certainly even the dullest of students can learn to check a chart > position via eyeball or radar. Are you daft, man? Are you claiming now that piloting need not be taught because "even the dullest" can do it without training? And radar too? Bizarre, considering you've confessed to have weak radar skills!
> Neither has the accuracy to verify the > position and bnoth are compromised under some conditions but both are good > checks for at least gross error. A fathometer provides a way to verify that > the depth is where it should be for the position. Disagreement calls for > caution. True enough, however those that learn GPS first usually don't develop these skills. This is the crux of the issue.
> I use a second GPS to protect against a failure and to help > resolve anomolies. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I would teach limited celestial for a student with the right mission. TD's, RDF and VOR are not the issue. Bringing them into the discussion shows you don't get it.
> Now exactly what is it that you don't agree with and why otn? You asserted that learning LOP's and DR was "utter nonsense." I think no one should be trusted with a GPS until the learn these basics.
>>I, on the other hand, do not agree with relying solely on one SYSTEM!! >>(The Royal Majesty is a prime example of why)My experience/opinion is, you [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > tasks. It also demonstrated the level of utter incompetence available among > the "cream" of professional navigators. The NTSB study blamed several "probable causes:" over reliance on GPS, and lack of training of the officers, and the failure to recognize the problem from other cues. This is a perfect example of problem with your approach. Claiming that your strategy works, but in this case they were incompetent is foolish.
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1997/MAR9701.pdf
|
|