On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 16:08:54 +1000, Cappys master Cappy kneels for
Ozzies wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 05:48:08 GMT, (Peter
Wiley) wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:00:21 +1000, Cappys master Cappy kneels for
Ozzies wrote:


T'was a nice boat too, Hick 31, a rocketship.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...244562366.html


Yeah, saw that article. What happens when you rely on electronics and
cut things a bit fine I guess. I've seen one of our GPS go offline for
a while, in fact there are occasions where one brand will be getting
(apparently) good fixes and another one, 1m away, won't.

Peter Wiley

Yep, they would have an onboard system and they lose satellites easily
if the antenna is badly positioned.

Anyway what I don't understand is flying thru there, planing with a
kite up, without many hands on the lookout. It really is a treacherous
piece of water.
I get the heebies just pulling out the chart,
http://www.waterways.nsw.gov.au/docs/cofcoast_front.pdf
It's scary in daylight and at night, well, bloody frightening
particularly when you're flat out.

Too many people displaying a touching faith in technology. I work on
the principle that, the more complex it is, the sooner it'll fail. The
less I understand it, the more likely it'll fail. Then add Murphy's
Law into the mix of when the failure will occur.

They had a guy on the helm. It was a big rock. Even if it was flat
calm, I would have thought he'd have seen it further away than he did.
Forward vision blocked by sails, maybe?

I recall reading about a cruising boat that went aground in the Red
Sea because they were using GPS, electronic charts and autopilot.
Nobody on watch. Nothing wrong with the gear, IIRC, just a sandbar had
moved (or a reef extended further out). They cut it too fine and.....
bang. No more boat. If you're cruising, why cut it that fine? I can
understand racers doing it, sort of, trying to minimise time.

Peter Wiley