"otnmbrd" wrote in message
nk.net...
Jim Donohue wrote:
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.


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.

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
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

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").

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
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.

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