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

To be blunt .... what a stupid statement. Look. Jim, as I've said, I
applaud your 25 years and 12,000 mi. of experience. However, because of my
40+ years (licensed, I'll ignore what came before) and hundreds of
thousands of miles (conservatively) all over the world, plus my ongoing
pilotage, you'll excuse me if I say .... BULL****!! I use methods you've
never heard of, much less thought of. Understand them? LOL I've read your
post ...... my statements about your skill level stands, and I understand
things about most Nav SYSTEMS, you've never heard of.

Ohhh you use something besides GPS and DR and LORAN and RADAR? Perhaps you
might have a claim on a gyro compass...but other than that I doubt you use
anything different than I do. I would agree that you likely use them at a
higher skill level and more facilely than I...but that does not change the
fact that we rely on the same technology for the same purpose. Then again I
suspect I understood some of it better than you do. Can't tell that for
sure but with your closed mind I doubt you innovate well under pressure.

The eye is a most important
piece of navigation...unfortunately it does not work at all a great
percentage of the time.

Bull****!! It doesn't matter if it's a clear day or a foggy day... the
eye, looking at visual points, radar points, GPS points, Loran points....
then, using your brain, is the best interpreter of what's right or wrong.
The problem is to make the maximum use of which SYSTEM is giving you the
best information ..... and this can vary.

You continue to confuse different issues. The eye as an instrument in
navigation is a useful one for piloting situations...particularly as a
continuous check. Its use in this way is however limited by the visibility
conditions. The eye also serves as an input device to the human but that is
a different use then navigation. Don' obfuscate the issue with the second
use.


Radar is fine under some circumstances but not very
good under others.

You've made it clear that your radar skills are limited. The problem is,
that so many others also have your limited skills. One does not install a
radar on their boat and become a "radar observer", so, in this respect,
for you and most boaters, radar will not match GPS.... another of your
statements that are a "tell" for me.

And you have made it clear you do not understand the well documented and
science based limitations of radar. This probably makes you a worse sailor
than most otn. Your view that radar always provides an accurate picture of
the physical world is a dangereous one likely to lead to bad outcomes. To
rely upon radar rather than a GPS for your primary positon is foolish under
most circumstances I can imagine. Ohh I am sure you can set up some weird
harbor situation where radar is effective and GPS is not otn...but that just
proves the old adage that there are exceptions to all rules. Now if a
positon difference exists between the radar and your chart plotter...you now
have doubt and have to use the brain to sort it out.


Only GPS works with accuracy all (for practical
purposes)the time. It is therefore the first of many tools employed.

We could argue your "absolutes", but for the average boater, it would be
meaningless. Sorry, but it's not the "first" of many tools .... starting
from when you leave the dock, until you return. Hell, it's not necessarily
even the most important.

We are talking navigation otn..navigation. Navigation is not the only task
in boating.


And you again utterly misstate my position.

I don't think so.

GPS is the first skill
taught...it should be the centerpiece of the navigation system.

No. What the hell good are those numbers if you can't make use of them?

You best learn how to read a chart and plot Lat/Long first. Then it might
be a good idea to learn what CMG means and how that relates to a compass.

I have said repeatedly that the first thing is reading and interpreting a
chart. I simply believe that you do that in view of a GPS being used to
direct the vessel. CMG is as common in GPS as in DR.

Then
others.

Yup, comes in handy knowing more than one way to plot a position and/or
determine a route to clear hazards to your navigation.

Again you deliberately mis-state my position. You obviously read badly.

Certainly even the dullest of students can learn to check a chart
position via eyeball or radar.

True, but you've made it clear that for you ( and we must assume that many
others are the same) this is not the easiest or most accurate method in
your arsenal.

I have said no such thing. You can't deal with my arguments otn so you
misstate them.

Neither has the accuracy to verify the
position

Oh? Interesting. I'm running a range (either manmade or one I've
determined, cause I can read a chart) and I pass abeam of a light house
and put a mark on my chart. Will GPS be more accurate? Faster?

Yes the GPS will be more accurate and faster. If the GPS does not agree
with the range/lighthouse you now have doubt and have to sort it. Get used
to it otn...in five or ten years that light is gone.

and bnoth are compromised under some conditions but both are good
checks for at least gross error.

BG and you wonder why I doubt your skills.

A fathometer provides a way to verify that
the depth is where it should be for the position.

Obviously, you've never used a fathometer for navigation.

Oh, and where did I say that? You don't watch depth at your positon otn?
You are so secure in your visual/radar pilotage that depth is not an issue?
Yeah right. I did not say that the only use for a fathometer is checking
position...but it is a good one.

Disagreement calls for
caution. I use a second GPS to protect against a failure and to help
resolve anomolies.

I use "ALL MEANS AVAILABLE".

And so do I...well not quite...I don't generally fire up an antiquated RDF
and locate off the local radio stations. I could. But it is time consuming
and unlikely to provide much information except under unusual circumstances.
I suppose under these circumstances you would assign a crew member to
operate the RDF and feed you cross checks but I do not have unlimited
resources on my bridge...such as it is.

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.

G I'd call that "teaching by amateurs, for amateurs".

I am sure you would...but you do that otn. Reach down into your mind and
see if you can explain what you would do instead otn.

I would not teach VOR/DME...though I have used VOR in navigating a boat.

Neither are Marine terms that I'm familiar with

I would teach limited celestial for a student with the right mission.

Depends on whether you believe in the "half assed" approach .....
obviously you do.

And what is your "whole assed" approach otn?

Now exactly what is it that you don't agree with and why otn?

BG Obviously quite a bit.... Why? VBG Because your attitude regarding
navigation safety, sucks. Hey, personal opinion, others may vary.


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.

ROFLMAO The above paragraph doesn't deserve any comment, other than this
sentence and another hearty ROFLMAO !!!!
OH hell, just for you, Jim. If you're gonna try to insult me, at least TRY
to make some valid points.

Why I think your closed mind fits very well on the bridge otn...you know
what you know...you don't know why it is true or understand the
alternatives...but you know what you know.



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?

G I remember in my youth, the statements that the magnetic compass would
soon disappear from ships because of the gyro compass .... guess what, Jim
.............

otn




otn