Jim Donohue wrote:


Ohhh you use something besides GPS and DR and LORAN and RADAR?

G I'm assuming you just mentioned those 4 for brevity.

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.

I don't doubt in the least that you may have a greater understanding of
some of the "engineering" involved with the electronic systems in
discussion. However, where their practical application is concerned.....
In that vein, I suspect you consider my mind closed because I disagree
with your approach and reasoning that goes with that approach.



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.

G Then don't denigrate the use of the "eye" because on some days the
visibility may be less than perfect.


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.

NO Jim. I fully understand the documented and science based limitations
of radar. More importantly, I also understand the operator/observer
limitations and plusses. I have never stated that radar ALWAYS provides
an accurate picture ... it can't for many obvious reasons.
However, in the hands of a competent operator/observer, radar becomes a
highly accurate tool of navigation and in many cases a better "primary"
tool for positions due to it's relatively quick update and "birds eye" view.
I don't need to set up some weird harbor condition to show this, G as
I frequently use radar as my primary and GPS as my secondary.


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

I was keeping to the subject at hand.

snip I was going to comment on a few issues, but then I came to this next.


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.

Interesting. Please explain how GPS will be faster and/or more accurate.
Which is most apt to show an error which may cause you problems?
As for the last sentence .... Jim, I chose a "lighthouse". I could have
said "buoy", but we both know why that wouldn't be good. I could also
have said a point of land, a charted building, etc..
Hopefully, those with seagoing experience who understand the value of
lighthouses even in this "GPS Centric" age will keep that house operating.



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.

Sheesh, and you say I misstate and misread.
Jim, I said obviously you've never used the fathometer for "navigation".
I was referring to the practice of determining your position based on
soundings alone. It's one of those "innovations" you use, under pressure.


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.

Hey, sometimes that's all you need.

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.

G Using an RDF is like reading a Radar. I doubt most young Mates would
be too competent, so if it got to that point I'd probably leave them
behind the Radar, etc., while I did the RDF..... course, with all else
available, I must all ready be in deep doodoo if I'm having to revert to
that, but hey, sometimes that's all you need.


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 don't like your basic approach "start at the top and work backwards".
I still firmly believe in starting at the bottom and working up gives a
far better understanding of the issues involved.


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


And what is your "whole assed" approach otn?

See answer above.


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.

Sometimes, your conclusions astound me. This is one of them.
The Captain and Mates on the Majesty screwed up in many ways. The
central screw-up was being "GPS Centric". They relied solely on the GPS
and it's high end plotter and auto pilot, when all around them were
tools which were showing that a problem existed, if they'd just used them.

otn