Jim Donohue wrote:

The question isn't what should be used first; the question is what should
be taught first. Your inability to understand that is beyond jaxian.

Teaching someone GPS before basic piloting is like teaching children how
to use a calculator before teaching them the addition table.


We disagree..not about the need to teach piloting but upon the base on which
you develop that piloting skill. DR is simply the technique that is adopted
between fixes to plot ones position for the period of time until a new fix
is available. But an electronic navigation system provides continuous
position fixes...so DR really has no place.

Absolute nonsense.

LOPs and such come up in
piloting and I agree that one uses whatever is available and reasonable to
maintain a cross check. The eye is a very useful tool for this when
visibility is adequate. Radar also can well provide such a cross check.
When running multiple electronic navigation systems they can cross check
each other. All of these skills should be taught.

I have this strange feeling you guys are taking this position because you
feel, as I do, that GPS based navigation is easier to teach and to do than
non electronic piloting. So the real reason you want non-electronic first
is so the new students have to suffer like you did.

Not at all. My only desire is to have the best navigators out on the
water. Perhaps you should look at the curriculum of the Power Squadron,
or the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Although both offer "quicky" courses for
GPS, acknowledging that many boaters will only tolerate a few hours of
instruction, their full courses follow the tradition path of charts,
compasses, DR and piloting before introducing GPS.


Actually, the case was that someone was learning how to do LOP's and DR
and wasn't interested in LORAN. You called this "utter nonsense." I call
your attitude "sheer stupidity."


So again we disagree. The instructor wanted to teach without the use of the
electronic navigation systems...I consider this nonsense. You end up with a
less trained student who initially is far less able to navigate. Why would
one teach a student to navigate so as to get an inferior outcome at least
during the initial phases of training? I would want them as capable as
possible as early as possible for the sake of their and others safety.

You should re-read the original post and your response.

....

Uhhh where did it state that learning LOPs and DR was "utter nonsense"?
I think I made such a comment about teaching a student navigation with
such techniques emphasized to the exclusion of electronic navigation.
Still do.

Perhaps you should re-read your fist post in this thread. Dave said his
daughter was enjoying learning LOP's and DR, and wasn't interested in the
Loran. Your response was "Ohh stop...what utter nonsense." You went on
to spew more silliness which only served to make you feel important and
make everyone else think you're a fool.


The remark was in the context of claiming to teach navigation without the
electronic systems. Dave was featuring it as a good thing. I believe it a
bad thing. Leads to a new sailor with more limited skills than if taught
the electronic approach up front.

Your approach pretty much guarantees that most students will never learn
the basics. It's a good thing the most teachers disagree with you.



Nowhere was it mentioned that Dave's daughter would not go on to learn
other techniques, or that she was even destined to be a boat's navigator.
It was only stated that she enjoyed learning basic piloting.

Frankly criticizing anyone for wanting to learn almost anything is a mark
of a very small mind.


And you technophobes lack the prospective to see the outcome of your
teaching primary dependence on outdated technology.

Technophobe? I love it! You should realize that 25 years ago I was
programing spacecraft navigation for NASA. I'm now retired from IBM
after spending about 30 years working on cutting edge technology.

I'm not afraid of technology, I just have a realistic view of its
limitations.




The way to do this is to actively practice "manual techniques" even while
using a GPS. I've never known someone who learned GPS first who did this.
However, once you have actually navigated by LOP's, or following depth
contours, or watching "danger bearings," it starts to become automatic.
When I see a buoy line up with a point of land, I mentally follow the line
on the chart and check the depth I should be in. It only takes a second,
but would someone who had never done that "for real" bother to do it?


And it does for electronic navigators as well. You learn to correlate the
views of the eye and other devices with the GPS or whatever.

This is exactly what I've been talking about. My point has been that
those who learn GPS first don't bother to learn this.


Calling it a "system" was a euphemism. It was a GPS attached to an
autopilot. They ignored the depth sounder, the radar, and visual cues.
Actually, the same thing could have happened to most anyone with an
Autohelm and a Garmin, except the the Autohelm (now Raymarine) gives a
better indication of faulty input.


Neither the page of causals nor the 3 pages of recommendations has a single
mention of the term GPS...not one. There were a number of failures but not
one that indicates GPS was a problem. Incompetent seamanship is the
proximate cause with poorly designed and poorly operated equipment creating
the opportunity for the incompetent seaman to ground the boat.

Refer to my other post on this. Its pretty clear that you're blatantly
lying here - the page on conclusions talks mostly about the problem of
relying too much on GPS.

The "Cause" section very short and though it doesn't mention GPS by
name, it is explicit in blaming overreliance on one form of navigation
and ignoring other more basic forms. While the "Recommendations"
section doesn't mention GPS specifically, it is filled mostly with
comments about overreliance on one form. The issue is not that GPS
itself is flawed, its relying on only one form. Thus the
recommendations aren't specific about GPS, they apply to GPS, Loran,
Glosnoss, or any other system that might be used.


So you turn on 3 gps's for a day sail? I think you'd be better served by
brushing up on more basic skills.


No I use 2 GPS for serious navigation and hold a third in reserve. Both
active GPS have the same way points set. The position of the hand held is
plotted on the chart. And all this is cross checked with eye and radar. I
use true headings unless we have to hand steer when we work out the
magnetic.

When I go day sailing in Long Beach I may not crack open a chart or turn on
a GPS. I can drive a boat just like you do. On a clear day in a familiar
port I need little navigation help from anything.

Don't presume what I do - If I'm just taking a spin around the inner
harbor I might not have a chart on deck, but in the outer harbor, which
I've sailed for 40 years, I always have a chart on deck. For longer
trips, or if fog is possible, I'll usually have GPS and radar setup, but
I'll also have pencil, dividers and parallel rules on hand. And at
least one trip I year I leave the GPS and radar below, and formally plot
the course at the helm. I have to get in at least one running fix a year!

When is the last time you did a running fix? Could your "students" do
one if the GPS failed? Do they even know what it is?