"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
news
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.

Dead reckoning (DR) determines position by advancing a known positon for
courses and distances. A position so determined is called a dead reckoning
(DR) position. It is generally accepted that only course and speed
determine the DR position. Correcting the DR position for leeway, current
effects, and steering error result in an estimated positon (EP). An
inertial navigator develops an extremely accurate EP. - Bowditch

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.

I am familar with all of these course. When I took all the CGaux courses
that made sense. It no longer does. I suspect they will get to it
eventually but it will be a few years yet.

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.

And you should read the thread to that point as well.
...

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.

Many agree with me. Eventually it is the way it will go.


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.

What you did for a living has little to do with technophobe views. Lots of
intellectual bigots in the technical ranks. NASA? That the guys so good at
O ring design?

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

I have enough experience in high tech to note that the ability of
technologist to understand what they wrought was very limited. Hell I
personally sat for five years on what was, at the time, likely the world's
best chip design system. I had no idea it was valuable.



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.

Everyone learns it to one degree or another. It is not optional.

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.

You still see what you want to see. Find me a use of the word "form". They
want redundancy not differing technology. Here is an actual quote from part
of the recommendations:
"Also as a result of the investigation, the National Transportation Safety
Board makes the Propose to the International Maritime Organization that it
develop standards for integrated bridge system design that will require

· multiple independent position-receiver inputs;"

See "form" mentioned there anywhere?



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!

I can see you now...afloat in your jacuzzi with the plotting board affixed
to the stomach. dividers and parallel rules at the ready. If the fog
should roll in you will plot your course and make it to the stairs. Must
inhibit enjoyment a bit.

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?

Well given your lack of knowledge of what DR is what can you expect of my
students?..of which there are actually a few...but only in the deep blue out
of sight of land.

And if the GPS fails and the other GPS fails and the other GPS fails...then
they will have to resort to DR cause there is obviously not the least chance
that LORAN or RADAR is working. So pick up the chart. Note your position
and do whatever is needed to get somewhere save. Under those conditions I
would be more than content if they figure out a way to get a fix or two.
"Running" would be gilding the lily.


Jim