Jim Donohue wrote:
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
Wow, you know how to look up Bowditch! But what's your point? From the
latest version of Bowditch (2002): "... But its most important use is
in projecting the position of the ship into the immediate future and
avoiding hazards to navigation."
Sounds kind of useful, doesn't it? But you think it "really has no
place." It seems to me like you need to go back and take a refresher
course on DR and piloting.
And: "Until ECDIS is proven to provide the level of safety and accuracy
required, the use of a traditional DR plot on paper charts is a prudent
backup, especially in restricted waters."
In other words, understanding DR is important even while you're using
GPS. It would seem that Bowditch agrees that your attitude is complete
nonsense.
... 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.
Hopefully it will be a long time.
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.
I have. What's your point? Your original post in the thread is still
stupid. And yet you still defend even while admitting you don't believe it.
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.
The Power Squadron, CG Aux, Bowditch are not among those that agree with
you.
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?
My mission worked flawlessly. It far exceeded it original mission, and
would have survived much longer if the bureaucrats had funded the
redundant stabilizing system. As for the O-rings, that was a case of a
non-techie ignoring the warnings of the engineer. BTW, I was consulting
for Space Telescope when that incident occurred and was the final
straw that pushed me into mass-market software. My specialty through
the years was debugging problems that other engineers claimed should
never happen. As I say, I'm not a technophobe, just a realist!
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.
I see far, far, far more instances of overreliance by people that think
they "understand", such as the marketing team for every product I was
ever involved with!
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.
But now you're claiming that piloting need not be taught, because
everyone will pick it up eventually. The naivety of this is boggling!
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?
Two GPS's are not "independent."
They also talk about the need for traditional piloting techniques:
sounding, landmarks, etc. Its you who sees what you want to see.
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.
Heh, heh. Good one Jim.
I can see your students now: "Hello SeaTow? I dropped my GPS overboard.
Can you come get me? I don't know where I am, but there's a lot of
water around!"
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
Why do you say that? You're the one who doesn't know that it is useful
even while using GPS. While you seem to know the words, you forgot the
meaning. In fact your ignorance of the meaning of DR is proof that your
approached is flawed!
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.
Which is fortunate, because if the approached land they could be in deep
****!
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.
And when they sight land, call SeaTow!
|