Generally I find that women are at a loss when it comes to spatial
comprehension. A man will usually automatically know the extended limits of
an automobile when he sits in one. Women depend on mirrors and the visual
depth of field at a specific spot to determine this. This is one of the
reasons why women generally do not back into a parking space... while men
prefer to. I say this is a general trait.... I know of women who are very
good with spatial interpretation.

If you look at the radar screen as a chart... it is easier to resolve the
image and blend it to the area around you. Just keep in mind that often you
only view the proximal reflected surface of any object. The "chart" on a
radar screen is always oriented to the line of the vessel and bearing is
always relative unless a fluxgate compass or GPS input is available. In a
day or two I could easily have you running with a full comprehension of
radar... at least as well as anyone else. Tuning radar is no problem....

CM

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
|
|
| I've met many people who cannot extrapolate a land map
| of an area they are familiar with much less be able to relate
| to a nautical chart. If tests were given for this type of relating
| a graphical representation to geography I bet you'd be
| apalled at the numbers of folks who simply can't relate.
|
| Bobsprit is probably one of these chart challenged people.
|
| Simple things like basic orientation of the map while they
| look at it leaves them at a loss. A radar display is even
| more of an alien representation that a paper chart. Is the
| display 'heads up' or "oriented north" for instance is more
| than many people can cope with. Spatial relationships
| and representative distances with respect to scale are
| concepts many simply cannot fathom. I've only used
| radar a couple of times and found it did not convey
| much information at all other than skewed and foreshortened
| spatial relationships that were difficult to stretch out into
| geographical reality in my mind - a mind which excels
| at spatiality.
|
| I can see where practice, practice, practice and a mind
| that can understand is vital for a radar operator. This is
| yet another reason I think there should be a navigator at
| the helm of large ships. Let the navigator navigator - let
| the Captain steer according to input from the navigator.
|
| S.Simon - a Captain who knows how things work
|
|
|
|
| "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
...
|
| "Shen44" wrote in message
|
| | Radar is an aid to navigation, that is well learned if one has one,
but
| not as
| | important to learn for beginners, as some of the other basics, such as
| compass,
| | chart work, etc..
| | Contrary to what some may think, radar is not something you can just
turn
| on,
| | for the first time, and be instantly familiar and competent with it's
| usage.
| | I have seen any number of people using it on a fairly regular basis,
who
| have
| | problems tuning (and sometimes detuning) for best picture, then
equating
| that
| | picture to their charts or vessel traffic around them.
| | Without knowing the basics of relative motion and how to plot targets,
you
| can
| | easily get yourself into as much trouble as you can avoid.
|
| Maybe these people are the same ones with spatial difficulties. I
haven't
| seen anyone that has had a problem understanding a radar image...
tuning
| radar is a little more complicated ... but not out of the realm of the
| newbie.
|
| While I concur that Basic Navigation is primary obstacle to overcome...
a
| radar in use to confirm your plots and verify relative bearings is
perfectly
| fine.
|
| The days of high tech being utilized only on large ships is over.
| Navigational instrumentation is now available to the layman and the
general
| population's ability to embrace technology has increased dramatically.
|
| CM
|
|
|
|