Radar and Basic Nav.
 

I've been using several books to aid Suzanne with learning basic nav skills.
Dispite Mooron's comment that Radar is a "basic" component for the novice, it's
not covered at all until (Colgate, Seamanship series and so on)
Some of these books are up to 4 years old. I'm guessing that NEW books will
show that learning radar is a basic nav skill that a person should start with.

RB

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

Bobsprit wrote:
I've been using several books to aid Suzanne with learning basic nav
skills. Dispite Mooron's comment that Radar is a "basic" component
for the novice, it's not covered at all until (Colgate, Seamanship
series and so on)
Some of these books are up to 4 years old. I'm guessing that NEW
books will show that learning radar is a basic nav skill that a
person should start with.

Bob, any 14 year old that has played with a flight simulator on their PC
knows how to use radar!


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

Bob, any 14 year old that has played with a flight simulator on their PC
knows how to use radar!

Suzanne never had a flight simulator on her Mac. Could that be the problem?

RB

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

The Captains Master wrote:

Bob, any 14 year old that has played with a flight simulator on
their PC knows how to use radar!

Bwaaaahahahahhahaahhaah!
Thanks for that Wally, a lightening up is always a good thing eh.

I've just been playing Delta Force, and the radar in that seemed pretty easy
to use. :-)


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

Bobsprit wrote:
Bob, any 14 year old that has played with a flight simulator on their
PC knows how to use radar!

Suzanne never had a flight simulator on her Mac. Could that be the
problem?

I doubt it. It does strike me, however, that things like radar and GPS are
rather easier to get to grips with than the traditional methods with chart
and compass. All that triangulation stuff, having to account for compass
variation and deviation, tides and currents, would be quite a bit of
learning for someone who's new to it. I haven't done this in a 'live'
nautical context yet, but do have a fair amount of land-based map & compass
experience.

A while back, I was working my way through a book called Coastal Navigation
(which is apparently to RYA Yachtmaster standard) which uses a series of
worked examples and comes with a sample chart. I'm about half way through
and have so far got just about everything correct, but I can see how it
would be harder for someone without prior experience.

FWIW, I think that radar and GPS are easier to learn, and should therefore
be learned first - on the basis that some sort of skill in knowing one's
course and position is better than none. I'm not saying that radar and GPS
should replace the traditional chart, compass, tide info, etc, but that less
skill is required to get use out of the hi-tech kit - you can learn more
basic nav skills (understanding of coordinates and how they relate to the
chart) and get use out of them quicker. Then bring the traditional skills up
to match. I would definately have the compass cover off, though...


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

I doubt it. It does strike me, however, that things like radar and GPS are
rather easier to get to grips with than the traditional methods with chart
and compass.

So you think that learning charts and compass first is a mistake? Should I
start Suzanne on electronic nav aids before she's had more practice with
traditional methods as Mooron Suggests?

RB

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

Bobsprit wrote:
I doubt it. It does strike me, however, that things like radar and
GPS are rather easier to get to grips with than the traditional
methods with chart and compass.

So you think that learning charts and compass first is a mistake?
Should I start Suzanne on electronic nav aids before she's had more
practice with traditional methods as Mooron Suggests?

I'm saying that I reckon it would be easier to navigate effectively *sooner*
if one goes for nav aids first - less learning curve. Speaking as an
experienced land navigator, I can see that there's quite a lot to using the
traditional nav tools on water. From a standing start, someone looking to
use traditional methods only would have poorer skills until the learning has
been surmounted.

I do think it's important that the traditional skills be learned - charts
and compasses don't need batteries. My point is that one is safer with
effective nav aid skills, than with an semi-effective half-set of
traditional skills.


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

From a standing start, someone looking to
use traditional methods only would have poorer skills until the learning has
been surmounted.

Well, this speaks well of my wife, who seems to comprehend the nav stuff
readily and far better than I did at first.
It varies from person to person. I don't think it's safe to start with learning
electronics first, since they may fail you first. By far, the charts and
compass are more reliable so a sailor should learn them first.
This is why various texts start with chart/compass based nav.

RB

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

CANDChelp wrote:

Well, this speaks well of my wife, who seems to comprehend the nav
stuff readily and far better than I did at first.
It varies from person to person. I don't think it's safe to start
with learning electronics first, since they may fail you first. By
far, the charts and compass are more reliable so a sailor should
learn them first.
This is why various texts start with chart/compass based nav.

Given the reliability of modern electronics, I would say that someone with
partial knowledge of traditional skills is more likely to get into
difficulties than someone who is comfortable with nav aids - provided he has
learned to operate a battery charger, of course...


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
| I doubt it. It does strike me, however, that things like radar and GPS are
| rather easier to get to grips with than the traditional methods with chart
| and compass.
|
| So you think that learning charts and compass first is a mistake? Should I
| start Suzanne on electronic nav aids before she's had more practice with
| traditional methods as Mooron Suggests?

Now Bob.... you're reaching with that comment almost as much as when you
claimed to be "helping" Suzanne with her navigation. Electronic navigational
instruments can easily be learned in conjunction with standard methods of
basic navigation.

Unfortunatly you have shown clearly that you are ignorant of both...

CM

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

Given the reliability of modern electronics, I would say that someone with
partial knowledge of traditional skills is more likely to get into
difficulties

This is not a safe attitude.
Jeff has also indicated that it's best to learn chart based nav before falling
back on the "easy" electronics. I think most people will agree that full
comprehension of chart based nav is fundemental. Relying on radar and GPS as
does Mooron is simply not safe.

RB

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

CANDChelp wrote:
Given the reliability of modern electronics, I would say that someone
with partial knowledge of traditional skills is more likely to get
into difficulties

This is not a safe attitude.

It is, to my mind, safer than the alternative of going out with only a
partial understanding of traditional nav.


Jeff has also indicated that it's best to learn chart based nav
before falling back on the "easy" electronics. I think most people
will agree that full comprehension of chart based nav is fundemental.
Relying on radar and GPS as does Mooron is simply not safe.

Yet you seem to be happy to let your wife do the traditional nav when she
doesn't have "full comprehension". As for 'easy' electronics, have you
booked yourself into the 'how to operate a battery charger' course, yet?


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

This is not a safe attitude.

It is, to my mind, safer than the alternative of going out with only a
partial understanding of traditional nav.

You shouldn't go anywhere until you can read and understand paper charts. I
think you'll find that most sailors will agree.
You can do far better with a 20 dollar chart and handheld compass than you can
with a 500 dollar GPS.

RB

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

BWAAAHAAA!!!!!

Junior high school geometry is all you need dunce boy!

Unless of course you're doing celestial, then you need to know hyperbolic
function and spherical coordinates which is beyond the grasp of any woman.
Suzzette would think spherical coordinates are matching mumus and beach
balls!!!

BWAHAAAAHAAAA!!!


"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...

I've been using several books to aid Suzanne with learning basic nav
skills.
Dispite Mooron's comment that Radar is a "basic" component for the novice,
it's
not covered at all until (Colgate, Seamanship series and so on)
Some of these books are up to 4 years old. I'm guessing that NEW books
will
show that learning radar is a basic nav skill that a person should start
with.

RB

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

Wally wrote:
Given the reliability of modern electronics, I would say that someone
with partial knowledge of traditional skills is more likely to get
into difficulties than someone who is comfortable with nav aids -
provided he has learned to operate a battery charger, of course...

This depends a lot on what you call "partial knowledge." I'd agree that I'm happy that
most small boat operators can now have GPS since they will never learn running fixes, not
would they appreciate the "cocked hat." However, they should at least understand the
basics of the chart notation, the concepts of a bearing line, and (depending on location)
the meaning of variation. Without stuff like this, its hard to use a gps intelligently.
Also, I don't remember ever going through a season without at least one GPS "outage" of
some type - either a bad cable or dead batteries or sailing into a "gap" in the charting.
If this happens to someone without basic skills they are up the creek!

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

CANDChelp wrote:
This is not a safe attitude.

It is, to my mind, safer than the alternative of going out with only a
partial understanding of traditional nav.

You shouldn't go anywhere until you can read and understand paper
charts. I think you'll find that most sailors will agree.

As do I - I did say that one needs some basic understanding of charts and
coordinates to make sense of GPS and radar.


You can do far better with a 20 dollar chart and handheld compass
than you can with a 500 dollar GPS.

You can do very little without a chart and compass, other than sail by sight
and play guessing games with the rocks. GPS is still a much easier way for a
newbie to triangulate their position.


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

Jeff Morris wrote:
Wally wrote:
Given the reliability of modern electronics, I would say that someone
with partial knowledge of traditional skills is more likely to get
into difficulties than someone who is comfortable with nav aids -
provided he has learned to operate a battery charger, of course...

This depends a lot on what you call "partial knowledge." I'd agree
that I'm happy that most small boat operators can now have GPS since
they will never learn running fixes, not would they appreciate the
"cocked hat." However, they should at least understand the basics
of the chart notation, the concepts of a bearing line, and (depending
on location) the meaning of variation. Without stuff like this, its
hard to use a gps intelligently.

I thoroughly agree.


Also, I don't remember ever going
through a season without at least one GPS "outage" of some type -
either a bad cable or dead batteries or sailing into a "gap" in the
charting. If this happens to someone without basic skills they are up
the creek!

Wouldn't you say that dead batteries is a more fundamental failing than not
being able to use chart and compass? I assume that, by 'gap in the
charting', you're talking about those GPS chart-plotter thingies - but, the
GPS should still be able to give lat/long, which can be found on the paper
chart. (At no point have I said that nav aids should be a substitute for the
traditional tools, to the extent that the latter should be left ashore.)


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

Wally wrote:
Jeff Morris wrote:
Also, I don't remember ever going
through a season without at least one GPS "outage" of some type -
either a bad cable or dead batteries or sailing into a "gap" in the
charting. If this happens to someone without basic skills they are up
the creek!

Wouldn't you say that dead batteries is a more fundamental failing
than not being able to use chart and compass?

"Fundamental" or not, it happens, so the boater must be prepared for it. Also, paper
charts blow overboard, so the prudent navigator always has two copies.

I assume that, by 'gap
in the charting', you're talking about those GPS chart-plotter
thingies - but, the GPS should still be able to give lat/long, which
can be found on the paper chart. (At no point have I said that nav
aids should be a substitute for the traditional tools, to the extent
that the latter should be left ashore.)

Several times that I've "fallen into a gap" I've been in tricky channels and was not
pleased. I did have a paper chart on hand and was able to adjust quickly, but I wonder if
a novice would have. Also, I've found that those not used to using paper paper have
trouble plotting from coordinates. Using a GPS in "raw mode" (that is, lat/lon only)
implies being able to use a chart and understand a limited form of Dead Reckoning.

-jeff

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

"CANDChelp" wrote in message

Relying on radar and GPS as
| does Mooron is simply not safe.

This from someone who thinks a "Running Fix" is a stop at the MacDonald's
drive through!

Bwahahahahahahahahaaa!!

CM

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

"Wally" wrote in message

| GPS should still be able to give lat/long, which can be found on the paper
| chart. (At no point have I said that nav aids should be a substitute for
the
| traditional tools, to the extent that the latter should be left ashore.)

Ask Bob what his coordinate system is set at.... let alone how to
interpolate that data onto a chart. He has no clue as to chart datum and
wouldn't comprehend UTM from Lat/Lon.... seconds, minutes and degrees are
greek to him..... yet he uses a GPS.

CM

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

Capt. Mooron wrote:
"Wally" wrote in message

GPS should still be able to give lat/long, which can be found on the
paper chart. (At no point have I said that nav aids should be a
substitute for the traditional tools, to the extent that the latter
should be left ashore.)

Ask Bob what his coordinate system is set at.... let alone how to
interpolate that data onto a chart. He has no clue as to chart datum
and wouldn't comprehend UTM from Lat/Lon.... seconds, minutes and
degrees are greek to him..... yet he uses a GPS.

Duh...., okay...


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

"Wally" wrote in message

| Duh...., okay...

Better yet ... let's ask Bob how to denote the following "fixes"

Time/Speed Bearing

Triangulation

Fix with confirmation from GPS/Radar

How would you note this on the charted plot??

CM

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

Subject: Radar and Basic Nav.
From: (Bobsprit)
Date: 09/02/2003 04:04 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


I've been using several books to aid Suzanne with learning basic nav skills.
Dispite Mooron's comment that Radar is a "basic" component for the novice,
it's
not covered at all until (Colgate, Seamanship series and so on)
Some of these books are up to 4 years old. I'm guessing that NEW books will
show that learning radar is a basic nav skill that a person should start
with.

RB


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.

Shen

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

"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

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

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

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

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
|
|
|
|

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

But radar is different from a paper chart because
a paper chart does not foreshorten the view while
radar does. Radar is really no different than a
looking at something with eyes that use radio
waves instead of light waves

Our eyes use light and when we see a hundred
yards of water at a distance of a quarter mile this
hundred yards of water looks a helluva lot shorter
than the same hundred yards right off our bow.

Radar 'sees' thing the same way so one must
extrapolate this information mentally in order
to match it with a chart of the same area.

It would be much the same as equating a gnomic
projection with a Mercator projection but backwards
if looking north on a Mercator.

See what I mean? But the point is the majority
of people can't even imagine such differences
let alone work with them.

This is what I mean by spatial comprehension.

S.Simon - a sailboat Captain who's superior to any and all motorboat Captains

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message ...
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
|
|
|
|

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

But radar is different from a paper chart

A major breakthrough for Neal, folks!!!


Bwahahahaha!

RB

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

Most people I've seen either find a radar image intuitively correct to what
they see around them ... or they don't. I knew immediately what I was
looking at on the first radar image I saw. I can interpolate between radar,
air photo and chart in an instant. I mentally compensate for differences in
scale and orientation. Maybe I'm one of the lucky few... but I assumed
everyone had this ability to some extent.

CM

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
|
| But radar is different from a paper chart because
| a paper chart does not foreshorten the view while
| radar does. Radar is really no different than a
| looking at something with eyes that use radio
| waves instead of light waves
|
| Our eyes use light and when we see a hundred
| yards of water at a distance of a quarter mile this
| hundred yards of water looks a helluva lot shorter
| than the same hundred yards right off our bow.
|
| Radar 'sees' thing the same way so one must
| extrapolate this information mentally in order
| to match it with a chart of the same area.
|
| It would be much the same as equating a gnomic
| projection with a Mercator projection but backwards
| if looking north on a Mercator.
|
| See what I mean? But the point is the majority
| of people can't even imagine such differences
| let alone work with them.
|
| This is what I mean by spatial comprehension.
|
| S.Simon - a sailboat Captain who's superior to any and all motorboat
Captains
|
| "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
...
| 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
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
|

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

And you, even if you could envision it in your mind's eye,
have no paper charts to compare the radar image to.

Hooooo Hah!

S.Simon - a Captain who knows a fraud when he sees one


"Bobsprit" wrote in message ...
But radar is different from a paper chart

A major breakthrough for Neal, folks!!!


Bwahahahaha!

RB

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

He can't read the radar screen... he said so himself. He claims it confuses
him.... so he turns it off when he gets lost and uses the "several passes"
technique.

CM

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
| And you, even if you could envision it in your mind's eye,
| have no paper charts to compare the radar image to.
|
| Hooooo Hah!
|
| S.Simon - a Captain who knows a fraud when he sees one
|
|
| "Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
| But radar is different from a paper chart
|
| A major breakthrough for Neal, folks!!!
|
|
| Bwahahahaha!
|
| RB
|
|

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

So perhaps you or Neal can explain to everyone how the horizontal beam width affect the
image.

-jeff


Capt. Mooron wrote:
Most people I've seen either find a radar image intuitively correct
to what they see around them ... or they don't. I knew immediately
what I was looking at on the first radar image I saw. I can
interpolate between radar, air photo and chart in an instant. I
mentally compensate for differences in scale and orientation. Maybe
I'm one of the lucky few... but I assumed everyone had this ability
to some extent.

CM

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

But radar is different from a paper chart because
a paper chart does not foreshorten the view while
radar does. Radar is really no different than a
looking at something with eyes that use radio
waves instead of light waves

Our eyes use light and when we see a hundred
yards of water at a distance of a quarter mile this
hundred yards of water looks a helluva lot shorter
than the same hundred yards right off our bow.

Radar 'sees' thing the same way so one must
extrapolate this information mentally in order
to match it with a chart of the same area.

It would be much the same as equating a gnomic
projection with a Mercator projection but backwards
if looking north on a Mercator.

See what I mean? But the point is the majority
of people can't even imagine such differences
let alone work with them.

This is what I mean by spatial comprehension.

S.Simon - a sailboat Captain who's superior to any and all motorboat
Captains

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
...
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

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

I can interpolate between radar,
air photo and chart in an instant.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!

This is just TOO sad and funny all at once! Can you also cross your eyes and
eat a donut?
Bwahahahaaha!

RB

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

He can't read the radar screen... he said so himself. He claims it confuses
him.

I dare you to show the post where I claimed the above!

RB

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message ...
Most people I've seen either find a radar image intuitively correct to what
they see around them ... or they don't. I knew immediately what I was
looking at on the first radar image I saw. I can interpolate between radar,
air photo and chart in an instant. I mentally compensate for differences in
scale and orientation. Maybe I'm one of the lucky few... but I assumed
everyone had this ability to some extent.

I would say you assumed incorrectly. You, like me,
are among the lucky few who are endowed with an
advanced brain that works like brains were designed
to work before they becamed dulled and prorammed
by MTV and liberalism.

S.Simon

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

"Bobsprit" wrote in message

| I dare you to show the post where I claimed the above!

Oh Boo Hooo Hooo cried Bob!

Bwahahahahahahahahahaaa!!!

.....here sport have a towel and dry off...[Flick]..[snap]... Ha Ha Ha Ha

CM

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

Jeff Morris wrote:
So perhaps you or Neal can explain to everyone how the horizontal
beam width affect the image.

I would imagine that it would have an effect not unlike ghosting.


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

What is ghosting?
-j

Wally wrote:
Jeff Morris wrote:
So perhaps you or Neal can explain to everyone how the horizontal
beam width affect the image.

I would imagine that it would have an effect not unlike ghosting.

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

| I dare you to show the post where I claimed the above!

Oh Boo Hooo Hooo cried Bob!

BUSTED and caught in another lie!

RB

Radar and Basic Nav.
 

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
| I can interpolate between radar,
| air photo and chart in an instant.
|
| BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!
|
| This is just TOO sad and funny all at once! Can you also cross your eyes
and
| eat a donut?
| Bwahahahaaha!

Since I've done cartography and airphoto interpolation as well as land based
navigation to locate and test geological source deposits as a living...
it's come in as a handy skill.

I've never tried to cross my eyes and eat a dounut Bob... it must be a New
York thing.