Pocket Pelorus
 

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
nk.net...


Donal wrote:


Are there people out there who are too stupid to take a running fix????

Not sure what you're grumbling about. These are "shortcuts" and means of
estimating a distance you will be off when abeam of an object and are
all part of and ways of, performing a running fix, with quick math
solutions.
They've been used by many sailors for years .... mayhaps you should try
to learn to use them .... add to your knowledge base, as it were.....

I would always double check my calculations anyway(with a proper plot) ....
wouldn't you?

So I wouldn't save any time by using the short cut!!!

It only takes a few seconds to plot a running fix. Why would you bother
with a short cut?


Regards


Donal
--

Pocket Pelorus
 

Donal wrote:


I would always double check my calculations anyway(with a proper plot) ....
wouldn't you?

These are proper plots, part of a running fix, with quick estimates to
back up other parts of your plot and calculations, for distance off
estimates.

So I wouldn't save any time by using the short cut!!!

G The idea is not to save time ....it's to quickly gain some useful
information to back up other aspects of your running fix and especially
useful if you only have the single charted point that you can use to get
your fix.

It only takes a few seconds to plot a running fix. Why would you bother
with a short cut?

It's called "cross checking" or "double checking" ..... most good
navigators use things like this as backup checks on what they are seeing
or doing ..... cost nothing and keeps you busy and focused.

otn

Pocket Pelorus
 

"Donal" wrote in message ...
"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...


Actually, I find that many in the group are more current and up to
date on many areas of navigation, than I am.

Correct!

And very correct if your talking about
navigation with no external imputs!


Joe
MSV RedCloud





Regards


Donal
--

Pocket Pelorus
 

"Wally" wrote in message ...
Joe wrote:

Im still amazed at wallys answer.

May I ask why?


Sorry Wally, I did not read your second answer.

Joe
MSV RedCloud

Pocket Pelorus
 

Joe wrote:
"Wally" wrote in message
...
Joe wrote:

Im still amazed at wallys answer.

May I ask why?


Sorry Wally, I did not read your second answer.

The second one was just to correct a number.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music

Pocket Pelorus
 

"Joe" wrote in message
om...
"Donal" wrote in message
...
"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...

Actually, I find that many in the group are more current and up to
date on many areas of navigation, than I am.

Correct!

And very correct if your talking about
navigation with no external imputs!


How would you know? You've admitted that you wouldn't have a clue how to
navigate without your electronic aids. In fact, you've claimed that it
would be impossible!



Joe
MSV RedMist


Regards


Donal
--

Pocket Pelorus
 

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...


Donal wrote:


I would always double check my calculations anyway(with a proper plot)
.....
wouldn't you?

These are proper plots, part of a running fix, with quick estimates to
back up other parts of your plot and calculations, for distance off
estimates.

So I wouldn't save any time by using the short cut!!!

G The idea is not to save time ....it's to quickly gain some useful
information to back up other aspects of your running fix and especially
useful if you only have the single charted point that you can use to get
your fix.

It only takes a few seconds to plot a running fix. Why would you bother
with a short cut?

It's called "cross checking" or "double checking" ..... most good
navigators use things like this as backup checks on what they are seeing
or doing ..... cost nothing and keeps you busy and focused.


Hmmmm!


If you are any good at mental arithmetic, then you should be able to form an
opinion directly from your observation. You will then double check it, by
plotting it on a chart. However, I will conceed that if you are unable to
do basic sums in your head, then you might have to use these short cuts.
I would like to stress that we are *all* able to better at mental arithmetic
than we think.


Regards


Donal
--

Pocket Pelorus
 

Donal wrote:
"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...


Donal wrote:


I would always double check my calculations anyway(with a proper plot)

....

wouldn't you?

These are proper plots, part of a running fix, with quick estimates to
back up other parts of your plot and calculations, for distance off
estimates.

So I wouldn't save any time by using the short cut!!!

G The idea is not to save time ....it's to quickly gain some useful
information to back up other aspects of your running fix and especially
useful if you only have the single charted point that you can use to get
your fix.

It only takes a few seconds to plot a running fix. Why would you bother
with a short cut?

It's called "cross checking" or "double checking" ..... most good
navigators use things like this as backup checks on what they are seeing
or doing ..... cost nothing and keeps you busy and focused.



Hmmmm!


If you are any good at mental arithmetic, then you should be able to form an
opinion directly from your observation. You will then double check it, by
plotting it on a chart. However, I will conceed that if you are unable to
do basic sums in your head, then you might have to use these short cuts.
I would like to stress that we are *all* able to better at mental arithmetic
than we think.

Three steps to a better Donal the Navigator:

1. Learn what these special case are.
2. Learn how to use them.
3. Go sailing and use them.

Then and only then, come back and we will discuss their merits and
shortcomings. Until then, you are making assumptions based on scanty
information.....afaic, trolling. (I'm ready to lump this with the Rules
nonsense).

otn

Pocket Pelorus
 

If you are any good at mental arithmetic, then you should be able to form an
opinion directly from your observation. You will then double check it, by
plotting it on a chart. However, I will conceed that if you are unable to
do basic sums in your head, then you might have to use these short cuts.
I would like to stress that we are *all* able to better at mental arithmetic
than we think.


Regards


Donal

Using one of these pairs of bearings will give you distance off when
the object is abeam. Combine the distance off with a bearing when
it's abeam and you have a FIX, do you not? Better than a running fix.
Isn't it?
Sorry but I'm new at this coastal navigation stuff.
Mark E. Williams

Pocket Pelorus
 

Maynard G. Krebbs wrote:


Using one of these pairs of bearings will give you distance off when
the object is abeam. Combine the distance off with a bearing when
it's abeam and you have a FIX, do you not? Better than a running fix.
Isn't it?
Sorry but I'm new at this coastal navigation stuff.
Mark E. Williams

The problem with these cases is that set and drift become a factor and
you need a reliable source/ estimate, for speed.
Best bet, is still, multiple bearings on a number of charted points, at
a particular time or point.
All of these methods are tools you can use for verification of other
methods and to narrow the errors which can arise.

otn