Are you proving you can't even navigate with a newsreader, jaxie?



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, you definitely said *you* know where *you* are because you have
reference points in DR.

Show us where I said that. You're fantasizing an entire discussion, jaxie.

one post up, and the entire post below

you ONLY have where you started

That's one reference point ...

it is no longer a reference point once you have moved, for you no longer know
where it is. that is a fact of physics (which you said you have a degree in)

which direction mag North
is.

That's another reference point.

really? so, if that is true and you know North is "thata way" where on the
planet are you?

jeffies, don't comment on how aircraft fly. you don't have a clew.

you should know **if** you did have that degree in physics you claim you have,
but you don't.

Its very simple, jaxie: a 20 knot crosswind affects a 100 knot airplane about
the same way that a 1 knot cross current affects a 5 knot sailboat. There
is a
major difference, however: the wind can change dramatically with little
notice
and no way to detect it, resulting in huge potential errors for the plane,
while
the current is usually well behaved, especially if you understand the local
conditions.

You never have done either, have you jaxie?



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, pahleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze ask your wife to read every last thing
you
write **before** you hit the post key. that way we won't see the trash you
wrote below.
PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. okay?

There are no aircraft flights under discussion here. However, if we're
talking
about planes where electronics might not be used, then the speed is
probably
rather low, and the wind speed could easily be 20% of the plane speed.
Worse,
you could have a significant wind shift and have no idea it happened. In
a
boat, the currents are usually under a knot, and rarely is the deviation
from
the prediction more than knot. You seem to be basing your entire claim on
the
possibility of unexpected 10 knot current in totally random directions.
This
show your complete lack of experience.

Further, your completely ignoring that fact that for piloting, a major
part
of
navigation, there are many techniques that have no analogue in flying.
But
you
wouldn't know anything about this, would you?




"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
But to claim that there is "no qualitative difference between
navigating"
a
plane and boat just shows you have no practical experience doing
either.

quite the contrary. it shows I have done both.

actually, in air nav you don't have to make as much allowance for winds,
for
the speed of the an airplane is many times the speed of the winds, for
the
aircraft flights under discussion here.

jeffies, "that fix" becomes an unknown -- and unknowable -- point the minute
you start moving. Claiming otherwise does not make it otherwise.

Every DR plot starts with a FIX. Its just that simple, jaxie, live with it.

Perhaps you should go back to that Power Squadron course you dropped out off
-
they'll probably let you in so you can learn about this stuff.



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, **if** you know where you are using known (sic) reference point,
THEN
that is called pilotage, not deduced reckoning.

you have changed the definition of the term DR to that of pilotage. you
can
change it to green Shinola if you wish but it still doesn't make it safe to
wonder around in a fog with rocks anywhere near by.

I never made any such claim. In fact, I was only asserting the simple
fact
that
DR does involve known reference points.

I've never claimed the DR was "precise," I've only claimed that it is good
enough to be useful, and a necessary skill for any skipper that wishes to
be
competent.

You're the one who claims that DR is so worthless that navigation without
GPS
is
physically impossible. And since you've admitted to being lost with two
functioning GPS's onboard, its a good thing you don't actually go sailing
at
all.



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
over the knee, jeffies brought it up as proof that DR was precise
navigating,
not me.

jeffies is not smart (without asking his wife) to use the word
"pilotage".
he
merely said something about known ladmarks. same same.


I didn't see anywhere, where Jeff introduced "pilotage" in a way to
change the definition.



..... and you, typically, took it out of context, and created a new
argument, which was unrelated to the discussion at hand, and tried to
pawn it off as "someone else said".
Lame attempt, try again.

otn

huh?

Are you proving you can't even navigate with a newsreader, jaxie?



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, you definitely said *you* know where *you* are because you have
reference points in DR.

Show us where I said that. You're fantasizing an entire discussion,
jaxie.

one post up, and the entire post below

you ONLY have where you started

That's one reference point ...

it is no longer a reference point once you have moved, for you no longer
know
where it is. that is a fact of physics (which you said you have a degree
in)

which direction mag North
is.

That's another reference point.

really? so, if that is true and you know North is "thata way" where on the
planet are you?

So tell us please, jaxie, what is the difference? So far, you have only
demonstrated your ignorance in both air and nautical navigation. Why don't you
try for space navigation?


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, don't comment on how aircraft fly. you don't have a clew.

you should know **if** you did have that degree in physics you claim you have,
but you don't.

Its very simple, jaxie: a 20 knot crosswind affects a 100 knot airplane about
the same way that a 1 knot cross current affects a 5 knot sailboat. There
is a
major difference, however: the wind can change dramatically with little
notice
and no way to detect it, resulting in huge potential errors for the plane,
while
the current is usually well behaved, especially if you understand the local
conditions.

You never have done either, have you jaxie?



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, pahleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze ask your wife to read every last thing
you
write **before** you hit the post key. that way we won't see the trash you
wrote below.
PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. okay?

There are no aircraft flights under discussion here. However, if we're
talking
about planes where electronics might not be used, then the speed is
probably
rather low, and the wind speed could easily be 20% of the plane speed.
Worse,
you could have a significant wind shift and have no idea it happened. In
a
boat, the currents are usually under a knot, and rarely is the deviation
from
the prediction more than knot. You seem to be basing your entire claim on
the
possibility of unexpected 10 knot current in totally random directions.
This
show your complete lack of experience.

Further, your completely ignoring that fact that for piloting, a major
part
of
navigation, there are many techniques that have no analogue in flying.
But
you
wouldn't know anything about this, would you?




"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
But to claim that there is "no qualitative difference between
navigating"
a
plane and boat just shows you have no practical experience doing
either.

quite the contrary. it shows I have done both.

actually, in air nav you don't have to make as much allowance for winds,
for
the speed of the an airplane is many times the speed of the winds, for
the
aircraft flights under discussion here.

Are you actually claiming that within one minute you can be anywhere in the
universe? Your grasp on reality is getting more tenuous than usual, jaxie!




"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, "that fix" becomes an unknown -- and unknowable -- point the minute
you start moving. Claiming otherwise does not make it otherwise.

Every DR plot starts with a FIX. Its just that simple, jaxie, live with it.

Perhaps you should go back to that Power Squadron course you dropped out off
-
they'll probably let you in so you can learn about this stuff.



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, **if** you know where you are using known (sic) reference point,
THEN
that is called pilotage, not deduced reckoning.

you have changed the definition of the term DR to that of pilotage. you
can
change it to green Shinola if you wish but it still doesn't make it safe to
wonder around in a fog with rocks anywhere near by.

I never made any such claim. In fact, I was only asserting the simple
fact
that
DR does involve known reference points.

I've never claimed the DR was "precise," I've only claimed that it is good
enough to be useful, and a necessary skill for any skipper that wishes to
be
competent.

You're the one who claims that DR is so worthless that navigation without
GPS
is
physically impossible. And since you've admitted to being lost with two
functioning GPS's onboard, its a good thing you don't actually go sailing
at
all.



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
over the knee, jeffies brought it up as proof that DR was precise
navigating,
not me.

jeffies is not smart (without asking his wife) to use the word
"pilotage".
he
merely said something about known ladmarks. same same.


I didn't see anywhere, where Jeff introduced "pilotage" in a way to
change the definition.



..... and you, typically, took it out of context, and created a new
argument, which was unrelated to the discussion at hand, and tried to
pawn it off as "someone else said".
Lame attempt, try again.

otn

jeffies, I stated from the get-go that there is no qualitative difference
between air and sea navigation.

It's a physics thing. get your wife to explain it to you.

So tell us please, jaxie, what is the difference? So far, you have only
demonstrated your ignorance in both air and nautical navigation. Why don't
you
try for space navigation?


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, don't comment on how aircraft fly. you don't have a clew.

you should know **if** you did have that degree in physics you claim you
have,
but you don't.

Its very simple, jaxie: a 20 knot crosswind affects a 100 knot airplane
about
the same way that a 1 knot cross current affects a 5 knot sailboat.
There
is a
major difference, however: the wind can change dramatically with little
notice
and no way to detect it, resulting in huge potential errors for the plane,
while
the current is usually well behaved, especially if you understand the
local
conditions.

You never have done either, have you jaxie?



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, pahleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze ask your wife to read every last
thing
you
write **before** you hit the post key. that way we won't see the trash
you
wrote below.

PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. okay?

There are no aircraft flights under discussion here. However, if we're
talking
about planes where electronics might not be used, then the speed is
probably
rather low, and the wind speed could easily be 20% of the plane speed.
Worse,
you could have a significant wind shift and have no idea it happened.
In
a
boat, the currents are usually under a knot, and rarely is the
deviation
from
the prediction more than knot. You seem to be basing your entire claim
on
the
possibility of unexpected 10 knot current in totally random directions.
This
show your complete lack of experience.

Further, your completely ignoring that fact that for piloting, a major
part
of
navigation, there are many techniques that have no analogue in flying.
But
you
wouldn't know anything about this, would you?




"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
But to claim that there is "no qualitative difference between
navigating"
a
plane and boat just shows you have no practical experience doing
either.

quite the contrary. it shows I have done both.

actually, in air nav you don't have to make as much allowance for
winds,
for
the speed of the an airplane is many times the speed of the winds,
for
the
aircraft flights under discussion here.

jeffies, no one has ever said you could be anywhere in the universe, only that
you can not know where in the universe you are. there are infinite number of
places to be in the universe. you would know that, jeffies, *if* you had the
degree in physics you claim you have.

Are you actually claiming that within one minute you can be anywhere in the
universe? Your grasp on reality is getting more tenuous than usual, jaxie!




"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, "that fix" becomes an unknown -- and unknowable -- point the
minute
you start moving. Claiming otherwise does not make it otherwise.

Every DR plot starts with a FIX. Its just that simple, jaxie, live with
it.

Perhaps you should go back to that Power Squadron course you dropped out
off
-
they'll probably let you in so you can learn about this stuff.



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, **if** you know where you are using known (sic) reference
point,
THEN
that is called pilotage, not deduced reckoning.

you have changed the definition of the term DR to that of pilotage. you
can
change it to green Shinola if you wish but it still doesn't make it safe
to
wonder around in a fog with rocks anywhere near by.

I never made any such claim. In fact, I was only asserting the simple
fact
that
DR does involve known reference points.

I've never claimed the DR was "precise," I've only claimed that it is
good
enough to be useful, and a necessary skill for any skipper that wishes
to
be
competent.

You're the one who claims that DR is so worthless that navigation
without
GPS
is
physically impossible. And since you've admitted to being lost with
two
functioning GPS's onboard, its a good thing you don't actually go
sailing
at
all.



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
over the knee, jeffies brought it up as proof that DR was precise
navigating,
not me.

jeffies is not smart (without asking his wife) to use the word
"pilotage".
he
merely said something about known ladmarks. same same.


I didn't see anywhere, where Jeff introduced "pilotage" in a way
to
change the definition.



..... and you, typically, took it out of context, and created a
new
argument, which was unrelated to the discussion at hand, and tried
to
pawn it off as "someone else said".
Lame attempt, try again.

otn

That fact the you "state it" doesn't make it so. The crosswind/crosscurrent
calculation may be the same, but there are lots of "qualitative" differences
between air navigation and nautical navigation. DR may have similar meanings
and similar problems in both, but navigation in general involves many
techniques, used in various combinations, as appropriate.

For example, how do you take soundings in a plane? Can you hear foghorns? Can
you read the windspeed from a lobster pot? DR by itself is just one technique,
and one that admittedly has certain limitations. But combined with other
techniques it can be quite useful.


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, I stated from the get-go that there is no qualitative difference
between air and sea navigation.

It's a physics thing. get your wife to explain it to you.

So tell us please, jaxie, what is the difference? So far, you have only
demonstrated your ignorance in both air and nautical navigation. Why don't
you
try for space navigation?


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, don't comment on how aircraft fly. you don't have a clew.

you should know **if** you did have that degree in physics you claim you
have,
but you don't.

Its very simple, jaxie: a 20 knot crosswind affects a 100 knot airplane
about
the same way that a 1 knot cross current affects a 5 knot sailboat.
There
is a
major difference, however: the wind can change dramatically with little
notice
and no way to detect it, resulting in huge potential errors for the plane,
while
the current is usually well behaved, especially if you understand the
local
conditions.

You never have done either, have you jaxie?



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, pahleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze ask your wife to read every last
thing
you
write **before** you hit the post key. that way we won't see the trash
you
wrote below.

PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. okay?

There are no aircraft flights under discussion here. However, if we're
talking
about planes where electronics might not be used, then the speed is
probably
rather low, and the wind speed could easily be 20% of the plane speed.
Worse,
you could have a significant wind shift and have no idea it happened.
In
a
boat, the currents are usually under a knot, and rarely is the
deviation
from
the prediction more than knot. You seem to be basing your entire claim
on
the
possibility of unexpected 10 knot current in totally random directions.
This
show your complete lack of experience.

Further, your completely ignoring that fact that for piloting, a major
part
of
navigation, there are many techniques that have no analogue in flying.
But
you
wouldn't know anything about this, would you?




"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
But to claim that there is "no qualitative difference between
navigating"
a
plane and boat just shows you have no practical experience doing
either.

quite the contrary. it shows I have done both.

actually, in air nav you don't have to make as much allowance for
winds,
for
the speed of the an airplane is many times the speed of the winds,
for
the
aircraft flights under discussion here.

So you are claiming that you have absolute no knowledge of where you are! You
actually believe that within one minute of leaving your mooring you could be
sailing on the seas of Titan!

This explains a lot jaxie!

Its quite simple, either you believe that you can give an approximate position
based on somewhat imprecise information, or you think the concept is so flawed
its not even worth trying. You keep claiming the latter is true.

This is why you'll never be a sailor, jaxie.



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, no one has ever said you could be anywhere in the universe, only that
you can not know where in the universe you are. there are infinite number of
places to be in the universe. you would know that, jeffies, *if* you had the
degree in physics you claim you have.

Are you actually claiming that within one minute you can be anywhere in the
universe? Your grasp on reality is getting more tenuous than usual, jaxie!




"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, "that fix" becomes an unknown -- and unknowable -- point the
minute
you start moving. Claiming otherwise does not make it otherwise.

Every DR plot starts with a FIX. Its just that simple, jaxie, live with
it.

Perhaps you should go back to that Power Squadron course you dropped out
off
-
they'll probably let you in so you can learn about this stuff.



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, **if** you know where you are using known (sic) reference
point,
THEN
that is called pilotage, not deduced reckoning.

you have changed the definition of the term DR to that of pilotage. you
can
change it to green Shinola if you wish but it still doesn't make it safe
to
wonder around in a fog with rocks anywhere near by.

I never made any such claim. In fact, I was only asserting the simple
fact
that
DR does involve known reference points.

I've never claimed the DR was "precise," I've only claimed that it is
good
enough to be useful, and a necessary skill for any skipper that wishes
to
be
competent.

You're the one who claims that DR is so worthless that navigation
without
GPS
is
physically impossible. And since you've admitted to being lost with
two
functioning GPS's onboard, its a good thing you don't actually go
sailing
at
all.



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
over the knee, jeffies brought it up as proof that DR was precise
navigating,
not me.

jeffies is not smart (without asking his wife) to use the word
"pilotage".
he
merely said something about known ladmarks. same same.


I didn't see anywhere, where Jeff introduced "pilotage" in a way
to
change the definition.



..... and you, typically, took it out of context, and created a
new
argument, which was unrelated to the discussion at hand, and tried
to
pawn it off as "someone else said".
Lame attempt, try again.

otn