DR practice
 

no, joe, you are only guessing. as any pilot on the planet would tell you.

DR is speed vs time vs direction pointed, and your best guess as to where
that
puts you. that's it, nothing more.


Not that simple Jax. But let me try to help you to understand.

You go 5 knots " speed" "pointed" west thru a current that is going 5
knot to the north. You can do a DR plot that will tell you the
direction you actually went not the direction you were pointed. And it
will also take in account of current speed that may help or hinder
your speed. It's a real easy plot. Take out an old chart if you have
one and use the compass rose to help.... that's the way we teach the
kindergardners here.

Good Luck, and dont hurt yourself. Ask your mom for a crayon.

Joe

DR practice
 

over the knee, it sounds like you are starting to back peddle in anticipation
of **finally** understanding the concept of relative motion.

maybe, over the knee, you don't know what reference points are, or what
constitutes a reference point. jeffies, doesn't/didn't.

like Ragu, "It's in there".

jax, you really,really do need help with "reading comprehension".
You can't just take what someone writes and interpret it to suit your
needs or point of view ..... go back and read what he said, then before
you write something, take the time to think what it means.

otn

DR practice
 

JAXAshby wrote:
huh?

Well waddya know, an intelligent post. Navigation/navigating includes
the entire process of getting between point A and B. A big difference in
boats is that you can stop and check your work, whereas with a plane you
can't (well, you can circle for awhile, if you have the fuel). One
reason straight DR in zero visibility may be frowned on with planes.

otn

There is absolutely no qualitative difference between navigating an

airplane

and navigating a boat, except the airplane also has an instrument to tell

you

how far above the ground you are. none.


Don't know too many planes that can stop in midair and hover till they
figure things out....... (just for starters)

otn

DR practice
 

If you want to sail a course of 080, at a speed of 10 knots and you
sail thru a current having an ------------------ estimated
-------------------- set of 140 and a drift of two
knots
What would be your course and speed made good?.

089, 11.14 knots.

correction: that is an *estimated* 089, and an *estimated* 11.14 knots.

And even that *estimation* is off by whatever leeway you get from the wind,
whatever variation you get as to speed and direction, plus whatever variation
you get between the direction the boat points and which way it heads under
pefect conditions, plus whatever variation you get in pointing and speed due to
waves and wave direction and speed and height.

DR practice
 

JAXAshby wrote:

correction: that is an *estimated* 089, and an *estimated* 11.14
knots.

It's accurate with respect to the mathmatical principle being employed.


And even that *estimation* is off by whatever leeway you get from the
wind, whatever variation you get as to speed and direction, plus
whatever variation you get between the direction the boat points and
which way it heads under pefect conditions, plus whatever variation
you get in pointing and speed due to waves and wave direction and
speed and height.

I am perfectly aware that DR is not precise when applied in the field.
However, the principle has to be applied precisely when working out the
vectors - to do otherwise would be to introduce another layer of potential
error. The point is to produce the best estimate you can on the basis of the
available information. To take a bunch of estimates, and then screw up the
numbers would be stupid.


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

DR practice
 

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.

DR practice
 

One
reason straight DR in zero visibility may be frowned on with planes.

no, the reason it is illegal is that you can not know where you are. period,
as in can not.

DR in a boat is okay when you are hundreds of miles from any rocks. It is not
okay when there is anything around to hit.

recreational boats regularly hit the rocks in fog upto recent history with the
advent of cheap Lorans and later GPS's and to a limited extent RDF (which had
much higher degrees of uncertainty).

DR practice
 

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

DR practice
 

"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.
Time for those meds.

listen to me. you do NOT have reference points in DR.
you ONLY have where you started

That's one reference point ...

(and you don't even know where that is once
you have started), your speed through the medium and which direction mag North
is.

That's another reference point.

That's it.

I think "2" is substantially difference than "0." You've just admitted that DR
has two reference points. Maybe you're catching on after all, jaxie.



No jaxie, I didn't mention "known ladmarks" and I wasn't referring to
"pilotage." Its very simple: any DR plot begins with a known reference
point
called a "fix." If you knew anything about DR you would understand that. I
would guess that most pilots know what their starting point is - that's a
reference point.




"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
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.

DR practice
 

Good Grief Jaxxies....... you are as idiotic as I originally assumed.

You have failed to locate the Gulf Stream..... you have failed to navigate
your way out of the idiotic stream of incredulous idiocy you've managed to
sail into inadvertently.

When confronted with common sense advise you simply retract your head like a
turtle and attempt to avoid the obvious.

I can tell this while inebriated.... imagine how many of the sober are
holding you to ridicule!

CM

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
| One
| reason straight DR in zero visibility may be frowned on with planes.
|
| no, the reason it is illegal is that you can not know where you are.
period,
| as in can not.
|
| DR in a boat is okay when you are hundreds of miles from any rocks. It is
not
| okay when there is anything around to hit.
|
| recreational boats regularly hit the rocks in fog upto recent history with
the
| advent of cheap Lorans and later GPS's and to a limited extent RDF (which
had
| much higher degrees of uncertainty).

DR practice
 

"Wally" wrote in message ...
Joe wrote:
If you want to sail a course of 080, at a speed of 10 knots and you
sail thru a current having an estimated set of 140 and a drift of two
knots
What would be your course and speed made good?.

089,

exactly

11.14 knots.

..6 knots off, but close this aint horseshoes.


If you want to sail a course of 095 through a current having a set of
170 and a drift of 2.5 knots, using a speed of 12 knots
What would be your course and speed made good?.

106, 12.88 knots.

correct on the course. Still just a bit off on the speed.

What course should you have steered to get a cog of 095?


You want to sail a course of 265 and a speed of 15 knots through a
current having a set of 185 and a drift of 3 knots
What would be your course and speed made good?.

254,

Good, what course should you have steered to make a COG of 265?

15.8 knots.

One knot off.

Hell of alot better than Jax.

Joe

DR practice
 

JAXAshby wrote:
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.


Oh? How much allowance do you give for currents on these airplanes?

otn

DR practice
 

ROFLMAO How do you come up with these responses?!!

otn

JAXAshby wrote:
over the knee, it sounds like you are starting to back peddle in anticipation
of **finally** understanding the concept of relative motion.


maybe, over the knee, you don't know what reference points are, or what
constitutes a reference point. jeffies, doesn't/didn't.

like Ragu, "It's in there".

jax, you really,really do need help with "reading comprehension".
You can't just take what someone writes and interpret it to suit your
needs or point of view ..... go back and read what he said, then before
you write something, take the time to think what it means.

otn

DR practice
 

ROFLMAO ....

JAXAshby wrote:
over the knee, it is physically impossible to know where you are without
outside references. if you doubt that, call any local college tomorrow
morning, ask for the physics dept and ask the first TA who answers the phone.
Don't be bothered that he or she is only maybe 19 years old. he or she knows
the answer even if you don't.


You are wrong when you say "DR" is never dead on (but that's beyond
your knowledge or experience).


absolutely not. it is physically impossible. period. (except by random
chance, but that defeats the definition).

ROFL. Jax, we all ready know you don't understand the terms used in
"DR", or how it can be applied/used, and the possible variations in
meaning that others may have for the term and it's use.
How then could we expect you to understand that "DR" can be "dead on" in
many cases, but your total lack of experience and low levels of
comprehension put this possibility way beyond your ability to understand?

otn

DR practice
 

"Capt. Mooron" wrote:


When confronted with common sense advise you simply retract your head like a
turtle and attempt to avoid the obvious.

A gross and cruel libel on turtles.

--
Flying Tadpole

-------------------------
Henpecked? Harrassed? Harangued? Join the chorus:
http://music.download.com/internetopera
http://www.internetopera.netfirms.com

DR practice
 

List Jackass and listen good. DR in flying is just compass and speed. In
marine navigation it is compass, speed, leeway, current and tide. By
allowing for these variables accuracy is much greater.


Cheers

JAXAshby wrote:

jeffies, you definitely said *you* know where *you* are because you have
reference points in DR. listen to me. you do NOT have reference points in DR.
you ONLY have where you started (and you don't even know where that is once
you have started), your speed through the medium and which direction mag North
is. That's it.


No jaxie, I didn't mention "known ladmarks" and I wasn't referring to
"pilotage." Its very simple: any DR plot begins with a known reference
point
called a "fix." If you knew anything about DR you would understand that. I
would guess that most pilots know what their starting point is - that's a
reference point.




"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...

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.

DR practice
 

Yes that about sums your knowledge up.

Cheers

JAXAshby wrote:

yeah, all that physics science stuff.

DR practice
 

in the world of super computers, that used to be called "double-precision
[meaning calculated to 16 decimal places] guesswork".


precision math does not make guesses more accurate.

correction: that is an *estimated* 089, and an *estimated* 11.14
knots.

It's accurate with respect to the mathmatical principle being employed.


And even that *estimation* is off by whatever leeway you get from the
wind, whatever variation you get as to speed and direction, plus
whatever variation you get between the direction the boat points and
which way it heads under pefect conditions, plus whatever variation
you get in pointing and speed due to waves and wave direction and
speed and height.

I am perfectly aware that DR is not precise when applied in the field.
However, the principle has to be applied precisely when working out the
vectors - to do otherwise would be to introduce another layer of potential
error. The point is to produce the best estimate you can on the basis of the
available information. To take a bunch of estimates, and then screw up the
numbers would be stupid.


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

DR practice
 

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.

DR practice
 

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

DR practice
 

jeffies, you really, really, really need to have your wife check your posts
before you hit the send key.

DR practice
 

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?

DR practice
 

Hell of alot better than Jax.

Joe


yup, joe, you sure are one incredible alchemist. you can perform precision
math on guesses and turn them into precision guesses. I am impressed.

DR practice
 

whatever their speed and direction relative to your speed and direction. is
that hard for you to understand, over the knee?

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.


Oh? How much allowance do you give for currents on these airplanes?

otn

DR practice
 

gee, over the knee, just when you seem to be starting to grasp the elemental
concepts you blast off into you spirally world again, lost to the real world.

ROFLMAO How do you come up with these responses?!!

otn

JAXAshby wrote:
over the knee, it sounds like you are starting to back peddle in
anticipation
of **finally** understanding the concept of relative motion.


maybe, over the knee, you don't know what reference points are, or what
constitutes a reference point. jeffies, doesn't/didn't.

like Ragu, "It's in there".

jax, you really,really do need help with "reading comprehension".
You can't just take what someone writes and interpret it to suit your
needs or point of view ..... go back and read what he said, then before
you write something, take the time to think what it means.

otn

DR practice
 

verifying a new to you concept by checking with those educated in the hard
sciences in the specific area under discussion is something that makes you
laugh, over the knee?

how sad.

ROFLMAO ....

JAXAshby wrote:
over the knee, it is physically impossible to know where you are without
outside references. if you doubt that, call any local college tomorrow
morning, ask for the physics dept and ask the first TA who answers the
phone.
Don't be bothered that he or she is only maybe 19 years old. he or she
knows
the answer even if you don't.


You are wrong when you say "DR" is never dead on (but that's beyond
your knowledge or experience).


absolutely not. it is physically impossible. period. (except by
random
chance, but that defeats the definition).

ROFL. Jax, we all ready know you don't understand the terms used in
"DR", or how it can be applied/used, and the possible variations in
meaning that others may have for the term and it's use.
How then could we expect you to understand that "DR" can be "dead on" in
many cases, but your total lack of experience and low levels of
comprehension put this possibility way beyond your ability to understand?

otn

DR practice
 

nav, are you saying that making more guesses *improves* the accuracy of prior
guesses?

mathematically, additional guesses degrades the accuracy of prior guesses.

what's more, aircraft also make leeway and also have current and actually have
air density differences (similar effect as the tide you mention re boats)

List Jackass and listen good. DR in flying is just compass and speed. In
marine navigation it is compass, speed, leeway, current and tide. By
allowing for these variables accuracy is much greater.


Cheers

JAXAshby wrote:

jeffies, you definitely said *you* know where *you* are because you have
reference points in DR. listen to me. you do NOT have reference points in
DR.
you ONLY have where you started (and you don't even know where that is
once
you have started), your speed through the medium and which direction mag
North
is. That's it.


No jaxie, I didn't mention "known ladmarks" and I wasn't referring to
"pilotage." Its very simple: any DR plot begins with a known reference
point
called a "fix." If you knew anything about DR you would understand that.
I
would guess that most pilots know what their starting point is - that's a
reference point.




"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...

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.

DR practice
 

In other words, this discussion has gone way beyond your limited capacity to
understand.

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.

DR practice
 

so, nav, because I know that science stuff while you don't that means "that
science stuff" does not affect where *you* are when *you* are wondering around
in a fog with only a compass and speed indicator?

how sad that you think ignorance protects you.

Yes that about sums your knowledge up.

Cheers

JAXAshby wrote:

yeah, all that physics science stuff.

DR practice
 

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

DR practice
 

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?

DR practice
 

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.

DR practice
 

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

DR practice
 

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?

DR practice
 

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.

DR practice
 

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

DR practice
 

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.

DR practice
 

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

DR practice
 

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.

DR practice
 

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