Jim Donohue wrote:

You are still full of BS otn.

LOL Of course I am, I'm a career seaman. The difference between us is, I
know when I'm BSing, but you have neither the experience or knowledge to
know when I am, else you'd know I never BS about navigation safety.

I make no suggestions not to use all
techniques...just that under many conditions all you got is the GPS.
...... and as just as many conditions, all you got is the "old"
methods..... i.e., it's a rare case when you can't make helpful use of
the natural conditions occurring around you, if you know what they are
and how to use them.

Survival at sea is probabilistic. If the Gods are on your case no amount of
deciphering the currents and wave shapes will save you.

Not always true .... often true, but not always.

You really think
you can detect a floating container when you can't see the bow?

You want to explain what that has to do with navigation? The discussion
is navigation, not collision/allision avoidance.


In most circumstance it is probably 80 or 90% GPS/chart...10 or 20% to all
of the other things you can do. In heavy weather and deep water it is
pretty close to 100% GPS.

Depending on the vessel and navigational equipment available, there's a
good chance that if you were in charge of a watch, for me, you would
change your ways real quick or find a new berth at the first port.


Under any circumstances the chart situation in some places is pretty sad.
For instance of the errors in the Pacific Coast of Mexico have been known
for many years...but we still await a fix. The purveyors deny responsibilty
shifting it to the charting agencies. The charting agencies show no desire
to fix the problems in our lifetime. Mostly Gov at its worst.

G I can't disagree with any of this. However, from involvement in
creating a new chart, I do know that many cartographers are trying with
limited resources to correct and upgrade our charts, with results that
could indeed be better, but their failure has more to do with idiot
politicians, than dipsquat beauracrats.


And to risk a broach because you feel uneasy? Because the waves don't look
right? Becasue you think you hear something? Sometimes I think you have
never been to sea...the number of people who hear or see things at night is
well known. Had a Captain on one occassion deploy his anchor in a 1000
fathoms because he could hear the freeway and knew we were about to go
aground. Sure he was extreme but virtually everyone has the problem to
some degree. It would take a very clear indicator before I risked my boat
against a GPS/Chart position.

LOL I think I said this once before ..... you must be a lawyer.
Go back and read what I said again. I said "if it's possible". You do
what is right for the conditions and vessel you are on .... and this MAY
involve risking a broach. YES, if the waves don't look right, you weigh
your options and proceed. YES, if you think you hear something you
shouldn't, you weigh your options and proceed ("proceed" may mean "stop").
One thing I've learned from reading your post.... you may know
celestial, you may know radar, you may have some deep sea time, etc..
BUT, the only thing you MAY be any GOOD at, is reading a GPS, and I'm
not too sure of that.
BG As to having been to sea ..... EG "I've wrung more salt water out
of my socks than you've ever floated on", to quote an old Bosn I knew.


otn

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...
Jim Donohue wrote:

You are still full of BS otn.

LOL Of course I am, I'm a career seaman. The difference between us is, I
know when I'm BSing, but you have neither the experience or knowledge to
know when I am, else you'd know I never BS about navigation safety.

I make no suggestions not to use all
techniques...just that under many conditions all you got is the GPS.
..... and as just as many conditions, all you got is the "old"
methods..... i.e., it's a rare case when you can't make helpful use of the
natural conditions occurring around you, if you know what they are and how
to use them.

Survival at sea is probabilistic. If the Gods are on your case no amount
of deciphering the currents and wave shapes will save you.

Not always true .... often true, but not always.

You really think
you can detect a floating container when you can't see the bow?

You want to explain what that has to do with navigation? The discussion
is navigation, not collision/allision avoidance.


In most circumstance it is probably 80 or 90% GPS/chart...10 or 20% to
all of the other things you can do. In heavy weather and deep water it
is pretty close to 100% GPS.

Depending on the vessel and navigational equipment available, there's a
good chance that if you were in charge of a watch, for me, you would
change your ways real quick or find a new berth at the first port.


Under any circumstances the chart situation in some places is pretty sad.
For instance of the errors in the Pacific Coast of Mexico have been known
for many years...but we still await a fix. The purveyors deny
responsibilty shifting it to the charting agencies. The charting
agencies show no desire to fix the problems in our lifetime. Mostly Gov
at its worst.

G I can't disagree with any of this. However, from involvement in
creating a new chart, I do know that many cartographers are trying with
limited resources to correct and upgrade our charts, with results that
could indeed be better, but their failure has more to do with idiot
politicians, than dipsquat beauracrats.


And to risk a broach because you feel uneasy? Because the waves don't
look right? Becasue you think you hear something? Sometimes I think you
have never been to sea...the number of people who hear or see things at
night is well known. Had a Captain on one occassion deploy his anchor in
a 1000 fathoms because he could hear the freeway and knew we were about
to go aground. Sure he was extreme but virtually everyone has the
problem to some degree. It would take a very clear indicator before I
risked my boat against a GPS/Chart position.

LOL I think I said this once before ..... you must be a lawyer.
Go back and read what I said again. I said "if it's possible". You do what
is right for the conditions and vessel you are on .... and this MAY
involve risking a broach. YES, if the waves don't look right, you weigh
your options and proceed. YES, if you think you hear something you
shouldn't, you weigh your options and proceed ("proceed" may mean "stop").
One thing I've learned from reading your post.... you may know celestial,
you may know radar, you may have some deep sea time, etc..
BUT, the only thing you MAY be any GOOD at, is reading a GPS, and I'm not
too sure of that.
BG As to having been to sea ..... EG "I've wrung more salt water out
of my socks than you've ever floated on", to quote an old Bosn I knew.


otn

Actually I am by training and a long career an engineer. It is what
seperates us OTN...you react I go for understanding.

Sure your socks are soaked in salt...so perhaps is your brain. I think with
your long time frame at mis-understanding this stuff you are very well
qualifled for say Chief Officer on the Royal Majesty. He did a truly fine
job of successfully identifying the unidentifyable...as I am sure you would.
But he was really salty.

Wish you could have been on our little trip with the "freeway" Captain...you
could have helped him set the anchor.

I prefer to navigate around floating objects as well as fixed ones. If you
ignore the floaters I assure you something you would rather avoid is likely
to occur.

Jim

Jim Donohue wrote:


Actually I am by training and a long career an engineer. It is what
seperates us OTN...you react I go for understanding.

No. I reason, while you go for understanding based solely on science and
engineering. Your problem is you don't understand how to use or make use
of the science and engineering you know, within the real world that
exist around us.


Sure your socks are soaked in salt...so perhaps is your brain. I think with
your long time frame at mis-understanding this stuff you are very well
qualifled for say Chief Officer on the Royal Majesty. He did a truly fine
job of successfully identifying the unidentifyable...as I am sure you would.
But he was really salty.

LOL I don't mis-understand this "stuff". If I had been Master or Chief
Officer on that ship, I would have realized early that "WE" had a
problem. "Salty" is not saying you have such and such a license or you
have made such and such trips. Salty is saying you've always made them
safely, taking into consideration the various conditions and noting the
possible errors in your systems and actions.


Wish you could have been on our little trip with the "freeway" Captain...you
could have helped him set the anchor.

LOL would have probably sat back and had a good laugh, as long as his
actions didn't endanger anyones safety.

I prefer to navigate around floating objects as well as fixed ones. If you
ignore the floaters I assure you something you would rather avoid is likely
to occur.

Jim


I try to ignore nothing ( not always successful), but I also try to
learn something new, every time I'm on the water, no matter how
insignificant, and unlike you, I'm still learning, not hung up on the
god, GPS.
The recent rains in S. Ca. have shown all of us, not only ways to see
currents, but the need to see the possibilities of way we can avoid many
of those dangerous floating hazards.

otn

Enjoying your little tiffs you guys. Obviously you both have a certain
amount of sense as you are both still around or else the gods have been
particularly kind....

Just come back from Fiji where we stayed for several months. Many of the
charts predate GPS's and the result is that they may be out by as much as
..33nm from the GPS position. Also the beacons shown may or may not exist due
to cyclonic weather. What does exist still is the reef system and is quite a
good idea to avoid. We watched 2 rather expensive yachts have arguments with
a reef and heard of a number more. Reefs are not much of a problem on nice
sunny days but when overcast it may become impossible to "eyeball". What to
do depends upon the circumstances.

However using GPS alone would shorten the cruise and you wouldn't have the
bother of sailing home.

jofra

"Jofra" wrote in message
...
Enjoying your little tiffs you guys. Obviously you both have a certain
amount of sense as you are both still around or else the gods have been
particularly kind....

Just come back from Fiji where we stayed for several months. Many of the
charts predate GPS's and the result is that they may be out by as much as
.33nm from the GPS position. Also the beacons shown may or may not exist
due to cyclonic weather. What does exist still is the reef system and is
quite a good idea to avoid. We watched 2 rather expensive yachts have
arguments with a reef and heard of a number more. Reefs are not much of a
problem on nice sunny days but when overcast it may become impossible to
"eyeball". What to do depends upon the circumstances.

However using GPS alone would shorten the cruise and you wouldn't have the
bother of sailing home.

jofra

Year before last we had a 38 foot sailboat enter Minerva reef by GPS. After
a couple of days decided to go out the other side via visual...Guess
what...Well they salvaged much of the equipment I understand. Seems to me
visual shortened their cruise and cost a lot of money.

Jim Donohue

Jim

Year before last we had a 38 foot sailboat enter Minerva reef by GPS.
After a couple of days decided to go out the other side via visual...Guess
what...Well they salvaged much of the equipment I understand. Seems to
me visual shortened their cruise and cost a lot of money.

Jim Donohue

Jim

Thanks for comments Jim but not sure what point you are making. Are you
suggesting that if they had gone out of the Minerva Reef using GPS they
would still have their yacht? Possibly they would. I would like to know more
about the case. What were the conditions like, time of day, position of the
sun, cloud cover, sea conditions? Also when they went inside the reef using
GPS did they know the accuracy of the chart in relation to the GPS?

cheers

jofra

It was a 39 foot Ericson by the name of Pneuma. Went aground coming out of
Minerva in November of 2003. Still has a web site. The details of the
grounding do not appear to have been made public. Conditions were close to
perfect.

I suspect Pneuma crew is not talking about what happened as the site is
silent on the subject. There is lots of discussion of the incident and the
rescue but little of the causals. Word at the time however was that they
were operating visually in almost perfect conditions.

Jim


"Jofra" wrote in message
...
Year before last we had a 38 foot sailboat enter Minerva reef by GPS.
After a couple of days decided to go out the other side via
visual...Guess what...Well they salvaged much of the equipment I
understand. Seems to me visual shortened their cruise and cost a lot of
money.

Jim Donohue

Jim

Thanks for comments Jim but not sure what point you are making. Are you
suggesting that if they had gone out of the Minerva Reef using GPS they
would still have their yacht? Possibly they would. I would like to know
more about the case. What were the conditions like, time of day, position
of the sun, cloud cover, sea conditions? Also when they went inside the
reef using GPS did they know the accuracy of the chart in relation to the
GPS?

cheers

jofra

Thanks for the info. Jim.

I can understand the crew not wanting to talk about what must have been a
devastating experience. However we all can learn from other people's
misfortunes.

Last year I attended a Power Point talk by the skipper who had lost his
yacht a month before. He explained what he had done leading up to the
grounding what he believed he had done correctly and the mis-calculations he
had made. He also answered questions. We all learned from the loss but it
must have taken considerable courage to talk to experienced yachties and
commercial fishermen on the loss.

You mentioned "Pneuma" and it is worth looking at web-site
http://www.latitude38.com/LectronicL...v21/Nov21.html

I quote in part:-

"Pneuma, Seattle-Based Ericson 39, Lost on South Minerva Reef
November 21 - Minerva Reef, South Pacific

Pneuma, the Ericson 39 from Seattle being cruised by Guy and Melissa
(no last name available) was lost Tuesday night while at anchor at South
Minerva Reef. The couple are safe. Minerva Reef is located about 250 miles
from Tonga on the way to New Zealand. It consists of two open ocean reefs,
which only fully break the surface at low tide."





Regards

Jofra








"Jim Donohue" wrote in message
news:lNEId.6837$ry.3578@fed1read05...
It was a 39 foot Ericson by the name of Pneuma. Went aground coming out
of Minerva in November of 2003. Still has a web site. The details of the
grounding do not appear to have been made public. Conditions were close
to perfect.

I suspect Pneuma crew is not talking about what happened as the site is
silent on the subject. There is lots of discussion of the incident and
the rescue but little of the causals. Word at the time however was that
they were operating visually in almost perfect conditions.

Jim


"Jofra" wrote in message
...
Year before last we had a 38 foot sailboat enter Minerva reef by GPS.
After a couple of days decided to go out the other side via
visual...Guess what...Well they salvaged much of the equipment I
understand. Seems to me visual shortened their cruise and cost a lot
of money.

Jim Donohue

Jim

Thanks for comments Jim but not sure what point you are making. Are you
suggesting that if they had gone out of the Minerva Reef using GPS they
would still have their yacht? Possibly they would. I would like to know
more about the case. What were the conditions like, time of day,
position of the sun, cloud cover, sea conditions? Also when they went
inside the reef using GPS did they know the accuracy of the chart in
relation to the GPS?

cheers

jofra