"otnmbrd" wrote in message
nk.net...
Jim Donohue wrote:
There you go again leading the charge of the luddites otn.

G I find it interesting/amusing, that from my comments below, and others
of my past post that you are responding to, you consider the term
"luddite" applicable to me.


You comments on my skills show you lack of the mental attitude that leads
to good navigation.

No, my comments on your skills are based on reading your explanations of
various navigational procedures and your conclusions regarding their
viability based on your experience and skill or lack thereof.


Ahh Bull otn...I use the same navigational procedures as you otn...and I
understand why the work something you do not. The eye is a most important
piece of navigation...unfortunately it does not work at all a great
percentage of the time. Radar is fine under some circumstances but not very
good under others. Only GPS works with accuracy all (for practical
purposes)the time. It is therefore the first of many tools employed.

You know what you know...and nobody is going to tell you
different.

G To a high degree, this is true. I also know what I don't know and
where I may be weak on a subject in which case I listen or ask questions.

You really are qualified for a deck officer role on the Royal
Majestic. They showed exactly your sort of know it all attitude..why
facts when you can postulate your opinion?

G I believe you mean the Royal Majesty. You're right, I'm qualified to
be that ship's Master. There is one difference between me and them
however.
Long ago, as we started getting more and more types and "complicated"
electronic Nav aides on board, I started making it a habit to do "system"
checks as I took over the watch, to be sure I was comfortable everything
was functioning as advertised. When I became the "Boss", I made sure my
officers did the same, and especially in piloting waters, that more than
one system was being used and compared.
Plus, having run that particular Safety Fairway, I would generally come up
and confirm we had entered it correctly.


Luckily technology and time over-rules you OTN. The march to GPS centric
navigation is going to succeed whether you like it or not. Any the
principle of position rather than bearing navigation is a certainty. And
the ATONs are going away otn...25 years from now there will be
practically none and all those will be in harbors or shifty situations
like the ICW. And the magnetic compass is on its last legs. Ten years?
Maybe 15?

We will likely live long enough to see most of this occur and watch as
you gnash your teeth otn.

Jim

I'll say it again. I love GPS. I make maximum use of GPS. I'm not gnashing
my teeth, I'm waiting in anticipation of the next great Nav Aid that makes
GPS outdated.
The argument we are having and have always had is about Navigation safety.
You want to make all navigation "GPS centric", in the sense that you
discard all other forms of navigation and carry a bunch of GPS handhelds
and spare batteries for when and if your main unit fails since most other
forms of navigation cannot match GPS for overall speed and accuracy (note
"overall").

And you again utterly misstate my position. GPS is the first skill
taught...it should be the centerpiece of the navigation system. Then
others. Certainly even the dullest of students can learn to check a chart
position via eyeball or radar. Neither has the accuracy to verify the
position and bnoth are compromised under some conditions but both are good
checks for at least gross error. A fathometer provides a way to verify that
the depth is where it should be for the position. Disagreement calls for
caution. I use a second GPS to protect against a failure and to help
resolve anomolies.

I would not teach RDF or some of the more exotic piloting techniques. I
would not teach time delay loran though I would point out that a working
LORAN also provides a gross check on the GPS.

I would not teach VOR/DME...though I have used VOR in navigating a boat.

I would teach limited celestial for a student with the right mission.

Now exactly what is it that you don't agree with and why otn?


I, on the other hand, do not agree with relying solely on one SYSTEM!!
(The Royal Majesty is a prime example of why)My experience/opinion is, you
use ALL MEANS AVAILABLE to check and double check your position.
The fact that those older systems may have drawbacks, may not be as easy,
may not always be as accurate, may not always be available, is immaterial
.... they have to save your butt only once, to make them well worth the
learning.

The Royal Majesty had at least five systems on which it was relying. It had
GPS, Loran, Depthsounder, radar and eyeball. Its procedures required their
use. The chief officer in fact lied about crucial visual sightings. You
would have fit right in otn all the right system, an easy call but no
nothing navigators who screwed it up. The message of the grounding was that
given a sufficient level of incompetence you can screw up the simplest of
tasks. It also demonstrated the level of utter incompetence available among
the "cream" of professional navigators.


As for the magnetic compass..... Lord willing you make it to a ripe old
age with a sound mind. If you do, on your death bed, try to remember to
ask someone if we are still using the magnetic compass in some form. My
guess is that your response to their answer will be ..... Chit!!


We will see otn. You really do not understand science. You simply can't
project can you?

Jim

Jim Donohue wrote:
....
Ahh Bull otn...I use the same navigational procedures as you otn...and I
understand why the work something you do not. The eye is a most important
piece of navigation...unfortunately it does not work at all a great
percentage of the time. Radar is fine under some circumstances but not very
good under others. Only GPS works with accuracy all (for practical
purposes)the time. It is therefore the first of many tools employed.

Anyone who has been on a boat knows that a GPS *DOES NOT* for all
practical purposes work all of the time. I've had a GPS fail several
times, I've seen charting inaccuracies a number of times. Similar
things have happened to almost every cruiser I know.

None of these incidents were a major problem for me because I was using
other techniques and was able to recognize the situation and compensate.

The issue here is not which technique is the most accurate, or which
should be used to the exclusion of the other. Continuing to cast it in
these terms make you look like a jaxian fool.

The issue is that you claimed it was foolish to teach someone basic
piloting, even when the person was eager to learn. This attitude marks
you as a complete fool, Jim. I hope I never meet one of your students
on the water.

....




And you again utterly misstate my position. GPS is the first skill
taught...it should be the centerpiece of the navigation system. Then
others. Certainly even the dullest of students can learn to check a chart
position via eyeball or radar.

Are you daft, man? Are you claiming now that piloting need not be
taught because "even the dullest" can do it without training? And radar
too? Bizarre, considering you've confessed to have weak radar skills!

Neither has the accuracy to verify the
position and bnoth are compromised under some conditions but both are good
checks for at least gross error. A fathometer provides a way to verify that
the depth is where it should be for the position. Disagreement calls for
caution.

True enough, however those that learn GPS first usually don't develop
these skills. This is the crux of the issue.


I use a second GPS to protect against a failure and to help
resolve anomolies.

I would not teach RDF or some of the more exotic piloting techniques. I
would not teach time delay loran though I would point out that a working
LORAN also provides a gross check on the GPS.

I would not teach VOR/DME...though I have used VOR in navigating a boat.

I would teach limited celestial for a student with the right mission.


TD's, RDF and VOR are not the issue. Bringing them into the
discussion shows you don't get it.


Now exactly what is it that you don't agree with and why otn?

You asserted that learning LOP's and DR was "utter nonsense." I think
no one should be trusted with a GPS until the learn these basics.



I, on the other hand, do not agree with relying solely on one SYSTEM!!
(The Royal Majesty is a prime example of why)My experience/opinion is, you
use ALL MEANS AVAILABLE to check and double check your position.
The fact that those older systems may have drawbacks, may not be as easy,
may not always be as accurate, may not always be available, is immaterial
.... they have to save your butt only once, to make them well worth the
learning.


The Royal Majesty had at least five systems on which it was relying. It had
GPS, Loran, Depthsounder, radar and eyeball. Its procedures required their
use. The chief officer in fact lied about crucial visual sightings. You
would have fit right in otn all the right system, an easy call but no
nothing navigators who screwed it up. The message of the grounding was that
given a sufficient level of incompetence you can screw up the simplest of
tasks. It also demonstrated the level of utter incompetence available among
the "cream" of professional navigators.

The NTSB study blamed several "probable causes:" over reliance on GPS,
and lack of training of the officers, and the failure to recognize the
problem from other cues. This is a perfect example of problem with your
approach. Claiming that your strategy works, but in this case they were
incompetent is foolish.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1997/MAR9701.pdf

Jim Donohue wrote:
"otnmbrd"
No, my comments on your skills are based on reading your explanations of
various navigational procedures and your conclusions regarding their
viability based on your experience and skill or lack thereof.



Ahh Bull otn...I use the same navigational procedures as you otn...and I
understand why the work something you do not.

To be blunt .... what a stupid statement. Look. Jim, as I've said, I
applaud your 25 years and 12,000 mi. of experience. However, because of
my 40+ years (licensed, I'll ignore what came before) and hundreds of
thousands of miles (conservatively) all over the world, plus my ongoing
pilotage, you'll excuse me if I say .... BULL****!! I use methods you've
never heard of, much less thought of. Understand them? LOL I've read
your post ...... my statements about your skill level stands, and I
understand things about most Nav SYSTEMS, you've never heard of.

The eye is a most important
piece of navigation...unfortunately it does not work at all a great
percentage of the time.

Bull****!! It doesn't matter if it's a clear day or a foggy day... the
eye, looking at visual points, radar points, GPS points, Loran
points.... then, using your brain, is the best interpreter of what's
right or wrong. The problem is to make the maximum use of which SYSTEM
is giving you the best information ..... and this can vary.

Radar is fine under some circumstances but not very
good under others.

You've made it clear that your radar skills are limited. The problem is,
that so many others also have your limited skills. One does not install
a radar on their boat and become a "radar observer", so, in this
respect, for you and most boaters, radar will not match GPS.... another
of your statements that are a "tell" for me.

Only GPS works with accuracy all (for practical
purposes)the time. It is therefore the first of many tools employed.

We could argue your "absolutes", but for the average boater, it would be
meaningless. Sorry, but it's not the "first" of many tools .... starting
from when you leave the dock, until you return. Hell, it's not
necessarily even the most important.



And you again utterly misstate my position.

I don't think so.

GPS is the first skill
taught...it should be the centerpiece of the navigation system.

No. What the hell good are those numbers if you can't make use of them?

You best learn how to read a chart and plot Lat/Long first. Then it
might be a good idea to learn what CMG means and how that relates to a
compass.

Then
others.

Yup, comes in handy knowing more than one way to plot a position and/or
determine a route to clear hazards to your navigation.

Certainly even the dullest of students can learn to check a chart
position via eyeball or radar.

True, but you've made it clear that for you ( and we must assume that
many others are the same) this is not the easiest or most accurate
method in your arsenal.

Neither has the accuracy to verify the
position

Oh? Interesting. I'm running a range (either manmade or one I've
determined, cause I can read a chart) and I pass abeam of a light house
and put a mark on my chart. Will GPS be more accurate? Faster?

and bnoth are compromised under some conditions but both are good
checks for at least gross error.

BG and you wonder why I doubt your skills.

A fathometer provides a way to verify that
the depth is where it should be for the position.

Obviously, you've never used a fathometer for navigation.

Disagreement calls for
caution. I use a second GPS to protect against a failure and to help
resolve anomolies.

I use "ALL MEANS AVAILABLE".


I would not teach RDF or some of the more exotic piloting techniques. I
would not teach time delay loran though I would point out that a working
LORAN also provides a gross check on the GPS.

G I'd call that "teaching by amateurs, for amateurs".


I would not teach VOR/DME...though I have used VOR in navigating a boat.

Neither are Marine terms that I'm familiar with

I would teach limited celestial for a student with the right mission.

Depends on whether you believe in the "half assed" approach .....
obviously you do.


Now exactly what is it that you don't agree with and why otn?

BG Obviously quite a bit.... Why? VBG Because your attitude
regarding navigation safety, sucks. Hey, personal opinion, others may vary.


The Royal Majesty had at least five systems on which it was relying. It had
GPS, Loran, Depthsounder, radar and eyeball. Its procedures required their
use. The chief officer in fact lied about crucial visual sightings. You
would have fit right in otn all the right system, an easy call but no
nothing navigators who screwed it up. The message of the grounding was that
given a sufficient level of incompetence you can screw up the simplest of
tasks. It also demonstrated the level of utter incompetence available among
the "cream" of professional navigators.

ROFLMAO The above paragraph doesn't deserve any comment, other than this
sentence and another hearty ROFLMAO !!!!
OH hell, just for you, Jim. If you're gonna try to insult me, at least
TRY to make some valid points.




As for the magnetic compass..... Lord willing you make it to a ripe old
age with a sound mind. If you do, on your death bed, try to remember to
ask someone if we are still using the magnetic compass in some form. My
guess is that your response to their answer will be ..... Chit!!



We will see otn. You really do not understand science. You simply can't
project can you?

G I remember in my youth, the statements that the magnetic compass
would soon disappear from ships because of the gyro compass .... guess
what, Jim .............

otn




otn

Ok Guys. VOR/DME
VOR stands for "Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range"
DMS stands for "Distance Measuring Equipment"

These are very useful when your boat is on a plane.
Cheers
JR


otnmbrd wrote:
Jim Donohue wrote:

"otnmbrd"

No, my comments on your skills are based on reading your explanations
of various navigational procedures and your conclusions regarding
their viability based on your experience and skill or lack thereof.



Ahh Bull otn...I use the same navigational procedures as you otn...and
I understand why the work something you do not.


To be blunt .... what a stupid statement. Look. Jim, as I've said, I
applaud your 25 years and 12,000 mi. of experience. However, because of
my 40+ years (licensed, I'll ignore what came before) and hundreds of
thousands of miles (conservatively) all over the world, plus my ongoing
pilotage, you'll excuse me if I say .... BULL****!! I use methods you've
never heard of, much less thought of. Understand them? LOL I've read
your post ...... my statements about your skill level stands, and I
understand things about most Nav SYSTEMS, you've never heard of.

The eye is a most important

piece of navigation...unfortunately it does not work at all a great
percentage of the time.


Bull****!! It doesn't matter if it's a clear day or a foggy day... the
eye, looking at visual points, radar points, GPS points, Loran
points.... then, using your brain, is the best interpreter of what's
right or wrong. The problem is to make the maximum use of which SYSTEM
is giving you the best information ..... and this can vary.

Radar is fine under some circumstances but not very

good under others.


You've made it clear that your radar skills are limited. The problem is,
that so many others also have your limited skills. One does not install
a radar on their boat and become a "radar observer", so, in this
respect, for you and most boaters, radar will not match GPS.... another
of your statements that are a "tell" for me.

Only GPS works with accuracy all (for practical

purposes)the time. It is therefore the first of many tools employed.


We could argue your "absolutes", but for the average boater, it would be
meaningless. Sorry, but it's not the "first" of many tools .... starting
from when you leave the dock, until you return. Hell, it's not
necessarily even the most important.



And you again utterly misstate my position.


I don't think so.

GPS is the first skill

taught...it should be the centerpiece of the navigation system.


No. What the hell good are those numbers if you can't make use of them?

You best learn how to read a chart and plot Lat/Long first. Then it
might be a good idea to learn what CMG means and how that relates to a
compass.

Then

others.


Yup, comes in handy knowing more than one way to plot a position and/or
determine a route to clear hazards to your navigation.

Certainly even the dullest of students can learn to check a chart

position via eyeball or radar.


True, but you've made it clear that for you ( and we must assume that
many others are the same) this is not the easiest or most accurate
method in your arsenal.

Neither has the accuracy to verify the

position


Oh? Interesting. I'm running a range (either manmade or one I've
determined, cause I can read a chart) and I pass abeam of a light house
and put a mark on my chart. Will GPS be more accurate? Faster?

and bnoth are compromised under some conditions but both are good

checks for at least gross error.


BG and you wonder why I doubt your skills.

A fathometer provides a way to verify that

the depth is where it should be for the position.


Obviously, you've never used a fathometer for navigation.

Disagreement calls for

caution. I use a second GPS to protect against a failure and to help
resolve anomolies.


I use "ALL MEANS AVAILABLE".


I would not teach RDF or some of the more exotic piloting
techniques. I would not teach time delay loran though I would point
out that a working LORAN also provides a gross check on the GPS.


G I'd call that "teaching by amateurs, for amateurs".


I would not teach VOR/DME...though I have used VOR in navigating a boat.


Neither are Marine terms that I'm familiar with


I would teach limited celestial for a student with the right mission.


Depends on whether you believe in the "half assed" approach .....
obviously you do.


Now exactly what is it that you don't agree with and why otn?


BG Obviously quite a bit.... Why? VBG Because your attitude
regarding navigation safety, sucks. Hey, personal opinion, others may vary.


The Royal Majesty had at least five systems on which it was relying.
It had GPS, Loran, Depthsounder, radar and eyeball. Its procedures
required their use. The chief officer in fact lied about crucial
visual sightings. You would have fit right in otn all the right
system, an easy call but no nothing navigators who screwed it up. The
message of the grounding was that given a sufficient level of
incompetence you can screw up the simplest of tasks. It also
demonstrated the level of utter incompetence available among the
"cream" of professional navigators.


ROFLMAO The above paragraph doesn't deserve any comment, other than this
sentence and another hearty ROFLMAO !!!!
OH hell, just for you, Jim. If you're gonna try to insult me, at least
TRY to make some valid points.




As for the magnetic compass..... Lord willing you make it to a ripe
old age with a sound mind. If you do, on your death bed, try to
remember to ask someone if we are still using the magnetic compass in
some form. My guess is that your response to their answer will be
..... Chit!!



We will see otn. You really do not understand science. You simply
can't project can you?


G I remember in my youth, the statements that the magnetic compass
would soon disappear from ships because of the gyro compass .... guess
what, Jim .............

otn




otn

And if you were sailing 25 years ago you would know that VOR was sometimes
installed on cruising sailboats. There are a number of places where VORs
are located in areas useful to sailboats.

Jim

"Jr Gilbreath" wrote in message
...
Ok Guys. VOR/DME
VOR stands for "Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range"
DMS stands for "Distance Measuring Equipment"

These are very useful when your boat is on a plane.
Cheers
JR


otnmbrd wrote:
Jim Donohue wrote:

"otnmbrd"

No, my comments on your skills are based on reading your explanations
of various navigational procedures and your conclusions regarding their
viability based on your experience and skill or lack thereof.



Ahh Bull otn...I use the same navigational procedures as you otn...and I
understand why the work something you do not.


To be blunt .... what a stupid statement. Look. Jim, as I've said, I
applaud your 25 years and 12,000 mi. of experience. However, because of
my 40+ years (licensed, I'll ignore what came before) and hundreds of
thousands of miles (conservatively) all over the world, plus my ongoing
pilotage, you'll excuse me if I say .... BULL****!! I use methods you've
never heard of, much less thought of. Understand them? LOL I've read your
post ...... my statements about your skill level stands, and I understand
things about most Nav SYSTEMS, you've never heard of.

The eye is a most important

piece of navigation...unfortunately it does not work at all a great
percentage of the time.


Bull****!! It doesn't matter if it's a clear day or a foggy day... the
eye, looking at visual points, radar points, GPS points, Loran points....
then, using your brain, is the best interpreter of what's right or wrong.
The problem is to make the maximum use of which SYSTEM is giving you the
best information ..... and this can vary.

Radar is fine under some circumstances but not very

good under others.


You've made it clear that your radar skills are limited. The problem is,
that so many others also have your limited skills. One does not install a
radar on their boat and become a "radar observer", so, in this respect,
for you and most boaters, radar will not match GPS.... another of your
statements that are a "tell" for me.

Only GPS works with accuracy all (for practical

purposes)the time. It is therefore the first of many tools employed.


We could argue your "absolutes", but for the average boater, it would be
meaningless. Sorry, but it's not the "first" of many tools .... starting
from when you leave the dock, until you return. Hell, it's not
necessarily even the most important.



And you again utterly misstate my position.


I don't think so.

GPS is the first skill

taught...it should be the centerpiece of the navigation system.


No. What the hell good are those numbers if you can't make use of them?

You best learn how to read a chart and plot Lat/Long first. Then it might
be a good idea to learn what CMG means and how that relates to a compass.

Then

others.


Yup, comes in handy knowing more than one way to plot a position and/or
determine a route to clear hazards to your navigation.

Certainly even the dullest of students can learn to check a chart

position via eyeball or radar.


True, but you've made it clear that for you ( and we must assume that
many others are the same) this is not the easiest or most accurate method
in your arsenal.

Neither has the accuracy to verify the

position


Oh? Interesting. I'm running a range (either manmade or one I've
determined, cause I can read a chart) and I pass abeam of a light house
and put a mark on my chart. Will GPS be more accurate? Faster?

and bnoth are compromised under some conditions but both are good

checks for at least gross error.


BG and you wonder why I doubt your skills.

A fathometer provides a way to verify that

the depth is where it should be for the position.


Obviously, you've never used a fathometer for navigation.

Disagreement calls for

caution. I use a second GPS to protect against a failure and to help
resolve anomolies.


I use "ALL MEANS AVAILABLE".


I would not teach RDF or some of the more exotic piloting techniques.
I would not teach time delay loran though I would point out that a
working LORAN also provides a gross check on the GPS.


G I'd call that "teaching by amateurs, for amateurs".


I would not teach VOR/DME...though I have used VOR in navigating a boat.


Neither are Marine terms that I'm familiar with


I would teach limited celestial for a student with the right mission.


Depends on whether you believe in the "half assed" approach .....
obviously you do.


Now exactly what is it that you don't agree with and why otn?


BG Obviously quite a bit.... Why? VBG Because your attitude regarding
navigation safety, sucks. Hey, personal opinion, others may vary.


The Royal Majesty had at least five systems on which it was relying. It
had GPS, Loran, Depthsounder, radar and eyeball. Its procedures
required their use. The chief officer in fact lied about crucial visual
sightings. You would have fit right in otn all the right system, an
easy call but no nothing navigators who screwed it up. The message of
the grounding was that given a sufficient level of incompetence you can
screw up the simplest of tasks. It also demonstrated the level of utter
incompetence available among the "cream" of professional navigators.


ROFLMAO The above paragraph doesn't deserve any comment, other than this
sentence and another hearty ROFLMAO !!!!
OH hell, just for you, Jim. If you're gonna try to insult me, at least
TRY to make some valid points.




As for the magnetic compass..... Lord willing you make it to a ripe old
age with a sound mind. If you do, on your death bed, try to remember to
ask someone if we are still using the magnetic compass in some form. My
guess is that your response to their answer will be ..... Chit!!



We will see otn. You really do not understand science. You simply
can't project can you?


G I remember in my youth, the statements that the magnetic compass
would soon disappear from ships because of the gyro compass .... guess
what, Jim .............

otn




otn

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...
Jim Donohue wrote:
"otnmbrd"
No, my comments on your skills are based on reading your explanations of
various navigational procedures and your conclusions regarding their
viability based on your experience and skill or lack thereof.



Ahh Bull otn...I use the same navigational procedures as you otn...and I
understand why the work something you do not.

To be blunt .... what a stupid statement. Look. Jim, as I've said, I
applaud your 25 years and 12,000 mi. of experience. However, because of my
40+ years (licensed, I'll ignore what came before) and hundreds of
thousands of miles (conservatively) all over the world, plus my ongoing
pilotage, you'll excuse me if I say .... BULL****!! I use methods you've
never heard of, much less thought of. Understand them? LOL I've read your
post ...... my statements about your skill level stands, and I understand
things about most Nav SYSTEMS, you've never heard of.

Ohhh you use something besides GPS and DR and LORAN and RADAR? Perhaps you
might have a claim on a gyro compass...but other than that I doubt you use
anything different than I do. I would agree that you likely use them at a
higher skill level and more facilely than I...but that does not change the
fact that we rely on the same technology for the same purpose. Then again I
suspect I understood some of it better than you do. Can't tell that for
sure but with your closed mind I doubt you innovate well under pressure.

The eye is a most important
piece of navigation...unfortunately it does not work at all a great
percentage of the time.

Bull****!! It doesn't matter if it's a clear day or a foggy day... the
eye, looking at visual points, radar points, GPS points, Loran points....
then, using your brain, is the best interpreter of what's right or wrong.
The problem is to make the maximum use of which SYSTEM is giving you the
best information ..... and this can vary.

You continue to confuse different issues. The eye as an instrument in
navigation is a useful one for piloting situations...particularly as a
continuous check. Its use in this way is however limited by the visibility
conditions. The eye also serves as an input device to the human but that is
a different use then navigation. Don' obfuscate the issue with the second
use.


Radar is fine under some circumstances but not very
good under others.

You've made it clear that your radar skills are limited. The problem is,
that so many others also have your limited skills. One does not install a
radar on their boat and become a "radar observer", so, in this respect,
for you and most boaters, radar will not match GPS.... another of your
statements that are a "tell" for me.

And you have made it clear you do not understand the well documented and
science based limitations of radar. This probably makes you a worse sailor
than most otn. Your view that radar always provides an accurate picture of
the physical world is a dangereous one likely to lead to bad outcomes. To
rely upon radar rather than a GPS for your primary positon is foolish under
most circumstances I can imagine. Ohh I am sure you can set up some weird
harbor situation where radar is effective and GPS is not otn...but that just
proves the old adage that there are exceptions to all rules. Now if a
positon difference exists between the radar and your chart plotter...you now
have doubt and have to use the brain to sort it out.


Only GPS works with accuracy all (for practical
purposes)the time. It is therefore the first of many tools employed.

We could argue your "absolutes", but for the average boater, it would be
meaningless. Sorry, but it's not the "first" of many tools .... starting
from when you leave the dock, until you return. Hell, it's not necessarily
even the most important.

We are talking navigation otn..navigation. Navigation is not the only task
in boating.


And you again utterly misstate my position.

I don't think so.

GPS is the first skill
taught...it should be the centerpiece of the navigation system.

No. What the hell good are those numbers if you can't make use of them?

You best learn how to read a chart and plot Lat/Long first. Then it might
be a good idea to learn what CMG means and how that relates to a compass.

I have said repeatedly that the first thing is reading and interpreting a
chart. I simply believe that you do that in view of a GPS being used to
direct the vessel. CMG is as common in GPS as in DR.

Then
others.

Yup, comes in handy knowing more than one way to plot a position and/or
determine a route to clear hazards to your navigation.

Again you deliberately mis-state my position. You obviously read badly.

Certainly even the dullest of students can learn to check a chart
position via eyeball or radar.

True, but you've made it clear that for you ( and we must assume that many
others are the same) this is not the easiest or most accurate method in
your arsenal.

I have said no such thing. You can't deal with my arguments otn so you
misstate them.

Neither has the accuracy to verify the
position

Oh? Interesting. I'm running a range (either manmade or one I've
determined, cause I can read a chart) and I pass abeam of a light house
and put a mark on my chart. Will GPS be more accurate? Faster?

Yes the GPS will be more accurate and faster. If the GPS does not agree
with the range/lighthouse you now have doubt and have to sort it. Get used
to it otn...in five or ten years that light is gone.

and bnoth are compromised under some conditions but both are good
checks for at least gross error.

BG and you wonder why I doubt your skills.

A fathometer provides a way to verify that
the depth is where it should be for the position.

Obviously, you've never used a fathometer for navigation.

Oh, and where did I say that? You don't watch depth at your positon otn?
You are so secure in your visual/radar pilotage that depth is not an issue?
Yeah right. I did not say that the only use for a fathometer is checking
position...but it is a good one.

Disagreement calls for
caution. I use a second GPS to protect against a failure and to help
resolve anomolies.

I use "ALL MEANS AVAILABLE".

And so do I...well not quite...I don't generally fire up an antiquated RDF
and locate off the local radio stations. I could. But it is time consuming
and unlikely to provide much information except under unusual circumstances.
I suppose under these circumstances you would assign a crew member to
operate the RDF and feed you cross checks but I do not have unlimited
resources on my bridge...such as it is.

I would not teach RDF or some of the more exotic piloting techniques. I
would not teach time delay loran though I would point out that a working
LORAN also provides a gross check on the GPS.

G I'd call that "teaching by amateurs, for amateurs".

I am sure you would...but you do that otn. Reach down into your mind and
see if you can explain what you would do instead otn.

I would not teach VOR/DME...though I have used VOR in navigating a boat.

Neither are Marine terms that I'm familiar with

I would teach limited celestial for a student with the right mission.

Depends on whether you believe in the "half assed" approach .....
obviously you do.

And what is your "whole assed" approach otn?

Now exactly what is it that you don't agree with and why otn?

BG Obviously quite a bit.... Why? VBG Because your attitude regarding
navigation safety, sucks. Hey, personal opinion, others may vary.


The Royal Majesty had at least five systems on which it was relying. It
had GPS, Loran, Depthsounder, radar and eyeball. Its procedures required
their use. The chief officer in fact lied about crucial visual
sightings. You would have fit right in otn all the right system, an easy
call but no nothing navigators who screwed it up. The message of the
grounding was that given a sufficient level of incompetence you can screw
up the simplest of tasks. It also demonstrated the level of utter
incompetence available among the "cream" of professional navigators.

ROFLMAO The above paragraph doesn't deserve any comment, other than this
sentence and another hearty ROFLMAO !!!!
OH hell, just for you, Jim. If you're gonna try to insult me, at least TRY
to make some valid points.

Why I think your closed mind fits very well on the bridge otn...you know
what you know...you don't know why it is true or understand the
alternatives...but you know what you know.



As for the magnetic compass..... Lord willing you make it to a ripe old
age with a sound mind. If you do, on your death bed, try to remember to
ask someone if we are still using the magnetic compass in some form. My
guess is that your response to their answer will be ..... Chit!!



We will see otn. You really do not understand science. You simply can't
project can you?

G I remember in my youth, the statements that the magnetic compass would
soon disappear from ships because of the gyro compass .... guess what, Jim
.............

otn




otn

Jr Gilbreath wrote:
Ok Guys. VOR/DME
VOR stands for "Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range"
DMS stands for "Distance Measuring Equipment"

These are very useful when your boat is on a plane.
Cheers
JR

Back in the early 80's I sailed out of Niagara on Lake Ontario. I had a
VOR nav system that was made for marine purposes. I don't recall the
manufacturer but it was about the size of an old turntable and had a
large compass dial on the top. We could tune in radio station broacast
towers all around the lake and the indicator would show the go-to arrow
against the compass rose beneath. Quite handy. But still you had to
know DR first. Fast forward to 2005. GPS is great, until the power
fails...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Jim Donohue wrote:
...
Ahh Bull otn...I use the same navigational procedures as you otn...and I
understand why the work something you do not. The eye is a most
important piece of navigation...unfortunately it does not work at all a
great percentage of the time. Radar is fine under some circumstances but
not very good under others. Only GPS works with accuracy all (for
practical purposes)the time. It is therefore the first of many tools
employed.

Anyone who has been on a boat knows that a GPS *DOES NOT* for all
practical purposes work all of the time. I've had a GPS fail several
times, I've seen charting inaccuracies a number of times. Similar things
have happened to almost every cruiser I know.

You lead an unlucky life. I have never seen a significant outage of the
GPS. I follow the tech literature on the subject. Aside from deliberate
military actions the outages are very few, far between, and limited in time
duration. As I said I have never seen one.

It is of course possible that you have a source of interference on your
boat. That does happen. It is one of the reasons that multiple GPSs are
sensible. Different devices have different weaknesses. I am sure there
are also some specific locations that have a multi-path problem. Again
though few and far between. GPS ain't perfect but it is very close. Done
with redundant instruments on the open sea it is, for all practical
purposes, perfect.

The present cruiser population is certainly and effectively completely
dependent on GPS for off shore navigation. At this point I don't think
there are many exceptions left. I have not come across a report of a
significant problem with that in a long time.

Charting inaccuracies are chart problems very close to completely. Without
gps they are hard to detect. The ones on the West coast of Mexico however
are detectible with a good LORAN.

None of these incidents were a major problem for me because I was using
other techniques and was able to recognize the situation and compensate.

The issue here is not which technique is the most accurate, or which
should be used to the exclusion of the other. Continuing to cast it in
these terms make you look like a jaxian fool.

One uses all reasonable methods available. The first and primary of these
is GPS. Your inablity to understand this simple statement is almost jaxian.

The issue is that you claimed it was foolish to teach someone basic
piloting, even when the person was eager to learn. This attitude marks
you as a complete fool, Jim. I hope I never meet one of your students on
the water.

No my argument was that basic navigation...not piloting...was better taught
with GPS as the primary technique. It was in response to an individual
teaching basic navigation with electronic aids removed. It is even possible
that the individual involved and I would end at the same end point. Just
different routings.
...




And you again utterly misstate my position. GPS is the first skill
taught...it should be the centerpiece of the navigation system. Then
others. Certainly even the dullest of students can learn to check a
chart position via eyeball or radar.

Are you daft, man? Are you claiming now that piloting need not be taught
because "even the dullest" can do it without training? And radar too?
Bizarre, considering you've confessed to have weak radar skills!

Listen carefully. Pilotage is important. One teaches navigation with the
GPS first. The first portion of that instruction is the use of charts. A
current student however should learn with the GPS positon centric techniques
rather than the LOP techniques of conventional DR. Yes eventually these get
taught also...but secondary to what is the real world.


Neither has the accuracy to verify the position and bnoth are compromised
under some conditions but both are good checks for at least gross error.
A fathometer provides a way to verify that the depth is where it should
be for the position. Disagreement calls for caution.

True enough, however those that learn GPS first usually don't develop
these skills. This is the crux of the issue.


I use a second GPS to protect against a failure and to help resolve
anomolies.

I would not teach RDF or some of the more exotic piloting techniques. I
would not teach time delay loran though I would point out that a working
LORAN also provides a gross check on the GPS.

I would not teach VOR/DME...though I have used VOR in navigating a boat.

I would teach limited celestial for a student with the right mission.


TD's, RDF and VOR are not the issue. Bringing them into the discussion
shows you don't get it.


Now exactly what is it that you don't agree with and why otn?

You asserted that learning LOP's and DR was "utter nonsense." I think no
one should be trusted with a GPS until the learn these basics.

Uhhh where did it state that learning LOPs and DR was "utter nonsense"? I
think I made such a comment about teaching a student navigation with such
techniques emphasized to the exclusion of electronic navigation. Still do.

You correctly point out that it will be difficult to teach DR/LOP after one
learns electronic navigation. That is because it is difficult to convince
the student that sufficient value exists in such techniques. You deal with
this value problem by teaching DR/LOP first. I claim simple that this in
no way prevents the knowledge of DR/LOP going away real fast. I think we
need to develop that set of DR/LOP skills that will actually stick after
electronic navigation is learned. If we can't develop such a set and
convince the newby of value then the outcome is the same.

I stress the electronic navigation first because I think it more important
they do that well than that they master an initial set of techniques they
will abandon upon learning the electronic version. First good at the
primary system then good at the secondaries.

I introduce VOR/DME and RDF merely to demonstrate that we really don't
propose to teach all available navigation techniques...only those that we
believe useful and reasonable.

I, on the other hand, do not agree with relying solely on one SYSTEM!!
(The Royal Majesty is a prime example of why)My experience/opinion is,
you use ALL MEANS AVAILABLE to check and double check your position.
The fact that those older systems may have drawbacks, may not be as easy,
may not always be as accurate, may not always be available, is immaterial
.... they have to save your butt only once, to make them well worth the
learning.


The Royal Majesty had at least five systems on which it was relying. It
had
GPS, Loran, Depthsounder, radar and eyeball. Its procedures required
their use. The chief officer in fact lied about crucial visual
sightings. You would have fit right in otn all the right system, an easy
call but no nothing navigators who screwed it up. The message of the
grounding was that given a sufficient level of incompetence you can screw
up the simplest of tasks. It also demonstrated the level of utter
incompetence available among the "cream" of professional navigators.

The NTSB study blamed several "probable causes:" over reliance on GPS, and
lack of training of the officers, and the failure to recognize the problem
from other cues. This is a perfect example of problem with your approach.
Claiming that your strategy works, but in this case they were incompetent
is foolish.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1997/MAR9701.pdf

I am reasonably familiar with the report. Find for me any mention of over
reliance on GPS. It does find fault with over reliance on the automatic
features of integrated bridge systems. It also discusses flaws in the
design of such systems. I agree that total reliance on a single GPS is not
wise. I generally run three...and two are active in the process to try to
avoid the entry errors that I believe are the worst problems with GPS
navigation. When the europeans get their system operative or the Russians
complete theirs I will almost certainly run one GPS off another system. I
will also use other inputs like depthsounders and radar to help prevent
errors.

Jim

I'm kind of surprised that worked. VOR's are so hard to pick up on
the ground that they broadcast a special test frequency at airports
for calibrating them. The signals are optimized for pick up in the
air and don't seem to hug the ground very well. Sometimes, you'll
even lose them in the air at low altitudes.

--

Roger Long



"prodigal1" wrote in message
...
Jr Gilbreath wrote:
Ok Guys. VOR/DME
VOR stands for "Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range"
DMS stands for "Distance Measuring Equipment"

These are very useful when your boat is on a plane.
Cheers
JR

Back in the early 80's I sailed out of Niagara on Lake Ontario. I
had a VOR nav system that was made for marine purposes. I don't
recall the manufacturer but it was about the size of an old
turntable and had a large compass dial on the top. We could tune in
radio station broacast towers all around the lake and the indicator
would show the go-to arrow against the compass rose beneath. Quite
handy. But still you had to know DR first. Fast forward to 2005.
GPS is great, until the power fails...

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 06:50:13 -0500, prodigal1 wrote:
I had a
VOR nav system that was made for marine purposes. I don't recall the
manufacturer but it was about the size of an old turntable and had a
large compass dial on the top. We could tune in radio station broacast
towers all around the lake and the indicator would show the go-to arrow
against the compass rose beneath.

====================================

What you describe is not a VOR but rather an RDF. VOR is an aircraft
system that gives a direct bearing to the beacon transmitter without
need to rotate the receiving antenna.