On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:57:25 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote:
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.

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

They were more popular on sailboats where mast height gives some
additional range. They were popular for coastal cruisers and racers
for a while because they were easier to use and more accurate than an
RDF. One of the biggest problems with RDF was that in addition to
determining bearing to the transmitter, you also needed an accurate
boat heading at the same instant. I would take the RDF bearing and
yell "mark" at the moment I had it. My wife had to note the compass
heading at the same time that I yelled. We would repeat this several
times and average the results. If you were plus or minus 2 or 3
degrees, that was a good LOP. On a 3 bearing fix from 10 miles
offshore, your uncertainty triangle was frequently 1 mile on each
side.

With VOR, all you had to do was read the bearing from the dial,
usually accurate to about 1 or 2 degrees.

Rico,

One of the best books ever written on "the old ways" is available for
free on the internet:

http://www.irbs.com/bowditch/

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


On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:05:31 -0600, "Rico"
wrote:

Good Morning Roger!
I just read your thread. I was moved by it. I am a neophyte sailor who has
been avidly sailing and living aboard for over six years on a small racing
sloop (7.7m). I conclude from your edress that you're in New England.
I know it won't be possible for me to come to you, so would you consider
passing on " that something rich and rewarding" to someone eager to learn it
as opposed to having it passing "from my life" and being lost forever.
Although I have and use the new GPS technology I am eager to learn the old
ways. My problem is I can't afford the schools for celestial navigation etc.
If interested would you be interested in a "distance learning program" with
me. Then perhaps in the future we can establish a time when I can come to
your location over a long weekend or personal vacation to test and apply
what I've learned. Maybe this is a crazy idea to you, but I hope you will
find someone to whom you can "pass down'' this knowledge and experience so
that it can be perpetuated instead of lost.

Rico
S/V OSAZZE
"Roger Long" wrote in message
.. .
The post about taking your charts with a grain of salt and using all
available information brings up the conundrum I'm facing as I return
to sailing after nearly 20 years.

Most of my command time was in simple, traditional, boats. The most
complex instrument on board was my usually watch. I didn't even have a
depth sounder or speedometer and navigated clock and compass exactly
as was done 100 years ago. Since I sailed in Maine, I saw a lot of fog
and made a lot of long runs this way.

Never in a boat have I felt more aware and in touch with my
surroundings then when enveloped in that gray cocoon with buoys and
ledges occasionally moving through it, usually right on schedule. The
faint sound of a wave on rock, the darkening of the fog where a
headland blocked the light, a change in wave patterns as I passed a
gap in a protecting chain of islands or ledges, all helped confirm
that my chart work was right.

Some of the later boats I chartered had Loran but I never turned it
on. I didn't want to be distracted by learning it and using the old
ways was a big part of the enjoyment of cruising. I used (and taught
when I was a piloting instructor) very simple methods that would be
less likely to let me down when tired or busy. Instead of speed and
distance calculations, I would just set my dividers to the boat's
speed on the scale and then do everything in time.

On one of my last charters, a hurricane threatened. We were way
downeast and the owner insisted that we had to get sixty miles back to
his mooring in dense fog instead of tucking the boat into a hole and
riding it out. It was one of the thickest fogs I have ever seen. We
ran through most of Fox Island Thoroughfare without seeing either
shore. It was a memorable day.


I learned how to fly airplanes a few years later and that put
navigation in a whole new light. The plane had Loran and GPS but I
refused to turn them on for the first three years so that I would
develop the map and eyeball skills and a feel for the distances and
speed. Now I use the magic boxes all the time but, in some ways, my
situational awareness is less. I track a position that I can transfer
to the paper map it the power fails but it is different. I used to be
flying over the land and identified fixes below. Now I am flying over
the map. You get lazy fast, especially with all the other things to
attend to in an airplane.

Now that I am about to return to boat piloting, I'm unsure about the
place of GPS in my life. The old ways were a big part of cruising for
me. Ride a cable car up a mountain in Switzerland and you may see
people with ropes hanging by their fingernails trying to get the same
place you are going. The rational is similar. I'd also like my video
gaming kids to learn what the human mind can accomplish without the
aid of a microprocessor.

But, is it responsible? It certainly won't be seen as such if I ever
hit anything. On the other hand, I know of many aircraft accidents
that were clearly caused by the pilot trying to use the box instead of
his mind. I always used to know where I was. I'm not sure narrowing it
down with an electronic cursor will significantly increase my safety
in most circumstances.

The strongest rational I can see for relating my place in life to
invisible satellites instead of the landscape I can see around me is
backup for my macroprocessor. If I should fall overboard or become
incapacitated, the kids can either tell the Coast Guard, "We're right
here", or follow the cursor home. I'd like to think I could teach them
to do the same thing the old way but, face it, they know about GPS,
they aren't going to be very interested in learning that, "other
stuff".

I like gadgets though. I have an old aviation GPS that will give me
latitude, longitude, and waypoints. I can't knowingly leave it ashore.
I'll have to buy a marine unit for my new job as Harbormaster. I won't
leave that behind either. Once I turn them on, I know I'll be hooked
and something very rich and rewarding will have passed from my life
forever.


--

Roger Long

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:18:02 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote:

Now that I am about to return to boat piloting, I'm unsure about the
place of GPS in my life. The old ways were a big part of cruising for
me. Ride a cable car up a mountain in Switzerland and you may see
people with ropes hanging by their fingernails trying to get the same
place you are going. The rational is similar. I'd also like my video
gaming kids to learn what the human mind can accomplish without the
aid of a microprocessor.

You have a good approach. Consider using the GPS for confirmation only
of your DR plots and running fixes when conditions are less than
ideal. Keep using the same safety margins as when you are doing
straight pilotage. I find I use the GPS mostly for SOG, to alert me to
set and drift due to non-obvious currents, and for ETAs, at which it
is handy for placating the crew G.

Lat/lon is helpful in confirming my navigation, not replacing it. It
does allow me to "sneak up" on things somewhat more safely, like a
buoy marking a shoal (not too shoal for me, but close). In fog, the
GPS allows me to know whether I'm on the "good side" of it, and as I
get close to its actual position (noted as a waypoint and not quite
correctly noted on the chart, BTW), I can ignore the GPS and "listen"
for the buoy's creaking and splash. So I keep the old skills up. The
GPS is like a jackline: just another safety tool that is only very
occasionally a life saver.

Offshore, I'd go celestial and use GPS to obtain times and to see if
my errors were shrinking.

R.

Jim Donohue wrote:


Ohhh you use something besides GPS and DR and LORAN and RADAR?

G I'm assuming you just mentioned those 4 for brevity.

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.

I don't doubt in the least that you may have a greater understanding of
some of the "engineering" involved with the electronic systems in
discussion. However, where their practical application is concerned.....
In that vein, I suspect you consider my mind closed because I disagree
with your approach and reasoning that goes with that approach.



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.

G Then don't denigrate the use of the "eye" because on some days the
visibility may be less than perfect.


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.

NO Jim. I fully understand the documented and science based limitations
of radar. More importantly, I also understand the operator/observer
limitations and plusses. I have never stated that radar ALWAYS provides
an accurate picture ... it can't for many obvious reasons.
However, in the hands of a competent operator/observer, radar becomes a
highly accurate tool of navigation and in many cases a better "primary"
tool for positions due to it's relatively quick update and "birds eye" view.
I don't need to set up some weird harbor condition to show this, G as
I frequently use radar as my primary and GPS as my secondary.


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

I was keeping to the subject at hand.

snip I was going to comment on a few issues, but then I came to this next.


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.

Interesting. Please explain how GPS will be faster and/or more accurate.
Which is most apt to show an error which may cause you problems?
As for the last sentence .... Jim, I chose a "lighthouse". I could have
said "buoy", but we both know why that wouldn't be good. I could also
have said a point of land, a charted building, etc..
Hopefully, those with seagoing experience who understand the value of
lighthouses even in this "GPS Centric" age will keep that house operating.



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.

Sheesh, and you say I misstate and misread.
Jim, I said obviously you've never used the fathometer for "navigation".
I was referring to the practice of determining your position based on
soundings alone. It's one of those "innovations" you use, under pressure.


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.

Hey, sometimes that's all you need.

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.

G Using an RDF is like reading a Radar. I doubt most young Mates would
be too competent, so if it got to that point I'd probably leave them
behind the Radar, etc., while I did the RDF..... course, with all else
available, I must all ready be in deep doodoo if I'm having to revert to
that, but hey, sometimes that's all you need.


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 don't like your basic approach "start at the top and work backwards".
I still firmly believe in starting at the bottom and working up gives a
far better understanding of the issues involved.


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


And what is your "whole assed" approach otn?

See answer above.


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.

Sometimes, your conclusions astound me. This is one of them.
The Captain and Mates on the Majesty screwed up in many ways. The
central screw-up was being "GPS Centric". They relied solely on the GPS
and it's high end plotter and auto pilot, when all around them were
tools which were showing that a problem existed, if they'd just used them.

otn

"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 04:49:38 -0800, "Jim Donohue"
wrote:

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.

I doubt this very much. I.e., I severly doubt that if GPS shut down
tomorrow, the present cruiser population who are off shore are suddenly
all doomed to die because they don't have any other means of navigation.
Maybe one or two, but the percentage is tiny.


And I agree and never said otherwise. Most will adopt quickly. Many have
celestial skills though likely very rusty. DR will suffice for the rest. I
would however expect the accident rate to go up by an order of magnitude or
more. Still a small percentage though.
[...]

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

Wow, we're making progress. So you finally do agree with the rest of
everyone else here that, while it's fine to have GPS as a primary means
of navigation, relying totally on GPS without checking it against other
reasonable methods of navigation is foolhardy.

Steve

Bull Steve...you Luddites simply read to confirm your opinions. I have
never anywhere suggested any such thing. Did you notice that Jeff Morris
cannot even read an NTSB report without getting it wrong? The actual
conclusions do not meet his pre-conception so he simply misquotes them. You
technophobes are all alike.

Jim

"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.

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

Neither are Marine terms that I'm familiar with

And here is one where your skills are clearly less than mine. I would be
very comfortable doing VOR navigation under approprate circumstances.

snip

Jim

Jim Donohue wrote:
"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.


Snip

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

Neither are Marine terms that I'm familiar with

And here is one where your skills are clearly less than mine. I would be
very comfortable doing VOR navigation under approprate circumstances.


snip


Jim



I bow to your expertise on this subject.

otn

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:10:28 GMT, otnmbrd
wrote:


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.

Sometimes, your conclusions astound me. This is one of them.
The Captain and Mates on the Majesty screwed up in many ways. The
central screw-up was being "GPS Centric". They relied solely on the GPS
and it's high end plotter and auto pilot, when all around them were
tools which were showing that a problem existed, if they'd just used them.


Actually, the GPS was not in use. It was just that nobody thought to
check if it was for 600 nm. Reconnecting the antenna would have solved
the problem, as would have several of the other things nobody bothered
to check.

They were "integrated-bridge-system centric." A significant
difference.





Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a

"If any question why we died
Tell them, because our fathers lied." --Kipling

Jim Donohue wrote:
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

Jim Donohue wrote:

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.

You mean, other that the outages that have happened, there have been none?

I'll admit the system has been pretty stable but individual satellites
are taken down which causes minor hiccups. Several weeks ago, my wife's
car GPS was off by a quarter mile for about 5 minutes - I have no idea
what the cause was, but it could have been a problem on a boat.


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 problem that has bit me a few times is that I use a handheld which
is connected to its cable every time I use the boat. If the power
connection isn't solid, it can fall back to battery power, and then shut
off a few hours later. I keep spare cables and batteries, but when it
happens, I'm down for a few minutes.

And although I often have a chart cartridge, I've found occasional
"dropouts" in the coverage - rather disconcerting when you're in a
tricky section of the ICW and the chart screen suddenly goes blank.

On my previous boat (Nonsuch 30) I would lose signal sometimes. I
assumed it was from the wishbone boom, but others claimed the antennae
was too low and the signal was blocked by crew members; perhaps both
causes were factors.

I've never been hit by lightning, by I know many others that have, and
the GPS is frequently a victim. I've also heard of GPS's damaged by
power spikes. Actually, the first time I took a GPS on a trip its menu
button was damaged so it was virtually useless.

Having a spare GPS, and batteries, cables, etc. on board is useful and
prudent, but it doesn't help when you lose the primary in a tricky
situation.

While these problems are infrequent, and often "operator error" it does
not mean they don't happen. And having a strategy to cope, such as
carrying a redundant GPS doesn't help you for the time it takes find it
and fire it up.



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.

What's your point? The vast majority of boaters don't go offshore. And
obviously, piloting techniques are not commonly used off shore. You
keep trying to equate piloting with celestial; they're are not the same
thing.


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.

Without GPS the charting inaccuracies would not be as important. As I
mentioned before, I watched a trawler run aground because they trusted
the GPS and didn't watch the depth.





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 question isn't what should be used first; the question is what
should be taught first. Your inability to understand that is beyond jaxian.

Teaching someone GPS before basic piloting is like teaching children how
to use a calculator before teaching them the addition table.





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.

Actually, the case was that someone was learning how to do LOP's and DR
and wasn't interested in LORAN. You called this "utter nonsense." I
call your attitude "sheer stupidity."


It is even possible
that the individual involved and I would end at the same end point. Just
different routings.

It is remotely possible, but someone who learns how to use a GPS first
is rather unlikely to then learn basic piloting. And this is the
essential point of my argument. Anyone can teach them self how to use a
GPS; learning piloting usually takes instruction and practice. If I
only have a student for a few hours, I'd rather spend time on something
that's harder to learn, and just as important. Most of the concepts of
piloting relate to GPS usage, so nothing is wasted.


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.

One person might do that, the rest of us will teach properly, thank you.

The first portion of that instruction is the use of charts.

agreed.

A
current student however should learn with the GPS positon centric techniques
rather than the LOP techniques of conventional DR.

DR doesn't involve LOPs. Its clear your understanding in this area is weak.

Yes eventually these get
taught also...but secondary to what is the real world.

Eventually? Yea, right.



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.

Perhaps you should re-read your fist post in this thread. Dave said his
daughter was enjoying learning LOP's and DR, and wasn't interested in
the Loran. Your response was "Ohh stop...what utter nonsense." You
went on to spew more silliness which only served to make you feel
important and make everyone else think you're a fool.

Nowhere was it mentioned that Dave's daughter would not go on to learn
other techniques, or that she was even destined to be a boat's
navigator. It was only stated that she enjoyed learning basic piloting.

Frankly criticizing anyone for wanting to learn almost anything is a
mark of a very small mind.



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.

There's a bit more to it, but OK ...

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.

The way to do this is to actively practice "manual techniques" even
while using a GPS. I've never known someone who learned GPS first who
did this. However, once you have actually navigated by LOP's, or
following depth contours, or watching "danger bearings," it starts to
become automatic. When I see a buoy line up with a point of land, I
mentally follow the line on the chart and check the depth I should be
in. It only takes a second, but would someone who had never done that
"for real" bother to do it?


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.

Too bad the world doesn't work this way. We could teach calculators in
the third grade because the kids could be trusted to learn long division
later.

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.

There are lots of techniques that are arcane or obsolete. They may be
of interest to the advanced navigator or hobbies, but they are in a
different category from piloting, especially when the equipment isn't
often carried on board.



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.

Calling it a "system" was a euphemism. It was a GPS attached to an
autopilot. They ignored the depth sounder, the radar, and visual cues.
Actually, the same thing could have happened to most anyone with an
Autohelm and a Garmin, except the the Autohelm (now Raymarine) gives a
better indication of faulty input.

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.

So you turn on 3 gps's for a day sail? I think you'd be better served
by brushing up on more basic skills.

Roger Long wrote:
I'm kind of surprised that worked. VOR's are so hard ...

my bad, it was an ADF device for marine purposes. that's what I get for
posting while still asleep :-)