Rodney Myrvaagnes wrote:

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.

It's a point, but let me explain why I'd put the main blame to "GPS
centric".
When they left Bermuda they had three systems available for Navigation.
GPS, Loran, Celestial. Since the GPS wasn't working, the integrated
system reverted to DR (and obviously did a damn fine job, considering)
and followed the prescribed track (here, I'm not sure of a doppler input).
Other than a cursory check of the Loran and, it would appear, no system
check of the GPS (no celestial was used) the "system" was allowed to
proceed.... i.e., the Loran positions were not all that far from the
assumed GPS.
Now, on the approach to the Nantucket-Boston Safety Fairway, things
should have changed. Your Loran is pretty good, You come on soundings,
You have Radar Targets, You can make allowances to use visual checks,
You know there are strong, contrary currents in the area, but none of
these tools were seriously used and none of the dangers were considered.
Why? Because the navigators were GPS centric, believing their Nav
Plotter was getting the correct information from the GPS and not using
other "systems" to confirm that this information was correct.
The fault here was not GPS nor the integrated system. The fault here was
navigators relying solely on one system to be correct all the time.
If you are going to be navigating, you want back-ups to your back-ups.
Sure, You can carry 20 hand helds and 4 cases of batteries, but what
happens when the Chit, negatively hits the fan and all you know is GPS?
What happens when the system fails and you are not aware of it and you
go merrily on your way, believing it's working?
No, they were GPS Centric. They believed everything was fine, when a
system check would have said otherwise. They didn't use back-ups/double
checks, they believed the GPS would always work so consequently the
integrated nav system must be correct and never needed checking on, for
whatever reason.

Basically what I'm saying is go back to the first basic error. The GPS
wasn't working, no one checked to see if it was... they were "centric"
in that they assumed it would be, when in truth, for any number of
reasons it may not be and the prudent navigator realizes this and
checks, especially in areas such as the Nantucket-Boston Safety Fairway.

otn

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 01:59:45 GMT, otnmbrd
wrote:

When they left Bermuda they had three systems available for Navigation.
GPS, Loran, Celestial.

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

LORAN has always been worthless in Bermuda unless something has
changed in the last 10 years that I'm not aware of. Prior to GPS we
used to lose electronic navigation about 400 miles offshore.

Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 01:59:45 GMT, otnmbrd
wrote:


When they left Bermuda they had three systems available for Navigation.
GPS, Loran, Celestial.


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

LORAN has always been worthless in Bermuda unless something has
changed in the last 10 years that I'm not aware of. Prior to GPS we
used to lose electronic navigation about 400 miles offshore.


Worthless in what way? Accuracy or reliable signal? I ask, because that
was not my experience.
Assuming you are correct and this applied to the ship also, would you
agree that as they approached the Nantucket-Boston Safety Fairway that
Loran became useful?
I ask because it does not appear that they were having a problem with
Loran reliability at sea, but also because it's use became more
important as they approached land, if, as I say, they were GPS Centric,
when others systems could have "saved the day".

otn

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:21:21 GMT, otnmbrd
wrote:

Worthless in what way? Accuracy or reliable signal?

Reliable signal. My experience with LORAN in Bermuda is somewhat
dated and things may have improved, or you may have better equipment
on large ships than we did on sail boats in the late '80s. By the
early 90s everyone was using GPS so LORAN didn't get much attention
after that. My present boat has two very decent LORAN units aboard
and neither are connected, mostly for lack of antenna space. Don't
really miss them with 3 GPS units, 3 chart plotters, and two radars
available.

I ask, because that
was not my experience.
Assuming you are correct and this applied to the ship also, would you
agree that as they approached the Nantucket-Boston Safety Fairway that
Loran became useful?

LORAN should have been quite usable in that area in my experience.
The only time we had difficulty with coastal LORAN was during severe
thunderstorms. One of my units would also jump out of sync
occasionally but the error was so large as to be immediately obvious.

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 01:59:45 GMT, otnmbrd
wrote:

Rodney Myrvaagnes wrote:

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.

It's a point, but let me explain why I'd put the main blame to "GPS
centric".
When they left Bermuda they had three systems available for Navigation.
GPS, Loran, Celestial. Since the GPS wasn't working, the integrated
system reverted to DR (and obviously did a damn fine job, considering)
and followed the prescribed track (here, I'm not sure of a doppler input).
Other than a cursory check of the Loran and, it would appear, no system
check of the GPS (no celestial was used) the "system" was allowed to
proceed.... i.e., the Loran positions were not all that far from the
assumed GPS.
Now, on the approach to the Nantucket-Boston Safety Fairway, things
should have changed. Your Loran is pretty good, You come on soundings,
You have Radar Targets, You can make allowances to use visual checks,
You know there are strong, contrary currents in the area, but none of
these tools were seriously used and none of the dangers were considered.
Why? Because the navigators were GPS centric, believing their Nav
Plotter was getting the correct information from the GPS and not using
other "systems" to confirm that this information was correct.
The fault here was not GPS nor the integrated system. The fault here was
navigators relying solely on one system to be correct all the time.
If you are going to be navigating, you want back-ups to your back-ups.
Sure, You can carry 20 hand helds and 4 cases of batteries, but what
happens when the Chit, negatively hits the fan and all you know is GPS?
What happens when the system fails and you are not aware of it and you
go merrily on your way, believing it's working?
No, they were GPS Centric. They believed everything was fine, when a
system check would have said otherwise. They didn't use back-ups/double
checks, they believed the GPS would always work so consequently the
integrated nav system must be correct and never needed checking on, for
whatever reason.

Basically what I'm saying is go back to the first basic error. The GPS
wasn't working, no one checked to see if it was... they were "centric"
in that they assumed it would be, when in truth, for any number of
reasons it may not be and the prudent navigator realizes this and
checks, especially in areas such as the Nantucket-Boston Safety Fairway.

otn
We agree on what went on. I would still call it what I did. They
didn't ask the bridge system what input it was using.

Idiots anyway, for all their licenses.



Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC J36 Gjo/a


"Accordions don't play 'Lady of Spain.' People play 'Lady of Spain."

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:21:21 GMT, otnmbrd
wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 01:59:45 GMT, otnmbrd
wrote:


When they left Bermuda they had three systems available for Navigation.
GPS, Loran, Celestial.


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

LORAN has always been worthless in Bermuda unless something has
changed in the last 10 years that I'm not aware of. Prior to GPS we
used to lose electronic navigation about 400 miles offshore.


Worthless in what way? Accuracy or reliable signal? I ask, because that
was not my experience.
Assuming you are correct and this applied to the ship also, would you
agree that as they approached the Nantucket-Boston Safety Fairway that
Loran became useful?
I ask because it does not appear that they were having a problem with
Loran reliability at sea, but also because it's use became more
important as they approached land, if, as I say, they were GPS Centric,
when others systems could have "saved the day".

otn
According to the report, the loran was behaving correctly near
Nantucket, where it mattered. Nobody believed it.



Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC J36 Gjo/a


"Accordions don't play 'Lady of Spain.' People play 'Lady of Spain."

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
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.

We disagree..not about the need to teach piloting but upon the base on which
you develop that piloting skill. DR is simply the technique that is adopted
between fixes to plot ones position for the period of time until a new fix
is available. But an electronic navigation system provides continuous
position fixes...so DR really has no place. LOPs and such come up in
piloting and I agree that one uses whatever is available and reasonable to
maintain a cross check. The eye is a very useful tool for this when
visibility is adequate. Radar also can well provide such a cross check.
When running multiple electronic navigation systems they can cross check
each other. All of these skills should be taught.

I have this strange feeling you guys are taking this position because you
feel, as I do, that GPS based navigation is easier to teach and to do than
non electronic piloting. So the real reason you want non-electronic first
is so the new students have to suffer like you did.



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."

So again we disagree. The instructor wanted to teach without the use of the
electronic navigation systems...I consider this nonsense. You end up with a
less trained student who initially is far less able to navigate. Why would
one teach a student to navigate so as to get an inferior outcome at least
during the initial phases of training? I would want them as capable as
possible as early as possible for the sake of their and others safety.


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 I think that basic piloting is best taught in the GPS centric context.
Once a reasonable skill level is reached one starts on what to do when
something breaks.


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.

The remark was in the context of claiming to teach navigation without the
electronic systems. Dave was featuring it as a good thing. I believe it a
bad thing. Leads to a new sailor with more limited skills than if taught
the electronic approach up front.

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.

And you technophobes lack the prospective to see the outcome of your
teaching primary dependence on outdated technology.


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?

And it does for electronic navigators as well. You learn to correlate the
views of the eye and other devices with the GPS or whatever.


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.

Neither the page of causals nor the 3 pages of recommendations has a single
mention of the term GPS...not one. There were a number of failures but not
one that indicates GPS was a problem. Incompetent seamanship is the
proximate cause with poorly designed and poorly operated equipment creating
the opportunity for the incompetent seaman to ground the boat.

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.

No I use 2 GPS for serious navigation and hold a third in reserve. Both
active GPS have the same way points set. The position of the hand held is
plotted on the chart. And all this is cross checked with eye and radar. I
use true headings unless we have to hand steer when we work out the
magnetic.

When I go day sailing in Long Beach I may not crack open a chart or turn on
a GPS. I can drive a boat just like you do. On a clear day in a familiar
port I need little navigation help from anything.

But running to Catalina in the dark..chart open,,, two GPSs up and going as
well as radar for collisiion avoidance.

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...
Rodney Myrvaagnes wrote:

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.

It's a point, but let me explain why I'd put the main blame to "GPS
centric".
When they left Bermuda they had three systems available for Navigation.
GPS, Loran, Celestial. Since the GPS wasn't working, the integrated system
reverted to DR (and obviously did a damn fine job, considering) and
followed the prescribed track (here, I'm not sure of a doppler input).
Other than a cursory check of the Loran and, it would appear, no system
check of the GPS (no celestial was used) the "system" was allowed to
proceed.... i.e., the Loran positions were not all that far from the
assumed GPS.

Sure they were. by the time they were 200 miles out they had a multiple
mile error.

The chief officier and navigator both stated that a cross check of the LORAN
was done. The second officier stated the LORAN was used only as a backup to
the GPS.

The NTSB found that the LORAN was never checked and should have been.


Now, on the approach to the Nantucket-Boston Safety Fairway, things should
have changed. Your Loran is pretty good, You come on soundings, You have
Radar Targets, You can make allowances to use visual checks, You know
there are strong, contrary currents in the area, but none of these tools
were seriously used and none of the dangers were considered.
Why? Because the navigators were GPS centric, believing their Nav Plotter
was getting the correct information from the GPS and not using other
"systems" to confirm that this information was correct.
The fault here was not GPS nor the integrated system. The fault here was
navigators relying solely on one system to be correct all the time.

They had failure indicators staring them in the face the whole time. They
just never looked. Makes little difference what the failure is if the
indicator is not noted.


If you are going to be navigating, you want back-ups to your back-ups.
Sure, You can carry 20 hand helds and 4 cases of batteries, but what
happens when the Chit, negatively hits the fan and all you know is GPS?

No they were simply not very competent. They were plotting the positions
hourly...but taking the positon from the busted system. Plotting the
positon from one of your 20 handhelds would have blown the whistle before
they were an hour into the failure.

What happens when the system fails and you are not aware of it and you go
merrily on your way, believing it's working?
No, they were GPS Centric. They believed everything was fine, when a
system check would have said otherwise. They didn't use back-ups/double
checks, they believed the GPS would always work so consequently the
integrated nav system must be correct and never needed checking on, for
whatever reason.

Basically what I'm saying is go back to the first basic error. The GPS
wasn't working, no one checked to see if it was... they were "centric" in
that they assumed it would be, when in truth, for any number of reasons it
may not be and the prudent navigator realizes this and checks, especially
in areas such as the Nantucket-Boston Safety Fairway.

otn

And a major finding was that the system design was deficient in a number of
human factor ways that provided the environment for the grounding. For
instance the GPS had a suitable external alarm...which was not hooked up.
The report strongly suggest that redundant receivers should also have been
part of the system. The system should have cross checked the LORAN and the
GPS. All kind of simple stuff.

Jim

"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:47:55 -0800, "Jim Donohue"
wrote:


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

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.

That's a shame, progress cancelled. I guess I'll take you at your word
when you claim just above that you never anywhere suggested relying
totally on GPS without checking it against other reasonable methods of
navigation is foolhardy ... even though just above that you said one
uses all reasonable methods [of navigation] available.

Ok, its true that the two statements are not exactly the same thing so
it's ok for you to say on the one hand that one uses all reasonable
methods available and on the other hand expouse that it's not foolhardy
to rely totally on GPS without checking it against other reasonable
methods. However, the fact that you are the *only* one here (as far as
I can tell) who feels that way should tell you something.

Steve

The report does not mention GPS or GPS centric in its Causals or 3 pages of
recommendations. The ship had procedures to cross check which were not
followed. They had a working LORAN showing multiple miles of differential
from the GPS. They never looked even though it was supposedly a regular
procedure. I am sure there were radar navigation discrepancies as well.
And the officiers reported the sighting of two buoys that were not there.
Sounds like a pretty high level of incompetence to me...not relying on a
single method.

Jim

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:25:10 -0800, "Jim Donohue"
wrote:
No I use 2 GPS for serious navigation and hold a third in reserve. Both
active GPS have the same way points set. The position of the hand held is
plotted on the chart. And all this is cross checked with eye and radar. I
use true headings unless we have to hand steer when we work out the
magnetic.

GPS might be too precise, though.... I know a few people using a bouy
as a waypoint using a GPS coupled to an autosteer......well, they sure
did find out when that waypoint was reached.....g


Cheers!

Remco