Read Jim D's post..... and I'm sitting here shaking my head in a
negative fashion.
I'd comment on your comments, Jim, but I've come to realize that you
just don't get it.
Shame of it is, there's so many more like you out there ....

BTW, Your aside? That's a stupid excuse, not a reason.... you sure
you're not a lawyer?

otn

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
nk.net...
Read Jim D's post..... and I'm sitting here shaking my head in a negative
fashion.
I'd comment on your comments, Jim, but I've come to realize that you just
don't get it.
Shame of it is, there's so many more like you out there ....

BTW, Your aside? That's a stupid excuse, not a reason.... you sure you're
not a lawyer?

otn

Why with professional luddites like you and your ilk I am required for
progress otn.

The aside points out that the real amateur sailor with sufficient skill to
cross oceans uses GPS otn...and have a likely non working celestial
capability. It is in no way an excuse of any type...merely an observation
on how life actually is. You likely don't like it otn but you really don't
get a vote.


Ji m

Jim Donohue wrote:



Why with professional luddites like you and your ilk I am required for
progress otn.

As stated, "you just don't get it". In truth, I'm a prolific user of
GPS, both the basic readout and connected to a chart plotter, making use
of all the information it supplies.
However, especially in the coastal waters I mainly traverse nowadays,
it's NEVER my sole source of position information and in fact, plotting
a GPS position isn't all that much quicker or necessarily as accurate as
a simple radar range and bearing, or eyeball fix.


The aside points out that the real amateur sailor with sufficient skill to
cross oceans uses GPS otn...and have a likely non working celestial
capability. It is in no way an excuse of any type...merely an observation
on how life actually is. You likely don't like it otn but you really don't
get a vote.

You use your survey as an EXCUSE for not learning or using celestial.
G By "non working" I assume you mean they have the ability but don't
use it. That's their choice, just like it's the choice of many ship
Masters making ocean crossings to require their people to occasionally
take celestial fixes and when in sight of land or radar range, to take
visual fixes as well as radar fixes and compare them to the GPS.
I also note that in another reply, you are still not comfortable using
radar for navigation.... that's too bad.... you're missing out on a
great tool.

otn

In article et,
otnmbrd wrote:

Jim Donohue wrote:



Why with professional luddites like you and your ilk I am required for
progress otn.

As stated, "you just don't get it". In truth, I'm a prolific user of
GPS, both the basic readout and connected to a chart plotter, making use
of all the information it supplies.
However, especially in the coastal waters I mainly traverse nowadays,
it's NEVER my sole source of position information and in fact, plotting
a GPS position isn't all that much quicker or necessarily as accurate as
a simple radar range and bearing, or eyeball fix.


The aside points out that the real amateur sailor with sufficient skill to
cross oceans uses GPS otn...and have a likely non working celestial
capability. It is in no way an excuse of any type...merely an observation
on how life actually is. You likely don't like it otn but you really don't
get a vote.

You use your survey as an EXCUSE for not learning or using celestial.
G By "non working" I assume you mean they have the ability but don't
use it. That's their choice, just like it's the choice of many ship
Masters making ocean crossings to require their people to occasionally
take celestial fixes and when in sight of land or radar range, to take
visual fixes as well as radar fixes and compare them to the GPS.
I also note that in another reply, you are still not comfortable using
radar for navigation.... that's too bad.... you're missing out on a
great tool.

otn


I would like to add a simple note here.

OTN talks about using Radar and the Mark One Eyeball to get position
fixes while navigating in coastal and inshore waters. Ok, that is common
practice, and has been for MANY years.

Now consider the accuracy of those fixes, as compared with the accuracy
of an Electronic Position Fixing Device.

Mark One Eyeball.... Taking a sight with binocs even over a compass card
will usually get a line within a degree or two, IF the guy is really
good at it or is using one of those old WWII TBT's... Ok, now figure
that your going to have to do that on at least two bearings, and better
yet, three or four. Ok, now you have to go plot those bearings on the
chart using the reverse bearing from the marker you sited on, and then
figuring in the time difference between the bearings, and the speed of
advance, of the vessel, and you don't get a REAL FIX, but an AREA of
FIX that IS "Orders of Magnitude" bigger than the REALTIME GPS Fix.

Radar..... Same thing here, except that your bearing will tend to be
better, depending on the Horozontal Beamwidth of the antenna, and the
distance, and area of the target which the bearing is to. Again, the
AREA of the FIX will be smaller for the radar because the time to get
the bearins, (two or more) will be shorter, but the plotting times and
the speed of advance will be the same. Again the Area of fix will
be "Orders of Magnitude" larger than the REALTIME GPS Fix.

GPS Fix..... even with out WAAS, this should be in the 30 foot centered
circle, and the speed of advance isn't even a problem due to the small
amount of advance in the one second cycle times of GPS Calulations.
The same can be said for LORAN-C with modern day Receivers, that have
builtin Lat/LONG Calculators, especially if the route has been run
before, and Know Anomalies in the TD's are already accounted for.

Now all the above really is mostly not a GIANT Issue at 7 - 12 Knots,
as there is always enough time to figure this all out. However, I defy
anyone to show me how anything but a Very GOOD GPS Based Navigation
System can be used on a Fast Ferry doing 35+ Knots inside Boston Harbour.
Speed KILLS, and the faster these guys go, the faster one of them is
going to run the rest of us over, because the navigator isn't watching
where he is going, because he is busy PLOTTING his position.

Explain to me why this isn't a problem......


Bruce in alaska
--
add a 2 before @

Bruce in Alaska wrote:
In article et,
otnmbrd wrote:


Jim Donohue wrote:



Why with professional luddites like you and your ilk I am required for
progress otn.

As stated, "you just don't get it". In truth, I'm a prolific user of
GPS, both the basic readout and connected to a chart plotter, making use
of all the information it supplies.
However, especially in the coastal waters I mainly traverse nowadays,
it's NEVER my sole source of position information and in fact, plotting
a GPS position isn't all that much quicker or necessarily as accurate as
a simple radar range and bearing, or eyeball fix.


The aside points out that the real amateur sailor with sufficient skill to
cross oceans uses GPS otn...and have a likely non working celestial
capability. It is in no way an excuse of any type...merely an observation
on how life actually is. You likely don't like it otn but you really don't
get a vote.

You use your survey as an EXCUSE for not learning or using celestial.
G By "non working" I assume you mean they have the ability but don't
use it. That's their choice, just like it's the choice of many ship
Masters making ocean crossings to require their people to occasionally
take celestial fixes and when in sight of land or radar range, to take
visual fixes as well as radar fixes and compare them to the GPS.
I also note that in another reply, you are still not comfortable using
radar for navigation.... that's too bad.... you're missing out on a
great tool.

otn



I would like to add a simple note here.

OTN talks about using Radar and the Mark One Eyeball to get position
fixes while navigating in coastal and inshore waters. Ok, that is common
practice, and has been for MANY years.

Now consider the accuracy of those fixes, as compared with the accuracy
of an Electronic Position Fixing Device.

Mark One Eyeball.... Taking a sight with binocs even over a compass card
will usually get a line within a degree or two, IF the guy is really
good at it or is using one of those old WWII TBT's... Ok, now figure
that your going to have to do that on at least two bearings, and better
yet, three or four. Ok, now you have to go plot those bearings on the
chart using the reverse bearing from the marker you sited on, and then
figuring in the time difference between the bearings, and the speed of
advance, of the vessel, and you don't get a REAL FIX, but an AREA of
FIX that IS "Orders of Magnitude" bigger than the REALTIME GPS Fix.


On the other hand, if you punched in in the wrong destination, or if the
antennae fell off the GPS, an Eyeball LOP, however inaccurate, may show
the problem.

Radar..... Same thing here, except that your bearing will tend to be
better, depending on the Horozontal Beamwidth of the antenna, and the
distance, and area of the target which the bearing is to. Again, the
AREA of the FIX will be smaller for the radar because the time to get
the bearins, (two or more) will be shorter, but the plotting times and
the speed of advance will be the same. Again the Area of fix will
be "Orders of Magnitude" larger than the REALTIME GPS Fix.


Again, if the GPS position is faulty in any way ...


GPS Fix..... even with out WAAS, this should be in the 30 foot centered
circle, and the speed of advance isn't even a problem due to the small
amount of advance in the one second cycle times of GPS Calulations.
The same can be said for LORAN-C with modern day Receivers, that have
builtin Lat/LONG Calculators, especially if the route has been run
before, and Know Anomalies in the TD's are already accounted for.

Now all the above really is mostly not a GIANT Issue at 7 - 12 Knots,
as there is always enough time to figure this all out. However, I defy
anyone to show me how anything but a Very GOOD GPS Based Navigation
System can be used on a Fast Ferry doing 35+ Knots inside Boston Harbour.

I don't think the high speed ferries are allowed to do 35 knots inside
the harbor. They are supposed to slow to 8 knots when the turn the
corner into the inner harbor. The odd thing is that the Salem ferry
doesn't use the main ship channel; it comes down the narrow side channel
(Lower Middle) to save a few minutes. When its coming up your butt at
20 knots you have to just hope they know what they're doing.



Speed KILLS, and the faster these guys go, the faster one of them is
going to run the rest of us over, because the navigator isn't watching
where he is going, because he is busy PLOTTING his position.

Explain to me why this isn't a problem......

I don't think anyone would claim the the High Speed Ferry should turn
off their GPS, but I do hope that they look out the window on occasion.




Bruce in alaska

Bruce in Alaska wrote:



I would like to add a simple note here.

OTN talks about using Radar and the Mark One Eyeball to get position
fixes while navigating in coastal and inshore waters. Ok, that is common
practice, and has been for MANY years.

Now consider the accuracy of those fixes, as compared with the accuracy
of an Electronic Position Fixing Device.

BG Dang! I gotta find this place you guys are navigating through, that
requires instant position data, within a few inches.....


Mark One Eyeball.... Taking a sight with binocs even over a compass card
will usually get a line within a degree or two, IF the guy is really
good at it or is using one of those old WWII TBT's... Ok, now figure
that your going to have to do that on at least two bearings, and better
yet, three or four. Ok, now you have to go plot those bearings on the
chart using the reverse bearing from the marker you sited on, and then
figuring in the time difference between the bearings, and the speed of
advance, of the vessel, and you don't get a REAL FIX, but an AREA of
FIX that IS "Orders of Magnitude" bigger than the REALTIME GPS Fix.

First off, the "Mark One Eyeball" method of navigation, can be many
things. What you describe above, is just one of them. The accuracy of
that same method can vary, from, exceeding GPS, to useless, but on
average,will be well within the needed parameters to safely navigate an
area under normal conditions.
Needless to say, this method tends to suck in restricted visibility.
With all due respect Bruce, it's obvious from your above that you are
not all that familiar with the method you are discussing.


Radar..... Same thing here, except that your bearing will tend to be
better, depending on the Horozontal Beamwidth of the antenna, and the
distance, and area of the target which the bearing is to. Again, the
AREA of the FIX will be smaller for the radar because the time to get
the bearins, (two or more) will be shorter, but the plotting times and
the speed of advance will be the same. Again the Area of fix will
be "Orders of Magnitude" larger than the REALTIME GPS Fix.

Here, you are using only one of the methods available to you (in fact,
the time consuming one). Sorry Bruce, but like Jim, your radar
navigation needs work, also. Stand beside me under most coastal
navigation areas in Alaska, take a reading on a GPS fix, at the same
time I take a range and bearing via radar ... betcha I beat you plotting
said fix and the only discrepancy between the two positions will revolve
around how sharp my pencil was (unless of course the chart is in error,
in which case my position is more apt to keep us out of trouble).
BTW, forget the "speed of advance" junk .... it's a lame argument at the
speeds we are talking about for most cruisers.... unless, of course,
they've screwed up and gotten too close to a nav hazard, to begin with.


GPS Fix..... even with out WAAS, this should be in the 30 foot centered
circle, and the speed of advance isn't even a problem due to the small
amount of advance in the one second cycle times of GPS Calulations.
The same can be said for LORAN-C with modern day Receivers, that have
builtin Lat/LONG Calculators, especially if the route has been run
before, and Know Anomalies in the TD's are already accounted for.

If, for the most part, your navigation requires you to be within a 30'
centered circle, then I have to question your "route planning". Granted,
there are times when you need precise distance information and you are
navigating in narrow areas such a marina's and harbors where you have to
work between docks, but in those areas, I'll take radar every time,
because it doesn't care if the charted positions are correct.



Now all the above really is mostly not a GIANT Issue at 7 - 12 Knots,
as there is always enough time to figure this all out. However, I defy
anyone to show me how anything but a Very GOOD GPS Based Navigation
System can be used on a Fast Ferry doing 35+ Knots inside Boston Harbour.
Speed KILLS, and the faster these guys go, the faster one of them is
going to run the rest of us over, because the navigator isn't watching
where he is going, because he is busy PLOTTING his position.

Explain to me why this isn't a problem......


Sorry, haven't ridden any fast ferries in Boston. Rode the ones from
Hyannis to Nantucket. From what I saw, most "general" navigation was
done by "eyeball" and "radar"..... Why?....For those running a familiar
route, it's faster and generally, more "spatial awareness" accurate for
the operator. When a chart plotter is available, it's a fantastic third
tool that frequently changes ranking in importance over the radar and
eyeball..... so, in answer to your question, it IS a problem that
various operators need address, though a simple GPS without a chart
plotter is NOT the solution.


otn

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:08:04 GMT, Bruce in Alaska
wrote:

In article et,
otnmbrd wrote:

Jim Donohue wrote:



Why with professional luddites like you and your ilk I am required for
progress otn.

As stated, "you just don't get it". In truth, I'm a prolific user of
GPS, both the basic readout and connected to a chart plotter, making use
of all the information it supplies.
However, especially in the coastal waters I mainly traverse nowadays,
it's NEVER my sole source of position information and in fact, plotting
a GPS position isn't all that much quicker or necessarily as accurate as
a simple radar range and bearing, or eyeball fix.


The aside points out that the real amateur sailor with sufficient skill to
cross oceans uses GPS otn...and have a likely non working celestial
capability. It is in no way an excuse of any type...merely an observation
on how life actually is. You likely don't like it otn but you really don't
get a vote.

You use your survey as an EXCUSE for not learning or using celestial.
G By "non working" I assume you mean they have the ability but don't
use it. That's their choice, just like it's the choice of many ship
Masters making ocean crossings to require their people to occasionally
take celestial fixes and when in sight of land or radar range, to take
visual fixes as well as radar fixes and compare them to the GPS.
I also note that in another reply, you are still not comfortable using
radar for navigation.... that's too bad.... you're missing out on a
great tool.

otn


I would like to add a simple note here.

OTN talks about using Radar and the Mark One Eyeball to get position
fixes while navigating in coastal and inshore waters. Ok, that is common
practice, and has been for MANY years.

Now consider the accuracy of those fixes, as compared with the accuracy
of an Electronic Position Fixing Device.

Mark One Eyeball.... Taking a sight with binocs even over a compass card
will usually get a line within a degree or two, IF the guy is really
good at it or is using one of those old WWII TBT's... Ok, now figure
that your going to have to do that on at least two bearings, and better
yet, three or four. Ok, now you have to go plot those bearings on the
chart using the reverse bearing from the marker you sited on, and then
figuring in the time difference between the bearings, and the speed of
advance, of the vessel, and you don't get a REAL FIX, but an AREA of
FIX that IS "Orders of Magnitude" bigger than the REALTIME GPS Fix.

Radar..... Same thing here, except that your bearing will tend to be
better, depending on the Horozontal Beamwidth of the antenna, and the
distance, and area of the target which the bearing is to. Again, the
AREA of the FIX will be smaller for the radar because the time to get
the bearins, (two or more) will be shorter, but the plotting times and
the speed of advance will be the same. Again the Area of fix will
be "Orders of Magnitude" larger than the REALTIME GPS Fix.

GPS Fix..... even with out WAAS, this should be in the 30 foot centered
circle, and the speed of advance isn't even a problem due to the small
amount of advance in the one second cycle times of GPS Calulations.
The same can be said for LORAN-C with modern day Receivers, that have
builtin Lat/LONG Calculators, especially if the route has been run
before, and Know Anomalies in the TD's are already accounted for.

Now all the above really is mostly not a GIANT Issue at 7 - 12 Knots,
as there is always enough time to figure this all out. However, I defy
anyone to show me how anything but a Very GOOD GPS Based Navigation
System can be used on a Fast Ferry doing 35+ Knots inside Boston Harbour.
Speed KILLS, and the faster these guys go, the faster one of them is
going to run the rest of us over, because the navigator isn't watching
where he is going, because he is busy PLOTTING his position.

Explain to me why this isn't a problem......

The ferry service between Stockhom and Helsinki was dependent on GPS
with its own diferential setup back in the 1980s, years before the
USCG had differential beacons, never mind WAAS.

They were threading a lot of islands really fast in all visibilities,
including zero. And their schedules were much faster than before GPS.

Differential at that time was crucial for cancelling the effects of
SA. Of course, they could survey the route themselves and verify the
correspondence between GPS and chart.

And, their differential system would have alarmed immediately on any
GPS failure.


Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a

For your upscale SUV: Dingle-balls hand knit of natural Icelandic yarn