All a GPS will tell you is where you are. The sailor still has to
relate what the GPS tells him to where he is is to "stuff" around
him....i.e., a chart.
Learning to use a chart, with the attendent DR, fixes, etc is step
number one. One has to walk before runs. Plus, as has been said
a zillion times...GPS is only ONE method of navigationg, and not
to be used to the exclusion of all other methods.

Case in point...when I was flying, I used to set up all the automated
nav gear for enroute *guidance*, but I'd still keep a chart on my lap
and do DR.

Remember...GPS and radar have no fear of disaster.
Norm B


On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:37:24 -0800, "Jim Donohue" wrote:

And anyone who would teach a sailor to navigate without GPS is not only
incompetent as a navigation teacher but is willing to risk the well being of
another for some hobbyist view of the skill.

As soon as your student hits limited visibility she becomes a hazard to
herself and others.

Jim Donohue

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:51:28 -0800, "Jim Donohue"

said:

Not my experience. I'm teaching navigation to my 26 year old daughter,
and
she's thrilled with how she can verify our position with an LOP and look
at
her DR plot and correlate it to the objects she sees. We have a LORAN
aboard, but so far it hasn't interested her.

Ohh stop...what utter nonsense. Interesting navigation occurs when you
can't see anything and there is nothing for the radar to see. Then do
that
for 6 days. Then end up within 10 meters of where you aimed for.

Whatta jerk.

Interesting navigation is in the eye of the beholder, and to someone who
hasn't done it before it is as I described.

On what does she base her LOP? Wishful thinking? A voice in her brain?
For the sake of rationale behavior teach her how to use the real tools
than
you can teach her the hobby backups if she cares.

Same thing people doing piloting have been basing an LOP on for years.
Bearing taken with the hand bearing compass.

What seems to be your problem, Jim, wrong time of the month?

Only a fool would teach someone to navigate by GPS alone.

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Jim Donohue wrote:
Sorry Roger...but the guy is not teaching all methods...he is teaching
some version of DR and coastal. He is deliberately not teaching GPS and
Loran. So he is busily training a 1975 sailor.

Sailors in 1975 were much better navigators than today.

OK...There is a bold and clear statement. Lets see your reference. Let's
see a study that indicates the ability of sailors to navigate has gotten
worse than it was in 1975. You have apparently sailed at least a few times
Jeff...why would you make such a singularly stupid assertion.



I would strongly hold for teaching all useful methods...but the important
ones first. In fact the first skill is the ability to read and interpret
a chart...which is I think the skill that is often missing in beginning
sailors. Then GPS. I would certainly teach DR and coastal...but as a
secondary to GPS.

That makes as much sense as teaching 4th graders how to use a calculator
assuming they will figure out long division later. If someone was
insisting on receiving no more than an hour or so of instruction before
heading out, I might be tempted to show them a GPS, but if someone wants
to learn the basic methods they should learn them first.

Further, to fully appreciate a chart you must learn the basics of
piloting. You can explain variation and bearings, but they has no meaning
to beginners until the plot LOPs.

Heading and bearing are perfectly reasonable and understandable terms even
for the beginner. They are perfectly explainable in the context of a GPS
location. One need not plot LOPs when one knows the position. It would be
better to be positon centric. What we use to do was deal with the fact that
the fix was to a line and not a position. That is not a desirable
outcome...merely the result of technical limitations. Crossing to lines is
simply a way to get to the information that is directly avalable from the
GPS. Why would you want to determine position by crossing to lines when it
is available directly from an instrument?


Variation is simply compensation for instrument error that no longer
exists. Why would you feature it in your early instruction? As we cannot
yet get rid of the magnetic compass it is still neccessary to explain why
there are two heading systems. It should be handled for what it is...an
instrument error to be compensated when using the compass for heading.


How far do you plan to go on "teach all methods"? I can interpret and
use an old Loran with the delay numbers...but I would not teach it.
Celestial is the obvious issue. Would you teach celestial today to a
prospective cruiser? What level of celestial? The full set of star/moon
techniques? How about RDF?

These are silly comparisons. Basic DR and piloting techniques are used
all the time even in our GPS oriented world. Loran and celestial are not.
However, a few of the basics should be taught - I'm surprised at how many
people can't instantly find Polaris, or know the approximate bearing of
the rising or setting Sun or Moon.


Oh? So as long as it is on your hobby list it is basic and required?
Otherwise it is not? The discussion is to use all available methods. Why
would you not want Loran? A lot more accurate than DR or any piloting
techniques I know of. And you calculate drift angles all the time? What
for? You find it intellectually stimulating to calculate it rather than
have the GPS read it to you? My point is actually simple. The proper
primary instrument is the GPS which tells you where you are and which
direction you are heading. You guys are trying to assert it should be the
magnetic compass. You simply are backing a dead horse. It is over. Get
over it. Teach reality not your hobby views.



As an aside virtually all Pacific cruisers as of a year or so ago had a
sextant on board...but virtually none had shot a positon in the last
year.


Is there a point here? I'll bet that the majority of them knew the basics
of DR and piloting. Or are you claiming they don't bother because they
have faith in their GPS?

The point, which was listed as an aside...is that the real cruiser
population uses GPS effectively exclusively and their ability to revert to
celestial is probably not there. DR is a silly argument in this
context...it is simply a way to determine how lost you are...It is probably
less effective than following airplanes in most of the world.

"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

It is fascinating. I have been sailing coastally for 25 years. I have done
the entire west coast from British Columbia to Acapulco. Most of it
multiple times. Maybe 12000 miles or so. I have gunkholed a whole lot of
the coast in between. Done Catalina a few 100 times. I have never found a
situation where a hand held compass position was useful. Yes I learned to
do one and actually bought one early on...may still have it in one of the
boat bags...but no I have never found a single place where it was useful.

I have entered San Francisco in heavy fog. I used GPS for navigation and
radar for collision avoidance. That passage could not have been done safely
without GPS and would have been very uncomfortable without radar.

I have entered Bahia Maria north of Cabo in the middle of the night with a
storm raging. It is not the world's most challenging entry but it offers
you the opportunity to kill yourself if you are not careful. And it is
known the charts have a substantial inaccuracy. With GPS and radar it is a
reasonably safe task.

Why would one not teach the skills that lead to success rather than those
which involve unacceptable risk?

Jim Donohue


"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:51:28 -0800, "Jim Donohue"

said:

Not my experience. I'm teaching navigation to my 26 year old daughter,
and
she's thrilled with how she can verify our position with an LOP and look
at
her DR plot and correlate it to the objects she sees. We have a LORAN
aboard, but so far it hasn't interested her.

Ohh stop...what utter nonsense. Interesting navigation occurs when you
can't see anything and there is nothing for the radar to see. Then do
that
for 6 days. Then end up within 10 meters of where you aimed for.

Whatta jerk.

Interesting navigation is in the eye of the beholder, and to someone who
hasn't done it before it is as I described.

On what does she base her LOP? Wishful thinking? A voice in her brain?
For the sake of rationale behavior teach her how to use the real tools
than
you can teach her the hobby backups if she cares.

Same thing people doing piloting have been basing an LOP on for years.
Bearing taken with the hand bearing compass.

What seems to be your problem, Jim, wrong time of the month?

Only a fool would teach someone to navigate by GPS alone.

I don't know Jeff but your present tone begins to bear a significant
resemblance to the Jax.

Limited facts and very strong opinions are his hallmarks. You are sure
getting close.


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Jim Donohue wrote:
And anyone who would teach a sailor to navigate without GPS is not only
incompetent as a navigation teacher but is willing to risk the well being
of another for some hobbyist view of the skill.


Gawd, what a stupid statement! Are you trying to replace Jax as our
resident idiot?

As soon as your student hits limited visibility she becomes a hazard to
herself and others.

And you would send a novice out in the fog because they know how to turn
on a GPS?

And you would send her out knowing only DR? I think your IQ must be lower
than mine.

More seriously all newbys eventually end up in fog. It is often not a
planned act. Now tell me...caught in an unexpected fog would you rather
your student have GPS or DR skills?

The bottom line is that a large number of sailors never go venture outside
of a relatively protected area. For example, hundreds of sailors sail
around Boston Harbor every day. I doubt that many of them even have a GPS
on board, but I hope they know the basics of piloting.

Your ludicrous statements only make sense if the student is headed out
tomorrow on their own boat; in reality most will not leave the harbor on
their own for a few years.

Are we teaching them to enter into oceans or swimming pools?

If they are going to drive around a protected harbor give them a road map.
I see little use for GPS or DR on a park lake. Most of these would do OK
if we would teach them not to drink too much.

Jim Donohue

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

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

Jim Donohue wrote:

Sorry Roger...but the guy is not teaching all methods...he is teaching
some version of DR and coastal. He is deliberately not teaching GPS and
Loran. So he is busily training a 1975 sailor.

Sailors in 1975 were much better navigators than today.


OK...There is a bold and clear statement. Lets see your reference. Let's
see a study that indicates the ability of sailors to navigate has gotten
worse than it was in 1975.

I cite myself as an expert witness. With a Texaco chart, an AM radio
and a spinning neon bulb the navigator of 30 years ago had much better
basic skills than today.


You have apparently sailed at least a few times
Jeff...why would you make such a singularly stupid assertion.

Are you actually claiming that the average newbie boat owner knows even
the basics of navigation nowadays? Yes, with a GPS everyone is an
"expert navigator." Take it away and half the boaters need Seatow to
get back home.






I would strongly hold for teaching all useful methods...but the important
ones first. In fact the first skill is the ability to read and interpret
a chart...which is I think the skill that is often missing in beginning
sailors. Then GPS. I would certainly teach DR and coastal...but as a
secondary to GPS.

That makes as much sense as teaching 4th graders how to use a calculator
assuming they will figure out long division later. If someone was
insisting on receiving no more than an hour or so of instruction before
heading out, I might be tempted to show them a GPS, but if someone wants
to learn the basic methods they should learn them first.

Further, to fully appreciate a chart you must learn the basics of
piloting. You can explain variation and bearings, but they has no meaning
to beginners until the plot LOPs.


Heading and bearing are perfectly reasonable and understandable terms even
for the beginner. They are perfectly explainable in the context of a GPS
location.

You're confusing "explaining" with "learning." Anyone can nod their
head while listening to a 5 minute explanation. Knowing how to do
something requires practice.


One need not plot LOPs when one knows the position. It would be
better to be positon centric.

In other words, its impossible to determine a bearing to point B from
point A unless you're actually at point and can ask the GPS? And you're
saying its easier to punch in the Lat/Lon of point B than to look at a
chart?

What we use to do was deal with the fact that
the fix was to a line and not a position. That is not a desirable
outcome...merely the result of technical limitations. Crossing to lines is
simply a way to get to the information that is directly avalable from the
GPS. Why would you want to determine position by crossing to lines when it
is available directly from an instrument?

So your point is that as long as you have a GPS other forms of
navigation are unnecessary and therefore shouldn't be taught? And when
the GPS fails? Right - Call Seatow!


Variation is simply compensation for instrument error that no longer
exists. Why would you feature it in your early instruction?

Without taking it into account a heading is off by 16 degrees in Boston.
More than enough to get you in trouble when following a compass
course. Unless you think compass skills are not important, it must be
taught. You can't dismiss it as "just instrument error" since it varies
with the location.


As we cannot
yet get rid of the magnetic compass it is still neccessary to explain why
there are two heading systems. It should be handled for what it is...an
instrument error to be compensated when using the compass for heading.

What's your point? If the compass is important Variation must be
taught. Its part of basic piloting skills. You seem to be agreeing
with me.



How far do you plan to go on "teach all methods"? I can interpret and
use an old Loran with the delay numbers...but I would not teach it.
Celestial is the obvious issue. Would you teach celestial today to a
prospective cruiser? What level of celestial? The full set of star/moon
techniques? How about RDF?

These are silly comparisons. Basic DR and piloting techniques are used
all the time even in our GPS oriented world. Loran and celestial are not.
However, a few of the basics should be taught - I'm surprised at how many
people can't instantly find Polaris, or know the approximate bearing of
the rising or setting Sun or Moon.



Oh? So as long as it is on your hobby list it is basic and required?

They are on my "hobby list" but since a novice is would not likely use
them, they need not be taught. The basic piloting skills can (and
should) be used every time you leave the dock.


Otherwise it is not? The discussion is to use all available methods.

Actually, I only took exception to your comments about basic DR and
piloting skills. "All available" is pretty far reaching, but the basic
skill can be used all the time.

Why would you not want Loran?

When I've cruised on boats that have a Loran I've turned it on to
reminds myself how they work.

A lot more accurate than DR or any piloting
techniques I know of.

Accuracy is not the point. There's is no doubt that GPS is usually much
more accurate than any other method. This reminds me of the time I
watched a trawler run aground on the ICW. He started screaming on the
radio that he was "right on the magenta line!" I was following my depth
sounder and was in 20 feet of water. Who was more accurate in this case?


And you calculate drift angles all the time? What
for?

Calculate precisely? No. But I do manually adjust my bearing for a
crosscurrent. Are you saying you don't know whether its flood or ebb
without using the GPS???

You find it intellectually stimulating to calculate it rather than
have the GPS read it to you?

I call it good seamanship. If you're crossing a harbor with strong
currents its nice to be able to predict the affects in advance. Waiting
for the GPS to tell you you're screwed is just plain stupid. And this
is the essential fallacy of your argument.

My point is actually simple. The proper
primary instrument is the GPS which tells you where you are and which
direction you are heading. You guys are trying to assert it should be the
magnetic compass.

WRONG! The primary instrument should be your brain!

You simply are backing a dead horse. It is over. Get
over it. Teach reality not your hobby views.

Reality is that GPS fails. The power line corrodes. The batteries die.
Lightning zaps it. The are gaps in the charting. Features are
mis-plotted. Handhelds get dropped. Antennas get loose.

Further, unless you have an expensive system, its tedious to setup a
complex route, and hard to make adjustments on the fly. If you are
practiced in piloting you can get an approximate heading from a chart in
a few seconds - much faster than you can in a small GPS.

For planning purposes basic skills allow you to quickly determine
headings and ETA's. Knowing whether a day trip will be a reach or a
beat - this is much easier to determine with a chart than a gps.

And how useful is a GPS while weaving through a twisty channel? Often
is is more of a distraction than an aid.






As an aside virtually all Pacific cruisers as of a year or so ago had a
sextant on board...but virtually none had shot a positon in the last
year.


Is there a point here? I'll bet that the majority of them knew the basics
of DR and piloting. Or are you claiming they don't bother because they
have faith in their GPS?


The point, which was listed as an aside...is that the real cruiser
population uses GPS effectively exclusively and their ability to revert to
celestial is probably not there.


Celestial is a complete red herring. We're talking about novice
navigators, not passage makers. You can make a good case that GPS has
made Celestial obsolete. You can't make the same case that piloting
skills are obsolete.

DR is a silly argument in this
context...

DR skills are used all the time. While plotting DR's on a chart may be
a vanishing art, every time you make a guesstimate of how far you've
gone, you're practicing DR.

it is simply a way to determine how lost you are...It is probably
less effective than following airplanes in most of the world.

Following airplanes? Again you're confusing offshore navigation with
piloting.

In many places you use the numbers from last time. Many of the numbers are
published in guides or privately. You can also set up the course to
minimize exposure.

In general the errors are area wide. You work out the correction from known
objects. You use radar and the bottom to assure yourself you did it
correctly. Go slow when in doubt.

Jim Donohue

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:47:14 -0800, "Jim Donohue"

said:

And it is
known the charts have a substantial inaccuracy. With GPS and radar it is
a
reasonably safe task.

OK, how is that GPS going to help you avoid hitting that rock that's shown
in the wrong place on the chart?

Jim Donohue wrote:
It is fascinating. I have been sailing coastally for 25 years. I have done
the entire west coast from British Columbia to Acapulco. Most of it
multiple times. Maybe 12000 miles or so. I have gunkholed a whole lot of
the coast in between. Done Catalina a few 100 times.

Do you want us to be impressed?

I have never found a
situation where a hand held compass position was useful. Yes I learned to
do one and actually bought one early on...may still have it in one of the
boat bags...but no I have never found a single place where it was useful.

Do you have a point here? I'll certainly admit that since GPS I don't
use mine very often at all. But it was very useful before then. Kinda
makes me wonder what type of sailing you did 25 years ago if you never
used a handbearing compass ...


I have entered San Francisco in heavy fog. I used GPS for navigation and
radar for collision avoidance. That passage could not have been done safely
without GPS and would have been very uncomfortable without radar.

Odd, I would have thought they other way - with radar you can tell where
you are and see other boats; with GPS only you have no way of seeing
traffic.

And are you claiming that a novice navigator with a hour of training on
his GPS can do this safely?



I have entered Bahia Maria north of Cabo in the middle of the night with a
storm raging. It is not the world's most challenging entry but it offers
you the opportunity to kill yourself if you are not careful. And it is
known the charts have a substantial inaccuracy. With GPS and radar it is a
reasonably safe task.

Again, are you claiming this is safe for the novice? Claiming your
long experience in the pre-GPS days doesn't do anything to advance your
point here. It isn't just your GPS that makes this safer, its your long
experience.


Why would one not teach the skills that lead to success rather than those
which involve unacceptable risk?


That's just my point - Learning GPS without a foundation in basic skills
leads unacceptable risks. Anyone with basic skills can learn how to
use a GPS in 5 minutes. Without the basic skills, you're in deep ****
when the GPS fails.

When you are only skilled in one form of navigation you have no way to
double check your assumptions. Relying on a single techniques is just
plain stupid!

Jim Donohue wrote:
In many places you use the numbers from last time. Many of the numbers are
published in guides or privately.

Local knowledge is handy.

You can also set up the course to
minimize exposure.

You mean, like plotting a course using piloting techniques?


In general the errors are area wide. You work out the correction from known
objects. You use radar and the bottom to assure yourself you did it
correctly.

You mean, like using piloting techniques?

Go slow when in doubt.

Why would you have any doubt? Don't you have absolute faith in your GPS?