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

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

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

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

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

....




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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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



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


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

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

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