The discussion is the order and emphasis of the learning process. Does not
and did not ever have anything to do with what the end position should be.
You use the tools available...but you start the student with the modern
position oriented, electronic navigation oriented techniques. And you start
with chartmanship...understand them and how to plan and plot a course.


Jim

"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 23:04:05 -0800, "Jim Donohue"
wrote:


"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:47:33 -0800, "Jim Donohue"
wrote:


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


"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
news:ij2av01tatdvpv90473t1di1btfq03826p@4ax. com...
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.

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.

Ok, let's do it this way and ask you a simple direct question: Do you
feel that going to sea and relying on GPS as your sole means of
navigation to the exclusion of all others (even if you take 3 recievers
of different models) is prudent seamanship or foolhardy?

This discussion suffers from a lack of precision. Going to sea in my
context means multiple days at sea out of sight of land. For this I would
require charts and multiple GPS. I would take my eyes and a magnetic
compass or two. I would prefer to have a RADAR but consider it primarily
a
collision avoidance device in this context. I would not turn around and
run
home if my RADAR died the first day out. I would also not leave without
a
working fathometer. I would not abort if it failed early. I would go
with
or without celestial and LORAN. So basically I would feel comfortable
with
Charts, GPS, Magnetic compass and my eyes. If I had LORAN I would use it
at
least periodically. I would use a celestial capability only in a lifeboat
situation or for hobbyist stuff.

IMHO, the only thing necessary these days in a lifeboat situation is an
EPIRB. Most of the lifeboats we carry have no means of propulsion other
than maybe paddling to someplace you can see. Why would I care to know
where I am if I can't to where I want to go?

For coastal work I would prefer the RADAR be operative but would again not
abort if it failed early. I would require a fathometer to depart and
would
make for a safe and easy intermediate destination if I was without depth
capablity. So again charts, multiple GPS, magnetic compass, fathometer,
and
eyes. If I had a LORAN available I would use it.

For entering a tricky harbor at night in a storm I would want charts,
multiple GPS, radar and a fathometer. If everything was not working well
I
wait for morning.

So what I think is required is situation dependent. I would however
always
require charts, redundant GPS and a magnetic compass for anything other
than
a day sail.

So with all of these other things you say you would use (radar, loran,
eyes, fathometer, compass, etc.) can you finally get off this GPS is the
be-all-end-all means of navigation kick? It sounds like you *want* to
agree with everyone else, but can't just to be argumentative.

Steve