|
Navigating with grains of salt
The post about taking your charts with a grain of salt and using all
available information brings up the conundrum I'm facing as I return to sailing after nearly 20 years. Most of my command time was in simple, traditional, boats. The most complex instrument on board was my usually watch. I didn't even have a depth sounder or speedometer and navigated clock and compass exactly as was done 100 years ago. Since I sailed in Maine, I saw a lot of fog and made a lot of long runs this way. Never in a boat have I felt more aware and in touch with my surroundings then when enveloped in that gray cocoon with buoys and ledges occasionally moving through it, usually right on schedule. The faint sound of a wave on rock, the darkening of the fog where a headland blocked the light, a change in wave patterns as I passed a gap in a protecting chain of islands or ledges, all helped confirm that my chart work was right. Some of the later boats I chartered had Loran but I never turned it on. I didn't want to be distracted by learning it and using the old ways was a big part of the enjoyment of cruising. I used (and taught when I was a piloting instructor) very simple methods that would be less likely to let me down when tired or busy. Instead of speed and distance calculations, I would just set my dividers to the boat's speed on the scale and then do everything in time. On one of my last charters, a hurricane threatened. We were way downeast and the owner insisted that we had to get sixty miles back to his mooring in dense fog instead of tucking the boat into a hole and riding it out. It was one of the thickest fogs I have ever seen. We ran through most of Fox Island Thoroughfare without seeing either shore. It was a memorable day. I learned how to fly airplanes a few years later and that put navigation in a whole new light. The plane had Loran and GPS but I refused to turn them on for the first three years so that I would develop the map and eyeball skills and a feel for the distances and speed. Now I use the magic boxes all the time but, in some ways, my situational awareness is less. I track a position that I can transfer to the paper map it the power fails but it is different. I used to be flying over the land and identified fixes below. Now I am flying over the map. You get lazy fast, especially with all the other things to attend to in an airplane. Now that I am about to return to boat piloting, I'm unsure about the place of GPS in my life. The old ways were a big part of cruising for me. Ride a cable car up a mountain in Switzerland and you may see people with ropes hanging by their fingernails trying to get the same place you are going. The rational is similar. I'd also like my video gaming kids to learn what the human mind can accomplish without the aid of a microprocessor. But, is it responsible? It certainly won't be seen as such if I ever hit anything. On the other hand, I know of many aircraft accidents that were clearly caused by the pilot trying to use the box instead of his mind. I always used to know where I was. I'm not sure narrowing it down with an electronic cursor will significantly increase my safety in most circumstances. The strongest rational I can see for relating my place in life to invisible satellites instead of the landscape I can see around me is backup for my macroprocessor. If I should fall overboard or become incapacitated, the kids can either tell the Coast Guard, "We're right here", or follow the cursor home. I'd like to think I could teach them to do the same thing the old way but, face it, they know about GPS, they aren't going to be very interested in learning that, "other stuff". I like gadgets though. I have an old aviation GPS that will give me latitude, longitude, and waypoints. I can't knowingly leave it ashore. I'll have to buy a marine unit for my new job as Harbormaster. I won't leave that behind either. Once I turn them on, I know I'll be hooked and something very rich and rewarding will have passed from my life forever. -- Roger Long |
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:18:02 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote: Once I turn them on, I know I'll be hooked and something very rich and rewarding will have passed from my life forever. ================================= Nicely put Roger. I started cruising on small boats back in the 70s when an RDF was high tech, and we always went everywhere we wanted to go, including Maine and the fog. The new gadgets are great however and they have their own rewards, not the least of which is always knowing exactly where you are. That leaves more time for other things like looking out for the lobster pots. |
I probably saw more lobster buoys when I studied each one intently as
I passed to see if there was any current change to account for than I will when I'm just checking the GPS track. OTOH, my new boat is going to be a warp catcher so I'll be looking for them. -- Roger Long "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:18:02 GMT, "Roger Long" wrote: Once I turn them on, I know I'll be hooked and something very rich and rewarding will have passed from my life forever. ================================= Nicely put Roger. I started cruising on small boats back in the 70s when an RDF was high tech, and we always went everywhere we wanted to go, including Maine and the fog. The new gadgets are great however and they have their own rewards, not the least of which is always knowing exactly where you are. That leaves more time for other things like looking out for the lobster pots. |
A smart boater doesn't give up the charts. You still have to know where
you are, and where you are going. I always lay out my course on the paper chart and track it on paper too. In a boat GPS is just another tool and should never be used as the only source of navigation. I always have in my mind, course, speed, and time, with GPS it's from waypoint to waypoint, just a change of terms. I always know what the heading should be from one waypoint to another and have caught many errors because I did know. The biggest mistake new boaters make is not learning basic navigation skills. I boat in the western end of Lake Erie, there are to many reefs, and islands that will not let you just look up a waypoint to where you want to go and enter it in a GPS and launch off on the trip. More than once a season a boat will end up on the beach or on a reef, many time killing one or more on board. Why, because they entered the waypoint they wanted and took off at night, and sure enough that island was right on their straight line course. They would have known that was the case if they would have charted it first, before leaving. The other problem is that the units can fail half way thru the trip and at night or in even a heavy haze, you'd have no clue as to where you were if you didn't back the GPS up with the tried and true methods. The only difference today with GPS you don't have to be quite as careful ploting and tracking. The only thing I totally rely on my GPS for is "time to go", I have to go thru a draw bridge to get to my dock, it opens on the half hour, so I set my speed to be on time. The problem if the GPS screws up, I sit for a while waiting for the bridge to open, no big deal. So if you're smart you will still have and use the paper charts. |
I agree 100%. I would never give up the paper charts and always will
consider them the primary navigation tool. It's a question of constantly updating from GPS fixes or from time, distance, and cross bearings. -- Roger Long |
You can find any number of cases where someone had an accident because
they "eyeball" navigated and ignored their instruments. You can find any number of cases where someone had an accident because they "electronically" navigated and ignored their "eyeball" You rarely (note "rarely" .... not always) find a case where someone had an accident when they were using all means available. There's nothing wrong with many of the "old" methods, but they required training and experience and the knowledge of their drawbacks. Even at night, you could tell when the seas shortened and became steeper as you approached shallower water. Even at night you could identify currents by increased whitecaps or disturbed water. The problem with many of these methods is they aren't always available and you need to know what to look for, if it is. otn |
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:18:02 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote: The post about taking your charts with a grain of salt and using all available information brings up the conundrum I'm facing as I return to sailing after nearly 20 years. Most of my command time was in simple, traditional, boats. The most complex instrument on board was my usually watch. I didn't even have a depth sounder or speedometer and navigated clock and compass exactly as was done 100 years ago. Since I sailed in Maine, I saw a lot of fog and made a lot of long runs this way. Never in a boat have I felt more aware and in touch with my surroundings then when enveloped in that gray cocoon with buoys and ledges occasionally moving through it, usually right on schedule. The faint sound of a wave on rock, the darkening of the fog where a headland blocked the light, a change in wave patterns as I passed a gap in a protecting chain of islands or ledges, all helped confirm that my chart work was right. Some of the later boats I chartered had Loran but I never turned it on. I didn't want to be distracted by learning it and using the old ways was a big part of the enjoyment of cruising. I used (and taught when I was a piloting instructor) very simple methods that would be less likely to let me down when tired or busy. Instead of speed and distance calculations, I would just set my dividers to the boat's speed on the scale and then do everything in time. On one of my last charters, a hurricane threatened. We were way downeast and the owner insisted that we had to get sixty miles back to his mooring in dense fog instead of tucking the boat into a hole and riding it out. It was one of the thickest fogs I have ever seen. We ran through most of Fox Island Thoroughfare without seeing either shore. It was a memorable day. I learned how to fly airplanes a few years later and that put navigation in a whole new light. The plane had Loran and GPS but I refused to turn them on for the first three years so that I would develop the map and eyeball skills and a feel for the distances and speed. Now I use the magic boxes all the time but, in some ways, my situational awareness is less. I track a position that I can transfer to the paper map it the power fails but it is different. I used to be flying over the land and identified fixes below. Now I am flying over the map. You get lazy fast, especially with all the other things to attend to in an airplane. Now that I am about to return to boat piloting, I'm unsure about the place of GPS in my life. The old ways were a big part of cruising for me. Ride a cable car up a mountain in Switzerland and you may see people with ropes hanging by their fingernails trying to get the same place you are going. The rational is similar. I'd also like my video gaming kids to learn what the human mind can accomplish without the aid of a microprocessor. But, is it responsible? It certainly won't be seen as such if I ever hit anything. On the other hand, I know of many aircraft accidents that were clearly caused by the pilot trying to use the box instead of his mind. I always used to know where I was. I'm not sure narrowing it down with an electronic cursor will significantly increase my safety in most circumstances. The strongest rational I can see for relating my place in life to invisible satellites instead of the landscape I can see around me is backup for my macroprocessor. If I should fall overboard or become incapacitated, the kids can either tell the Coast Guard, "We're right here", or follow the cursor home. I'd like to think I could teach them to do the same thing the old way but, face it, they know about GPS, they aren't going to be very interested in learning that, "other stuff". I like gadgets though. I have an old aviation GPS that will give me latitude, longitude, and waypoints. I can't knowingly leave it ashore. I'll have to buy a marine unit for my new job as Harbormaster. I won't leave that behind either. Once I turn them on, I know I'll be hooked and something very rich and rewarding will have passed from my life forever. I have transited the Fox I Thorofare without seeing anything but buoys, but that was with a loran c. I have done shorter and less unlikely DR passages in total pea soup in the same area of the Maine coast without electronics, and I am glad I did. After that we chartered a boat that had no loran a total of 8 weeks in 5 years, departing from Northeast Harbor. But that was in May and September, when the fog is much less frequent. Now I wouldn't dream of leaving the GPS turned off. Using all the info at your disposal requires that. I also use the radar if it socks in. Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC J36 Gjo/a "Be careful. The toe you stepped on yesterday may be connected to the ass you have to kiss today." --Former mayor Ciancia |
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:06:22 -0500, Rodney Myrvaagnes
wrote: I have transited the Fox I Thorofare without seeing anything but buoys, but that was with a loran c. Yep. We once did the same thing eastbound on Eggemoggin Reach, never even saw the bridge as we went under. Now I wouldn't dream of leaving the GPS turned off. Using all the info at your disposal requires that. I also use the radar if it socks in. I certainly agree with that. Good navigation requires using all the tools at your disposal and GPS/WAAS is about as good as it gets. Chart error is the primary issue for us these days. Take a look at the following GPS track, all of which was done in deep water and recorded with a WAAS GPS: http://tinyurl.com/5utpw http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/hoonos...&.dnm=66dc.jpg |
That is good. GPS is a tool, not the way to navigate.
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:34:21 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote: I agree 100%. I would never give up the paper charts and always will consider them the primary navigation tool. It's a question of constantly updating from GPS fixes or from time, distance, and cross bearings. ============================ Roger, there seems to be a misconception evident on this thread, not necessarily yours, that using a GPS means giving up charts. Far from it in my experience. The paper charts may be safely stored below for emergencies but I always have at least one set, frequently two sets, of electronic charts at my disposal, both fed from separate GPS sources, and both maintaining a running track.. My Maptech BSB format charts on the laptop look exactly the same as the paper charts and are used the same way also, just more convenient, and with some electronic bells and whistles thrown in. Who has the time to maintain a manual DR track when running at any kind of speed in congested waters? |
Well, she's nearly twice the age of my kids and didn't grow up with
video games. Besides, she's a girl, uh, woman. I'm actually sure my kids would be thrilled to learn the same things but it would be harder to get them to focus on them, be as interested, or understand the necessity when the GPS was right there. -- Roger Long "Dave" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:18:02 GMT, "Roger Long" said: I'd like to think I could teach them to do the same thing the old way but, face it, they know about GPS, they aren't going to be very interested in learning that, "other stuff". 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. |
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
... Who has the time to maintain a manual DR track when running at any kind of speed in congested waters? My experience has been that waters are usually only congested when the navigation and visibility are easy enough that you don't need to keep a running plot on paper. I'm sure there are places that this is isn't true and I would have the best GPS I could afford if I spent much time in them. A larger vessel constrained by draft in traffic that was ranging over a larger area with few fixed navigation aids would be a good example. Piloting without GPS now comes into the realm of a sport in itself (sort of like making a vessel go somewhere without an engine). The mountain climbing analogy holds. You do it in specific places for the experience and satisfaction of achieving it. You wouldn't try to get to a job interview in Manhattan that way. Speed is also a factor. I spent a couple months trying to decide whether to buy a power boat or a sail boat. I always envisioned the power boat with a big GPS, radar, and all the stuff I'm used to from these boats I associate with professionally: http://home.maine.rr.com/rlma/WHOIrv.htm I'm used to congested waters. I used to go out on a busy Sunday afternoon in a Soling on Boston harbor with someone (usually a girl) who had never been in a boat before, set the spinnaker, and sail around. I used to think I was a hot ****. Now I'm old enough to know that I was just arrogant. I never had a problem with the spinnaker though and have only returned to the mooring with a hole in the boat once in my life (on the port side, fortunately). That was the day I met my wife. -- Roger Long |
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:18:02 GMT, "Roger Long" said:
I'd like to think I could teach them to do the same thing the old way but, face it, they know about GPS, they aren't going to be very interested in learning that, "other stuff". I used to work on an oceanographic ship, the CO would tape cardboard over the GPS during watch and have his ensigns use only DR and celestial . Dennis |
Which ship was that? Oceanographic vessels are my primary
professional interest. -- Roger Long "Den73740" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:18:02 GMT, "Roger Long" said: I'd like to think I could teach them to do the same thing the old way but, face it, they know about GPS, they aren't going to be very interested in learning that, "other stuff". I used to work on an oceanographic ship, the CO would tape cardboard over the GPS during watch and have his ensigns use only DR and celestial . Dennis |
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:51:00 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote: "Wayne.B" wrote in message .. . Who has the time to maintain a manual DR track when running at any kind of speed in congested waters? My experience has been that waters are usually only congested when the navigation and visibility are easy enough that you don't need to keep a running plot on paper. I'm sure there are places that this is isn't true and I would have the best GPS I could afford if I spent much time in them. A larger vessel constrained by draft in traffic that was ranging over a larger area with few fixed navigation aids would be a good example. Piloting without GPS now comes into the realm of a sport in itself (sort of like making a vessel go somewhere without an engine). The mountain climbing analogy holds. You do it in specific places for the experience and satisfaction of achieving it. You wouldn't try to get to a job interview in Manhattan that way. Speed is also a factor. I spent a couple months trying to decide whether to buy a power boat or a sail boat. I always envisioned the power boat with a big GPS, radar, and all the stuff I'm used to from these boats I associate with professionally: http://home.maine.rr.com/rlma/WHOIrv.htm I'm used to congested waters. I used to go out on a busy Sunday afternoon in a Soling on Boston harbor with someone (usually a girl) who had never been in a boat before, set the spinnaker, and sail around. I used to think I was a hot ****. Now I'm old enough to know that I was just arrogant. I never had a problem with the spinnaker though and have only returned to the mooring with a hole in the boat once in my life (on the port side, fortunately). That was the day I met my wife. Was your future wife the one that made the hole in the Soling? :-) Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC J36 Gjo/a "Be careful. The toe you stepped on yesterday may be connected to the ass you have to kiss today." --Former mayor Ciancia |
Was your future wife the one that made the hole in the Soling? :-) No, but talking to her may have made me slightly less attentive:) Actually, I saw the other guy but Boston Harbor used to be (and probably still is) full of hotshots who like to skim your transom on port tack like they were in a race. By the time I realized he wasn't going to do this, it was too late to take evasive action. The burdened boat is supposed to maintain a predictable course anyway although there is a fine line between doing this and failing to take action to avoid a collision. I fault myself for not verifying that I saw a pair of eyes, or at least a head, and learned. His story was that he was in a channel and I was crossing it so he had the right of way. It was arguably a channel because the area is heavily buoyed and ones in the area were arranged to guide larger boats to the gaps between a couple of islands but it was not charted as such and we each would have had 20 feet of water under our keels anywhere within half a mile. -- Roger Long |
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:51:00 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote: I never had a problem with the spinnaker though and have only returned to the mooring with a hole in the boat once in my life (on the port side, fortunately). That was the day I met my wife. ====================== What kind of boat did she port tack you with? |
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:51:00 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote: Speed is also a factor. I spent a couple months trying to decide whether to buy a power boat or a sail boat. I always envisioned the power boat with a big GPS, radar, and all the stuff I'm used to from these boats I associate with professionally: http://home.maine.rr.com/rlma/WHOIrv.htm ========================================== Nice video of the Tioga hauling a*s up Vineyard Sound past West Chop. I just installed the same Furuno integrated charting/plotting/sounding package on my trawler and am very impressed with it. What kind of power is in the Tioga? |
-- Roger Long "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:51:00 GMT, "Roger Long" wrote: Speed is also a factor. I spent a couple months trying to decide whether to buy a power boat or a sail boat. I always envisioned the power boat with a big GPS, radar, and all the stuff I'm used to from these boats I associate with professionally: http://home.maine.rr.com/rlma/WHOIrv.htm ========================================== Nice video of the Tioga hauling a*s up Vineyard Sound past West Chop. I just installed the same Furuno integrated charting/plotting/sounding package on my trawler and am very impressed with it. What kind of power is in the Tioga? |
Detroit Diesel, inline 6's, electronically controlled, 710 hp each.
She's only doing 17 knots in the video but did 21 on trials. She'll go 18 knots all day long with a 10,000 payload. -- Roger Long "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:51:00 GMT, "Roger Long" wrote: Speed is also a factor. I spent a couple months trying to decide whether to buy a power boat or a sail boat. I always envisioned the power boat with a big GPS, radar, and all the stuff I'm used to from these boats I associate with professionally: http://home.maine.rr.com/rlma/WHOIrv.htm ========================================== Nice video of the Tioga hauling a*s up Vineyard Sound past West Chop. I just installed the same Furuno integrated charting/plotting/sounding package on my trawler and am very impressed with it. What kind of power is in the Tioga? |
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:18:02 GMT, "Roger Long" said: I'd like to think I could teach them to do the same thing the old way but, face it, they know about GPS, they aren't going to be very interested in learning that, "other stuff". 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. 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. Jim Donohue |
I beg to differ. For learning it isn't nonsense at all. Your use of
"all the tools" will be more competent and you will have back up skills for power failure, fire that wipes out all your systems, etc. if you know how to get around without any magic boxes. I don't think anyone is saying not to teach or use electronics but that learning the old skills and keeping those skills sharp is of great value. I know I'm a much better aircraft navigator for having kept the Loran and GPS dark for the first three years I flew the plane. -- Roger Long 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 |
I agree that no accomplished boater would teach someone to navigate with
GPS alone. But it's the Newbies that buy a new boat, with all the bells and whistles, except a chart, and fire out across the western end of Lake Erie, only to run aground on a reel. Or like the boat last year that ran into an island, at night, killing all 6 on board. |
|
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. 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. 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? 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. Jim Donohue "Roger Long" wrote in message ... I beg to differ. For learning it isn't nonsense at all. Your use of "all the tools" will be more competent and you will have back up skills for power failure, fire that wipes out all your systems, etc. if you know how to get around without any magic boxes. I don't think anyone is saying not to teach or use electronics but that learning the old skills and keeping those skills sharp is of great value. I know I'm a much better aircraft navigator for having kept the Loran and GPS dark for the first three years I flew the plane. -- Roger Long 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 |
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. |
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. 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. 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. 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? |
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? 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. 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. |
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 |
I taught just one coastal piloting class and then got promoted at my
day job and gave up being a sailing instructor on the side. This was before even Loran was common on smaller cruisers so use of electronics was not an issue. I had the people for about five sessions followed by a short day trip to get them ready for sailing around Boston Harbor and the adjoining coast so it had to be pretty basic. I started by saying, "I'm going to teach you to do about six simple things. It doesn't sound like much but I want you to be able to do them when you are tired, when you are seasick, when you are confused, and when you are scared. I want you to practice and do them all the time in good weather. If you wait until you need this knowledge and haven't practiced, it isn't going to do you much good. There is no such thing as finding out where you are, there is only keeping track of where you are." In all the sailing I did in New England, including long runs in fog, I never really used much more than I taught in that class. I'm a great believer in keeping it simple. -- Roger Long |
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? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:00 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com