On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:19:35 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:58:45 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote:

Actually, you're agreeing with my friend. I'm still using paper myself
although with the GPS as an adjunct.

Olde school, very olde.

If you sail in one general area that you come to know, love and have all
of the paper charts for, it's not so bad. I sailed like that on Long
Island Sound and points east for many years.

These days however when we are cruising thousands of miles per year, to
many different areas, the idea of navigating only it with paper charts
would be daunting indeed. I carry chart books for backup but most of
them never get opened.

After awhile, storage for all those paper charts becomes an issue!

All those charts can be expensive too.

I'm partly old-school too -- I usually have a paper chart in front of me
as well as an electronic one running on a laptop.

If I were cruising long distance, I'd be relying on electronic charts
rather than buying paper ones all the time. Some may worry about
relying on electronic equipment. But if an F16 needs reliable software to
stay in the air, then surely we can figure out a reliable system for our
silly little boats.

Matt O.

Matt O'Toole wrote:

relying on electronic equipment. But if an F16 needs reliable
software to stay in the air, then surely we can figure out a reliable
system for our silly little boats.

Sure, but the navigation display in an F16 probably costs as much as a half
dozen of our silly little boats.

--
Roger Long

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 20:30:09 +0000, Roger Long wrote:

Matt O'Toole wrote:

relying on electronic equipment. But if an F16 needs reliable
software to stay in the air, then surely we can figure out a reliable
system for our silly little boats.

Sure, but the navigation display in an F16 probably costs as much as a half
dozen of our silly little boats.

This is true, but we have volume and access to commodity hardware on our
side. Now that the monopoly is gone, people are free compete to build
better software. Monopoly = mediocrity.

Matt O.

Matt O'Toole wrote:
But if an F16 needs reliable software to stay in the air, then
surely we can figure out a reliable system for our silly little
boats.

There's a reason F-16's are called "Lawn Darts"...all that reliable
software in the reboot process.

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:24:52 -0500, Matt O'Toole
wrote:

If I were cruising long distance, I'd be relying on electronic charts
rather than buying paper ones all the time. Some may worry about
relying on electronic equipment. But if an F16 needs reliable software to
stay in the air, then surely we can figure out a reliable system for our
silly little boats.

Matt O.

Oh man, what a bad example. You wouldn't believe how many guys they
have working on that stuff, yet things like this happen (copied from
another group)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A friend of mine who works for General Dynamics here in Ft. Worth
wrote some
of the code for the F-16, and he is always telling me about some
neato-whiz-bang bug/feature they keep finding in the F-16:

o Since the F-16 is a fly-by-wire aircraft, the computer keeps the
pilot from
doing dumb things to himself. So if the pilot jerks hard over on the
joystick, the computer will instruct the flight surfaces to make a
nice and
easy 4 or 5 G flip. But the plane can withstand a much higher flip
than that.
So when they were 'flying' the F-16 in simulation over the equator,
the
computer got confused and instantly flipped the plane over, killing
the
pilot [in simulation]. And since it can fly forever upside down, it
would
do so until it ran out of fuel.

(The remaining bugs were actually found while flying, rather than in
simulation):

o One of the first things the Air Force test pilots tried on an early
F-16
was to tell the computer to raise the landing gear while standing
still on
the runway. Guess what happened? Scratch one F-16. (my friend says
there
is a new subroutine in the code called 'wait_on_wheels' now...)
[weight?]

o The computer system onboard has a weapons management system that
will
attempt to keep the plane flying level by dispersing weapons and
empty
fuel tanks in a balanced fashion. So if you ask to drop a bomb, the
computer will figure out whether to drop a port or starboard bomb in
order
to keep the load even. One of the early problems with that was the
fact
that you could flip the plane over and the computer would gladly let
you
drop a bomb or fuel tank. It would drop, dent the wing, and then
roll off.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My boss at one of the software companies I worked at always said that
software is like sausage. If you think you like it, you should never
see it being made. Old joke but accurate.

Don't want to rehash old arguments, but even if you trust your
software and the hardware totally, there's the matter of power.

Regarding cruising without charts, I've never seen a chartplotter that
gives me the same situational awareness boost that I get from looking
at the proper chart. When I'm in home waters, the only time I get out
a chart is for guests to look at. I know the area and the
chartplotter is sufficient. When I'm coming into a new inlet, I want
every source of information I can get. But in a pinch I'd rather do
without the gps than the chart unless visibilty is an issue.



__________________________________________________ __________
Glen "Wiley" Wilson usenet1 SPAMNIX at world wide wiley dot com
To reply, lose the capitals and do the obvious.

Take a look at cpRepeater, my NMEA data integrator, repeater, and
logger at http://www.worldwidewiley.com/

"Matt O'Toole" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:19:35 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:58:45 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote:

If I were cruising long distance, I'd be relying on electronic charts
rather than buying paper ones all the time. Some may worry about
relying on electronic equipment. But if an F16 needs reliable software to
stay in the air, then surely we can figure out a reliable system for our
silly little boats.

Matt O.

And those F16s aren't 'at sea' alone for days / weeks / months at a time.
And their software / hardware probably gets a bit more testing than the
consumer stuff you and I buy. And they have a support network of radars /
communications equipment / backups etc that costs more than most of our home
towns. And they have access to a bottomless pit of money for maintenance
personnel and parts. Other than that ... I guess you may have a point.

For me ...belts AND suspenders. I maintained two computers - the main
desktop under the nav table, and a notebook. The notbook is the only one to
connect to the internet other than for updates. Software and charts
installed on both. Two GPS systems. Failry current paper edition charts
that cover all East Coast inlets and chatkits for areas being traveled. I
love my electronc charting but I would not depend on it to be 100%
operational 100% of the time. While my system has never crashed or hung
while underway (5 years), being safe is too easy.