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

The question isn't what should be used first; the question is what should
be taught first. Your inability to understand that is beyond jaxian.

Teaching someone GPS before basic piloting is like teaching children how
to use a calculator before teaching them the addition table.


We disagree..not about the need to teach piloting but upon the base on
which you develop that piloting skill. DR is simply the technique that
is adopted between fixes to plot ones position for the period of time
until a new fix is available. But an electronic navigation system
provides continuous position fixes...so DR really has no place.

Absolute nonsense.

Dead reckoning (DR) determines position by advancing a known positon for
courses and distances. A position so determined is called a dead reckoning
(DR) position. It is generally accepted that only course and speed
determine the DR position. Correcting the DR position for leeway, current
effects, and steering error result in an estimated positon (EP). An
inertial navigator develops an extremely accurate EP. - Bowditch

LOPs and such come up in
piloting and I agree that one uses whatever is available and reasonable
to maintain a cross check. The eye is a very useful tool for this when
visibility is adequate. Radar also can well provide such a cross check.
When running multiple electronic navigation systems they can cross check
each other. All of these skills should be taught.

I have this strange feeling you guys are taking this position because you
feel, as I do, that GPS based navigation is easier to teach and to do
than non electronic piloting. So the real reason you want non-electronic
first is so the new students have to suffer like you did.

Not at all. My only desire is to have the best navigators out on the
water. Perhaps you should look at the curriculum of the Power Squadron,
or the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Although both offer "quicky" courses for
GPS, acknowledging that many boaters will only tolerate a few hours of
instruction, their full courses follow the tradition path of charts,
compasses, DR and piloting before introducing GPS.

I am familar with all of these course. When I took all the CGaux courses
that made sense. It no longer does. I suspect they will get to it
eventually but it will be a few years yet.

Actually, the case was that someone was learning how to do LOP's and DR
and wasn't interested in LORAN. You called this "utter nonsense." I
call your attitude "sheer stupidity."


So again we disagree. The instructor wanted to teach without the use of
the electronic navigation systems...I consider this nonsense. You end up
with a less trained student who initially is far less able to navigate.
Why would one teach a student to navigate so as to get an inferior
outcome at least during the initial phases of training? I would want
them as capable as possible as early as possible for the sake of their
and others safety.

You should re-read the original post and your response.

And you should read the thread to that point as well.
...

Uhhh where did it state that learning LOPs and DR was "utter nonsense"?
I think I made such a comment about teaching a student navigation with
such techniques emphasized to the exclusion of electronic navigation.
Still do.

Perhaps you should re-read your fist post in this thread. Dave said his
daughter was enjoying learning LOP's and DR, and wasn't interested in the
Loran. Your response was "Ohh stop...what utter nonsense." You went on
to spew more silliness which only served to make you feel important and
make everyone else think you're a fool.


The remark was in the context of claiming to teach navigation without the
electronic systems. Dave was featuring it as a good thing. I believe
it a bad thing. Leads to a new sailor with more limited skills than if
taught the electronic approach up front.

Your approach pretty much guarantees that most students will never learn
the basics. It's a good thing the most teachers disagree with you.

Many agree with me. Eventually it is the way it will go.


Nowhere was it mentioned that Dave's daughter would not go on to learn
other techniques, or that she was even destined to be a boat's navigator.
It was only stated that she enjoyed learning basic piloting.

Frankly criticizing anyone for wanting to learn almost anything is a mark
of a very small mind.


And you technophobes lack the prospective to see the outcome of your
teaching primary dependence on outdated technology.

Technophobe? I love it! You should realize that 25 years ago I was
programing spacecraft navigation for NASA. I'm now retired from IBM after
spending about 30 years working on cutting edge technology.

What you did for a living has little to do with technophobe views. Lots of
intellectual bigots in the technical ranks. NASA? That the guys so good at
O ring design?

I'm not afraid of technology, I just have a realistic view of its
limitations.

I have enough experience in high tech to note that the ability of
technologist to understand what they wrought was very limited. Hell I
personally sat for five years on what was, at the time, likely the world's
best chip design system. I had no idea it was valuable.



The way to do this is to actively practice "manual techniques" even while
using a GPS. I've never known someone who learned GPS first who did
this. However, once you have actually navigated by LOP's, or following
depth contours, or watching "danger bearings," it starts to become
automatic. When I see a buoy line up with a point of land, I mentally
follow the line on the chart and check the depth I should be in. It only
takes a second, but would someone who had never done that "for real"
bother to do it?


And it does for electronic navigators as well. You learn to correlate
the views of the eye and other devices with the GPS or whatever.

This is exactly what I've been talking about. My point has been that
those who learn GPS first don't bother to learn this.

Everyone learns it to one degree or another. It is not optional.

Calling it a "system" was a euphemism. It was a GPS attached to an
autopilot. They ignored the depth sounder, the radar, and visual cues.
Actually, the same thing could have happened to most anyone with an
Autohelm and a Garmin, except the the Autohelm (now Raymarine) gives a
better indication of faulty input.


Neither the page of causals nor the 3 pages of recommendations has a
single mention of the term GPS...not one. There were a number of
failures but not one that indicates GPS was a problem. Incompetent
seamanship is the proximate cause with poorly designed and poorly
operated equipment creating the opportunity for the incompetent seaman to
ground the boat.

Refer to my other post on this. Its pretty clear that you're blatantly
lying here - the page on conclusions talks mostly about the problem of
relying too much on GPS.

The "Cause" section very short and though it doesn't mention GPS by name,
it is explicit in blaming overreliance on one form of navigation and
ignoring other more basic forms. While the "Recommendations" section
doesn't mention GPS specifically, it is filled mostly with comments about
overreliance on one form. The issue is not that GPS itself is flawed, its
relying on only one form. Thus the recommendations aren't specific about
GPS, they apply to GPS, Loran, Glosnoss, or any other system that might be
used.

You still see what you want to see. Find me a use of the word "form". They
want redundancy not differing technology. Here is an actual quote from part
of the recommendations:
"Also as a result of the investigation, the National Transportation Safety
Board makes the Propose to the International Maritime Organization that it
develop standards for integrated bridge system design that will require

· multiple independent position-receiver inputs;"

See "form" mentioned there anywhere?



So you turn on 3 gps's for a day sail? I think you'd be better served by
brushing up on more basic skills.


No I use 2 GPS for serious navigation and hold a third in reserve. Both
active GPS have the same way points set. The position of the hand held
is plotted on the chart. And all this is cross checked with eye and
radar. I use true headings unless we have to hand steer when we work out
the magnetic.

When I go day sailing in Long Beach I may not crack open a chart or turn
on a GPS. I can drive a boat just like you do. On a clear day in a
familiar port I need little navigation help from anything.

Don't presume what I do - If I'm just taking a spin around the inner
harbor I might not have a chart on deck, but in the outer harbor, which
I've sailed for 40 years, I always have a chart on deck. For longer
trips, or if fog is possible, I'll usually have GPS and radar setup, but
I'll also have pencil, dividers and parallel rules on hand. And at least
one trip I year I leave the GPS and radar below, and formally plot the
course at the helm. I have to get in at least one running fix a year!

I can see you now...afloat in your jacuzzi with the plotting board affixed
to the stomach. dividers and parallel rules at the ready. If the fog
should roll in you will plot your course and make it to the stairs. Must
inhibit enjoyment a bit.

When is the last time you did a running fix? Could your "students" do one
if the GPS failed? Do they even know what it is?

Well given your lack of knowledge of what DR is what can you expect of my
students?..of which there are actually a few...but only in the deep blue out
of sight of land.

And if the GPS fails and the other GPS fails and the other GPS fails...then
they will have to resort to DR cause there is obviously not the least chance
that LORAN or RADAR is working. So pick up the chart. Note your position
and do whatever is needed to get somewhere save. Under those conditions I
would be more than content if they figure out a way to get a fix or two.
"Running" would be gilding the lily.


Jim

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


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


"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
m...
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?

Steve

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.

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.

Jim

Jim Donohue wrote:

...
[yeah, yeah ...]

I suspect Jim could get you back safely. What I cannot understand is why
anyone would ever leave harbor with him in the first place.

--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/

Jim Donohue wrote:
As I have pointed out before Jeff you simply read the conclusion you have
already reached into the data. But I will try once more though it will
likely do little good.

You've created quite a "straw man" argument here. You keep assuming
that my position is that GPS is "flawed" as so you keep pointing out
reasons why problems associated with are really the fault of something
else, not the GPS. I've never denied that GPS is the most accurate,
and the most reliable (by some measures). My issue has been the
over-reliance on one mode of navigation, and the best sequence of
education to avoid problems.

Perhaps we should go back to the beginning of this particular issue. I
said, "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."

You responded with "Find for me any mention of over reliance on GPS."
In fact, I believe I found a number of places where they say just that.





"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

Jim Donohue wrote:
....
You've made this claim several times and its total Bull****! You're
claiming, in essence, that because the satellites broadcast a good signal,
there is no problem with over-reliance on GPS. This is a textbook case in
what can go wrong with such over-reliance.

The bizarre thing here is that on one hand you've been arguing that GPS
should be learned first because it is nearly perfect, but then here you're
claiming that the problem was the "incompetent seaman" who relied too much
on GPS.



To the contrary...two GPSs integrated into the system would have fully
solved the problem. Or integrating the LORAN would have worked as well.

You're right. There are any number of possible changes that would have
prevented this particular grounding. What will prevent the next? How
about looking at the depth sounder as you approach shore? How about
noticing that the island that was sighted should have been 30 miles away?

There are places where the LORAN would not work so for a broad solution it
is not as useful as the second GPS. But two GPS or three GPS and the LORAN
would have been fine.

Unless someone spilled a Pepsi on the control panel and popped a fuse.
You don't understand failure analysis, do you?




We agree they were over-reliant on the automatic bridge system. We agree
that they should not have been dependent on a single navigational device.
But this single device reliance is a fault of the bridge system design not
the GPS.

Again with the "straw man" argument!


If either the LORAN or, better, a second GPS the failure would not
have occurred. We would also suggest an automatic cross check or at least a
manual one was a minimum requirement for the operation of the bridge. The
automatic bridge system was defective and the staff incompetent...what more
needs to be said?

What a tangled web you're weaving here! When I first heard of the
accident (lots of coverage here in Boston, of course) I was appalled
that they would have made the approach without once looking at the depth
sounder to verify they were in the channel. One minute of human
intervention, using a technique that should have been second nature to
any experienced boater.

And you're claiming that that should not have been necessary - what was
needed was two GPS's and a LORAN, all powered presumably by separate
power sources, feed a computer that will compare and sound the alarm if
there;s a discrepancy. And if the computer fails? NASA's approach for
Apollo was to use 5 360's for double redundancy plus cross checking.
(Not to mention links to other locations in the country that could take
over.) Fortunately, they remembered to include some eyeball navigation
tools or Apollo 13 would not have returned.

And, while you might be able to make a case that such equipment is
appropriate for a cruise ship, we're still a few years away from having
this for the average boater.



In the "Conclusions" section of the report the NTSB describes what
happened and what went wrong. The majority of the 22 conclusions talk
about the failure of the GPS (mentioning it specifically) system or the
failure to double check by other means, i.e. the over-reliance on one
system.

Here's some examples:

5. Had the fathometer alarm been set to 3 meters,
as was the stated practice, or had the
second officer chosen to display the
fathometer data on the control console, he
would have been alerted that the Royal Majesty
was in far shallower water than expected
and, thus, was off course. He would
have been alerted perhaps as long as 40
minutes before the grounding, and the
situation could have been corrected.


Nothing GPS...simply incompetent bridge operation.

Failure to use traditional piloting techniques. One for me!



6. The watch officers’ monitoring of the status
of the vessel’s global positioning system
was deficient throughout the voyage from
St. George’s.


Does mention GPS but is actually directed at the monitoring of the system.
Suggests the monitoring was deficient not the GPS.

Assuming the GPS was perfect. Another for me!




7. Deliberate cross checking between the
global positioning system and the Loran-C
to verify the Royal Majesty’s position was
not being performed and should have been
on the voyage from St. George’s.


Such a procedure supposedly existed according to the Navigator and Chief
Officier. So failure to follow established procedures indicts the GPS?
Nahh

Yup! Overreliance on one technique - this is a perfect example.
Another for me!



8. Even though it is likely that the watch officers
were not aware of the limitation inherent
in using the position-fix alarm to monitor
the accuracy of GPS position data, it was
inappropriate for them to rely solely on the
alarm to warn them of any problems with
the GPS data.


Are boys did not know how the system worked. Clearly not a GPS problem.
The appropriate handling of alarms and errors is a bridge sytem problem.


What? You're admitting that its possible to make a mistake using GPS?
but, you said it was perfect! Maybe, if the had used more than one
technique ... Score one more for me!

9. The sighting of lights not normally observed
in the traffic lanes, the second officer’s inability
to confirm the presence of the BB
buoy, and the sighting of blue and white
water should have taken precedence over
the automation display on the central console
and compelled the second officer to
promptly use all available means to verify
his position.


The incompetence included denying the obvious. That is not a GPS problem.

So your point is that GPS is perfect, its the humans that caused all of
the problems. But it was the GPS system that "mislabeled" the buoys on
the chart. How was this not a GPS problem? Score one more for me!





10. The chief officer and the second officer did
not observe good watchkeeping practices or
act with heightened awareness of the precautions
that are needed when a vessel approaches
the Boston traffic lanes and landfall.


Not a GPS problem.

You're correct. This is a problem with overreliance on GPS, just like
I've been saying. Score another for me.



11. The master’s methods for monitoring the
progress of the voyage did not account for
the technical capabilities and limitations of
the automated equipment.


That was really dumb...using a system as the input to a check on its own
accuracy. Dumb.

Yes, it was dumb to rely on the GPS. Just as I've been saying.




12. The watch officers on the Royal Majesty
may have believed that because the global
positioning system had demonstrated sufficient
reliability over 3 1/2 years, the traditional
practice of using at least two independent
sources of position information was
not necessary.


That is a breakdown in the capabilities of the officiers not the GPS.


13. All the watchstanding officers were overly
reliant on the automated position display of
the navigation and command system 25 and
were, for all intents and purposes, sailing
the map display instead of using navigation
aids or lookout information.


Yes they were not competent sailors.

Agreeing, they relied on the GPS and ignored basic piloting techniques.
Just as I've been saying.



The report continues with other items in the same vein, though focused
more on the problems with the integrated system and the training, such as:

16. Had the navigation and command system 25
autopilot been configured to compare position
data from multiple independent position
receivers and had a corresponding alarm
been installed that activated when discrepancies
were detected, the grounding of the
Royal Majesty may have been avoided.


These independent position receivers would likely be multiple GPS with
(perhaps) a LORAN. Remember LORAN is not an all areas system. They would
have almost certainly prevented this problem whether or not a LORAN was
included.

Actually this was an "operator setting" that was at the ship's officers
discretion. They decided that the GPS alone was sufficient.

Nothing wrong with multiple GPS's until the GPS system hiccups. Even if
it stays up 99.99% of the time, there could be hundreds of boats
negotiating a channel at the time. And the display computer provides a
"single failure point," and the antenna feed are probably bundled
together, etc., etc.



Although the "Probable Cause" section which follows does not mention GPS
specifically, it is quite short (two small paragraphs) and mentions simply
"overreliance on the automated features of the integrated bridge system,"
the lack of training, and the failure to take "corrective action after
several cues indicated the vessel was off course." In other words, they
relied too much on one source of position (the gps) and ignored others.

While the "Recommendations" section does not mention GPS specifically, it
clearly recommends against over reliance on one system. We've never
claimed there was anything "wrong" with GPS, only that other forms of
navigation are just as important. The report includes comments like:


Actually I think it says one should not rely on a single input device.
Multiple GPS are much more likely the solution then GPS and something else.

Hopefully not. However, GPS's are so cheap there's nothing wrong with
having two. But where LORAN is available, or Glosnoss, or Galileo (if
it happens), they should be used.

But regardless, there is no excuse for not thinking it odd that a big
island is misplaced by 15 miles.




Review the bridge watchstanding practices
on all its vessels, and revise, as
necessary, to ensure that all watch officers
adhere to sound watchstanding
practices and procedures, including using
landmarks, soundings, and navigational
aids to verify a vessel’s position,
relying on more than one source for position
information, and reporting to the
master any failure to detect important
navigational aids.
...


As I have said before failure to look out the window and at the RADAR and
using what you see to verify that all is working correctly is incompetence
upon the part of a bridge officier.


We we agree on that. Overreliance on GPS is bad.



As part of the foreign flag passenger
ship control verification examination
program, verify that the watchstanding
procedures of ships’ officers include the
use of multiple independent means of
position verification.

It is true that the bulk of the recommendations have to do with better
standards for automated systems, but even then it deals largely with the
need to use more than one form of input.

comparing position-receiver data for
significant discrepancies between
position receivers, and subsequent
positive annunciation to the crew;


It says nothing as far as I can determine about different "forms" of input.
It suggests multiple receivers. I would think the mostly likely of this
would be multiple GPS.

This depends on how you interpret "multiple independent sources." Two
GPS's aren't exactly "independent." And they are quite explicit that
the traditional piloting techniques should be used to validate the
position reported by the automated system. What part of "landmarks,
soundings, and navigational aid to verify a vessel's position" do you
interpret as meaning two GPS's are sufficient???





Sorry Jim, its clear that you've been disingenuous with us. The NTSB
study is quite specific in finding fault with relying completely on GPS.
Though they don't fault the GPS system itself (i.e. the signal leaving the
satellite) they make it quite clear the overreliance on one electronic
navigation system was the cause of the grounding.


And again you read what you believe not what is there. The NTSB believes
the input should have been redundant both in the automatic system and on the
bridge. So do I. You believe some other "form" should have been
integrated. I believe it was integrated in bridge procedures but was not
performed. Another "form" was not needed though it was there. What was
needed was a level of redundancy either through the system or bridge
operation or, even better, through both. Again the system was deficient as
was crew performance.

And how is this not "over reliance on GPS" as I first claimed? You've
completely agreed with me on every point, yet you fight on against some
"straw man" of your creation. You're a real piece of work, Jim!





Jim

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

Cheap shot...speaking of safety is there any less safe or dumber than single
handling?

Jim

"Armond Perretta" wrote in message
...
Jim Donohue wrote:

...
[yeah, yeah ...]

I suspect Jim could get you back safely. What I cannot understand is why
anyone would ever leave harbor with him in the first place.

--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/

Jim Donohue wrote:
But an electronic navigation system
provides continuous position fixes...so DR really has no place.

Absolute nonsense.


Dead reckoning (DR) determines position by advancing a known positon for
courses and distances. A position so determined is called a dead reckoning
(DR) position. It is generally accepted that only course and speed
determine the DR position. Correcting the DR position for leeway, current
effects, and steering error result in an estimated positon (EP). An
inertial navigator develops an extremely accurate EP. - Bowditch

Wow, you know how to look up Bowditch! But what's your point? From the
latest version of Bowditch (2002): "... But its most important use is
in projecting the position of the ship into the immediate future and
avoiding hazards to navigation."

Sounds kind of useful, doesn't it? But you think it "really has no
place." It seems to me like you need to go back and take a refresher
course on DR and piloting.


And: "Until ECDIS is proven to provide the level of safety and accuracy
required, the use of a traditional DR plot on paper charts is a prudent
backup, especially in restricted waters."

In other words, understanding DR is important even while you're using
GPS. It would seem that Bowditch agrees that your attitude is complete
nonsense.


... So the real reason you want non-electronic
first is so the new students have to suffer like you did.

Not at all. My only desire is to have the best navigators out on the
water. Perhaps you should look at the curriculum of the Power Squadron,
or the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Although both offer "quicky" courses for
GPS, acknowledging that many boaters will only tolerate a few hours of
instruction, their full courses follow the tradition path of charts,
compasses, DR and piloting before introducing GPS.


I am familar with all of these course. When I took all the CGaux courses
that made sense. It no longer does. I suspect they will get to it
eventually but it will be a few years yet.

Hopefully it will be a long time.


Actually, the case was that someone was learning how to do LOP's and DR
and wasn't interested in LORAN. You called this "utter nonsense." I
call your attitude "sheer stupidity."


So again we disagree. The instructor wanted to teach without the use of
the electronic navigation systems...I consider this nonsense. You end up
with a less trained student who initially is far less able to navigate.
Why would one teach a student to navigate so as to get an inferior
outcome at least during the initial phases of training? I would want
them as capable as possible as early as possible for the sake of their
and others safety.

You should re-read the original post and your response.


And you should read the thread to that point as well.

I have. What's your point? Your original post in the thread is still
stupid. And yet you still defend even while admitting you don't believe it.


Your approach pretty much guarantees that most students will never learn
the basics. It's a good thing the most teachers disagree with you.


Many agree with me. Eventually it is the way it will go.

The Power Squadron, CG Aux, Bowditch are not among those that agree with
you.



Technophobe? I love it! You should realize that 25 years ago I was
programing spacecraft navigation for NASA. I'm now retired from IBM after
spending about 30 years working on cutting edge technology.


What you did for a living has little to do with technophobe views. Lots of
intellectual bigots in the technical ranks. NASA? That the guys so good at
O ring design?

My mission worked flawlessly. It far exceeded it original mission, and
would have survived much longer if the bureaucrats had funded the
redundant stabilizing system. As for the O-rings, that was a case of a
non-techie ignoring the warnings of the engineer. BTW, I was consulting
for Space Telescope when that incident occurred and was the final
straw that pushed me into mass-market software. My specialty through
the years was debugging problems that other engineers claimed should
never happen. As I say, I'm not a technophobe, just a realist!



I'm not afraid of technology, I just have a realistic view of its
limitations.


I have enough experience in high tech to note that the ability of
technologist to understand what they wrought was very limited.

I see far, far, far more instances of overreliance by people that think
they "understand", such as the marketing team for every product I was
ever involved with!


And it does for electronic navigators as well. You learn to correlate
the views of the eye and other devices with the GPS or whatever.

This is exactly what I've been talking about. My point has been that
those who learn GPS first don't bother to learn this.


Everyone learns it to one degree or another. It is not optional.

But now you're claiming that piloting need not be taught, because
everyone will pick it up eventually. The naivety of this is boggling!




You still see what you want to see. Find me a use of the word "form". They
want redundancy not differing technology. Here is an actual quote from part
of the recommendations:
"Also as a result of the investigation, the National Transportation Safety
Board makes the Propose to the International Maritime Organization that it
develop standards for integrated bridge system design that will require

· multiple independent position-receiver inputs;"

See "form" mentioned there anywhere?


Two GPS's are not "independent."

They also talk about the need for traditional piloting techniques:
sounding, landmarks, etc. Its you who sees what you want to see.

When I go day sailing in Long Beach I may not crack open a chart or turn
on a GPS. I can drive a boat just like you do. On a clear day in a
familiar port I need little navigation help from anything.

Don't presume what I do - If I'm just taking a spin around the inner
harbor I might not have a chart on deck, but in the outer harbor, which
I've sailed for 40 years, I always have a chart on deck. For longer
trips, or if fog is possible, I'll usually have GPS and radar setup, but
I'll also have pencil, dividers and parallel rules on hand. And at least
one trip I year I leave the GPS and radar below, and formally plot the
course at the helm. I have to get in at least one running fix a year!


I can see you now...afloat in your jacuzzi with the plotting board affixed
to the stomach. dividers and parallel rules at the ready. If the fog
should roll in you will plot your course and make it to the stairs. Must
inhibit enjoyment a bit.

Heh, heh. Good one Jim.

I can see your students now: "Hello SeaTow? I dropped my GPS overboard.
Can you come get me? I don't know where I am, but there's a lot of
water around!"




When is the last time you did a running fix? Could your "students" do one
if the GPS failed? Do they even know what it is?




Well given your lack of knowledge of what DR is

Why do you say that? You're the one who doesn't know that it is useful
even while using GPS. While you seem to know the words, you forgot the
meaning. In fact your ignorance of the meaning of DR is proof that your
approached is flawed!

what can you expect of my
students?..of which there are actually a few...but only in the deep blue out
of sight of land.

Which is fortunate, because if the approached land they could be in deep
****!



And if the GPS fails and the other GPS fails and the other GPS fails...then
they will have to resort to DR cause there is obviously not the least chance
that LORAN or RADAR is working. So pick up the chart. Note your position
and do whatever is needed to get somewhere save. Under those conditions I
would be more than content if they figure out a way to get a fix or two.
"Running" would be gilding the lily.

And when they sight land, call SeaTow!

Goodness. Is anyone still following this?

--

Roger Long

As I projected responding will do little good. The way they are fixing
this Jeff...is to plug in multi GPS. Don't you think it odd Jeff that the
fix for over-reliance on GPS by making the system even more dependent on
GPS.

And you do read strangely...multiple independent position receiver
inputs...turns automatically in your mind to multiple independent
sources...I wonder why this is? Like your use of "form" could it be you
can't find the right language so you substitute your own?

One of the reviews of this grounding pointed out that weather was in fact a
factor. It was so good that the crew was complacent. Given your line of
reasoning we could simple claim the good weather made the crew complacent
causing all of the other items that you ascribe to over-reliance on GPS.
Kind of silly but then so is your interpretation. Why not presume the NTSB
people meant what they say?

Jim


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Jim Donohue wrote:
As I have pointed out before Jeff you simply read the conclusion you have
already reached into the data. But I will try once more though it will
likely do little good.

You've created quite a "straw man" argument here. You keep assuming that
my position is that GPS is "flawed" as so you keep pointing out reasons
why problems associated with are really the fault of something else, not
the GPS. I've never denied that GPS is the most accurate, and the most
reliable (by some measures). My issue has been the over-reliance on one
mode of navigation, and the best sequence of education to avoid problems.

Perhaps we should go back to the beginning of this particular issue. I
said, "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."

You responded with "Find for me any mention of over reliance on GPS." In
fact, I believe I found a number of places where they say just that.





"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

Jim Donohue wrote:
...
You've made this claim several times and its total Bull****! You're
claiming, in essence, that because the satellites broadcast a good
signal, there is no problem with over-reliance on GPS. This is a
textbook case in what can go wrong with such over-reliance.

The bizarre thing here is that on one hand you've been arguing that GPS
should be learned first because it is nearly perfect, but then here
you're claiming that the problem was the "incompetent seaman" who relied
too much on GPS.



To the contrary...two GPSs integrated into the system would have fully
solved the problem. Or integrating the LORAN would have worked as well.

You're right. There are any number of possible changes that would have
prevented this particular grounding. What will prevent the next? How
about looking at the depth sounder as you approach shore? How about
noticing that the island that was sighted should have been 30 miles away?

There are places where the LORAN would not work so for a broad solution
it is not as useful as the second GPS. But two GPS or three GPS and the
LORAN would have been fine.

Unless someone spilled a Pepsi on the control panel and popped a fuse. You
don't understand failure analysis, do you?




We agree they were over-reliant on the automatic bridge system. We agree
that they should not have been dependent on a single navigational device.
But this single device reliance is a fault of the bridge system design
not the GPS.

Again with the "straw man" argument!


If either the LORAN or, better, a second GPS the failure would not
have occurred. We would also suggest an automatic cross check or at
least a manual one was a minimum requirement for the operation of the
bridge. The automatic bridge system was defective and the staff
incompetent...what more needs to be said?

What a tangled web you're weaving here! When I first heard of the
accident (lots of coverage here in Boston, of course) I was appalled that
they would have made the approach without once looking at the depth
sounder to verify they were in the channel. One minute of human
intervention, using a technique that should have been second nature to any
experienced boater.

And you're claiming that that should not have been necessary - what was
needed was two GPS's and a LORAN, all powered presumably by separate power
sources, feed a computer that will compare and sound the alarm if there;s
a discrepancy. And if the computer fails? NASA's approach for Apollo was
to use 5 360's for double redundancy plus cross checking. (Not to mention
links to other locations in the country that could take over.)
Fortunately, they remembered to include some eyeball navigation tools or
Apollo 13 would not have returned.

And, while you might be able to make a case that such equipment is
appropriate for a cruise ship, we're still a few years away from having
this for the average boater.



In the "Conclusions" section of the report the NTSB describes what
happened and what went wrong. The majority of the 22 conclusions talk
about the failure of the GPS (mentioning it specifically) system or the
failure to double check by other means, i.e. the over-reliance on one
system.

Here's some examples:

5. Had the fathometer alarm been set to 3 meters,
as was the stated practice, or had the
second officer chosen to display the
fathometer data on the control console, he
would have been alerted that the Royal Majesty
was in far shallower water than expected
and, thus, was off course. He would
have been alerted perhaps as long as 40
minutes before the grounding, and the
situation could have been corrected.


Nothing GPS...simply incompetent bridge operation.

Failure to use traditional piloting techniques. One for me!



6. The watch officers’ monitoring of the status
of the vessel’s global positioning system
was deficient throughout the voyage from
St. George’s.


Does mention GPS but is actually directed at the monitoring of the
system. Suggests the monitoring was deficient not the GPS.

Assuming the GPS was perfect. Another for me!




7. Deliberate cross checking between the
global positioning system and the Loran-C
to verify the Royal Majesty’s position was
not being performed and should have been
on the voyage from St. George’s.


Such a procedure supposedly existed according to the Navigator and Chief
Officier. So failure to follow established procedures indicts the GPS?
Nahh

Yup! Overreliance on one technique - this is a perfect example. Another
for me!



8. Even though it is likely that the watch officers
were not aware of the limitation inherent
in using the position-fix alarm to monitor
the accuracy of GPS position data, it was
inappropriate for them to rely solely on the
alarm to warn them of any problems with
the GPS data.


Are boys did not know how the system worked. Clearly not a GPS problem.
The appropriate handling of alarms and errors is a bridge sytem problem.


What? You're admitting that its possible to make a mistake using GPS?
but, you said it was perfect! Maybe, if the had used more than one
technique ... Score one more for me!

9. The sighting of lights not normally observed
in the traffic lanes, the second officer’s inability
to confirm the presence of the BB
buoy, and the sighting of blue and white
water should have taken precedence over
the automation display on the central console
and compelled the second officer to
promptly use all available means to verify
his position.


The incompetence included denying the obvious. That is not a GPS
problem.

So your point is that GPS is perfect, its the humans that caused all of
the problems. But it was the GPS system that "mislabeled" the buoys on
the chart. How was this not a GPS problem? Score one more for me!





10. The chief officer and the second officer did
not observe good watchkeeping practices or
act with heightened awareness of the precautions
that are needed when a vessel approaches
the Boston traffic lanes and landfall.


Not a GPS problem.

You're correct. This is a problem with overreliance on GPS, just like
I've been saying. Score another for me.



11. The master’s methods for monitoring the
progress of the voyage did not account for
the technical capabilities and limitations of
the automated equipment.


That was really dumb...using a system as the input to a check on its own
accuracy. Dumb.

Yes, it was dumb to rely on the GPS. Just as I've been saying.




12. The watch officers on the Royal Majesty
may have believed that because the global
positioning system had demonstrated sufficient
reliability over 3 1/2 years, the traditional
practice of using at least two independent
sources of position information was
not necessary.


That is a breakdown in the capabilities of the officiers not the GPS.


13. All the watchstanding officers were overly
reliant on the automated position display of
the navigation and command system 25 and
were, for all intents and purposes, sailing
the map display instead of using navigation
aids or lookout information.


Yes they were not competent sailors.

Agreeing, they relied on the GPS and ignored basic piloting techniques.
Just as I've been saying.



The report continues with other items in the same vein, though focused
more on the problems with the integrated system and the training, such
as:

16. Had the navigation and command system 25
autopilot been configured to compare position
data from multiple independent position
receivers and had a corresponding alarm
been installed that activated when discrepancies
were detected, the grounding of the
Royal Majesty may have been avoided.


These independent position receivers would likely be multiple GPS with
(perhaps) a LORAN. Remember LORAN is not an all areas system. They
would have almost certainly prevented this problem whether or not a LORAN
was included.

Actually this was an "operator setting" that was at the ship's officers
discretion. They decided that the GPS alone was sufficient.

Nothing wrong with multiple GPS's until the GPS system hiccups. Even if
it stays up 99.99% of the time, there could be hundreds of boats
negotiating a channel at the time. And the display computer provides a
"single failure point," and the antenna feed are probably bundled
together, etc., etc.



Although the "Probable Cause" section which follows does not mention GPS
specifically, it is quite short (two small paragraphs) and mentions
simply "overreliance on the automated features of the integrated bridge
system," the lack of training, and the failure to take "corrective action
after several cues indicated the vessel was off course." In other words,
they relied too much on one source of position (the gps) and ignored
others.

While the "Recommendations" section does not mention GPS specifically, it
clearly recommends against over reliance on one system. We've never
claimed there was anything "wrong" with GPS, only that other forms of
navigation are just as important. The report includes comments like:


Actually I think it says one should not rely on a single input device.
Multiple GPS are much more likely the solution then GPS and something
else.

Hopefully not. However, GPS's are so cheap there's nothing wrong with
having two. But where LORAN is available, or Glosnoss, or Galileo (if it
happens), they should be used.

But regardless, there is no excuse for not thinking it odd that a big
island is misplaced by 15 miles.




Review the bridge watchstanding practices
on all its vessels, and revise, as
necessary, to ensure that all watch officers
adhere to sound watchstanding
practices and procedures, including using
landmarks, soundings, and navigational
aids to verify a vessel’s position,
relying on more than one source for position
information, and reporting to the
master any failure to detect important
navigational aids.
...


As I have said before failure to look out the window and at the RADAR and
using what you see to verify that all is working correctly is
incompetence upon the part of a bridge officier.


We we agree on that. Overreliance on GPS is bad.



As part of the foreign flag passenger
ship control verification examination
program, verify that the watchstanding
procedures of ships’ officers include the
use of multiple independent means of
position verification.

It is true that the bulk of the recommendations have to do with better
standards for automated systems, but even then it deals largely with the
need to use more than one form of input.

comparing position-receiver data for
significant discrepancies between
position receivers, and subsequent
positive annunciation to the crew;


It says nothing as far as I can determine about different "forms" of
input. It suggests multiple receivers. I would think the mostly likely
of this would be multiple GPS.

This depends on how you interpret "multiple independent sources." Two
GPS's aren't exactly "independent." And they are quite explicit that the
traditional piloting techniques should be used to validate the position
reported by the automated system. What part of "landmarks, soundings,
and navigational aid to verify a vessel's position" do you interpret as
meaning two GPS's are sufficient???





Sorry Jim, its clear that you've been disingenuous with us. The NTSB
study is quite specific in finding fault with relying completely on GPS.
Though they don't fault the GPS system itself (i.e. the signal leaving
the satellite) they make it quite clear the overreliance on one
electronic navigation system was the cause of the grounding.


And again you read what you believe not what is there. The NTSB believes
the input should have been redundant both in the automatic system and on
the bridge. So do I. You believe some other "form" should have been
integrated. I believe it was integrated in bridge procedures but was not
performed. Another "form" was not needed though it was there. What was
needed was a level of redundancy either through the system or bridge
operation or, even better, through both. Again the system was deficient
as was crew performance.

And how is this not "over reliance on GPS" as I first claimed? You've
completely agreed with me on every point, yet you fight on against some
"straw man" of your creation. You're a real piece of work, Jim!





Jim

I did reread the message. I also reread the prior postings in the thread.
Why don't you simply answer the questions asked? Why did you edit the
questions? Luddites all seem to have this problem maintaining context when
it does not suit their needs.

Jim

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 21:57:38 -0800, "Jim Donohue"

said:

What did I miss? You were not teaching basic navigation without the use
of
electronics? Have I misunderstood your intent?

The message should still be available. It's
. If after
rereading it you can't figure out what you missed, you're a hopeless case.

Dave