Welcome to the NavList Message Boards.


A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding

Compose Your Message

Add Images & Files
    Re: Electronic vs non-electronic
    From: Craig Scott
    Date: 1999 Oct 03, 23:22 EDT

    Was your earlier posting in which I read of the airstip being 2 kilometres
    away from the GPS position also 2 km off by celestial determination?  The
    article and several others were referring to GPS induced accidents.  I
    believe then the problem is too much reliance on GPS being "high tech" and
    infallible, as you indicated.  The problem would also occur therefore with
    celestial.  The map is wrong, perhaps due to earlier celestial mathematical
    Just as a matter of interest, I've been watching the times relayed as part
    of emails and my curiosity has been stirred.  I would like to request any
    who would be willing to participate to include UTC at sending and time zone.
    Columbia, South Carolina  2322 EDT (EDT=UTC-0400)
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Navigation Mailing List
    [mailto:NAVIGATION-L@XXX.XXX]On Behalf Of Trayfors, William
      Sent: Sunday, October 03, 1999 23:08
      Subject: Re: Electronic vs non-electronic
      I don't think anyone's slamming GPS in favor of celestial.  Rather, some
    of us are just trying to urge the prudent navigator to use GPS cautiously
    (just as you would celestial), rather than take as gospel the digital output
    of the little black box.  You'd be surprised how many folks seem willingly
    to risk their boats and their lives on GPS output alone.
      At 10:58 PM 10/3/99 -0400, you wrote:
      >Then I gather the problem is TOO much reliance on GPS because of it's
      >perceived "high tech" status.  Celestial would presumably not help an
      >incorrect chart and therefore GPS is being slammed in favor of celestial
      >because GPS is "new-fangled".  Am I correct in this assumption?  I
      >GPS can fail, as can celestial (clouds, delirium, alcohol...).  Perhaps
      >is more reliable for most navigators.
      >-----Original Message-----
      >From:   Navigation Mailing List
      >On Behalf Of Richard B. Emerson
      >Sent:   Sunday, October 03, 1999 20:52
      >Subject:        Re: Electronic vs non-electronic
      >Craig writes:
      > > OK, So which one is the problem?  The GPS or the charts?  If you are
      > > actually at a location and the GPS does not match the chart, would
      > > match the chart or is the chart wrong?
      > >
      >The chart is wrong.  This problem happens, for example, in the South
      >Pacific where some survey data is pretty old.  BTW, speaking of old
      >survey data, even highly travelled areas like the Chesapeake use
      >hydrography from the early to mid-40's!
      >S/V One With The Wind, Baba 35
      Bill Trayfors <btrayfors@XXX.XXX>
      The Washington Decision Support Group, Inc.
      Specialists in Advanced Information & Communications Technologies
      2401 South Lynn Street, Arlington, VA 22202
      Office (703) 838-8784   Tech Support (703) 573-WDSG   FAX (703) 838-0019

    Browse Files

    Drop Files


    What is NavList?

    Join NavList

    (please, no nicknames or handles)
    Do you want to receive all group messages by email?
    Yes No

    You can also join by posting. Your first on-topic post automatically makes you a member.

    Posting Code

    Enter the email address associated with your NavList messages. Your posting code will be emailed to you immediately.

    Email Settings

    Posting Code:

    Custom Index

    Start date: (yyyymm dd)
    End date: (yyyymm dd)

    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site