
NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Electronic vs non-electronic
From: Craig Scott
Date: 1999 Oct 03, 23:22 EDT
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 errors. 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. Craig 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 To: NAVIGATION-L@XXX.XXX Subject: Re: Electronic vs non-electronic Craig: 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. Bill 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 realize >GPS can fail, as can celestial (clouds, delirium, alcohol...). Perhaps GPS >is more reliable for most navigators. > >Craig > >-----Original Message----- >From: Navigation Mailing List [mailto:NAVIGATION-L@XXX.XXX] >On Behalf Of Richard B. Emerson >Sent: Sunday, October 03, 1999 20:52 >To: NAVIGATION-L@XXX.XXX >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 >celestial > > 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! > >Rick >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