NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: NA sight reduction tables - a considered response from NavList to the NA office?
From: Robert Eno
Date: 2012 Apr 9, 13:39 -0400
From: Robert Eno
Date: 2012 Apr 9, 13:39 -0400
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 7040 (20120409) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 7040 (20120409) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
No. I have never had cause to deal extensively with
USNO, nor the UK offices other than to purchase a Nautical Almanac.
I did, however, back in the early 1990s write a
carefully-crafted and considered letter to the USNO regarding the tables in
question; offering my opinion -- and providing examples to support it -- on why
I believe they are not suitable as a back-up sight reduction method. I did not
receive a response nor an acknowledgment of receipt.
Should I have found this "offensive"? No. Not at
all. Much as I wish it were otherwise, the world does not revolve around
me. I learned this in elementary school. It was a rude awakening but a valuable
lesson nonetheless. No doubt the USNO receives thousands of letters
and comments that they do not have the capacity to answer. It is what it is.
I have been, for some time, peripherally aware
that the tables in the NA have been a bone of contention in some
circles. Other fellow navigators that I knew (and who have since
crossed the bar) also wrote letters to the NA office and without receiving
a response. My friends, like me, just shrugged their shoulders and
attributed it to the consequence of writing to a very large bureaucracy. In any
case, it is not a big deal. Having my preferred sight reduction method including
with the Nautical Almanac is not a hill to die on.
Getting back to the topic at hand and to continue
with my answer your question, I also speak from experience as one who has worked
in and with bureaucracies for most of his professional career; as one who
has worked in the enforcement field; with technical people;
military; and with academics. I think I have enough background to be
able to offer my own observations on bureaucracies in general: how they
work and how one can effect changes in their systems.
I do not doubt your own experience that many
individuals within the USNO and the UK counterpart are friendly and professional
-- as are many bureaucrats -- but in my experience a man with formal
credentials in a particular field will always carry more weight than the amateur
and dilettante. Let's be honest here: whose word is going to be taken more
seriously: the man with the credentials or the amateur with zero paperwork
to confirm his expertise? I believe we all know the answer to that
question.
One only need look at the current job market to see
this in practice: 30 years ago, a high school education was your ticket to
employment. Nowadays -- the trades being one of the exceptions -- if you don't
have a Master's Degree, you won't even be interviewed. I worked for a large
bureaucracy some years ago. A manager position came up in one of the
shops. A fellow I knew (I am not obliquely referring to me) wanted to
apply. He was quite capable, had years of experience as a field officer and
could easily have done the job. But the cut-off was a BSc in the sciences
so he could not even apply. It is all about credentials. Unfortunately, in
today's competitive market, credentials are one of the few reliable
indicators with which to gauge a man's professional attributes.
I am assuming many of the folks who work
with the USNO are current or ex-Navy types so I have a hard time
believing that they would be so thin-skinned as to find my comments on
bureaucracies (again, based on decades of experience) "offensive". Anyone who
has been in the military and who has undergone basic training will agree that
soldiers, sailors and airmen are not known to be easily offended. And it is
not as if I called them bad names or accused them of gross incompetency and
dereliction of duty.
Then again, in today's hypersensitive world of the
perpetually outraged and aggrieved and where somebody, somewhere is deeply
offended by one thing or another, perhaps my comments would be construed as
"offensive". Too bad. I stand by them.
As a public servant who works in an often
volatile field, I regularly get criticised both inside and outside of the
workplace about the way in which I undertake the responsibilities entrusted to
me by the public. It is part of the job of being a public servant. If I got
offended every time someone looked at me crossways or said something with which
I disagree, I would be crying full-time.
I didn't want to go off on a long rant, but when I
am accused of making "offensive" remarks and when I believe this not
to be true; I bristle and am compelled to respond in kind.
Robert
----- Original Message -----From: Dave WaldenTo: NavList@fer3.comSent: Monday, April 09, 2012 11:38 AMSubject: [NavList] Re: NA sight reduction tables - a considered response from NavList to the NA office?Do you speak from any experience in dealing with USNO or the UK offices?
In my several dealings, including visits, with both, I have found them knowledgeable, friendly, anxious to help, and thoroughly professional.
There are those who have spent their careers serving the Navy as "bureaucrats" who could find your remarks quite offensive.
So my word on this subject, in the eyes of bureaucrats, for whom paperwork and credentials mean everything, is worthless.
If we are to take a poll and make an entreaty to the NA office, then I suggest that the credentialed members of this list -- the intellectual heavyweights of whom I spoke earlier -- act as the front men to represent our views on this topic. Only then, would the NA Office be receptive to any change.
----------------------------------------------------------------
NavList message boards and member settings: www.fer3.com/NavList
Members may optionally receive posts by email.
To cancel email delivery, send a message to NoMail[at]fer3.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 7038 (20120408) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 7040 (20120409) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 7040 (20120409) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
