NavList:

   

Reply

Responding to Geoffrey's earlier posting-

"The feeling I was left with, after reading the book, was that Slocum was
pretty pleased in proving to himself that he was a good navigator - and to
him, the epitome of good navigation was to be able to navigate by dead
reckoning alone. I suspect this may have been a common feeling amongst
navigators at the end of the 19th century - a harking back to the skills
required in a previous age, just we do now, only we hark back to the time of
Slocum!"

Frank responded-

"Yes. Exactly. However, it may be worth pointing out that George is
technically correct in this case. He said that such navigators would soon
fall victim to natural selection, and sure enough, Slocum was lost at sea
just a few years later. That probably had nothing to do with navigating by
dead reckoning, but Slocum was clearly a risk-taker."

======================

I'm not sure what Frank's aim is here: it reads like a denigration of
Slocum's navigational ability. Is that really in question?

Firstly, Geoffrey's assessment of being "able to navigate by dead reckoning
alone" was certainly wrong. Slocum's longitudes (with one exception) were
determined "by account", but his latitudes were certainly obtained by
regular celestial observation, as I have pointed out. Anyway, we know of
Slocum's ability to handle lunars, not only from that one instance in his
circumnavigation, but from earlier experience as captain of a passenger
vessel, when his chronometers would be regularly checked by lunars.

Indeed, it's so tricky to observe useful lunars from the unstable deck of a
small craft, that it calls for sea conditions that are so infrequent as to
make the method impractical, most of the time. I've never even tried, and I
know of only one report in Navlist (or its predecessor) of successful lunar
observations from a small craft in mid-ocean, to set against all the many
lunars reported on-land.

The only relevant part of Frank's assessment of the likely cause of Slocum's
death was in his statement that he was a "risk-taker". That he certainly
was, as is any single handed ocean sailor, even (perhaps especially) today.
I would concur with his son Victor's assessment of the likely cause, as
follows-

For several years, Slocum had been setting off from his farm on Martha's
Vineyard on a Winter cruise to Grand Cayman in the Bahamas "to avoid having
to buy a Winter overcoat", returning each spring. Each of those passages
involved crossing the ocean steamer lanes in and out of every East-coast
American port, carrying far greater numbers of vessels, even, than today.
Sailing single-handed, Slocum had to cross those lanes, day or night,
on-watch or below. Surely, it was only a matter of time before he was run
down. It was, no doubt, a calculated risk, that he understood and accepted.

By that time he was 75 years old. At that age, another plausible cause was a
sudden health failure; a stroke, heart-attack, fracture, to prevent him
reaching his destination. There's little doubt that in vanishing at sea,
Slocum ended his life just as he would have wished to.

Of all mariners, there's no reason to invoke or hint-at any navigational
defect, in Slocum's failure to reach his last harbour.

George.

contact George Huxtable, at  george@hux.me.uk
or at +44 1865 820222 (from UK, 01865 820222)
or at 1 Sandy Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13 5HX, UK.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc
To post, email NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply