|
|
Subject: Re: Celestial Calculator Comparisons
From: Richard B. Emerson (navsys@XXX.XXX)
Date: Fri Mar 10 2000 - 21:51:18 EST
David F. McCune writes:
> Joe:
>
> I did a solo crossing to Hawaii from L.A. a few years ago. A sailor
> acquaintance, upon hearing that I have no navigational electronics and used
> celestial only, said "that's not very efficient." True. "If I wanted to be
> efficient," I said, "I'd have taken United Airlines." It's a SAILBOAT, for
> God's sake!
Amen!
> People sail for all kinds of reasons. Some race. Some want to get
> somewhere with a sailboat in tow so they can hang out in a remote tropical
> anchorage. Some prefer the voyage to the destination.
Amen!
> I'm a pilot and in airplanes I use electronics so they're coming out my
> ears. For me, a sailboat is a place to get away from all that. I don't own
> a GPS. Nor do I own a celestial calculator.
>
> Do whatever feels comfortable for you.
Amen!
> - David
>
> PS. Oh, and by the way, it doesn't take as long as people think to reduce a
> sight. Once you've done a thousand or so, five minutes and a blank piece of
> paper will do. The hard part of a sight is standing on the deck of a
> 30-foot boat in a 12-foot swell with a sextant to your eye, not the trivial
> arithmetic that follows.
And amen yet again! The reductions are cookbook work (yes, knowing
*why* something is done helps in both cooking and celestial reductions
- pun intended). Getting the sights are the real challenge.
Rick
S/V One With The Wind, Baba 35
|