Next message: Peter Fogg: "Re: New life for Nav-l."
On Jun 5, 2006, at 1:17 PM, George Huxtable wrote:
> However, recent postings relating to intimate details of GPS have
> greatly exceeded any such tolerant guidelines. With a new skipper, it
> may be time to discuss whether that policy should be eased, but until
> that happens, it seems to me that existing policy should be respected.
>
> If there should be any collecting of opinions on that question, my
> personal preference would be to keep Nav-l the way it is. Others may
> differ.
George,
I thought the postings about GPS were of relevance to Nav-l for two
reasons. First, they addressed the question of whether traditional
navigation has been supplanted by GPS, which it has not in the
Canadian and British navies, but has under some merchant captains but
not under others. Second, the postings addressed the fallibility of
GPS; if it's infallible, there's no need for traditional nav, but
it's not infallible, as has been pointed out.
The postings were not about how to use a GPS unit to calculate set,
etc, which I would find out of bounds for Nav-l, but rather about
it's use and fallibility in reference to traditional nav.
Fred
