|
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
Subject: Re: Electronic vs non-electronic
From: Craig (craig@XXX.XXX)
Date: Sun Oct 03 1999 - 22:58:24 EDT
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
|