Re: Electronic vs non-electronic
Subject: Re: Electronic vs non-electronic
From: Richard B. Emerson (navsys@XXX.XXX)
Date: Mon Oct 04 1999 - 08:30:08 EDT
Craig writes:
> 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.
It's certainly easier to get a fix with GPS and the practical accuracy
is much higher than celestial means. As the case of the liner
grounding off Cape Cod shows, however, mistakenly assuming "a computer
says it so it must be so" can have serious consequences. While GPS
generally is very reliable, several factors can cause an otherwise
functional GPS receiver give questionable results. As I said earlier,
the prudent mariner doesn't rely on one source of positional
information.
Rick
S/V One With The Wind, Baba 35
