Radar is now redundant ?

[Boatyarddog]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Galileo provides 1 meter accuracy without needing SBAS. its not a military controlled system. GPS being the oldest system is generally the least accurate of the 4 systems operational.

Newest tech. toy.
Many common Gps products cannot receive this system.
Too new, not 100% up yet.
Product of EU.
But promising.
WAAS is accurate to a meter as well.
Thanks for sharing.
Boatyarddog

[flyingfin]

Sure, just kick back and let your GPS and AIS drive the boat, computer will do all the work. Takes the worry out of navigation,,,,worked great for Boeing on the 787

[Statistical]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

I can just hear the engineers at Tsukushima saying, "We’ve never had a tidal wave that big."

The sad part is they did have a tidal wave that big. Well documented. The built the wall too low knowing it was too low. I guess the executives figured they would be long retired before their number came up.

[Mike OReilly]

Of course one can cruise without radar, just as one can cruise without AIS. I thought the question was, does AIS make radar redundant? The answer is a resounding: No. But of course one can cruise without either. I did for years, even in some pretty notoriously foggy areas.

[Statistical]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Galileo provides 1 meter accuracy without needing SBAS. its not a military controlled system. GPS being the oldest system is generally the least accurate of the 4 systems operational.

Far too simplistic even if it weren't completely wrong.

Trying to distill a GNSS down to a single number is nonsense. Accuracy what percentage of time? At what latitude? Under what conditions?

Even if gallileo does someday offer <1m unaugmented it doesn't today due to insufficient number of FOV sats deployed.

Turning it into football teams like thinking (which is better Team US or Team EU) is dubious thinking. No quality GNSS receiver does that. It uses all of them as a meta constellation. It doesn't pick between using the 30 GPS sat or 22 galileo sats. Instead it turns it into a 52 sat meta constellation picking the best ones currently over the horizon.

Nobody makes Galileo only receivers and increasingly in the future nobody will make GPS only ones either. The future is multi-GNSS, multi-frequency, and SBAS all working together.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Boatyarddog

Newest tech. toy.
Many common Gps products cannot receive this system.
Too new, not 100% up yet.
Product of EU.
But promising.
WAAS is accurate to a meter as well.
Thanks for sharing.
Boatyarddog

Galileo has 22 of the full complement of 24 active ( 2 spares) , the last two are scheduled for 2022, the current ones provide essentially full coverage certainly in all the areas most people sail anyway

Boris said has launching his own GNSS, but is somewhat distracted at the moment

Gallileo is fundememattly more accurate then GPS mainly because its an improved system . all modern receivers use it and GLonass too ( most receiver chipsets use all 4 including the very accurate Chinese system ) Iphone 8 was the first iphone to use Galileo

Product of the EU just like the LHR , world beating , the high precision 1cm signal is also free to civilians and is used for surveying

WASS is SBAS its not GPS, Galileo has SBAS too but its not as essential



"Why are U-2 jet pilots wearing Garmin satellite navigation smartwatches?

Earlier this month, US Air Force General James M. "Mike" Holmes acknowledged what many in the defense community and defense media already knew. Pilots of the venerable and iconic Lockheed U-2 Dragon Lady high altitude reconnaissance jet wear GPS-enabled Garmin smartwatches for navigation backup. General Holmes, who leads the Air Force's Air Combat Command (ACC), was responding to a question about military communications system vulnerabilities at a conference in Washington, DC. And he opined that the Air Force should be able to use the wide variety of commercial communications paths available.
"My U-2 guys fly with a watch now that ties into GPS but also BeiDou and the Russian system and European system... so if someone jams GPS they still get the others,Holmes said."
ERIC TEGLER - 3/13/2020

just like a modern yacht !!!

[OS2Dude]

Unless you are only sailing in busy/important sea lanes, the data your chart is made from (Paper or Electronic) could be based on dead reconning data from a single ship that is hundreds of years old. GPS may tell you within a yard where on the globe you're at, but it can't compensate for errors in the data the chart is derived from. I've heard so many stories over the years of people who've gone aground (especially at night) because the chart on their GPS said the reef was somewhere else. If we were sailing anywhere else (We're on an inland lake) we'd have radar post haste.

[seandepagnier]

I don't really like radar or think it is essential nor would I want to bother with one. I had one and sold it.

depth sounders are redundant? Because chart is accurate, why have a sounder?

Well I manage to navigate all over without a depth sounder without too many issues.

Does an autopilot make a wind vane redundant? I sold my wind vane too.

Does a watermaker make rainfall collection system redundant?

Do canned food make dried food redundant?

Is redundancy a bad thing?

Wouldn't you need two of the same (2 radars) to actually be redundant?


Why not have a drone that can fly reconnaissance missions making charts redundant?

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by OS2Dude

Unless you are only sailing in busy/important sea lanes, the data your chart is made from (Paper or Electronic) could be based on dead reconning data from a single ship that is hundreds of years old. GPS may tell you within a yard where on the globe you're at, but it can't compensate for errors in the data the chart is derived from. I've heard so many stories over the years of people who've gone aground (especially at night) because the chart on their GPS said the reef was somewhere else. If we were sailing anywhere else (We're on an inland lake) we'd have radar post haste.

didnt know radar saw that reef just under the surface , good to know, secondly ( as a RYA Radar Instructor)radar is one of those tools often few people use effectively

[Mike OReilly]

Always freaks me out to hear someone (usually on CF) brag about how they would sail into an unknown port in the dark, or in thick fog, using nothing but their chart plotter.

This technology is so good that we forget it is not showing reality. It is overlaying a position, which can easily be off by many metres no matter the system, onto a chart which may itself be shifted or simply wrong. The real world doesn't care what your GPS and charts show. The rock is still there.

If I had to choose, I'd easily pick radar over AIS any day. Just like I'd pick a depth sounder over a chart plotter. In both cases the former shows actual reality, while the latter is a projection.

Of course, the best answer is to have it all.

[MicHughV]

the debatable issue is (a) can you cope without radar , yes you can , ( as you can without AIS) and (b) is the cost worth it for the level of risk you evaluate

You can justify anything on the basis of "well if I had xxx, Id be fine !!"

When I left to go cruising, radar for small boats was simply not available.....nor was GPS.....AIS ...what's that ??...chartplotters....ha ha ha..never heard of it....

How on earth did I ever manage without all these trinkets...seemed to do just fine with paper charts, RDF, sextant, etc....

The modern day sailor is a tad spoiled....

[requiem]

Originally Posted by Scorpius

My point was we DON'T use MLLW. We use LLLW - and the difference can be substantial.

Ah, that's one I hadn't run across, I assume "lower low water, largest tides"? I saw "lower low water" and thought "but the US does use mean lower low water"!

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

didnt know radar saw that reef just under the surface , good to know, secondly ( as a RYA Radar Instructor)radar is one of those tools often few people use effectively

Hah! It might see an island behind it, if there is one, which should work for those charts that warn "don't use GNSS positions, use range & bearings instead". But that goes back to pre-trip planning, in which case one should have given the area a wide berth in the first place.

[goboatingnow]

If I had to choose, I'd easily pick radar over AIS any day. Just like I'd pick a depth sounder over a chart plotter. In both cases the former shows actual reality, while the latter is a projection.

Of course, the best answer is to have it all.

almost inevitabilty the choice is about cost, if cost isnt a factor then of course one gets everything. But if cost is a factor the very low comparable cost of AIS and its installation is likley to be the "only" choice and therefore would be recommended over nothing

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

never switched it on the whole way across the Atlantic !!

Very cool, I can see not having many targets mid ocean.

Still useful for seeing squalls approaching at night, and other unlit objects like floating sea containers.

Invaluable in coastal areas with lots of obstructions, and traffic, including small fishing boats with no AIS.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

Very cool, I can see not having many targets mid ocean.

Still useful for seeing squalls approaching at night, and other unlit objects like floating sea containers.

Invaluable in coastal areas with lots of obstructions, and traffic, including small fishing boats with no AIS.

Squalls are entirely visible in the dying embers of the evening sky , the chances of a radar reliably picking up a neutral buoyancy container are very slim

lets not imbue these tools with features they don't really have in order to bolster the argument, radar is useful , Im not arguing that , but if priority is spending, then AIS should be fitted first rather then nothing at all.