Considering ditching electronics and navigating the "old" way

[Lihuedooley77]

We use both.

I like coastal piloting, and continue to use it.....ded reckoning, estimated positions, fixes and running fixes.

I back that up with GPS.

Now that has been coastal piloting, not sailing across long open areas of blue water for weeks.

Iwe like to use all aspects of nav tools that are available to us.

[NPCampbell]

Originally Posted by fred4936

I grew up reading books by Slocum, Know-Johnston, etc. So I have a built in bias towards celestial. I took a course many years ago, and have actually done a sight. My sailing area has land to the south, so I rarely practice it, and have forgotten most of it. Have always used paper charts. Still on my do list to master celestial, once we do get offshore. I had Loran C when it was being used, but still used paper charts These days my wife and I both have nav apps on phones and IPads, as have a chartplotter on board. I have Open CPN on my laptop, which I like since the screen is much larger. I still confirm using paper charts. So i would get a compass and a chart or charts of your local area, study them, and go sailing! Navigation is extremely important, but do not let lack of electronics stop you from sailing. Have a VHF on board and a depth sounder. In a few years the electronics will all be different, so revisit when you are ready.

I'm surprised no one else has mentioned Loran. It had good range and accuracy for a 70's (really 50's) technology.

[hughespat57]

You just had to mention LORAN...

When I served in the Coast Guard in the late 70's thru 80's we used LOARAN-A.
Loran C was available but we didn't have the new receivers. C was mostly for the Navy and airlines. LORAN, simply put, is based on time difference from several transmitters on shore. The greater your distance from the transmitters the worse the accuracy. LORAN-A had a typical accuracy of 1 NM near shore to 28 NM at 1,400 miles. mid ocean it is 2% of your distance. The officers and Quartermasters also still took a noon fix and a midnight fix.

And this really does speak to the OP as well as others questions.

We think of navigation today as continuous real time fixes as we travel. LORAN or Celestial navigation was never used that way. You really were primarily using Dead Reckoning. And updating your DR position with occasional "fixes".

As a backup to a primary GPS Chartplotter there are any number of possibilities. Yes Celestial and paper is one. But so is a simple battery GPS and paper. Or such as a tablet with openCPN or other downloaded charts as mentioned.

The point being if your in some failure mode you don't need continuous fixes which would drain any backup electrical system. A tablet or portable GPS with a few good sized USB battery packs could last weeks if only powered up for a few minutes to get a "fix" and update your position, recalculate your DR assumptions, SOG, heading made good, new adjusted heading to steer. Power off.

This is the core of Celestial navigation as well. A few trustworthy "fixes" and mostly DR.

[NormanMartin]

You can get "YouTube Certified" in celestial using only the Nautical Almanac. Celestial requires a lot of patience since you do one part, and then another a few hours later and then a few more hours later yet another part before you might be able to resolve you position at noon of that day.

Being able to use the Nautical Almanac is more than just handy. You should be comfortable with the contents even if you don't do celestial.

A small hand held GPS and some batteries to suppliment the plug in power is worth every bit of the cost and space.

Jim Cate got it right in an early reply.

[kmgiunta]

Originally Posted by Culwatty

And good books for a total novice? Or good youtube channels?
:

For a start, look up William F. Buckley's (yes that WFB) DVD on celestial navigation. The DVD is not expensive and it breaks the information down into little, bite-size pieces without a bunch of math, like trigonometry (at which I suck). All you need are the tables and the ability to add and subtract. He takes you through each step and highlights the printed material that you absolutely need. FYI, WFB was a sailor of of some experience who not only did trans-Atlantic several times, a trans-Pacific crossing (all sailing), he also "test-drove" some of the current electronic navigation instruments when they were in their infancy.
Don't be put off by the fact that he uses the Air Almanac instead of the the Nautical Almanac. He gives a reasonable explanation for that.

[DeValency]

Probably not the first to comment here with a similar suggestion;
You won’t find any book or paper chart to be more updated than your 2019 Navionics. You may be lucky to find something from 1990 or so.
You can pay something like $50 to subscribe and download the most updated charts on the Navionics app (mobile/iPad).
It is not a suggestion for a “total novice” but probably for anyone here. At any case, whatever you do, it is going to be, by far, your lowest expense on anything related to offshore cruising.

Originally Posted by Culwatty

so getting a bit restless, don't want to spend mega bucks upgrading charts on the plotter 2019 currently, have navionics and a few others.

But for the days when I'm eventually on the big blue, I'd like to be able to navigate without the electronics?

And good books for a total novice? Or good youtube channels?

Hoping to get most of the welding dont to actually sail her before winter....

[Bycrick]

Ah, LORAN. How quickly we forget the pain. The first LORAN-C, the operator had to visually line up the pulses to measure the time difference using a tiny CRT on a large, power-hungry box. Then you took the Time Delay numbers and manually plotted them on the hyperbolic lines on the chart. Way different than plotting LatLon. Lots of ways for an operator error. You needed a good DR plot to catch them.

Then they had the "automatic" LORAN-C receivers that read out the TDs directly. Much easier for the operator, but you still had to plot using TDs. But you still needed a good DR plot because the receivers had a tendency to lock on to the wrong cycle of the pulse occasionally, which could put your position miles off.

Then they built "automatic" conversion from TDs to LatLon. It was much easier to plot, but the conversion was based on PREDICTED lines, which were sometimes way off due to signal propagation over land. And that could change based on how much rain you had on the signal path. You still needed a good DR plot.

Finally, as an example, the West Coast LORAN-C chain would put a booming signal into the Sea of Cortez. But because of where the stations were located, the TD lines would cross at a very acute angle. That meant that tiny little differences in the measured TD could result in a tens-of-miles error. But that didn’t stop inexperienced navigators from trying to use LORAN to enter harbors in the dark, occasionally with bad results.

All the electronics is wonderful. But if you don’t know when it’s wrong, and some day it will be, you’ll eventually get in trouble. A good DR plot is what keeps you off the hard stuff when the electronics is wrong.

[barnakiel]

Btw anyone here used Gallileo already?


b.

[DeeBee]

There is a good video to introduce the topic of building your own chart plotter from parts. I just ordered everything. I'll try to video from box opening to complete. if you're interested in an intro video I found search in YouTube "Building your own Chartplotter with a Raspberry Pi and OpenCPN" by James Conger.

[sailingharry]

It is interesting to see users mixing "navigation" and "piloting.


"Navigation" by celestial can only be done a couple times a day (sunrise, sunset, maybe a latitude line at noon, and a ruining fix over a few hours during the day), is at best good to within a mile or two and takes easily 10 minutes to plot (and so trlks you where you were mille or more ago).it is usually not done on a chart at all - it is plotted on a nearly blank piece of paper. To talk of OpnCpn, NOAA charrts (only available in USA), etc with celestial as a backup is just humorous.


Piloting, on the other hand, is done in sight of land. It can be accurate to within a fraction of a mile, can use danger bearings, turning bearings, etc, and unlike celestial is actually done on a paper chart.


Being able to pilot using a paper chart and no electronics is important -- but "celestial navigation" isn't part of that! Being able to find land without electronics (celestial nav) is also a good skill -- but it's usefulness ends about the time you pick up soundings and pull out an approach chart.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

It is interesting to see users mixing "navigation" and "piloting.


(...)

Pilotage or piloting is a form, or a method, of navigation. And no quote marks there either.


barnakiel

[requiem]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

Being able to pilot using a paper chart and no electronics is important -- but "celestial navigation" isn't part of that!

I agree that it's important to separate the best methods for offshore vs coastal navigation, particularly since this thread seems to mix them up, but we can still keep paper out of it.

My informal metric for when navigation software becomes truly suitable is its ability to easily plot visual fixes. Most recreational software still fails at this.

[Sailingsailor12]

Here are some good YouTube links. I suggest watching these before you try taking a Celestial Navigation Course such as ASA 107. I am completing ASA 107 from Victoria Sailing School in Denver, CO. They conducted the class via distance learning (internet) because of the Corona Virus. If you are not near an ASA school I highly recommend Victoria Sailing School and their distance learning classes. I live 120 miles from Denver so attending the class in person would have been a much bigger commitment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ARXW8InStY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu5R5mrrGB0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9gUs3cLgx0

Why did I take the class.
1) I am too independent to follow the black line on the white screen.
2) The US Navy dropped the Celestial Navigation requirement for their Officers when GPS came out. They require it now. The bad guys can jam the GPS signals.
3) A solar mass ejection knocked out the telegraph in the 1880's (I am not real sure about the date). If literally melted the telegraph system. That system was "robust" compared to our electronics of today. If it happens again, there will be NO electronics.

Some day I want to sail from the west coast of the US to Hawaii. If 2 or 3 happen, it could get kind of interesting trying to find Hawaii before food, water, and fuel run out. Going from Hawaii to the US West coast, no problem, I will hit something, just about on schedule, the only question is am I north or south of where I want to be. At that point I will be able to resupply and continue on.

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by NPCampbell

I'm surprised no one else has mentioned Loran. It had good range and accuracy for a 70's (really 50's) technology.

Europe has turned off their Loran C network.

Pete

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by requiem

I agree that it's important to separate the best methods for offshore vs coastal navigation, particularly since this thread seems to mix them up, but we can still keep paper out of it.

My informal metric for when navigation software becomes truly suitable is its ability to easily plot visual fixes. Most recreational software still fails at this.

Good to know water depth is not an issue where you sail fly!


b.