toad_oftoadhall
New member
During a recent race I incorrectly guess-timated an initial CTS to 'the next mark'. As so often happens the real world didn't match the predictions. In broad daylight with pots/previous mark to see the 'real' tide against the correction required was obvious and made before the leg actually started, so cost us no time. However, it set me thinking about Blind Nav for people taking UK sailing qualifications. It strikes me as fairly common for a CTS to be a wee bit off. That costs little or no time if you can see but if you were "blind" could have you the wrong side of a mark or a large distance off target.
So how accurate do candidates have to be and over how great a distance?
All the factors involved are fickle so to be within (say) two boat lengths off the target after two miles would strike me as being as much about luck as skill.
There seems to be a paradox. If the conditions are right and candidates are allowed a reasonable margin of error for the imponderables the candidate has proved little. If the candidate has to hit b) bang on the nose then the test becomes a measurement of how "lucky" the candidate was.
Discuss.
PS: The above assumes the blind nav 'test' is to start from a) work out a CTS to b) and follow that CTS to pass close to b) without checking position between the two [1], but correcting only for those factors which would be known in thick fog like speed etc? (And therefore comparable to a club racer working out a CTS that will take him to the next mark, with the only difference being the the qual candidate won't be allowed to see to make a correction for external position clues.
So how accurate do candidates have to be and over how great a distance?
All the factors involved are fickle so to be within (say) two boat lengths off the target after two miles would strike me as being as much about luck as skill.
There seems to be a paradox. If the conditions are right and candidates are allowed a reasonable margin of error for the imponderables the candidate has proved little. If the candidate has to hit b) bang on the nose then the test becomes a measurement of how "lucky" the candidate was.
Discuss.
PS: The above assumes the blind nav 'test' is to start from a) work out a CTS to b) and follow that CTS to pass close to b) without checking position between the two [1], but correcting only for those factors which would be known in thick fog like speed etc? (And therefore comparable to a club racer working out a CTS that will take him to the next mark, with the only difference being the the qual candidate won't be allowed to see to make a correction for external position clues.