Day Skipper online course

Doug_Stormforce said:
Contrary to various advice on here I would suggest very few people should skip DS shorebased all together. It is a fourty hour course and that should tell you there is a fair bit of content.

When we get people going directly to YM they end up only covering the basics of the YM and not going into some areas as fully as we like. The reason being that we are having to spend considerable time on topics that should have been learnt at DS.


Likewise students who go straight to DS practical don't get anything like as much out of the course compared with those who have completed the shorebased. Think about it, would you rather be using hours of your practical cours sat at the saloon table being taught tidal curves or would you rather be skippering the boat and developing your practical skills?

The OP who has already completed 75% of the DsSb is of course the exception but most people will only be ripping themselves off by missing out the DS, it is the foundation in nav and seamanship. The massive mistake that a lot of people make is thinking that both shorebased courses are about the content of the exam papers. They are not, there is loads of content beyond the examined subjects.
Click to expand...

May I proffer an alternative view?

It may also depend on your background. If you have any experience of maps, and a science or maths background helps, the day skipper and coastal skipper theory are pretty straightforward. It's vector maths and learning rules.

The met they teach is rudimentary. The met office can't get it right with rooms full of supercomputers and PhDs - what chance have you got with a couple of hours of analysis of perfect text book lows? So you learn by rote the answers, pass the exam and then go out and learn real met with someone like Simon Keeling (whom I totally recommend and learnt loads from, even after many years of studying it).

Hours at the table being taught tidal curves? Maybe. Again it depends on your background. It's interpolation by graphs - about 10 minutes (and that's to pick up the quirks of the format) for anyone with a mathematics background.

What I'm saying is that there is an enormous range of backgrounds and the theory courses are set up to take the majority from zero to competent, which doesn't apply to everyone.
 
I started sailing in 1970 (at B-o-C) and have a Skipper's ticket (non-tidal) from the British Kiel Yacht Club somewhere that I got ages ago. Also have (had) a Full-Cat Gliding Instructor rating that the RAF GSA don't give out lightly and maintained Navigation Instruments in the RAF for 12 years so had to have a good knowledge of navigation theory. I've been crewing regularly for a some years now on the South Coast.I did a Day Skipper's course over 5 days at Mendez Marine (Solitaire in this case) - I learnt a hell of a lot. I agree the met was basic but it was a MoBo orientated course so it was geared accordingly and with my background I should have found it basic anyway. It covered exactly what the Day Skipper purports to - how to judge whether you're inside your limits. In this day and age the best way to get the met conditions for a short trip as might be done by a Day Skipper level aspirant is to ask a range of sources that you believe you can trust. It's as much about judging the reliability of what you're being told as it is actually forecasting yourself.
 
pteron said:
It may also depend on your background. If you have any experience of maps, and a science or maths background helps, the day skipper and coastal skipper theory are pretty straightforward. It's vector maths and learning rules.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. I have university level Maths (very rusty now), did both my DS and YM in a classroom, and was bored to tears a lot of the time as I found most of it so easy with my background.

Wish I had gone straight to YM and not bothered with the basic course.
 
yeah i did the thoery with chichester marine and it was great- i got an extension from them because like you i got swamped. Would recommend them
 
I have been watching this thread with interest. I have taught both Ds and CS/YM theory courses and it still amazes me when people seem to want to find fault.

There is a course syllabus that needs to be adhered to. Yet everybody is an individual and I have been severely challenged as an instructor by the differing levels of understanding of how people learn.

I don't run big DS or CS/YM courses because it ends up being a lecture rather than an instructional environment. 4-6 is the maximum and that allows me to devote time to each person. I have had students of differing levels and I can tell you it is very hard when one picks up the info quickly and others really struggle. There are those that no matter how many times you tell them that the chart is true north can get it! While on the same course another student is so far ahead with their understanding that you have to set more challenges.

Not everybody who does these courses are degree or even GCSE standard, some have never even completed standard education. So I find it really very patronising when people say say how easy it all is.

I will challenge each person as an individual, the brighter the more I will push you! I have failed/actioned planned students on Day Skipper theory if they are not up to standard. But I don't leave it to the end of the course to say they have "failed",they need constant evaluation and feed back.

The advantage of doing an instructor course is that you can get feed back and real experience communication. It is about interaction and passing on of experience.
 
Solitaire said:
Not everybody who does these courses are degree or even GCSE standard, some have never even completed standard education. So I find it really very patronising when people say say how easy it all is.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is trying to be patronising. You said yourself that students are individuals and learn at different rates. The OP asked if he should jump straight to YM theory and some of us said yes, with the right background.

You appear to be saying that simply finding it easy and saying so is patronising those who don't. I don't see how that follows at all - are people not allowed to be good at something in case it upsets others?
 
playford said:
I was considering doing the theory courses via distance learning before the practical. I wouldnt skip the day skipper practical, ill be sitting that regardless.

so maybe work through one of the day skipper theory textbooks and exercises and then working through the YM online course via one of the providers (as I would be working at my own speed then?).

I've seen a 5 day, day skipper/coastal skipper combined course as well but that sounds very hard going.
Click to expand...

"I've seen a 5 day, day skipper/coastal skipper combined course as well but that sounds very hard going."

That's not the normal course under RYA recommendations as far as I'm aware, particularly when each seperate course is 40 hours.

Which school does this?
 
pteron said:
I don't think anyone is trying to be patronising. You said yourself that students are individuals and learn at different rates. The OP asked if he should jump straight to YM theory and some of us said yes, with the right background.

You appear to be saying that simply finding it easy and saying so is patronising those who don't. I don't see how that follows at all - are people not allowed to be good at something in case it upsets others?
Click to expand...

How does the "right background" in maths/university, allow anyone who previously has little/no knowledge, learn collision regs/weather/buoyage/safety/seamanship/passage planning/pilotage/etc, quicker than anyone else, so allowing them to jump straight into CS/YM.

I can understand someone with a maths background being able to understand the 'chartwork' paper, quicker than someone who doesn't have these skills, but having had a few people who actually are 'rocket scientists' on DS course still getting value & interest out of it, why suggest that they are useless/boring? My courses are usually over 5 days, which might be more rigorous than 40 hours over 20 weeks, which can be more leisurely.
 
alant said:
How does the "right background" in maths/university, allow anyone who previously has little/no knowledge, learn collision regs/weather/buoyage/safety/seamanship/passage planning/pilotage/etc, quicker than anyone else, so allowing them to jump straight into CS/YM.
Click to expand...

For most people, going to university requires an aptitude for learning, so I'd suggest that those who have been are going to be pretty good at picking up the theory. A colleague of mine (an engineer and yes, he'd been to university) attended DS theory for 2 lessons before the instructor suggested he switch to the YM theory classes. He simply picked things up way faster than the average. When I expressed an interest in doing the course, my colleague, knowing my background, suggested I go straight to YM. I phoned the instructor and he agreed.

Some people are fortunate enough to learn quickly, others don't. That's the way the cookie crumbles. I'm c*rp at football but I don't insist everyone else pretend they're c*rp to appease my wounded ambition. To insist that everyone needs 80 hours of tuition to get to YM standard when it is self evident that some don't is absurd.
 
pteron said:
For most people, going to university requires an aptitude for learning, so I'd suggest that those who have been are going to be pretty good at picking up the theory. A colleague of mine (an engineer and yes, he'd been to university) attended DS theory for 2 lessons before the instructor suggested he switch to the YM theory classes. He simply picked things up way faster than the average. When I expressed an interest in doing the course, my colleague, knowing my background, suggested I go straight to YM. I phoned the instructor and he agreed.

Some people are fortunate enough to learn quickly, others don't. That's the way the cookie crumbles. I'm c*rp at football but I don't insist everyone else pretend they're c*rp to appease my wounded ambition. To insist that everyone needs 80 hours of tuition to get to YM standard when it is self evident that some don't is absurd.
Click to expand...

I accept that some people learn quicker than others, but do not accept that other than perhaps someone with a mathematical background being able to solve tidal vectors easily, entitles them to ignore the rest of the course content, which anyway isn't covered on YM.

PS
"For most people, going to university requires an aptitude for learning,"

seems to be really stretching credulity! :p
 
I did my DS Theory with CMonline and found the feed back very good and the response incredible, I once during a sleepless night decided to do a couple of hours and so sent in my module for assessment at 4am, by 6 am it was marked and returned with comments.

I am not University educated but would class myself as reasonably intelligent, I did find the basics fairly easy but appreciated the chance to take as long as I wanted setting myself the same questions but on east coast charts with a real almanac and practicing them till I knew I could do them without having to think about how.

I am thinking about doing YM theory with CMonline and would recommend them to anyone.

What did amaze me was being out when day turned to night last year and everything looking exactly as I had it in my mind from the course, just shows how good the information is.
 
Chichester Maritime Shorebased courses

Hello,

I just finished my Yachmaster shorebased course with CM and I can only say good things about them. The material is top quality and very helpful and the exercises just what I needed. But probably the most important were the super fast answers to all my questions (via email and chat) and good support from the tutor assigned. This sures helped a lot in keeping my motivation high and finishing the course.

I also took longer than first expected and was able to profit from 2 extra months to finish my course. This flexibility proved valuable. I guess it's really important to keep contact with the tutor

Chichester Maritime is definitely a good choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top