Gludy
Well-Known Member
MainlyStream - I agree with you and sorry I misunderstood you. In either event you are asked for confirmation.
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
How close is close
- Thread starter lanason
- Start date
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
No, the fact that you KNOW the waypoint has to be passed within a certain distance makes you go directly as possible from the previous waypoint to the present waypoint rather than some miles off so you are more likely to follow your pre-determined track
Any skipper with a modicum of sense is constantly monitoring course and distance to the present waypoint/ X-track error and is adjusting the boats heading in response. Its not that you're going to arrive 2 miles off a waypoint and go 'oh shit, I better make a 90deg turn to hit the waypoint', you should be constantly adjusting your heading well in advance of reaching the waypoint
Anyway, this discussion is all a bit academic as most gps/plotters are interfaced to the autopilot and in this mode the gps is monitoring X-track error so that the boat has to follow the pre-determined track anyway until the arrival alarm prompts a change in waypoint
<hr width=100% size=1>
Any skipper with a modicum of sense is constantly monitoring course and distance to the present waypoint/ X-track error and is adjusting the boats heading in response. Its not that you're going to arrive 2 miles off a waypoint and go 'oh shit, I better make a 90deg turn to hit the waypoint', you should be constantly adjusting your heading well in advance of reaching the waypoint
Anyway, this discussion is all a bit academic as most gps/plotters are interfaced to the autopilot and in this mode the gps is monitoring X-track error so that the boat has to follow the pre-determined track anyway until the arrival alarm prompts a change in waypoint
<hr width=100% size=1>
Gludy
Well-Known Member
Whisper - I am not getting personal with anyone - just dealing with points 
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
Gludy
Well-Known Member
No, the fact that you KNOW the waypoint has to be passed within a certain distance makes you go directly as possible from the previous waypoint to the present waypoint rather than some miles off so you are more likely to follow your pre-determined track
There is nothing stopping you going to the waypoints and changing to the next waypoint to the following one. Toi argue that just because the way it reminds you encourages you to go a few miles abeam of each waypoinmt is nonesense So it amkes it no more likely or unlikely.
"Any skipper with a modicum of sense is constantly monitoring course and distance to the present waypoint/ X-track error and is adjusting the boats heading in response."
I totally agree with you but you aregue aginst yourself because any skipper with a modicum of sense would not be encouraged to do other than you state.
"Its not that you're going to arrive 2 miles off a waypoint and go 'oh shit, I better make a 90deg turn to hit the waypoint', you should be constantly adjusting your heading well in advance of reaching the waypoint"
I totally agree with you - but that is not the point.
"Anyway, this discussion is all a bit academic as most gps/plotters are interfaced to the autopilot and in this mode the gps is monitoring X-track error so that the boat has to follow the pre-determined track anyway until the arrival alarm prompts a change in waypoint "
No it is not - set the alarm zone to 0.1 Nm and you will still be prompted for the next waypoint if the waypoint being passed is 0.11 Nm or 0.2 Nm abeam. Understanding how this work is important and it is not academic - to argue otherwise is dangerous!!!
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
There is nothing stopping you going to the waypoints and changing to the next waypoint to the following one. Toi argue that just because the way it reminds you encourages you to go a few miles abeam of each waypoinmt is nonesense
So it amkes it no more likely or unlikely."Any skipper with a modicum of sense is constantly monitoring course and distance to the present waypoint/ X-track error and is adjusting the boats heading in response."
I totally agree with you but you aregue aginst yourself because any skipper with a modicum of sense would not be encouraged to do other than you state.
"Its not that you're going to arrive 2 miles off a waypoint and go 'oh shit, I better make a 90deg turn to hit the waypoint', you should be constantly adjusting your heading well in advance of reaching the waypoint"
I totally agree with you - but that is not the point.
"Anyway, this discussion is all a bit academic as most gps/plotters are interfaced to the autopilot and in this mode the gps is monitoring X-track error so that the boat has to follow the pre-determined track anyway until the arrival alarm prompts a change in waypoint "
No it is not - set the alarm zone to 0.1 Nm and you will still be prompted for the next waypoint if the waypoint being passed is 0.11 Nm or 0.2 Nm abeam. Understanding how this work is important and it is not academic - to argue otherwise is dangerous!!!
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
MainlySteam
Well-Known Member
Yes, but when you cross the right angle line with your Raymarine and the alarm goes, that is you cross the right angle line outside of the circle of arrival, then in the period while the alarm is set ie before you acknowledge the alarm, does the display give bearing, distance etc to the current waypoint as the current target or to the next waypoint as the current target ie does it automatically swap the current waypoint to be the origin and next waypoint to be the target even if you do not acknowledge the alarm? The manual reads as if it does not and that it continues with the current waypoint as the current target.
Note, I am not claiming they do one or the other, just saying the manuals read that way, and I am interested in knowing how they handle it for general application reasons.
John
<hr width=100% size=1>
Note, I am not claiming they do one or the other, just saying the manuals read that way, and I am interested in knowing how they handle it for general application reasons.
John
<hr width=100% size=1>
Gludy
Well-Known Member
"give bearing, distance etc to the current waypoint as the current target or to the next waypoint as the current target ie does it automatically swap the current waypoint to be the origin and next waypoint to be the target even if you do not acknowledge the alarm? "
It gives the current and does not go onto the next one unless you accept that it should. If you do not accept it stays as is heading to first waypoint. It leaves the control to the skipper and does not auomate the jump at all.
I have been in a situation where are large commercial vessel had to be avoided and my altered course took me away from my target waypoint. I was able to instantly see if thew way was clear but the result was that I was now going to pass the waypoint outisde the arrival alarm zone - it did not matter because I knew that the right angle alarm would trigger - if I had not known this, what would I have done - a zig zag back to the first waypoint just so I can set to go to the next one? Understanding how the GPS/Plotters work is v ery important in practice. This thread started off with a handheld GPS triggering the next waypoint automatically (not a good thing) based upon the right angled rule. This confused the person who then asked the wrong question - ie what distance on this forum - he got incorrect answers and thus a general misunderstanding was exposed.
I am claiming this:-
1. That almost all GPS/Plotters work on the 90 degree rule including Furono, Simrad, Raytheon,Garmin.
2. That many do not fully understand what really can trigger an accept the next way point alarm.
3. That there is confused thinking about the safety and use of these features.
4. That knowing how these things work is very important.
If you did not know about the right angle rule, then look at the confusion from just one example:-
a) Have to go off course because of shipping and so end up a mile away from the intended waypoint but almost abreast of it
b) Now proceeding to the waypoint, when you unknowingly cross the 90 degree line that you are almost heading down and alarm goes
c) You now think you must be at the waypoint and so accept the next waypoint not realising you did not enter the proximity zone OR you are just confused as to why the hell the alatrm went off.
There is no substitute for knowing you basic chart navigation techniques NOR is there any substitute for understanding how any electronics you have operate - BOTh are very important.
Its so easy for muths to grow up on any subject - all I am trying to do here is kill one of them because I expereicned so many people who misunderstand it and hence propagate it
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by Gludy on 13/10/2003 12:45 (server time).</FONT></P>
It gives the current and does not go onto the next one unless you accept that it should. If you do not accept it stays as is heading to first waypoint. It leaves the control to the skipper and does not auomate the jump at all.
I have been in a situation where are large commercial vessel had to be avoided and my altered course took me away from my target waypoint. I was able to instantly see if thew way was clear but the result was that I was now going to pass the waypoint outisde the arrival alarm zone - it did not matter because I knew that the right angle alarm would trigger - if I had not known this, what would I have done - a zig zag back to the first waypoint just so I can set to go to the next one? Understanding how the GPS/Plotters work is v ery important in practice. This thread started off with a handheld GPS triggering the next waypoint automatically (not a good thing) based upon the right angled rule. This confused the person who then asked the wrong question - ie what distance on this forum - he got incorrect answers and thus a general misunderstanding was exposed.
I am claiming this:-
1. That almost all GPS/Plotters work on the 90 degree rule including Furono, Simrad, Raytheon,Garmin.
2. That many do not fully understand what really can trigger an accept the next way point alarm.
3. That there is confused thinking about the safety and use of these features.
4. That knowing how these things work is very important.
If you did not know about the right angle rule, then look at the confusion from just one example:-
a) Have to go off course because of shipping and so end up a mile away from the intended waypoint but almost abreast of it
b) Now proceeding to the waypoint, when you unknowingly cross the 90 degree line that you are almost heading down and alarm goes
c) You now think you must be at the waypoint and so accept the next waypoint not realising you did not enter the proximity zone OR you are just confused as to why the hell the alatrm went off.
There is no substitute for knowing you basic chart navigation techniques NOR is there any substitute for understanding how any electronics you have operate - BOTh are very important.
Its so easy for muths to grow up on any subject - all I am trying to do here is kill one of them because I expereicned so many people who misunderstand it and hence propagate it
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by Gludy on 13/10/2003 12:45 (server time).</FONT></P>
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
Jeez, has Monday been a bad day for you or something? Lets deal with your last point first. No, that is not the way the GPS on my existing boat with Furuno GPS/plotter or previous boats with the Autohelm system works. Even though you might be abeam of your waypoint, the systems I have experience of do NOT default to the next waypoint UNLESS you are within the arrival zone. IMHO, that is a better system than defaulting to the next waypoint subject only to being abeam of the present one
The other points I make are perfectly valid as they all pertain to approaching a waypoint on or near your pre-determined track which again IMHO is a desirable state of affairs. I agree that approaching a waypoint from abeam of it may be just as dangerous as defaulting to the next waypoint but my point is that having to hit a small arrival zone to default to the next waypoint makes this situation less likely
I'm sure you'll disagree with this so lets just leave it that you know better than I do how the systems on my present and past boats worked
<hr width=100% size=1>
The other points I make are perfectly valid as they all pertain to approaching a waypoint on or near your pre-determined track which again IMHO is a desirable state of affairs. I agree that approaching a waypoint from abeam of it may be just as dangerous as defaulting to the next waypoint but my point is that having to hit a small arrival zone to default to the next waypoint makes this situation less likely
I'm sure you'll disagree with this so lets just leave it that you know better than I do how the systems on my present and past boats worked
<hr width=100% size=1>
Gludy
Well-Known Member
Mike
"I agree that approaching a waypoint from abeam of it may be just as dangerous as defaulting to the next waypoint but my point is that having to hit a small arrival zone to default to the next waypoint makes this situation less likely"
I agree but there is nothing in the 90 degree bit that stops you aiming for and achieving the waypoint hit within your arrival zone. Nor do the systems I am talking about default to the next waypoint - they seek permission to do so.
Monday has been OK - I am dealing with issues and not attacking anyone - I am just dealing with factual points and logic.
I normally aim to be within the arrival zone of each waypoint - however having the system obey the 90 degree rule does not in anyway encourage me not to do just that. If on autohelm it does it anyway.
My old Autohelm obeyed the 90 degree rule as does every set I have seen anywhere
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
"I agree that approaching a waypoint from abeam of it may be just as dangerous as defaulting to the next waypoint but my point is that having to hit a small arrival zone to default to the next waypoint makes this situation less likely"
I agree but there is nothing in the 90 degree bit that stops you aiming for and achieving the waypoint hit within your arrival zone. Nor do the systems I am talking about default to the next waypoint - they seek permission to do so.
Monday has been OK - I am dealing with issues and not attacking anyone - I am just dealing with factual points and logic.
I normally aim to be within the arrival zone of each waypoint - however having the system obey the 90 degree rule does not in anyway encourage me not to do just that. If on autohelm it does it anyway.
My old Autohelm obeyed the 90 degree rule as does every set I have seen anywhere
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
Thats odd because I've had Autohelm Navcentres on previous boats and you always had to be in the arrival zone. Actually it was sometimes frustrating because you would 'miss' a waypoint (easy to do before the days of interfacing to the plotter) and have to double back to hit it. Not easy to change onto the next waypoint because that meant going downstairs and playing with that stupid trackball thing
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
Gludy
Well-Known Member
"Thats odd because I've had Autohelm Navcentres on previous boats and you always had to be in the arrival zone. "
On my old boat I had an autohelm but it was connected to a plotter and so that is probably the reason it obeyed the 90 degree rule.
"Actually it was sometimes frustrating because you would 'miss' a waypoint (easy to do before the days of interfacing to the plotter) and have to double back to hit it. Not easy to change onto the next waypoint because that meant going downstairs and playing with that stupid trackball thing "
Then isn't it a pity that it did not obey the 90 degree rule !!!!!!!!!! You would have been less frustrated!!!!!!!!! A bit of an own goal there Mike
If for any reason today you miss the wapoint (commercial traffic etc) then is it not better to be able to proceed to the next waypoint rather than have any frustration?
I really am at a loss to understand why you object so much to the 90 degree facility.
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
On my old boat I had an autohelm but it was connected to a plotter and so that is probably the reason it obeyed the 90 degree rule.
"Actually it was sometimes frustrating because you would 'miss' a waypoint (easy to do before the days of interfacing to the plotter) and have to double back to hit it. Not easy to change onto the next waypoint because that meant going downstairs and playing with that stupid trackball thing "
Then isn't it a pity that it did not obey the 90 degree rule !!!!!!!!!! You would have been less frustrated!!!!!!!!! A bit of an own goal there Mike
If for any reason today you miss the wapoint (commercial traffic etc) then is it not better to be able to proceed to the next waypoint rather than have any frustration?
I really am at a loss to understand why you object so much to the 90 degree facility.
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
You dont give up, do you? The Navcentre I'm talking about was a plotter with integral GPS and was fitted to boats made 1988 - 1995 or thereabouts so it sounds different to your Autohelm unit. No, it does'nt alter my view that doubling back and hitting the waypoint accurately is safer than carrying on to the next waypoint from some way off the present one. As I keep saying, at least you know you are then on your pre-determined track. No own goal, I'm afraid! Thats my main pbjection to the 90deg rule. You will be on a different track to your pre-determined one, a track that you have not checked is free of hazards
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
hlb
RIP
I've kept out of this one. Start argueing with gludy and you will be there all week..../forums/images/icons/laugh.gif
<hr width=100% size=1> <font color=blue>No one can force me to come here.<font color=red> I'm a volunteer!!.<font color=blue>
Haydn
<hr width=100% size=1> <font color=blue>No one can force me to come here.<font color=red> I'm a volunteer!!.<font color=blue>
Haydn
Gludy
Well-Known Member
"You dont give up, do you? "
Nope
"The Navcentre I'm talking about was a plotter with integral GPS and was fitted to boats made 1988 - 1995 or thereabouts so it sounds different to your Autohelm unit."
I totally accept that that unit does not have the 90 degree rule in it.
"No, it does'nt alter my view that doubling back and hitting the waypoint accurately is safer than carrying on to the next waypoint from some way off the present one."
If you were some way off then being there means that you make the choice of heading back at 80 defrees to the waypoint or accepting the route to the bext one. The only person that has put you way off is you, not the 80 degree rule.
If you are only a little out, say 0.1 Nm the is it better to double back or just proceed to the next waypoint - your own example indicated it was best to proceed to the next waypoint.
"As I keep saying, at least you know you are then on your pre-determined track."
As I keep saying in the vent of a large or small XTE you are off your predetermined track full stop. It what happens then that matters.
Are you really trying to argue that the fact that a GPS has the 90 degree rule in it, makes you steer to obtain large XTE's? That somehow a magical influence steers the skipper of course like an ancient siren lurring the inncocent off track?
If you are not saying that then the only logical point left is what happens when you are at that point - the normal 90 degree system offers you a choice - you seem to think having the choice is wrong.
If I have to miss a waypoint arrival by 0.1Nm because a ship is passing - the 90 degree alarm comes on and I choose to accept it or double back and head towards the passed waypoint. Yo seem to want everyone to head back and zig zag until they get within the zone - the 90 degree rule does not stop that - simply it offers the shortest route to the bext waypoint if you want it..... you are NO CHOICE I am CHOICE
"No own goal, I'm afraid! Thats my main pbjection to the 90deg rule. You will be on a different track to your pre-determined one, a track that you have not checked is free of hazards "
No, no, no - the 90 degree rule does not in anyway stop you setting your waypoint zone alarms and proceeding as you wish to. If for any reason you have to pass a waypoint withoput entering the alarm zone of that waypoint - a choice is offered.
If you are so bad that you end up two miles abeam then an alarm sounds and a choice is offered- noone but you got yourself 2 miles off track - at least the alarm now tells you that you are abeam of your waypoint and have a choice of turning 90 degrees or taking the straight path to the next waypoint. Without the 90 degree rule jno alarm at all would sound EVER until you find the waypoint zone!!!
I am just hoping that soon you will see the simplicity of the this logic.
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
Nope
"The Navcentre I'm talking about was a plotter with integral GPS and was fitted to boats made 1988 - 1995 or thereabouts so it sounds different to your Autohelm unit."
I totally accept that that unit does not have the 90 degree rule in it.
"No, it does'nt alter my view that doubling back and hitting the waypoint accurately is safer than carrying on to the next waypoint from some way off the present one."
If you were some way off then being there means that you make the choice of heading back at 80 defrees to the waypoint or accepting the route to the bext one. The only person that has put you way off is you, not the 80 degree rule.
If you are only a little out, say 0.1 Nm the is it better to double back or just proceed to the next waypoint - your own example indicated it was best to proceed to the next waypoint.
"As I keep saying, at least you know you are then on your pre-determined track."
As I keep saying in the vent of a large or small XTE you are off your predetermined track full stop. It what happens then that matters.
Are you really trying to argue that the fact that a GPS has the 90 degree rule in it, makes you steer to obtain large XTE's? That somehow a magical influence steers the skipper of course like an ancient siren lurring the inncocent off track?
If you are not saying that then the only logical point left is what happens when you are at that point - the normal 90 degree system offers you a choice - you seem to think having the choice is wrong.
If I have to miss a waypoint arrival by 0.1Nm because a ship is passing - the 90 degree alarm comes on and I choose to accept it or double back and head towards the passed waypoint. Yo seem to want everyone to head back and zig zag until they get within the zone - the 90 degree rule does not stop that - simply it offers the shortest route to the bext waypoint if you want it..... you are NO CHOICE I am CHOICE
"No own goal, I'm afraid! Thats my main pbjection to the 90deg rule. You will be on a different track to your pre-determined one, a track that you have not checked is free of hazards "
No, no, no - the 90 degree rule does not in anyway stop you setting your waypoint zone alarms and proceeding as you wish to. If for any reason you have to pass a waypoint withoput entering the alarm zone of that waypoint - a choice is offered.
If you are so bad that you end up two miles abeam then an alarm sounds and a choice is offered- noone but you got yourself 2 miles off track - at least the alarm now tells you that you are abeam of your waypoint and have a choice of turning 90 degrees or taking the straight path to the next waypoint. Without the 90 degree rule jno alarm at all would sound EVER until you find the waypoint zone!!!
I am just hoping that soon you will see the simplicity of the this logic.
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
Gludy
Well-Known Member
"I've kept out of this one. Start argueing with gludy and you will be there all week...."
Only a week??? A month is nearer the mark - or then maybe it will be minutes if all was a bit more logical ;-)
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
Only a week??? A month is nearer the mark - or then maybe it will be minutes if all was a bit more logical ;-)
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
Still doesnt alter the fact that you are given the choice whether to proceed to the next waypoint and if you do choose that option then you are not on the original pre-determined track and therefore on a different track which you have'nt checked for hazards
Likewise I dont see why you cant accept this simple logic
<hr width=100% size=1>
Likewise I dont see why you cant accept this simple logic
<hr width=100% size=1>
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
Yeah, worse than my SWMBO. Maybe I should introduce them
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
Gludy
Well-Known Member
"Still doesnt alter the fact that you are given the choice whether to proceed to the next waypoint and if you do choose that option then you are not on the original pre-determined track and therefore on a different track which you have'nt checked for hazards
Likewise I dont see why you cant accept this simple logic "
IT IS SO SIMPLE:-
When you are at the point of chossing as you mention above because you are two miles abeam the waypoint NEITHER the course to the new waypoint NOR the two mile trip to the waypoint abeam is on a course that is not your original. Neither has been checked for hazards. Please stop blaming the messahner that is simply bleeping an alarm, pointoing out you are tow mile adrfit and asking what you want to do! If this was a magical little person popping up to tell you this and ask what you wanted to do - in your wolrd you would blame them for being the two miles off course - that is exactly what you are doing.
So what you are claiiming is illogical. You are somehow mixing up what got the boat to 2 miles off course with the choice now offered.
Nor have you covered the simple situation whereby you only just miss the waypoint zone due to traffic and so have to double back when most of the time it would be much easier to continue to the bext waypoint rather than reverse direction to get inside what maybe 100 yards abeam!!! Then reverse again. That doubling back for 100 yards would be great with traffic around wouldn't it? ... all to get within the waypoint zone that you only just missed.
I find it surprising that you state I never give up when in practice neither do you :- All I have tried to do is answer the original simple question and point out the misleading answers that were posted and answer , in full, every point posted. Your stance is illogical and it would make my day if you could just begin to see that
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
Likewise I dont see why you cant accept this simple logic "
IT IS SO SIMPLE:-
When you are at the point of chossing as you mention above because you are two miles abeam the waypoint NEITHER the course to the new waypoint NOR the two mile trip to the waypoint abeam is on a course that is not your original. Neither has been checked for hazards. Please stop blaming the messahner that is simply bleeping an alarm, pointoing out you are tow mile adrfit and asking what you want to do! If this was a magical little person popping up to tell you this and ask what you wanted to do - in your wolrd you would blame them for being the two miles off course - that is exactly what you are doing.
So what you are claiiming is illogical. You are somehow mixing up what got the boat to 2 miles off course with the choice now offered.
Nor have you covered the simple situation whereby you only just miss the waypoint zone due to traffic and so have to double back when most of the time it would be much easier to continue to the bext waypoint rather than reverse direction to get inside what maybe 100 yards abeam!!! Then reverse again. That doubling back for 100 yards would be great with traffic around wouldn't it? ... all to get within the waypoint zone that you only just missed.
I find it surprising that you state I never give up when in practice neither do you :- All I have tried to do is answer the original simple question and point out the misleading answers that were posted and answer , in full, every point posted. Your stance is illogical and it would make my day if you could just begin to see that
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
duncan
Well-Known Member
Firstly mike I think Gludy has accepted that most systems offer you the choice - although at the start of the thrread words like default were flying around......
Secondly the thread started wth GPS and has moved on to assume plotters within the arguments. With a GPS route taken off a chart I would wish to review the chart carefully before assuming I can go in a straightline from my new position to the next waypoint; however as Gludy implys you should have checked that you were ok to be where you are now (so far off route) and therefore able to make that call as well. With a plotter you can quickly check the map page for the 'new' leg at the push of a button and then accept or reroute.
As stated above it is facinating how many users don't know how some of these functions operate - I have to admit that I don't know what either my Garmin or Lowrance plotters do but, in my defence, I have never (in 5 years of using plotters) set a route. I did with a GPS but never a plotter.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Secondly the thread started wth GPS and has moved on to assume plotters within the arguments. With a GPS route taken off a chart I would wish to review the chart carefully before assuming I can go in a straightline from my new position to the next waypoint; however as Gludy implys you should have checked that you were ok to be where you are now (so far off route) and therefore able to make that call as well. With a plotter you can quickly check the map page for the 'new' leg at the push of a button and then accept or reroute.
As stated above it is facinating how many users don't know how some of these functions operate - I have to admit that I don't know what either my Garmin or Lowrance plotters do but, in my defence, I have never (in 5 years of using plotters) set a route. I did with a GPS but never a plotter.
<hr width=100% size=1>
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
Sorry, Paul, I'm not going make your day!!! Lets just agree to disagree on this one
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
My point with Gludy is that if you are forced to pass close to every waypoint before it changes (defaults, call it what you will) to the next waypoint you know you are on your predetermined track which you have already checked is free of hazards. If the GPS/plotter allows changes to the next waypoint when are at any distance from the present waypoint (albeit at 90deg to the track) then you are most definitely not on your predetermined track and you are going to have to look at your chart or plotter screen to check for hazards, both of which may not even be at the helm station you are sitting at so the temptation is to plough on regardless
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
