In his latest article on astronavigation, Bobby Schenk writes:
If the skipper relies solely on the electronics - and he does so on the high seas without a sextant - he is actually violating the principle of seamanship: there must always be a back-up system, and on the high seas that is the protractor (sextant) and the ability to use it.
Strangely enough, this principle seems to have been abandoned in many cases because of our very powerful (and inexpensive) navigation systems. The risk is simply weighed up, as is so often the case in life. Nothing will happen to me, they reassure themselves and save themselves a few days' work with the American NO plates. But this is not entirely logical. When preparing, don't you also think of a shipwreck where a life raft is needed? Don't you also fear a pirate attack and deal intensively with the subject of "weapons on board" or don't you attend advanced medical aid courses to practise stitching up an injury, or do you even, like the author, toy with the idea of undergoing an appendectomy as a precaution? Are such thoughts not much more absurd than expecting a thunderstorm with a lightning strike? For example, I don't know of a single recent honest case in which a life raft was used after the ship sank. A firearm was helpful? I've never seen that. And I've never heard of an emergency operation on an inflamed appendix on the high seas in 50 years. So which is more likely, a lightning strike with electronic damage or the above disasters?
Read the entire plea in favour of the sextant on Bobby Schenk's homepage (click here).
Lars Bolle
Chief Editor Digital
