Correction, no one cares to learn how to use electronic navigation to work without GPS.
Can You share your findings, give some examples please??
Regarding a back-up for GPS/GNSS this was posted here in 2017
Transas ECDIS allows bearing and ranges obtained by visual bearings or radar to be plotted on the ECDIS. Seems to me that is the way to go, along with such methods as parallel index lines on the radar as well as visual monitoring
The subject of deck officers learning visual navigation using deliberate practice has also been mentioned a few time here.
All ECDIS that I have used have this radar & visual bearing plot option (Transas/Wartsila; Sperry Visionmaster; Furuno FMD) and it’s part of type-specific course/exam.
Well for one, I’m not sure why GPS failure is rarely seen as a procedure, and almost never run as a drill. I’ve seen it referenced in one SMS, but there was never a solution given so - if the crew doesn’t actually know what to do, it’s not really effective training. This is a niche I’m passionate about, and whenever I go on a slightly autistic rant or try to explain a reasonable procedure, everyone’s eyes gloss over from 3rd mate to Captain.
During an ocean crossing with not much else happening, I did get the captain’s blessing to run a test, using the 2ndary position input in the ECDIS, simulating like a local failure - say lightening fried both GPS antennas but my phone or handheld Garmin could still get a fix. Running in either DR (it’s just a DR), or EP mode where it accounts for set and drift, I never got more than a couple miles off our actual position, and most of the error wasn’t cross track error, but rather due to relying on STW as a speed input.
This is an IMO Performance standard for the ECDIS, along with the ability to manually adjust the ship’s position. The “how” is type specific, as @Binbag_the_Saylore referenced, but in reality you can do anything on an ECDIS you could do on a paper chart. This is a hill I will die on, and generally captains and vetting inspectors do not believe me, and that is okay.
If you’re sailing somewhere you can get an LOP either off a visual bearing, or RADAR range/ Range+Bearing, fantastic, the ECDIS will do all the work automatically if you turn GPS off and go into EP mode. Arguably it’s still better than a paper chart, because your DR position is constantly being updated, as opposed to looking at a chart and saying “I’m somewhere between this fix and this DR.”
I’ve never actually seen it working, but I know Transis has a feature which is like RADAR stabilized, where you can pin the chart to a fixed radar return, and that will constantly fix your position - this is not a performance standard, but it would be cool if it was.
But once you sail out of sight of land, because manually adjusting position is a performance standard, you can take a celestial fix, and take that position to the ECDIS as well, and update it as you take sunlines. in EP it will automatically calculate and apply Set and Drift based on the inputs you have left, and apply it automatically to your DR going forward. It’s a little cumbersome, but celestial fixes are cumbersome on paper charts as well. If for some reason its just your gps that has shit the bed and no one is harassing you, you can do well enough with your phone’s GPS and manually entering fixes that way at regular intervals, and it will do the same thing.
From an amateur radio enthusiast perspective, I have a hunch this would be a lot less reliable today than back in the day. LED light bulbs alone put out so much RF noise I fear we might jam ourselves with no Russian interference. The noise floor is much lower when I take my radio out in the woods compared to on a ship anywhere in the world- I find sections of the HF and LF bands that are more or less unusable. That being said, I, as just some nerd, would likely have a much easier time jamming someone’s Loran receiver than a GPS receiver.
While I agree this is a great starting point, The problem is still one type specific training that is wedged in with all the other sign on paperwork probably isn’t sufficient for the amount of trouble a ship can get in if the equipment isn’t understood. We can probably all rattle off a pretty good procedure for a galley or laundry room fire, but if I had a dollar every time I showed a captain how to do a manual fix because they forgot, I’d have more money than I should. And if you asked around for a GPS failure procedure, I mean, look at the threads you see here.
By no means I have been impressed , hence keep her steady as she goes on that course. EXCELLENT!!! 
I required the OOW to plot a fix, once a watch if relevant, when available and workload allowed. Don’t want to distract, just a quick radar bearing and range when not much else is going on. Kept it low key. That’s usually enough to maintain procedural (muscle) memory.
Having a set of notes handy also helps.
I was being a bit snarky, but only a bit. It isn’t only over-reliance on GPS that is the issue. Here is a completely avoidable accident where a highly professional navigator and captain with multiple circumnavigations ran their race yacht up on a remote, charted shoal because they didn’t have the electronic chart zoomed in to the right scale.
I sort out my LEDs for RFI. The noisy ones I don’t keep. The worst one wiped out all of HF and VHF too. Right now the worst RFI I have is the NMEA pulses from the AIS.
Official charts, such as from UKHO, show the reefs quite clearly regardless of zoom level. I think this example might be suitably zoomed out:
Although, this same type of error could just as easily happen with paper charts. My issue with the Vestas situation is that their nav setup was a mess; multiple computers each with different levels of chart coverage (partly due to licensing restrictions).
Vestas story is straying a bit off topic for this thread. However, on that note see also the thread about USS Guardian.
It mostly is off topic, but it points to the danger of modern “navigators” who take what they see on the screen as reality without checking either the settings on their equipment nor the raw position data.
Back in the day nothing was 100%, we always were a bit suspicious.
Indeed. Seems like from the report it was very much a case of confirmation bias and neglecting warnings. Not what you’d want to see in a spoofing scenario!
Reminds me of this Wrath of Khan scene; the QMOW realised something was up, knew the PFI, etc. should be adjusted, the XO didn’t want to bother. Seems the navigation earlier in the voyage was also a bit… casual.
Don’t get me started on that one!!
It isn’t off topic at all. Over reliance on GPS, AIS, and electronic charting over dead reckoning, position documentation, and maintaining an independant log of heading and SOG are all related. If mariners bothered to verify their position via other sources beyond GPS, including ATON, most people look at a chartplotter, with a little boat in the middle and line showing where it is heading and think the map is the territory.
Electronics are a fabulous tool. I use them daily, but not every boat maintains power. As Baltimore found out.
looking out the window
radar
The 2 items to trust first
SR71 in the 60’s had a camera looking at stars
Good pick up Spo!