Interested in seeing what exactly the modernization looks like. I’m a fan of reducing redundancy and/or wildly outdated questions, however I do worry there’s a way this ends up reducing C-Nav/T-Nav competencies that are already lacking among most mates.
I also like the idea of the USCG exams weeding out people who won’t even put the minimum amount of effort into studying for them. They’re not very hard, it just takes a commitment. If these tests end up being a formality idk if that’s better or worse for the industry. I know that’s not the point of the tests but I do think it says at least something about a work ethic to take the time to study.
Dude, TNAV/CNAV is not needed anymore. GPS and Electronic Navigation has become so incredibly reliable and accurate. 20 years ago? Maybe a diff story but now? No.
If you’re running a coast wise tug in the US, sure. Red Sea, that spot off Cyprus/Israel where all your shit gets jammed? Tnav and Cnav would be pretty helpful.
There’s an open thread that has an article saying the Containership that ran aground was bc of gps spoofing. UKMTO had issued a warning about it the day before.
Also, you still need to TNav to know what you’re looking at and how to put an LOP on an electronic chart. Worked with a lot of people who don’t know how to do that. Just because you can see the little boat move along the pretty picture doesn’t mean you actually know what’s going on.
Reading that article it sounds like the redundancies in question are the STCW sign offs, which I think are silly in a lot of cases.
But what’s really silly is requiring a chart plot exercise, when you couldn’t purchase or use the charts in question if you wanted to. There are no more paper charts in the US, plain and simple.
I would love to see an E-nav module replace chart plot, but that’s easier said than done when there are only vague performance standards, and not a standard operating system for ECDIS. I do not think chart plot skills translate 1:1 into Enav, as I just made a lengthy rant on the gps spoofing thread, but we need to do something now that paper charts are in fact gone. By the time anything comes of this topic, I’m sure even UKHO will pull their paper charts.
The solution falls firmly in the “above my paygrade” unfortunately.
I’m going to assume you’ve never heard of an EMP. If Starfish Prime in 1962 knocked out microwave comms and streetlights 900 miles accidentally, just imagine the effect of an intended detonation today on anything satellite based.
About 5-6 years ago when I was there regularly we had our GPS’ jammed near Cyprus and the captain would have use to do cnav and tnav to confirm our positions, yes.
For the record, I know this will take forever regardless of what gets axed/modernized. When I was still in school I had a professor who volunteered to go down to NMC and vet questions to try and get rid of out dated or redundant questions. Apparently trying to get rid of questions is a monumental task that would take like 15 years for 10 questions.
So you’re trying to say that you could whip out your sextant and start taking sights and working the problems that you haven’t done in a decade as soon as this emp goes off? That if you actually have paper copies of needed references and not electronic copies like the rest of us have.
I keep neatly written completed celnav problems in my license binder in case I ever need to work out a sun line or star fix. Even with those as an idiot proof reference it’d take me awhile to get it done.
Don’t even get me started on shots of the moon or the special shots they put on the CM exam… never gonna happen.
My only beef with license exams was always why we had every pub and reference under the sun at our disposal on the desk (with formulas and tables inside for those who knew where to find them) yet you were expected to memorize every stability formula. Is it rocket science? No— and obviously we all passed, but there’s no reason a reference cannot be present for the prospective deck officer to use during the exam. To this day most cadets I question who take license say they whip past the stability questions and either have them memorized or go “C, A, B…. okay I’m outta here. Good enough to pass.”
The ones I haven’t done in a decade? No, I probably couldn’t do some of the “special sights” off the top of my head. But a standard star day?
Yes and yes. We have the HO229 volumes on board along with the required paper copy of the nautical almanac …and I pull out the sextant (my own Tamaya if I know we’re due for a transit on my hitch, the ship’s plastic POS if it comes as a surprise) pretty regularly.
Got a lot of AB’s and junior mates needing practice for license on my ship. Good for them to see the “old man” doing it and able to help them out.
So you’re saying you haven’t touched a sextant in a decade??? How about doing azimuths and amplitudes?
The 229s haven’t change in…ever? So the paper copies that were printed 40 years ago should work just fine. And the 2M should be ordering an almanac every year so…
The biggest issue that I see with these arguments, both for and against, is that they want an all or nothing solution.
I believe that we should evolve with technology, but also retain the core concepts as we move along. I firmly believe CelNav should continue to be taught and tested on, but let’s get into this century. Why can’t we understand the basics of the this dark art and utilize the technology to make it practical. Take shots and enter them into an app. Get instant, very exact feedback on one of the most important parts of the equation. The practice might actually become enjoyable, and dare I say even less error prone than cranking out these forms by hand… you get a fat triangle, but you have no idea where you messed up. There’s a happy medium here. Same with chart plotting… teach the core and test on concepts, but make the practical application realistic.
If all else fails: Latitude is where you are lost, and longitude is how long you have been lost there…
I always carried forms, also. An M.M. & P. line I shipped with quite a bit made daily celestial obs company policy.
Modernization of the exams is appropriate, but you can’t really call yourself a seaman/navigator if you’re not handy with a sextant.
