|
I grew
up in a time when a "hard drive" was a trip in a Honda Civic
from San Diego to Jackson Hole, stopping only for gas and necessaries,
and "high-tech chips" were made of potatoes and had waves instead
of being just flat. Maybe that's why I've never been completely comfortable
with technology. I'm no Luddite. I own a computer, cellphone, and laptop
and not only know how to use them but enjoy doing so. In fact, I'm so
daring when it comes to technology I'm thinking of upgrading to Windows
XP.
Technology
doesn't bother me, it fascinates me. What makes me uneasy is how ready
people are to rely completely upon it. I know writers who have their life's
work on their hard drive and no backup. I've never been that kind of believer.
The first time I bought a car with an electronic ignition I also bought
a spare ignition module and kept it in the glove compartment. (I needed
it just three months later.)
The
same uneasiness has always underscored my feelings about electronic navigation—first
Loran, then GPS. I've never doubted their accuracy, just their invincibility.
They are, after all, physical systems, and so prone to failure, as are
the people who operate them. Is this paranoia? Perhaps, although twice
last summer the GPS receiver I was using (a different one each time) suddenly
and inexplicably went blank and, more disarming, suddenly reappeared.
And by now everyone has heard the story of the GPS satellite that went
haywire last summer, leaving a number of jetliners and God knows how many
military aircraft seriously off course. Then there's the vulnerability
of a system everyone depends on in this, the age of terrorism.
GPS
may be able to put you within spitting distance of a buoy in zero visibility,
but it can break. So although I use it just about every time I leave port,
I also keep updated paper charts on hand, maintain a log, and constantly
dead reckon my position and check it against the chartplotter—even
if I never lose sight of land. For I've learned this about technology
over the years: It only fails you when you really need it.
A lot
of people who feel the same way think it would be nice if we had a system
that we could fall back on if GPS went down or the government reinstated
SA due to national security concerns. Specifically, they want the Coast
Guard to continue to maintain Loran. They say that Loran is not only valuable
as a backup to GPS, in some ways it's actually superior to it. The argument,
which I've heard from a number of sources, goes that while Loran can't
match GPS's three-meter positional accuracy, it has better repeatable
accuracy; that is, it does a better job of returning you to the same spot
time after time. This argument never rang true with me, so I asked PMY's
resident electronics expert Ben Ellison about it. He says it was indeed
an accurate statement before the advent of DGPS and especially WAAS, but
that with both in place, GPS is today superior to Loran in both kinds
of accuracy.
But
perhaps Loran accuracy could be improved. Writing in the November/December
issue of Ocean Navigator, editor Tim Queeney argues that it could
(and should) be at a relatively low cost, but I still wonder whether we
need to expend manpower and money to maintain a second, independent navigational
system that will always be less accurate than GPS. My heart says yes,
but my brain says no. Despite the occasional glitches like those noted
above, GPS has proven its reliability and has plenty of built-in redundancies.
Besides, it's Loran that's subject to problems, including everything from
atmospheric interference to the possibility of sabotage.
We do
need redundancy in electronic navigation, but I don't think it should
be another high-tech system. It should be conscientious use of low-tech
paper charts and scrupulous dead reckoning.
|