
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
Do we really want to give into fear? or fight the folks who are trying to subvert the constitution. Am I off topic? sorry.POINT TAKEN BILL, BUT THAT KIND OF SOPHISTICATION IS NOT COMMON NOR WOULD IT BE EASILY SET UP ON MOST SHIPS WITHOUT THE ADDITION OF ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS AND WHILE GPS IS GOOD THERE ARE ERRORS AND THEY WOULD BE VERY LUCKY TO MAKE INTO ANY BUT THE MOST SIMPLE APPROACHES (LIKE LA) "WShoots1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi, Doug,
I guess the best way to explain my view is to post (below) a response I
gave to
someone who emailed me direct. He was not as kind as you, but that part
and his
name are deleted. <G>
By the way... I don't believe a thing traitor GWB says.
Cheers, Bill in Texas * * * * * * * * * * * * * << Terrorists could not hijack a ship and set on autopilot so that it
would run
into the docks. >>
I guess you've never heard of plotting a course and setting way points in
an
electronic device. With today's GPS for guidance, that can be done very accurately. With radar as one of the inputs, collisions enroute can be
avoided.
<< At all harbors a pilot and docking pilot are required to navigate
harbor
waters. >>
That's a legal requirement, not a technical necessity. By the way, what's
a
docking pilot? On every ship I'd aboard, the same pilot handled the vessel between the roads and the dock.
<< A vessel set on auto pilot as you suggest would run aground far from reaching any docks. >>
See above. Of course, a harbor's VTS would probably go on the alert,
should a
"bogie" come into view. But is the Coast Guard equipped to board an
ocean-going
vessel under way that may not have a ladder down?
Some years ago, the Japanese had a fully-automated, unmanned tankership.
The
world, though, wouldn't allow that spook to roam the high seas.
Bill in Texas Marine Service Engineer (retired)
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |