As long as you realize the radar only shows what is on it's horizon. It may be displaying the coastline 50 feet up cliffs and hills and quite a lot of rocks at sea level not showing. It would be rare that the coastline on the radar matches the chart. Radar is only as good as the radar operator!
Select to expand quoteRamona said..
As long as you realize the radar only shows what is on it's horizon. It may be displaying the coastline 50 feet up cliffs and hills and quite a lot of rocks at sea level not showing. It would be rare that the coastline on the radar matches the chart. Radar is only as good as the radar operator!
Thanks for mentioning those finer points Ramona - yep, it's only as good as the operator...
regards,
allan
Select to expand quoteRamona said..
As long as you realize the radar only shows what is on it's horizon. It may be displaying the coastline 50 feet up cliffs and hills and quite a lot of rocks at sea level not showing. It would be rare that the coastline on the radar matches the chart. Radar is only as good as the radar operator!
Correct,,, and when the shore line is within sight of the radar, the radar return will or should correspond with the chart usually showing a discrepancy due to breakers or swell.
Its not uncommon to see markers that have moved from their original charted position and in some of the lesser surveyed areas, land masses, islands, breakwaters etc that are incorrectly maped on electronic charts. Radar is just a great tool to give you a realtime image of where you are and whats around you.
Was out on a grey misty Macquarie Harbour yesterday.
Electronic charting (Updated) was not even close on even major turning marks.
Locals use there own waypoints.
Limited vis so radar was best option by far even to find turning marks.
So like everything else, horses for courses.
What was interesting was that Navionics did not even have the land mass anywhere near accurate, like a good 1/2 n mile at one point.
