NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Full and by, was: Latitude by Spica
From: Bruce Stark
Date: 2004 Jan 19, 13:22 EST
From: Bruce Stark
Date: 2004 Jan 19, 13:22 EST
Thanks, Trevor. Apparently they were plying more to windward than I'd thought. That they gave the course as "Full and by," without saying which tack, must have meant they were in a zigzag search pattern, looking for whales rather than trying to get to a particular place. Bruce Trevor wrote: "Full and by" is indeed a matter of sailing by the wind, though it refers to something more than a close reach. It is generally taken to mean sailing with all sails full and thus a little more free than a close-hauled course. "Eagle Seamanship", the textbook for cadets on the USCG's "Eagle", defines it as: "Sailing as close to the wind as possible with all sails drawing full and course changes being made to adjust for wind shifts. Sailing full and by allows the vessel to make as much ground to weather as possible without pinching." In contrast, "close-hauled" is defined as: "Point of sail where a vessel is sailing as near to the wind as possible". Smyth ("Sailor's Word Book", 1867) agrees with this, though in different words. Experience with modern yachts might suggest that there is no distinction between those terms. However, a square rigger can make ground to windward, when necessary to avoid a short tack, with the weather leeches of her topgallants lifting. That would be close-hauled but not full and by. Given sea room, she will make good more distance to windward by easing off the wind a little but in narrow waters that would require more tacking -- a major operation in a large vessel. Many a gaffer or even a lug-rigged dinghy will teach the same sort of distinction between as close as you can sail while still progressing to windward versus the most efficient course.