In this Golden Jubilee year of the Institute it is befitting that the theme of my Presidential Address should be ‘The State of the Institute’. Since the formation of the Institute in 1947, Council has continually addressed this theme, recognizing the need throughout the years to maintain a twin-track approach. One track has been to address navigation issues, relying heavily for solutions on the expertise of members, and the other track has been to adopt measures which secure the future for the Institute. The first track has presented little problem, for within the Institute there are many experts, ranging from the practitioners of the art of navigation to the practitioners of the science and understanding of navigation and its associated disciplines. It is the second track, concerned with the future of the Institute, that requires Officers and Council to steer a sensible safe course around ominous thunder clouds that develop as rapidly as those in the Intertropical Convergence Zone.

The Institute of Navigation was born on 12 March 1947 in the Boardroom of Lloyds Register of Shipping. More will be said of this later, but the birth is well documented and defined.

It will surprise no one that the conception is much less easily defined, but it is certainly no less significant a part of the genesis of the Institute. This article is an attempt to outline the early history of the Institute.

During 1944 and 1945 an Institute of Navigation was formed in the United States and, in May 1945, it held its first Annual General Meeting with Professor Sam Herrick — a well-known American astronomer — as its Executive Secretary. Its meetings were attended by the Navigation Specialist on the British Air Commission in Washington (Squadron Leader D. O. Fraser) and duly reported back, through the Commission, to the Air Ministry in the United Kingdom.

The first issue of the Journal of the Institute of Navigation (Journal of Navigation since 1972 when the Institute assumed the title Royal) appeared in January 1948, ten months after the Institute's foundation. It may be appropriate now, some fifty years later, to record some of its history. The Journal was published ‘Under the authority of the Council and edited by the Executive Secretary’ (an appellation later changed to Director), a situation that was to remain constant so far as personnel goes for the next thirty-six years. It was printed by William Clowes and published by John Murray.

To follow Mike Richey's authoritative article on the launch and subsequent development of the Journal is almost as daunting a task as it has been to follow his thirty-nine years as Editor.

My own time in post has amounted to a mere eleven years, a period which I have found both enjoyable and rewarding. Mike set and maintained a very high standard in the content and in the presentation of the Journal. Such was die reputation and the standing of the Journal that few changes were needed, and it was straightforward enough to continue on much the same lines. Straightforward, but not at all easy. It was only when I took over as Editor that I fully appreciated the care and attention to detail that Mike had invested in producing volume after volume to such a consistently high standard. Fortunately I have always had a dedicated and efficient Assistant Editor, most recently, Rebecca Dudley.

This report was first published in the Journal in 1966 (Vol. 19, p. 411). In its reprinted form it has been abridged by omitting detailed recommendations for the establishment of separation areas and recommended routes in the Baltic, the North Sea, the Dover Strait, and the English Channel to Gibraltar. These recommendations were included in the original section 7. The report is followed by comments from Norman Cockcroft.

In 1961 the Institutes of Navigation in Great Britain and France, with the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Ortung und Navigation, formed a representative Working Group to go into the question of regulating traffic in converging areas at sea with particular reference to the Dover Strait. The Group's Report, which was published in October 1962, made certain proposals for routing traffic in the area which were accepted, in April 1964, by the Maritime Safety Committee of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization.

This is a condensed version of a seminal paper which was first published in the Journal in 1952 (Vol. 5, p. 103). It is followed by comments from John Parker. The numbering of the figures and tables, some of which are omitted, follows that of the original paper.

In recent years, the most striking development in the philosophy of navigation has surely been the change in attitude towards errors. Ten years ago an error was regarded as something that just did not happen in the best navigational circles; today we accept it as the normal concomitant of observation, and we study to reduce it.

This paper was first published in 1957 (Vol. 10, p. 398). It is followed by comments from David Page.

With the comparative absence of navigation aids in the earlier days of flying, up to about ten years ago, the navigator was constantly engaged in associating observations, calculations and chartwork in what was essentially a high-class guessing game. The low speeds (just over 100 knots on flying boats and just under 200 knots on landplanes) provided enough time for this rather intriguing exercise to be carried out in a fairly relaxed atmosphere, conducive to an individualistic approach that could be justified by results. The navigator's performance was largely (at that stage of aviation) judged on the neatness of his plotting, the accuracy of ETA'S and the absence of late course corrections before arriving at destination or a check point. If there is anything in the view that navigation is an art, this particular yardstick certainly induced considerable artifice in the navigator.

This paper was originally published in Vol. 34 of the Journal (p. 286). In its reprinted form, it has been reduced in length by Robin Payne. It is followed by comments from Stuart Quarrie.

Captain Illingworth's paper was read to an Ordinary Meeting of the Institute held at the Royal Geographical Society on 17 March 1950. Introducing the speaker, the chairman, Captain G. C. Saul, said that Captain Illingworth's name was familiar to anyone who had had any connection with ocean racing, and to most people who were interested in sailing. He was Commodore of the Royal Ocean Racing Club (RORC) and of the Royal Naval Sailing Association, and was a member of the Council of the Yacht Racing Association.

He had had many years' experience of long distance racing and had won his first championship in 1929. In 194; he had won the Sydney—Hobart race in Rani and in 1947 won the Fastnet and the Channel Race in Myth of Malham (Fig. 1). In 1948 he took part in the Bermuda race in Myth of Malham and then sailed back across the Atlantic to compete in the Santander and Belle He races. In the latter race he beat the whole ocean racing fleet boat for boat. In 1949 he again won the Fastnet Cup and also won the points championship over the whole season.

This paper was first published in the Journal in 1947 (Vol. 1, p. 118). Sections 1 and 2 are summarized in order to save space. Sections 3, 4 and 5 are reprinted with only a little abridgment. The paper is followed by comment from the original author.

The original paper gave a comprehensive account of the development of navigational radar in the United Kingdom from the beginning of World War II up to the time of writing.

The use that was made of the very early radars was mentioned and the improvements brought about by the introduction of the PPI (Plan Position Indicator) and centimetric radar were described. An account was given of how radar assisted the Normandy landings, and of the techniques employed including the use of radar predictions of the Normandy coastline (produced in great secrecy) which were optically superimposed on the PPI. Also shown on the predictions were the planned approach tracks to the shore. An example of one of these predictions compared with the post-invasion radar photograph is shown in Fig. 1. This superimposition of geographical information on the PPI was to become of great significance in later years.

This paper was first published in 1960 (Vol. 13, p. 127). It is followed by comments from John Kemp. The paper has been abridged, including the omission of section 5 which described a proposal for a new radar display.

When the problem of collision in the air is discussed, it is usual to start by pointing out the enormous closing speed of two modern aircraft meeting head-on, and to conclude from this that avoidance on the ‘see and be seen’ principle has ceased to be possible. The fact is, however, that the great majority of mid-air collisions (about 85 percent) occur within five miles of an airport and the typical case is not the head-on one, but the case in which the two aircraft crab into one another from a direction which may be anywhere around the whole enclosing sphere. Since the field of view of the aircrew covers only about 20 percent of the enclosing sphere, the aircrew of colliding aircraft seldom see each other. It would seem, therefore, that the ‘see and be seen’ principle never did afford much protection, even when speeds were low. In other words, the fact that the number of mid-air collisions in Europe has hitherto been small is not primarily due to seeing and evading, although this sometimes happens, but to the fact that the airspace is very large compared to the volume of all the aircraft in it at any given time. However, as traffic densities go up, the risk rapidly increases, and in congested airspace, such as that around New York, the problem of avoiding collision has already become acute. In the period 1948–57, there were 159 mid-air collisions in the United States, and many of these made headlines in the world press. One can imagine the public outcry if two large transports were to collide over a housing estate; but unless something effective is done, something like this will presumably happen eventually. At very high altitudes the ‘see and be seen’ principle certainly fails, by day, because the speed will be high, and in addition, the range at which a pilot can see an object the size of an aircraft may be less than 1½ miles due to what is sometimes called ‘high-altitude myopia’.

This paper was presented at the NAV '90 conference and was first published in the Journal in 1991 (Vol. 44, p. 25). It is followed by comments from Christopher Querée.

The future shakeout and consolidation of vehicle navigation technologies and systems approaches will occur primarily in the vehicle location, mobile data communications, and man/machine interface areas. Digital maps will not be directly affected because, although there is still a dearth of formal standards, there is already a high degree of uniformity among approaches being pursued in all parts of the world.

This paper was the second Presidential Address given by Captain Majendie. It was first published in the Journal in 1958 (Vol. 11, p. 1). It is followed by comments from David Hopkin. For reasons of space, Captain Majendie's paper has been slightly abridged, mainly by omitting a section on the provision of monitoring intelligence.

I have chosen the title of this paper ‘The Display and Use of Navigational Intelligence’, as I believe that our major problems in the future are likely to be as much concerned with the presentation and the use of data, as with its provision.

This paper was first published in the Journal in 1954 (Vol. 7, p. 138). It is followed by comments from Michael Richey.

At the time (1542) when Jean Rotz presented Henry VIII with a variation compass, and an accompanying treatise on its making and use, the question of magnetic variation was an acute one. It formed part of a wider controversy concerning the general validity of the sea-chart which had been raised among seamen. As to this, Dr Pedro Nunez, writing a treatise in 1537 addressed to his friend and pupil the Infante Dom Luys of Portugal, said that there were skilled pilots who derided the chart and declared it to be ‘a mais falsa causa do mundo’ – the falsest thing in the world. Hastening to its defence, Nunez dealt at length with the navigating errors introduced by ignoring the convergence of the meridians, and showed besides that a rhumb, or line of constant bearing was a spiral curve on the globe.

This paper was first published in Volume 19, p. 88, in 1966. Parts II and III were included in following issues of the Journal. The paper is Crown Copyright and is reproduced with the permission of H.M. Stationery Office. It is followed by comments from Stanley Ratcliffe.

The main task of air traffic controllers is to plan traffic flows so that aircraft are allotted sufficient separation to absorb not only systematic differences in speed but also the imperfections of navigation and piloting, which we term flying errors. To this end, they usually work with three separation standards, to be applied in, respectively, the along-track, across-track and vertical dimensions of space. The separation standard for any one dimension is the minimum intended (i.e. planned) separation permitted in that dimension when the intended separations are less than standard in the other two. The problem is to choose standards which are safe enough, but not so large as to lead to unnecessary traffic delays and deviations.

This paper was first published in the Journal in 1969 (Vol. 22, p. 118). It is followed by comments from John Kemp.

The last twenty-one years have seen some very striking advances in our knowledge of how animals can determine their location. In many cases we have learned that they have available a wider range of stimuli than ourselves for recognizing landmarks and for pilotage within their home area. Thus the associated senses of smell and taste are extraordinarily well developed in some species. The ability of the males of certain moths to detect the scent emitted by females at very considerable distances had long been known. More recently the extreme sensitivity, and selectivity, of fish to waterborne odours has led to an understanding of how they locate their home waters. As but one example, eels have shown reactions to concentrations of chemicals as low as 3 × 10−18, equivalent to but two or three molecules within the fish's olfactory sac. In other cases animals have developed sensitivities of which we have little or no conception. Ecolocation is employed by certain birds, by many marine animals and reaches a peak of efficiency in the case of bats. Not only do the latter detect sounds of much higher frequency than ourselves, they also respond to echoes of sounds they emitted but 0·001 seconds earlier. We have little appreciation of the sensations produced by the pressure-receptors in the lateral-line organs of fish.

This paper was first published in the Journal in 1963 (Vol. 16, p. 9). It is followed by comments from Brian Kendal.

The Transit satellite navigation system, scheduled to become operational in the near future, has been publicized sufficiently for its main features to be rather well known. The excellent article by Dr. R. B. Kershner and Dr. R. R. Newton in the April 1962 issue of this Journal provides a particularly thorough description of the system. In the same issue, Dr. H. C. Freiesleben gives a clear summary of the principal alternative solutions to the navigation satellite problem.

Mark Dixon suggests (Forum, Vol. 50, 137) that nobody thus far has attempted to quantify the errors from tilt that arise while observing with the marine sextant. The issue in fact, with the related problem of what exactly is the axis about which the sextant is rotated whilst being ‘rocked’ (to define the vertical), was the subject of a lively controversy in the first two volumes of this Journal some fifty years ago. Since the consensus of opinion seems to have been that the maximum error does not necessarily occur at 45 degrees, whereas Dixon's table suggests that it does, some reiteration of the arguments may be in order.