NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Ageton method and HO 211?
From: Bruce J. Pennino
Date: 2014 Sep 26, 08:41 -0400
From: Samuel L <NoReply_SamuelL@fer3.com>
To: garylapook---.net
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 5:21 PM
Subject: [NavList] Ageton method and HO 211?
From: Bruce J. Pennino
Date: 2014 Sep 26, 08:41 -0400
I really agree with Gary, having recently tried different short table
techniques. I’ve found Weems Line of Position Book very ease to use , and
Dreisonstok H.O. 208 is almost as easy. Somehow my brain works better with
Weems. I was able to buy on line Weems Line of Position Book, 4th edition
1942-43. It has a diagram (by Rust?) for azimuths. Cost was $10-15
USD. It is a very slim manual which covers all latitudes. Very neat and
easy! For Dreisonstok, I recommend purchasing “Self Contained Navigation
with H.O. 208” by John Letcher. The book contains H.O. 208, 6 th edition 1942,
but H.O. 208 is available in various places including NavList.
Regards to all.
Bruce
From: Gary LaPook
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 2:06 PM
Subject: [NavList] Re: Ageton method and HO 211?
HO 249 is quicker with fewer steps so fewer opportunities to make an error
than HO 211. If you want to use a tabular method like HO 211 then I suggest you
try Weems or Dreisenstok, they are easier to use than Ageton. See the comparison
of the different methods in these prior posts:
gl
From: Samuel L <NoReply_SamuelL@fer3.com>
To: garylapook---.net
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 5:21 PM
Subject: [NavList] Ageton method and HO 211?
I've reviewed the Ageton method using HO 211 and it seems very agreeable in
procedure and usage. Also, having a smaller amount of necessary pages to refer
to and carry around is attractive.
What are the drawbacks to using HO 211 (Ageton's method) in determing a fix
compared to using HO 249 for sight reductions?
Sam
