NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Cocked hats, again.
From: Peter Fogg
Date: 2007 Mar 18, 09:18 +1100
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
From: Peter Fogg
Date: 2007 Mar 18, 09:18 +1100
On 3/18/07, jferrari <jferrari@clara.co.uk> wrote:
So that gets it right, too. Good clear advice, and if more often expressed could avoid this tedious 25% / 75% so-called controversy.
I am a relative beginner and have been following this interesting
discussion. I looked in the Royal Air Force Navigation manual 1944, and on p
116 it says,
" If the errors of the bearings, from which the position lines are obtained,
are all of the same sign...the actual position of the aircraft may be
outside the cocked hat. It is more often the case that errors in measurement
are quite haphazard, and hence the navigator cannot tell which of the seven
positions (refers to a diagram) contain the actual position of the aircraft.
For this reason the centre of the cocked hat is assumed for all practical
purposes to represent the fix, provided the sides of the cocked hat are not
excessively long."
So that gets it right, too. Good clear advice, and if more often expressed could avoid this tedious 25% / 75% so-called controversy.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
