Welcome to the NavList Message Boards.

NavList:

A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding

Compose Your Message

Message:αβγ
Message:abc
Add Images & Files
    or...
       
    Reply
    Re: Errors in online version of HO249
    From: Fred Hebard
    Date: 2007 Nov 30, 09:42 -0500

    Way to go Gary!
    
    On Nov 29, 2007, at 1:53 PM, glapook---.net wrote:
    
    >
    > Gary LaPook writes:
    >
    > I recieved the following email from the government website tha had
    > published H.O 249 with errors.
    >
    > "Mr. LaPook
    >
    > Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. It seems that the
    > Sight Reduction Table generation code improperly formatted entries
    > beginning with -0, inserting 00 instead.
    >
    > I am in the process of manually updating the electronic publications,
    > which will be posted to our Web site in the very near future.
    >
    > The errant publications were originally produced and posted to our Web
    > site in 1999. Which mean that, in their 8+ years of service, you are
    > the first and only user to notice the error!
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Tim Doherty
    > Office of Global Navigation/Technology
    > National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
    > (301)227-1075
    >
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Gary J. LaPook [mailto:garylapook---.net]
    > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:26 AM
    > To: Webmaster_NSS
    > Subject: Errors found in HO 249
    >
    > Dear Sir:
    >
    > Quite by chance I noticed an error in the on line edition of HO 249
    > volume 2. I then looked for similar errors and found that there is a
    > systematic error in both volumes two and three. For example, on page 5
    > of volume 2 covering latitude 0� in the first column covering
    > declination of 15� at LHA 89 the altitude given is 00-58'; for LHA 90
    > the altitude is given as 00-00'; and for LHA 91 the altitude given is
    > 00-58' which is the same value as given for LHA 89! This is
    > mathematically impossible. The problem is that the altitude for LHA 91
    > should be negative 00-58'. The systematic error found all across the
    > tables up to at least latitude 39� is that  all of the last positive
    > altitudes tabulated should all be negative altitudes! This is also
    > true for the values given for contrary name declinations. For example
    > on page
    > 163 of volume 2 covering latitude 27� in the first column for 0�
    > declination tabulated for LHA 91 an altitude of 00-53'; for LHA 90 an
    > altitude of 00-00'; and again at LHA 89 an altitude of  00-53'. The
    > altitude for LHA 91 should be negative 00-53'.
    >
    > I compared these examples with my printed copies of these tables
    > printed in 1970 and these errors do not appear in the printed version
    > which correctly label these altitudes as negative altitudes.
    >
    >
    > Sincerely
    >
    > Gary LaPook
    >
    > On Nov 28, 1:33 am, glap...---.net wrote:
    >> I recently posted a link to the government web site where you can
    >> download copies of navigational publications including H.O 249. I
    >> quote below the email I sent to that site:
    >>
    >> "Dear Sir:
    >>
    >> "Quite by chance I noticed an error in the on line edition of HO 249
    >> volume 2. I then looked for similar errors and found that there is a
    >> systematic error in both volumes two and three. For example, on  
    >> page 5
    >> of volume 2 covering latitude 0� in the first column covering
    >> declination of 15� at LHA 89 the altitude given is 00-58'; for LHA 90
    >> the altitude is given as 00-00'; and for LHA 91 the altitude given is
    >> 00-58' which is the same value as given for LHA 89! This is
    >> mathematically impossible. The problem is that the altitude for  
    >> LHA 91
    >> should be negative 00-58'. The systematic error found all across the
    >> tables up to at least latitude 39� is that  all of the last positive
    >> altitudes tabulated should all be negative altitudes! This is also
    >> true for the values given for contrary name declinations. For example
    >> on page 163 of volume 2 covering latitude 27� in the first column for
    >> 0� declination tabulated for LHA 91 an altitude of 00-53'; for LHA 90
    >> an altitude of 00-00'; and again at LHA 89 an altitude of  00-53'.  
    >> The
    >> altitude for LHA 91 should be negative 00-53'.
    >>
    >> "I compared these examples with my printed copies of these tables
    >> printed in 1970 and these errors do not appear in the printed version
    >> which correctly label these altitudes as negative altitudes."
    >>
    >> Sincerely
    >>
    >> Gary LaPook
    > >
    
    
    
    --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
    To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
    To unsubscribe, send email to NavList-unsubscribe@fer3.com
    -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
    

       
    Reply
    Browse Files

    Drop Files

    NavList

    What is NavList?

    Join NavList

    Name:
    (please, no nicknames or handles)
    Email:
    Do you want to receive all group messages by email?
    Yes No

    You can also join by posting. Your first on-topic post automatically makes you a member.

    Posting Code

    Enter the email address associated with your NavList messages. Your posting code will be emailed to you immediately.
    Email:

    Email Settings

    Posting Code:

    Custom Index

    Subject:
    Author:
    Start date: (yyyymm dd)
    End date: (yyyymm dd)

    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site