NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
From: Gary LaPook
Date: 2013 Feb 25, 21:32 -0800
Yes, those are two hypothetical fixes that provide an explanation of the failure to find Howland. 10 NM is taken as the uncertainty in normal in-flight celestial fixes but, if there is turbulence, the errors can be much greater. Considering the flight altitude reported by Earhart and her reports of overcast conditions at the same time indicates high clouds, conditions associated with turbulence. See: https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/topics/accuracy-of-celestial-fixes Last June I did a test flight and took two observations of the moon, one had an error of plus 6 NM the other of minus 6 NM, and the flight conditions were extremely smooth so it is not unusual to see large differences in opposite diretions. See: http://fer3.com/arc/m2.aspx/Moon-observations-flight-LaPook-jun-2012-g19791 Also see the flight navigation information available at: https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/ gl --- On Sun, 2/24/13, Andrew Nikitin <nsg21@hotmail.com> wrote:
|