John -
It seems to me that on the one hand you abandon the traditional DR (for the EP), then later on use the DR (to advance the LOP). The result is you haven't advanced the EP far enough.
I can accept the EP as a likely position. But then, if that's where your boat is, isn't it going to sail the same compass course as the course between the two DRs? In other words, the EP and DR tracks will be parallel.
Likewise, if the boat is at the EP at the time of the first sight, it is going to travel the same distance to the time of the second sight as if it were traveling from first DR to second DR. So would a boat located at any other point on the LOP established by the first sight.
But you only moved the first sight's LOP forward TO the second DR. That's not far enough. The distance traveled from first to second sights must be the same, whether the boat is at the EP or at the DR plotted for the time of the first sight.
At that time, your EP and every point on the LOP were ahead of the first DR, so that's how the advanced LOP and every point on it (including the EP) should lie relative to the DR at the time of the second sight. Otherwise, you have not moved the EP the distance a boat located at it would have traveled between the first and second sights.
By moving the first LOP to the second DR, you advanced the EP the direction it went all right, but you did not advance the EP the distance it went.
It's okay to pick an EP, but you have to start a new DR from it.
Hewitt
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 24, 2013, at 8:24 PM, "John Karl" wrote:
> Hewitt,
> Yes, yours is a common definition of DR position, using only course and speed. I tried to make it clear in all my discussions, that the DR position I was using was the best estimate the navigator had, or chose to have.
>
> Then the recent LOP, having much greater accuracy than the dead reckoning "DR" point, is to be given greater weight is fixing the upgraded position. With no other info, the MPP would be on that latest LOP at the point nearest to the "EP." The older LOP is not used at all in this plot; it played its role in forming the origin of the current DR run.
>
> Your experience on runs of a few hours was excellent, giving very little disagreement between your "DR" and your new LOP. Over longer runs (days?) and highly variable conditions this might not be the case. The whole point of the EPRF is that it gives the best position under all conditions, including all angles between successive LOP pairs. Plus it gives a realistic quality check on the dead reckoning. Since it's even simpler to plot, I don't see any reason to use the traditional RF.
>
> Fair winds,
> John
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> NavList message boards and member settings: www.fer3.com/NavList
> Members may optionally receive posts by email.
> To cancel email delivery, send a message to NoMail[at]fer3.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> : http://fer3.com/arc/m2.aspx?i=123063
>
>
: http://fer3.com/arc/m2.aspx?i=123064
