NavList:

   

Reply

I received the following response:

Gary

Yes, the page 158 error was already brought to our attention by
another
customer, and our publication editors are currently working to re-
create
the page correctly. We were not yet aware of the page 133 error,
however. I will forward this information to the editors.

The customer that first discovered the page 158 error is currently
spot-checking each page in both HO 249 publications and will notify
NGA
with any errant findings.

The Maritime Safety Division is eternally grateful for its diligent
customers, such as yourself!

Regards,

Tim Doherty
Office of Global Navigation/Technology
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
(301)227-1075
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary J. LaPook [mailto:garylapook@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 7:11 AM
To: Doherty, Tim
Subject: Additional errors found in H.O 249

Dear Mr. Doherty,

Last year I called your attention to some errors I had found in the
on-line version of  H.O.  249 for Hc's near zero and I checked
recently
and these appear now to have been corrected. However, when I was
reviewing the updated version I found some additional errors.
In volume 2 page 158 is completely wrong and appears to be a duplicate
of page 152 and page 133 is also completely wrong and appears to be a
duplicate of page 139! I suspect that there are many other similar
errors hiding in this volume that my cursory review didn't reveal.

Gary LaP
On Nov 13, 5:14�am, glap...@PACBELL.NET wrote:
> I sent this email today to the government office that computed these
> tables:
>
> Dear Mr. Doherty,
>
> Last year I called your attention to some errors I had found in the on-
> line version of �H.O. �249 for Hc's near zero and I checked recently
> and these appear now to have been corrected. However, when I was
> reviewing the updated version I found some additional errors.
> In volume 2 page 158 is completely wrong and appears to be a duplicate
> of page 152 and page 133 is also completely wrong and appears to be a
> duplicate of page 139! I suspect that there are many other similar
> errors hiding in this volume that my cursory review didn't reveal.
>
> Gary LaPook
>
> On Nov 13, 3:34 am, glap...@PACBELL.NET wrote:
>
> > Further comparison shows that page 133 is a duplicate of page 139!
>
> > gl
>
> > On Nov 13, 1:56 am, glap...@PACBELL.NET wrote:
>
> > > Ken,
>
> > > My copy, 1970 edition, doesn't have the error you pointed out. I then
> > > looked at all pages from 122 through 161 looking at the first entry on
> > > each of these pages and found additional differences between my print
> > > edition and the online version. Page 155 has a one minute different Hc
> > > as �does page 151 for the first entry but I didn't check other values.
> > > page 133 is completely different, all tabulations are different ! I
> > > computed several of the entries on page 133 and found that the online
> > > version has the erroneous values while my 1970 edition has the correct
> > > values.
>
> > > gl
>
> > > On Nov 12, 4:08 pm, Ken Gebhart  wrote:
>
> > > > To all List Members,
>
> > > > Need help to track down errors!
>
> > > > I have been made aware of �many errors on page 158 of Pub 249 Vol 2
> > > > Apparently all of the Hc values on the page are wrong! �For example,
> > > > for dec 0, LHA 0, Lat 26 (page 158), Hc is shown as 65 deg. When it
> > > > should be 64 deg by simple inspection. �All the other numbers are
> > > > also off by varying amounts as can be found by computation. �There
> > > > are some other errors too, of a different kind on other pages. �For
> > > > example, page 160. �Look at the column for dec 15 deg, and go down to
> > > > LHA 98. �By simple inspection you can see that there should be a
> > > > minus sign before Hc 00-25, but it is not there. �I believe this is
> > > > typical of many Hcs �near zero.
>
> > > > These errors are present in the US Government Edition, privately
> > > > published editions, and the PDF on the NGA website. �I have spoken to
> > > > the UK Almanac Office, and they report that the errors do not exist
> > > > in their equivalent to 249 V2, or their Rapid Sight Reduction Tables,
> > > > and can find no trace or knowledge of them.
>
> > > > I am asking anyone who has an older copy of this volume, to check it
> > > > for these errors and report the publication date. �Maybe we can track
> > > > down when they first appeared. �By the way, a friend did phone the
> > > > NGA to report this, and was told that �they would look into it�.
>
> > > > Thanks, Ken Gebhart
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc
To post, email NavList@fer3.com
To unsubscribe, email NavList-unsubscribe@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply