Welcome to the NavList Message Boards.


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

Compose Your Message

Add Images & Files
    Re: No Assumed Position
    From: Dan Hogan
    Date: 1996 Dec 12, 13:23 EST

    OK, I'm confused. I went through several Navigation texts and Sight
    Reduction Tables that I have. As far as I can tell Assumed Position was a
    convention adopted for the use with certain published tables such as 229,
    249, etc., in order to limit the table size and repeated table entries. If
    you are not using those tables there is not/no reason to use Assumed
    Position. It's extra work for no gain.
    I started out using 211. But I was prone to serious errors with it. I
    switched to 229, but they took up all the room on the nav table and I kept
    reading the wrong entry. Tried Weems LOP Book, not bad. It had a graph for
    Az. But it's multi-entry w/o the graph. Then I found H.O. 208 with a
    revised technique developed by John S. Letcher. Used this for many years.
    Then I discovered programmable calculators these beat all the tables. And
    with everything after 229 I used my DR position at the time of my sight for
    plotting. Why would you want to use any other position for your plotting?
    Dan Hogan
        West Covina, CA

    Browse Files

    Drop Files


    What is NavList?

    Join NavList

    (please, no nicknames or handles)
    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 Settings

    Posting Code:

    Custom Index

    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