A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
From: Wolfgang Köberer
Date: 2010 Oct 24, 20:32 +0200
I’ve read John Karl’s article with interest, but I have to admit that I do not completely follow his reasoning:
As I understand he thinks that dropping a perpendicular from the position DR2 to the LOP2 gives an EP2 which should be preferable to a running fix from advancing LOP1 along the DR track. What I don’t understand is why the best estimate should be where a perpendicular from DR2 meets LOP2. Of course an error in measuring the height of the heavenly object moves LOP2 only along the perpendicular, but that is no sufficient reason to assume that the best estimate of the position is on the perpendicular passing through DR2.
Or should we prefer that EP because it is the closest point on LOP2 – being located on a perpendicular to it. Why that?
His Figure 3 is rather suggestive, but it only shows that the running fix may be way off from the EP2; it does not show, though, where the error lies: is LOP1 wrong, or LOP2 , or is there a strong current/faulty compass etc.? Or should we just trust DR more than LOPs?
Have I got something
wrong there? I have to admit that my practical experience as a navigator stems
from rather restricted waters (Baltic, Zuiderzee, Greek archipelago, Turkey,
Western Mediterranean) with little current and no need for astro LOPs. And
Auftrag von Gary LaPook
Gesendet: Samstag, 16. Oktober 2010 02:29
Betreff: [NavList] The Nonsensical Running Fix
John Karl's article has been published in this month's
Ocean Navigator, attached.