NavList:

   

Reply

--- "Gary J. LaPook"  wrote:

> I've asked that same question several times in the past and no one
> has an answer.

Judging by the similar responses to that question, guess great minds
think alike and all that...  ;-)

> On another releated subject, the online version of H.O 249 still
> has the errors that I notified the government of 6 months ago, too
> much of a computer problem to correct?.

Yeah, I remember reading that post on the list - no response from them?
I'd think something like that would be a priority for the next printing
revision.

--
GregR




--- "Gary J. LaPook"  wrote:

> I've asked that same question several times in the past and no one
> has
> an answer.
>
> On another releated subject, the online version of H.O 249 still has
> the
> errors that I notified the government of 6 months ago, too much of a
> computer problem to correct?.
> gl
>
> Greg R. wrote:
>
> >I asked this question in an earlier reply to Jeremy (Exercise #9
> Star
> >Time), but I think it got buried in all the other discussion so I'll
> >post it as its own topic to see if anyone on the list has a
> definitive
> >answer for it:
> >
> >
> >
> >>229 is just too slow with multiple LOP's
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I've never figured out why 229 is LHA-based (instead of being
> >latitude-based as 249 is). Since you're going to use the same
> assumed
> >latitudes for a fix (or I guess maybe nearby latitudes, if a lot of
> >time passes between fixes) why should you have to flip to a
> different
> >page in the tables for each fix?
> >
> >Might have something to do with the computer program used to
> generate
> >the tables, but I'd also assume that the output could be setup in
> >whatever format was desired by the end-user.
> >
> >--
> >GregR
> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> >
>


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc
To post, email NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply