A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
From: Bob Goethe
Date: 2016 Feb 25, 12:26 -0800
From Page 4, last paragraph of David Burch's article: "...or use the purely fictitious sight at 47:02 with an Hs of 27° 19.0'. We did not actually measure a height at this last time, but if we had, that is most likely what we would have gotten."
I have tried this a couple of times, when none of my actual sights were quite right, extrapolating from the slope both a fictitious time and a fictitious sextant altitude, and gotten an LOP within less than 2 nm of my position.
Somehow, when you are doing this, "sight averaging" doesn't seem to be quite the right name for what you are doing, but I could think of no other descriptive term to use in its place.