NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Why Not To Teach Running Fixes
From: Jeremy C
Date: 2009 Dec 14, 15:15 EST
--
NavList message boards: www.fer3.com/arc
Or post by email to: NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList+@fer3.com
From: Jeremy C
Date: 2009 Dec 14, 15:15 EST
I will try to be concise here and answer retorts as posted.
First why R. Fixes are taught. Well they do have only limited use in
pilotage waters, where there should be a plethora of known, fixed objects
available for a good round of bearings. This being said, to ensure
accuracy of these fixes on the large scale harbor charts, you need simultaneous
bearings. Navy ships can do this, but small craft with one bearing
compass, and merchant ships with one bearing taker; cannot shoot them all at the
same time. You shoot them as quickly as possible, and to get the best fix,
you retard or advance the LOP's to a common time. To do this you use the
assumption that the ship traveled a fixed distance along its track in a certain
amount of time. This is an assumption and ignores the parallel
motion. You can excuse this because in the minute or two between these
bearings, the error due to a change of speed as well as motion parallel to the
track will be negligible. This error will however become larger with time,
and should be in the back of the mind of any navigator using running
fixes.
In Celestial navigation, unless you are operating in extraordinary
circumstances, ALL star fixes are running fixes. In order to obtain a C.
Fix at a set time, you need to know the concept and methods of obtaining a
running fix. The same assumptions apply with greater errors due to
increased time but we can also forgo accuracy a bit because it is not as
critical in the open ocean. If you don't teach the technique, you aren't
going to be able to make much of a fix, just a bunch of lines at all different
times.
For "near coastal" waters, say 12-15 miles off shore, and the only time
I've ever used a classic running fix at sea; I accept that I have reduced
accuracy for the very reason that I am entirely unsure of how accurate my
advanced LOP's are. Again, due to the distance from land during these
times, I am not too worried about a bit of error in position. For these
fixes, I usually am advancing a visual LOP of a now disappeared lighthouse
and crossing it with a radar range or two. It is the last terrestrial
navigation I do before switching entirely to electronic/celestial.
As far as marking on a chart, the symbols I use are triangles for
electronic fixes, circles for visual or celestial fixes, circle with "r. fix"
next to it for a running fix, rectangle for EP, and a half circle for DR.
Jeremy
In a message dated 12/13/2009 6:23:54 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jhkarl@att.net writes:
My argument against running fixes has nothing to do with how they're
taught, but it does challenge why they're taught -- at all.
It has nothing to do with how the location DR2 was estimated. As long
as DR2 is found by combining relatively inaccurate data, and not by
forming a fix of a third LOP with LOP2, it is irrelevant what (or
which) estimates are included in DR2: speed, time, logged distance,
drift, current, averaged headings, the flight of birds, etc. I'm
talking about arriving at DR2 without a bona fide fix.
I pointed out that the concept behind the traditional running fix is
based on two ridiculous assumptions: the assumption that the estimated
DR track perpendicular to LOP1 is completely accurate while the DR
component parallel to LOP1 is completely without value.
I ask again, can anyone on the List refute these these two
assumptions?? Can anyone justify them??
Ah, the traditions of the sea.
JK
--
NavList message boards: www.fer3.com/arc
Or post by email to: NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList+@fer3.com
NavList message boards: www.fer3.com/arc
Or post by email to: NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList+@fer3.com