NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Why Not To Teach Running Fixes
From: John Karl
Date: 2009 Dec 13, 17:23 -0600
From: John Karl
Date: 2009 Dec 13, 17:23 -0600
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
File:
