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 14, 11:29 -0600
From: John Karl
Date: 2009 Dec 14, 11:29 -0600
Come on you guys, this has nothing to do with radar, loran, or any other navigation system. It has nothing to do with terminology, DR versus EP, etc, It has nothing to do with teaching. It concerns the validity of the traditional running fix concept. In the figure below, the location P1 is where the navigator #1 thinks she is when LOP1 is acquired. To the best of her knowledge (her best guess, for whatever reason) she believes the effective track (track 1) took the ship to P2 when LOP2 is acquired. The standard running fix places the ship at RFIX. Again, I observe that the this traditional running fix assumes that the estimated track perpendicular to LOP1 (in red) is completely accurate while the component parallel to LOP1 (in blue) is completely without value. I ask again, can anyone refute these these assumptions?? Can anyone justify them?? JK -- NavList message boards: www.fer3.com/arc Or post by email to: NavList@fer3.com To , email NavList+@fer3.com
File:
