Welcome to the NavList Message Boards.

NavList:

A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding

Compose Your Message

Message:αβγ
Message:abc
Add Images & Files
    Name or NavList Code:
    Email:
       
    Reply
    Re: Why Not To Teach Running Fixes
    From: Lu Abel
    Date: 2009 Dec 13, 21:32 -0800
    John:

    A very short answer to your query is to look at the diagram you provide.  The LENGTH of the three lines from EP1 to "Advanced LOP1" are DIFFERENT.

    In a bit more detail:   when advancing a LOP, the navigator traditionally draws a DR or EP corresponding to the estimated position of the vessel at the time the second LOP is taken.  A line drawn between the original location (DR or EP) to the advanced one is a VECTOR, ie, it has both length and direction.  You are absolutely right, only the component of the vector perpendicular to the first LOP controls its advance.   But the size of that component is controlled by the direction between the first and second positions.  You would not get the same perpendicular component with different course directions.  Take the three lines emanating from the first position in your example and make them the same length!!   The advanced LOP would then not be in the same position.

    And, oh yeah, if you just happen to sail in the direction of the first LOP (or its reciprocal) the LOP will not advance.

    Lu

    John Karl wrote:
    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
       
    Reply
    Browse Files

    Drop Files

    NavList

    What is NavList?

    Get a NavList ID Code

    Name:
    (please, no nicknames or handles)
    Email:
    Do you want to receive all group messages by email?
    Yes No

    A NavList ID Code guarantees your identity in NavList posts and allows faster posting of messages.

    Retrieve a NavList ID Code

    Enter the email address associated with your NavList messages. Your NavList code will be emailed to you immediately.
    Email:

    Email Settings

    NavList ID Code:

    Custom Index

    Subject:
    Author:
    Start date: (yyyymm dd)
    End date: (yyyymm dd)

    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site