Welcome to the NavList Message Boards.


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

Compose Your Message

Add Images & Files
    Re: Why do we ocean navigators defer to 249 when 229 is better?
    From: Brad Morris
    Date: 2014 Aug 31, 18:50 -0400

    Here's my 2 cents:  249 predates 229 in time.  Celestial navigation is slow to adopt anything "new", even in its heyday.  229 appeared just at the twilight of celestial and the dawn of GPS navigation.  It never had the duration of opportunity to become adopted that 249 had.  GPS overwhelmed celestial and the decision over which to choose (249 or 229) became obvious, to wit: neither. 


    On Aug 31, 2014 6:37 PM, "Rommel John Miller" <NoReply_Miller@fer3.com> wrote:

    Hi there, it has been awhile and I have been out of touch.  But my question is this:  Why are Nautical and Marine Navigators opting to use HO 249 and shunning HO 229?  I like 229 and the idea of using a sight reduction table designed for someone up there in the aether while we in sailboats suffer at sealevel, is a bit perplexing to me.  Is easy always better?  Okham thought the simplest solution was usually the most correct answer, but where has precious and being exact and lauded for it gone?

    View and reply to this message

    Browse Files

    Drop Files


    What is NavList?

    Join NavList

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

    You can also join by posting. Your first on-topic post automatically makes you a member.

    Posting Code

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

    Email Settings

    Posting Code:

    Custom Index

    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