NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Amelia Earhart Report
From: Gary LaPook
Date: 2011 Mar 6, 17:40 -0800
From: Gary LaPook
Date: 2011 Mar 6, 17:40 -0800
| Long's book is the best one out there. He used the same methodology that I did. I have some differences with him. He places the uncertainty of airborne celestial LOPs at +/- 15 NM and I use +/- 7 NM which is in keeping with all the text books and also with the Federal Aviation Regulation requirement. His assumption ends with a larger area of uncertainty than mine. I also disagree with his explanation of why they didn't land at Dakar, see my posts last month about this. http://www.fer3.com/arc/m2.aspx?i=115631&y=201102 http://www.fer3.com/arc/m2.aspx?i=115635&y=201102 http://www.fer3.com/arc/m2.aspx?i=115642&y=201102 Another disagreement with him is that he marks out 90 degrees of of the circle as having reduced visibility due to the glare of the sun. I measured the glare on the sea at sunset with my sextant and it is only 5 degrees wide. As you can see, these are minor disagreements and don't change the conclusions much. Regarding the experimental high frequency DF equipment on Howland, there are no documents showing that Earhart knew of its existence, it appears that it was a last minute addition by Mr. Black when sailing out on the Itasca. You would think that if she did know about a plan to have it installed on Howland that in one of her radiograms to Itasca she would have asked to have its installation confirmed before relying on it yet there is no mention of it in her messages. gl --- On Sun, 3/6/11, Greg R. <gregr_ingest@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
