NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Bias and cocked hats
From: Dave Walden
Date: 2007 Apr 18, 17:54 -0700
From: Dave Walden
Date: 2007 Apr 18, 17:54 -0700
> > For three equally spaced observations > > Is this a sound assumption? Vol 1 of the Air Almanac can provide a good set of 3 for any time any place. It's a not "unreasonable" assumption and provides an interesting and useful result. I would not expect too much sensativity. Try some runs. > > ... and independent normally distributed random errors > > > > Is this assumption of only random errors reliable? What happens if some > systematic error is also involved? It's again a reasonable assumption and I would estimate the first order approximation. If by systematic error you mean something other than a constant bias, I suppose there could be an error proportional to altitude for example. But for measurements between 30 and 60 or so I would think the chance of such an error being significant is unlikely. And even more unlikely to be large and unknown. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
