NavList:

   

Reply

I had a really nice e-mail reply from Tom Cunliffe, who also gave me
permission to post it to the list:

Dear Greg

Thank you for your email. I'm sorry to be so long in getting back to
you but I'm away cruising in Norway and only pick up my emails
sporadically.

I'm very sorry you've had this problem and therein lies a tale. The
copy you have (1989) is the First Edition of the book. After I had
written it, knowing myself to be more than capable of typos and
occasional arithmetical blunders, I arranged for the book to be read
by a Master Mariner who was a specialist in navigation. The publishers
paid him and he gave the book a clean bill of health. It had only been
out for a month when I began to receive letters about a number of
errors. We recalled the remaining copies and a second edition was
produced which put matters to rights. The current edition seems to be
100% ok and is in full colour. Naturally enough, a number of the
originals slipped through the net, and are still out there. I am truly
sorry that one of them fell into your hands. You are quite right about
the error. Stop torturing your mind. The fault is mine alone.

I'm much obliged for the kind tone of your email and I wish you bright
horizons and gentle seas for your star fixes.

With best wishes
Tom



On Jun 23, 7:30 pm, "Greg R."  wrote:
> Since some of us have been in a manual sight-reduction/plotting mode lately, 
I've been re-visiting a lot of my basic celnav texts. When I got to Tom 
Cunliffe's otherwise fine "Celestial Navigation" book, I found some notes in 
the margins (that I'd made some time ago) about possible typos and/or 
omissions. I was on jury duty today, so thought I'd spend the time wisely and 
check my notes (and re-work the examples as necessary) - and I'm still 
convinced that my original notes were correct.
>
> If anyone has the same copy (1989 edition) and feels motivated, I'd 
definitely appreciate a second opinion on what I've found (and if anyone has 
a later edition, maybe they corrected these in a later edition?). I Googled 
"Cunliffe" and "typos" but didn't turn up anything useful. Also e-mailed the 
author via his website, but haven't heard back yet.
>
> -------------------------------------
> Pg. 18
>   Case 1 - Example
>     GHA for 16h = 60� 43.9' (vs. 60� 43.7')
>
>   Case 2 - Example
>     No Increments/Corrections page provided for 16m (only 14m and 15m)
>
>   Case 3 - Example
>     "Your longitude is 110�" ("E" designator missing)
>
>   Case 4 - Example
>     No Increments/Corrections page provided for 17m (only 14m and 15m)
>
> Pg. 40 - Example
>     d correction calculation - Tabulated Hc = 46� 57' (vs. 47� 47' - he had 
it correct 2 paragraphs prior, but apparently was transcribed wrong in the d 
correction calculation). The final Hc value appears to be correct.
>
> Pg. 47 - Venus sight
>   With an assumed longitude (ALong) = 15� 11.7'W, I get an LHA = 84� (don't 
understand why he used 15� 12.5'W as the ALong, much less how he gets an LHA 
of 89� out of it). There isn't a page for 48� Latitude in the book (and I 
don't have tables for that latitude either), so I can't verify the rest of 
his worksheet.
> -------------------------------------
>
> --
> GregR
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc
To post, email NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply