NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: AP terminology, WAS: 2-Body Fix -- take three
From: Peter Fogg
Date: 2009 Nov 12, 12:21 +1100
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
NavList message boards: www.fer3.com/arc
Or post by email to: NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList+@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
From: Peter Fogg
Date: 2009 Nov 12, 12:21 +1100
Jim Wilson wrote:
I have too often created more confusion in attempting to answer questions, but I'll try again. The Assumed Position is merely a convenience for the use of tables to reduce sights. It is chosen near the DR, and is commonly selected to make a table entry a whole number of degrees. With calculator or computer solutions, there is no need for an AP. Nor was there with Ageton.
No confusion there for me, Jim, I think your definition/explanation is clear and succinct. With sight reduction methodologies that do not rely on an AP the DR is adopted, and intercepts are calculated from it. This has some advantages for plotting purposes as the intercepts are typically shorter and thus potentially more accurate.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
NavList message boards: www.fer3.com/arc
Or post by email to: NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList+@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
