NavList:

   

Reply

Lu Abel wrote:
> Would someone please refresh my memory on why we're having this debate?

Well Lu, it began not so long ago (like only a few days) when I was so
presumptuous as to correct your assertion that use of Meridional Parts gives
the most accurate rhumb line traverse.
>
> Any skilled navigator applies techniques appropriate to the situation at
> hand.

Sure.
>
> A skilled and competent navigator would therefore know that a Meridional
> Parts calculation would likely blow up for courses nearly east-west.

And then this has become a topic of interest itself, since a method using
both Meridional Parts and Distances has demonstrated here very recently
(yesterday?) that it is at least very accurate (how to measure which is the
most accurate? - knowledge of the precise circumference of the earth at the
equator would help) over courses due east and west.

I get the impression that when you say "skilled and competent" you might be
implying a set of blinkers; an assumption set in stone that precludes
examination of new ideas or alternatives.
>
> But at the same time he/she would recognize that because there is very
> little if any change in latitude, mid-lat course calculations would
> provide excellent answers.

Yes, and I said as much immediately after my presumption that began this.

> While these may be of great
> interest to an astronomer or geodesist working to centimeter accuracy

Its possible that more useful info on Meridional Distances could be found
not from within navigation, for which it may be excessively fussy, but from
within the fields of surveying and geodesy. That's just an idea of mine.

> across long distances I can't see how one can raise them in the context
> of practical navigation where one's vessel is subject to windage,
> current, and steering errors (most experts say that a small craft
> helmsman is lucky to steer a course within +/- 3 degrees of desired).

Agree with this.

   

Reply