NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: No Assumed Position
From: Dan Hogan
Date: 1996 Dec 12, 13:23 EST
From: Dan Hogan
Date: 1996 Dec 12, 13:23 EST
OK, I'm confused. I went through several Navigation texts and Sight
Reduction Tables that I have. As far as I can tell Assumed Position was a
convention adopted for the use with certain published tables such as 229,
249, etc., in order to limit the table size and repeated table entries. If
you are not using those tables there is not/no reason to use Assumed
Position. It's extra work for no gain.
I started out using 211. But I was prone to serious errors with it. I
switched to 229, but they took up all the room on the nav table and I kept
reading the wrong entry. Tried Weems LOP Book, not bad. It had a graph for
Az. But it's multi-entry w/o the graph. Then I found H.O. 208 with a
revised technique developed by John S. Letcher. Used this for many years.
Then I discovered programmable calculators these beat all the tables. And
with everything after 229 I used my DR position at the time of my sight for
plotting. Why would you want to use any other position for your plotting?
Dan Hogan
West Covina, CA
dhhogan@XXX.XXX
