NavList:

   

Reply

With deepest respect, Henry, a previous poster pointed out that most
texts suggest that LOPs taken at sea are at best good to +/- 2 NM and
that for small craft +/- 5 NM is more likely.   I agree.   So I'm
wondering under what conditions your sights were taken and/or what scale
you used in plotting them!

I don't mean in any way to demean your skill, I just am reflecting the
track of this discussion, which is that any navigator worth his salt
will not only be able to plot a LOP on a chart, but also fully
understand the uncertainties associated with it.

Lu Abel

halboth wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> I most certainly am Peter, and have hundreds, if not thousands, of
> positions in my navigation workbooks to demonstrate this fact.
>
> Regards,
>
> Henry
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* Peter Fogg 
>     *To:* NavList@fer3.com 
>     *Sent:* Sunday, December 10, 2006 11:55 PM
>     *Subject:* [NavList 1877] Re: Position lines, crossing
>
>     Henry wrote:
>
>         In my opinion, "cocked hats" are most often the result of
>         altitude errors induced by varying horizon conditions due, in
>         the case of stars, to failing light conditions.
>
>
>     Henry, are you saying that given ideal conditions (as you have
>     described) LOPs can in practice meet, or almost meet, at a common point?
>
>
>
>
>     >

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply