NavList:

   

Reply

> Bill wrote:
>
>> The second paragraph is what I mean. Take the Hc (calculated elevation, not
>> Ho--observed elevation) from your AP every 4 to 5 minutes and plot that
>> slope. Fit that slope to the observations.  Then you are working against a
>> known and can more easily detect outliers.
>
Peter replied:

> This is a new method for me. I calculate the 'Change of Altitude in 5
> Minutes of Time' as a function of azimuth and latitude. The main thing
> is to end up with the actual (apparent) rise or fall as a line, used
> to compare the sights made against. They are plotted on graph paper,
> altitude vertically, time horizontally. If the sights were perfect
> their slope would be parallel to the calculated slope. The extent that
> they do not fit that slope is an indication of error, but only of
> random error.

Yours is new method to me.  Somewhere in the recesses of my aging gray
matter it sounds vaguely like a compass checking method using a repeater.
Perhaps having to do with amplitudes?  Since I do not have a repeater and
the gear needed, I have browsed chapters pertaining to the method, but
failed to grasp the big picture.

Come to think of it, I recall there is a relatively painless way to
calculated change of Hc over time, but can't put my finger on it.

Is this close to your method or am I--as usual--deeply confused and way off
base?

Bill


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@navlist.net
To , send email to NavList-@navlist.net
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply