Reed's Astronavigation Tables

[Humblebee]

Reeds Astro Navigation Tables 2021 : Kendall Carter (author) : 9781472978677 : Blackwell's

Does anyone use these? Just wondering if they contained Sight Reduction tables. From what I've read, the alternative is a Nautical Almanac and associated Sight Reduction tables which would be quite a lot pricier.
Would you recommend them to a beginner astro navigator?
Thanks!

 

[zoidberg]

I use them.

They were once called 'The Heavenly Bodies' by Cdr. Harry Baker - in a less 'woke' age - and I've used 'em for preference over the bulk and cost of the more traditional SRTs and Air/Nautical Almanac.

I used 'em on a YMO qualifying passage, wrote it all up, and was later given a freebie sextant by HRH as reward for my pains. They work well, they're cheaper, and they're a darn site more convenient.
IMHO.

They're so simple and easy to use that even Chichester might have carried them as back-up to his tubular slide rule! But... you still need to understand what's going on.
For that, I'd suggest Saint Tom Cunliffe's books on the topic.

Er, you'll find my name on the back cover.

 

[Sandy]

I also recommend you take a look at Celestial Navigation: A Complete Home Study Course by David Burch. Really well set out book.

Don't look at his YouTube site as he rambles more than Sid Rumbold, of Round the Horne fame, ever did.

 

[figue]

You can download all you need from The Nautical Almanac.

 

[Humblebee]

Much obliged all, I'll give those astronavigation tables a try and thanks for the other references.
Chris

 

[Skylark]

Reeds Astro Navigation Tables 2021 : Kendall Carter (author) : 9781472978677 : Blackwell's

Does anyone use these? Just wondering if they contained Sight Reduction tables. From what I've read, the alternative is a Nautical Almanac and associated Sight Reduction tables which would be quite a lot pricier.
Would you recommend them to a beginner astro navigator?
Thanks!

Out of intrigue in search of the testimonial given by the award winning Captain Zoidberg, I had a look at my 2007 edition?

There is undoubted advantage in only needing to use one, fairly small book of Tables compared to the perhaps more common Marcq St Hilaire method which requires access to, bulkier, Nautical Almanac and Site Reduction Tables.

Most people new to Celestial Navigation tend to learn the Marcq St Hilaire method. Most of the books and/or on-line resources commonly recommended on here use it, as does the RYA Shorebased course.

There are fewer sources of reference to help you learn the method outlined in Reeds ANTables. This method uses “versine formula to find calculated altitude and ABC tables to find azimuth”.

The two methods are different.

Reeds ANTables gives only a superficial explanation as to how to use the tables. It is not aimed as a learning aid, as such.

The fact that it continues to be published annually suggests that it has a steady following.

 

[laika]

From what I've read, the alternative is a Nautical Almanac and associated Sight Reduction tables which would be quite a lot pricier.

Can't comment on Reeds as I've never used it but bear in mind the following:
Per Skylark's comment above, the RYA in the yachtmaster ocean shorebased reference the nautical almanac and sight reduction tables. You may consider being conversant with the alternatives a good thing or a complication.
The admiralty publications (NP314/303v1-3) are 50% more than the commercial editions. Moreover they're an awkward size which won't fit conveniently on your bookshelf. Unfortunately I learned this the hard way so my NP303v2-3 will continue making stowage awkward
vols 2-3 of the sight reduction tables are a one-time purchase. Vol 1 is every 8 years so after initial outlay you mostly have the annual cost of the commercial edition of the nautical almanac which is pretty similar to your Reeds almanac
And of course you don't necessarily need vols 2 *and* 3, for example if you just wanted to sail canaries to the caribbean

Bottom line: NP314+NP303v1-3 are well over £130 but go with the commercial editions and you're looking at about the same price as reeds (annual cost of almanac + depreciating selected stars over 8 years) plus the £40 one-time outlay for vols 2 and 3 of the sight reduction tables.

 

[siwhi]

Out of intrigue in search of the testimonial given by the award winning Captain Zoidberg, I had a look at my 2007 edition?

There is undoubted advantage in only needing to use one, fairly small book of Tables compared to the perhaps more common Marcq St Hilaire method which requires access to, bulkier, Nautical Almanac and Site Reduction Tables.

Most people new to Celestial Navigation tend to learn the Marcq St Hilaire method. Most of the books and/or on-line resources commonly recommended on here use it, as does the RYA Shorebased course.

There are fewer sources of reference to help you learn the method outlined in Reeds ANTables. This method uses “versine formula to find calculated altitude and ABC tables to find azimuth”.

The two methods are different.

Reeds ANTables gives only a superficial explanation as to how to use the tables. It is not aimed as a learning aid, as such.

The fact that it continues to be published annually suggests that it has a steady following.

Completely agree. I couldn't make head nor tail of it. It was a struggle enough to learn one method, and I had no plans to switch to another to make use of Reeds.

 

[zoidberg]

I dunno what your problem was, 'siwhi'.

Harry Baker's li'l book was accurate enuff for me to find Spain....!

 

[Humblebee]

Thanks guys, but a further question has now arisen as a result of your comments.
Am I right in thinking that the method used in Reeds tables, while perhaps easier and with a more compact reference book, is not the same as the method used by Mary Blewitt or this chap, whose Youtube videos seem clear and sensible?
Is it an either/or, the methods are not compatible and I need to decide which method to follow?

Celestial Navigation Made Easy - YouTube

Obliged once again,
Chris

 

[Skylark]

Hi Chris,
The Mary Blewit book uses Marcq St Hilaire (MSH) method, also known as the Intecept Method.

I clicked on your link but noticed that it was a 2h40 min video so, please forgive me, I didn’t watch it all ? Towards the end I heard him say “assumed position” so that’s a give away that he’s using Marcq St Hilaire.

The Reeds Tables version is different.

The two methods are similar in that they require information “look up” from various Tables. There are more steps to the Reeds process than MSH, potentially more opportunity to make an error. The advantage of Reeds is, as you have already discovered, is less paper bulk.

Most people learn the MSH method (for good reason). I’ve found few resources to help to learn the Reeds method but, without a doubt, it has its fans.

As already mentioned, the RYA Shorebased course teaches the use of the MSH method (I am a Shorebased instructor).

Which ever you decide, good luck with your studies.

 

[zoidberg]

'Compatible'....
Let's explore that a little.

In the bad old days, navigators on ships needed to convert a sight on a celestial object into a usable Line of Position by means of spherical trigonometry and one or other of several longhand mathematical processes. That was far from easy, especially since most ships' captains had limited education and prowess in Maths. There was a long search for methods to reduce the burden and make derivation of a Line of Position more accessible to seafarers.

Many of these were forms of 'Look Up Tables', promising a swifter resolution than longhand with pencil, paper and tables of logariths - of which the Sight Reduction/Air Tables and Reeds (Baker's ) 'Heavenly Bodies' are popular examples. One can understand that air navigators didn't have the time to do repeated 'sight reductions' in the Admiralty way, so the Air Tables and Air Almanac were invented to speed up the process of getting a 'fix' onto the chart.... an important issue when hurtling along at over 600mph some seven miles up, in Vulcans/Valiants/Victors.

The highly authoritative 'American Practical Navigator' or 'Bowditch' lists more than 60 different approaches; some are far more 'compatible' with a maritime community than others.

It seems clear that the proforma approach that is best for an individual yottie is the one which is found to be the most convenient. There seems little point in arguing over which 'Look Up Table' method is the more accurate when sights are taken on a bouncing, heaving, yawing and rolling platform and one needs only to navigate to 'in sight' of recognisable landmarks and harbours..... or, in the 'Golden Globe Race', simply keep clear north of a designated Ice Risk Limit.

 

[Humblebee]

Skylark, thanks for that, sounds like the MSH way is the one for me, based mainly on the availability of teaching resources. Thanks for your good wishes too.
Zoidberg, thanks for your comments. I am attracted by the Reeds tables and methods but as Skylark mentioned. most online and paper training materials look to be set up for the MSH way of doing things.
I I do not expect I will ever use astro in earnest but if I do then your advice re simplicity and portability of the Reeds almanac make me think I may convert to, or adopt as well, that style. All a bit too early to say but here goes!
Cheers guys,
Chris

 

[zoidberg]

It's not simply 'getting a LOP by sextant', but rather what you do with it.

I'd encourage anyone to make the absolute most of any navigational information which comes their way..... the several uses of a Line of Position.... the habit of 'verifying and evaluating' new information before acting on it.... the habit of 'informed distrust' of info - especially assumptions - until confirmed by other means.... and discarding no conflicting info that's 'inconvenient' until investigated as to 'why'.

Fixing by astro is one of those techniques/sklllsets that are VIP in an age of blind unjustified faith in the instruments. This 'old bold' pro navigator likes to verify stuff by independent means 'as a habit'.... and I note that the US Navy are once again teaching their deck officers astro-navigation.

You have to ask yourself why.

 

[Yellow Ballad]

As an astro newbie I have to say now I have the MSH method clicked, I'm simple and I like the paper method. I like that the 229 tables are forever and I've asked for the lats I'm in for Christmas from the other half. Hopefully one day I'll use them in anger.

I keep saying I should learn the calculator way, so I know it but I'm not sure if that's cheating or not? I suppose if I get a wave that knocks all electrics out, my battery powered GPS is dead and my tables are sodden it may come in handy? I'll do it, it's next on my things to learn.

I would say start with one method, be happy and confident with it then move on to other methods when ypu feel ready. I've not seen the Reeds book but I'm intrigued, I may ask Wil to give me the run down one day.

Astro isn't hard, it's actually pretty simple if you have the information.

 

[Sandy]

Mary Blewitt

Unless you enjoy reading Dickensian prose and doing pure maths I'd give Mary Blewitt a wide berth, says man with a first degree in engineering.

 

[GHA]

'.... and I note that the US Navy are once again teaching their deck officers astro-navigation.

You have to ask yourself why.

Not really to both.
Some perspective...

Navy Resumes Celestial Navigation Course - Sky & Telescope



From a practical standpoint, celestial navigation is, at best, the backup to the backup to last backup. I teach many classes in celestial navigation (including one in "Modern Celestial Navigation" this coming weekend at Mystic Seaport in Mystic, Connecticut), and I always remind participants that "the best backup to a GPS is another GPS". The US Navy is adding some very basic elements of celestial navigation back into their curriculum, but they clearly see it something that's 'good for you' in principle even though it's not much use in practice

 

[zoidberg]

Yours is one opinion, GHA, and one I've heard before. There are others, including some of these listed here....

Celestial Navigation viewpoints

Given I, and scores of others, spent more than a year being trained intensively to use 'astro-navigation' so we could find our way to Russia - day or night - in event of all the e-navaids being switched OFF, I'm intrigued by the inference that you can teach enough 'Modern Celestial Navigation' in a weekend to be anything more than a topic for discussion.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Skylark]

As an astro newbie I have to say now I have the MSH method clicked, I'm simple and I like the paper method. I like that the 229 tables are forever and I've asked for the lats I'm in for Christmas from the other half. Hopefully one day I'll use them in anger.

I keep saying I should learn the calculator way, so I know it but I'm not sure if that's cheating or not? I suppose if I get a wave that knocks all electrics out, my battery powered GPS is dead and my tables are sodden it may come in handy? I'll do it, it's next on my things to learn.

I would say start with one method, be happy and confident with it then move on to other methods when ypu feel ready. I've not seen the Reeds book but I'm intrigued, I may ask Wil to give me the run down one day.

Astro isn't hard, it's actually pretty simple if you have the information.

Good post ?

As you rightly say, it’s actually pretty simple. Also good to read that you like to reduce the sight on plain paper. A lot of people rely upon a template to guide them through the process. Well done.

On a small boat on a long passage it brings a routine to daily schedules and it gives you something to do to task the grey matter. By the end of a passage, even the die hards addicted to electrickery will be converted due to its simplicity.

Of course, most boats will be navigated by the chart plotter but its very rewarding to have a hard copy paper trail showing boat track across a couple of thousand miles of open ocean.

 

[GHA]

I'm intrigued by the inference that you can teach enough 'Modern Celestial Navigation' in a weekend to be anything more than a topic for discussion.

No one inferred that did they? Just the opposite. The US Navy aren't really teaching astro as you said other than a very brief overview. Ask yourself why? Like the guy quoted said. "but they clearly see it something that's 'good for you' in principle even though it's not much use in practice"
Many things to worry about offshore, GPS failure must be very low down the list, if the system does go down then maybe stay out there, it's interwoven deep into society far beyond a smart phone telling you which turn to take with financial institutions using for timing etc so if it goes down likely something very bad is happening.
Great fun though, just don't kid yourself it's important on a little siiling boat. Imho. Of course.