Truest North
Jim,
For aligning the boom, see if someone close has a diagonal eyepiece for your instrument. I bought one when we were marking column lines on the face of a building, and only has a narrow alley/street between the buildings.
It should work.
Jimmy
Wikipedia is garbage eh? Man oh man...
Truest North
The dilemma is only a dilemma of our profession. It is not a dilemma for the FCC the way I see it. Since an bearing to the nearest minute of arc, is probably more precise than the real precision you will have, you are well within the realm of both astronomic and geodetic. That is what is being said and I think what you already know. I would object a little to using the term "true" north, unless I simply had to per the contract, but the objection is only within our understanding. I think that probably only a geodesist or a land surveyor would see the distinction.
Realistically, I suspect you can go through your calculations and checks and come up with an answer, then round your bearing to the nearest minute and there you have "true" north.
What is "true north"? I would say that "true" would mean actual or real north. One could argue that all of the types of bearings we can come up with are "true" or we could argue that none are "true". This is "true" north based on observations of polaris, this is true geodetic north, or this is true north based on compass observations (and rotate by the magnetic deflection). So regardless of what they are asking for I would want to still qualify my north based on whatever I did. ie: still having a basis of bearing statement that says "bearings are based on Astronomic north from observations on polaris", or astronomic north from solar observations, or geodetic north based on gps observations....that sort of thing. True might also imply a precision thing, is your north geodetic north +/- 2 seconds, two minutes, or 0.2 seconds etc. If it has a plus-or-minus is it "true north"? Since the 3'-long line is what you are placing a bearing on, it is not 'possible' to place a "true north" bearing on that item (or at least one could argue).
I think I could tell them that you can place a good geodetic north based on the precision of the actual items you are putting bearings on, and hopefully educate them not to be afraid of your qualifying basis of bearing statement. It is just a statement for other surveyors to follow.
Just some thoughts above. I am probably rephrasing what everyone else is saying...so... whatever that's worth.
Tom