Tracking VOR problem

[Guest ilh]

Rob, to be fair to people, the 737-400 (as modeled by DF) can track a VOR using VOR/LOC. Just because they are asking doesn't mean they are only flying default MS aircraft. I know I was initially surprised a 767 couldn't do what an older 737 could do. I wonder why Boeing removed this capability.Lee Hetherington (KBOS)

[Guest]

You are correct, the DF734 does have that feature, but the question is generally posed by people making the big "leap". I should not assume, however, that they have only used MS default.Maybe Ian or a pilot can comment as to why Boeing removed that feature....I am guessing the VOR/LOC feature became redundant with the FMC being able to handle the intercept.Rob.

[Guest ilh]

You might be right. The DF 734 FMC can also handle the intercept as well.Lee Hetherington (KBOS)

[Guest Ian_Riddell]

>Maybe Ian or a pilot can comment as to why Boeing removed >that feature....I haven't been given any official notification, Rob, but I'd imagine that the FMC can track a pseudo(artificial)-VOR radial using LNAV more accurately than it can a real VOR radial in VORLOC mode. With the advent of GPS and DME-DME updating, a better postion fix is possible than one achieved by simply tracking a wobbly ol' VOR radio signal. As previously mentioned on this site, even ILS tracking no longer relies solely on the aircraft gliding down a pure radio beam (which may drop in and out or be deflected by passing traffic). A psuedo glidepath is generated within the autopilot computer ...and the aircraft glides down this, with the A/P constantly comparing the pseudo slope with incoming radio signals (to make sure the two don't vary for too long a period).Even with the VOR groundstation out of commission, the airplane can still follow that imaginary radial (It's easy to see the advantages in this case ;-)).Cheers.Ian.

[Guest MB327]

Makes perfect since to me and very well said, as always. Thanks for jumping in here and offering a professional view.