"I would love to have some sort of challenge or lesson to see if I can get it done in MS Flight using the SHI method and to see if I do get confused...!!!"OK.. lets pretend that airspaces, and terrain require a more direct course (or even a convoluted course), much more stringent that funneling down the "cone".. and that the VOR locations, and actual defined waypoints now needed, will have you flying both to and from the same VOR (or both, or three).. much like a strict, defined, filed IFR flight plan ...And somewhere along the way you'll need to fly a hold based on intersecting radials, but where neither side of the hold is one of those radials.. and at the conclusion, you'll need to transition from radial-tracking, to a published VOR approach IAF on a course to facilitate easy entry, where the FAF, is a radial from a terminal VOR that intersects the inbound course, that you won't even be able to recieve until 25nm out.. :oWithout being able to count on consistent, logical CDI deflection reading at a glance.. you WILL lose track of not only to/from orientation, but which waypoint you just passsed (because it changed fron reverse to normal sensing) or even where the heck you are..lolYou'll just have to trust me when I say that little more work(learning) now, will save gobs of work (re-learning) down the road.. if you push the limits, and/or ever learn instrument flight for real.What's that old adage ? Instructors vexed by bad habbits (or short-cuts) learned by students while simming ? This would be a textbook case..

What's that old adage ? Instructors vexed by bad habbits (or short-cuts) learned by students while simming ? This would be a textbook case..

And we've got 228 views on this thread so far. By my math that's 5 or more future/current student pilots that have learned the wrong way to navigate via VOR.

And somewhere along the way you'll need to fly a hold based on intersecting radials, but where neither side of the hold is one of those radials.. and at the conclusion, you'll need to transition from radial-tracking, to a published VOR approach IAF on a course to facilitate easy entry, where the FAF, is a radial from a terminal VOR that intersects the inbound course, that you won't even be able to recieve until 25nm out.. :o

Ok, I'm back to GPS!!! LOL Just kidding! But you already lost me at the hold, haha! Although of course that doesn't say much about the SHI method but more about my lack of knowledge... I am confident that a real world pilot that uses the SHI method, could explain how it's done, but I sure can't. I am still confident though about my tutorials. They work and it's a shame I don't have enough knowledge to give a good reply to what you are saying.I understand what Zach is saying too, haha, but I don't think you can say it's the wrong way to navigate via VOR: it's a different way.I wish the guys from the pdf and article I read did attend this forum: that would really help...! I see if I can get in contact with them! BTW I quoted Joe Campbell in this topic, so I mailed him to ask if it was okay. It was, but he would prefer the following creditlines: since I can't edit the openings post anymore, I will post it here in a seperate post:Reference“The VOR” by Joe Campbell, December 1995. Unpublished article available fromhttp://www.campbells...es/VOR/vor.htmlWho knows, maybe Joe will join the discussion. I could use some help...

Ok, I'm back to GPS!!! LOL Just kidding! But you already lost me at the hold, haha! Although of course that doesn't say much about the SHI method but more about my lack of knowledge... I am confident that a real world pilot that uses the SHI method, could explain how it's done, but I sure can't. I am still confident though about my tutorials. They work and it's a shame I don't have enough knowledge to give a good reply to what you are saying.I understand what Zach is saying too, haha, but I don't think you can say it's the wrong way to navigate via VOR: it's a different way.I wish the guys from the pdf and article I read did attend this forum: that would really help...! I see if I can get in contact with them!

I understand your enthusiasm having learned an easy way of VOR tracking, but this is what we would consider a "wrong way". I'm sure there's some "fair weather pilots" on the interweb saying this is the way to use your VOR receivers, but I know of no real pilots that use this method.Also, throughout the tutorials you're using non-standard terminology. The term "needle" instead of "CDI" comes to mind. You can't assume people know what you're talking about (think: newbies), so you have to stick to correct terminology! Imagine Googling the word needle instead of CDI. Of course I like the format your tutorial took, so take that suggestion with a grain of salt. I just assume someone reading an "easy way to use VORs" tutorial is lacking in fundamental knowledge of the systems.Would you consider doing a tutorial using the "correct method"? Or shall I show you up tonight? :Just Kidding:Keep up the enthusiasm, Jeroen, it's refreshing. Just don't assume your way is the right way (I'm referring to some comments made in the Hangar Chat thread). It is indeed an incorrect way of handling VOR navigation. Using reverse sensing to avoid reciprocal math is lazy!

Keep up the enthusiasm, Jeroen, it's refreshing.

Thanks, Zach. :wink:I see what you mean with the terminology. Unfortunately I can´t edit those tutorials... (Maybe a mod could help me here?) I also understand I might have posted what I did a bit too soon, although... I still believe the method works, also in real life. Joe Campbell said so and who am I to question Joe! ^_^ And btw (I'll say it again) I am not really using reverse sensing, although I understand why you see it like that, hehe. :wink:If I ever switch to the 'correct method' I'll be happy to do a tutorial for it, but er... afaik there are already thousands of those on the internet... and none ever helped me... :P

Your method kinda takes the edge off learning VOR fundementals (it can be very difficult to grasp), but only as it applies to a very simple application. If you get into realistic, complex VOR navigation (ie.. flying to/from a set of VOR radial intersections).. trying to keep track of which CDI is reverse-sensing, and which is not, is an un-needed variable, in a busy, IMC cockpit...Now, using the CDI as something other than what it is (ignoring reverse indications in favor of 1/2 the compass heading references), and treating the TO/FROM flag as something other than TO=up, FROM=down; takes away much of what the CDI and Flag can tell you. And putting completey aside, the purpose of the reference marks between, centered, and fully deflected (good homework); and putting completely aside using the OBS and TO/FROM flag to determine the radial you're currently on (gives you a much better intercetp reference than 1/2 or 1/4 the the possible headings), and putting aside using the OBS pre interception to gauge not only your progress, but a feel for any wind you're dealing with... Your method can become problematic for flying IMC and executing published VOR approaches, or even following ATC instructions, and position reporting.In summary.. you're sorta simplifying a simple task at the cost of complicating other, more utile tasks.

Ok, now I'm understanding why I was having so much trouble getting my head around this method of VOR usage... I was thinking in terms of how this would work with complex, real-world scenarios and nothing was computing.I think I do get it now and yes, this method should work quickly and well for some simple usage scenarios, but I wouldn't want to try to navigate with it in the real world, especially while ATC is involved.Thanks, though, for giving me some interesting insight into the VOR system. I've never thought about it this way before and it may well be useful at some point.

Thanks, Zach. :wink:I see what you mean with the terminology. Unfortunately I can´t edit those tutorials... (Maybe a mod could help me here?) I also understand I might have posted what I did a bit too soon, although... I still believe the method works, also in real life. Joe Campbell said so and who am I to question Joe! ^_^ And btw (I'll say it again) I am not really using reverse sensing, although I understand why you see it like that, hehe. :wink:If I ever switch to the 'correct method' I'll be happy to do a tutorial for it, but er... afaik there are already thousands of those on the internet... and none ever helped me... :P

Hey don't sweat it man - after all you did put a " disclaimer" in!!Being one that never got to learn vor flying in fsx, I look forward to giving it a try with your tutorials in Flight. Might be too early to say, but I am betting I will succeed with it - at least enough for my purposes in flight simulation.

It is indeed an incorrect way of handling VOR navigation. Using reverse sensing to avoid reciprocal math is lazy!

It would be more fair to call it an "obsolete" method, Zach. It was originally published in 1949 and at that time was "the method" in use.Oddly enough, I've actually used some of the quadrature principles from that method for a fast, single-glance way to determine an approximate heading......after which I could then take the time to do the current T-I-T-P-I-T dance...

I see what you mean with the terminology. Unfortunately I can´t edit those tutorials... (Maybe a mod could help me here?)

I wasn't aware that once approved the original contributor could no longer Edit them... That's a pity.For the time being I've moved 'em off-line since it seems to be a source of so much concern.

For the time being I've moved 'em off-line since it seems to be a source of so much concern.

Oh my, and I was looking forward to delving into it this week...Jeroen, got anywhere you can upload them to and then give a link to them?

It would be more fair to call it an "obsolete" method, Zach. It was originally published in 1949 and at that time was "the method" in use.Oddly enough, I've actually used some of the quadrature principles from that method for a fast, single-glance way to determine an approximate heading......after which I could then take the time to do the current T-I-T-P-I-T dance...

Thanks for clarifying. I seem to recall there being a discussion in the flight school some years ago when I was but a student. In that case, it probably went over my head or my instructor told me to "stop listening."TITPIT. Haven't heard that in a while. I should get that "double i". This stuff is fun!

For the time being I've moved 'em off-line since it seems to be a source of so much concern.

Oh my, and I was looking forward to delving into it this week...Jeroen, got anywhere you can upload them to and then give a link to them?

Hm, that's a shame... Specially since I got into contact with Joe Campbell (and mr. Sarangan) who says his method is used all over the world now... I also found links like these:https://allaboutairp...ercepting-vors/where someone with an ATP certificate and CFII and AGII certificates uses and teaches this new method...! So this method IS valid and good and used in the real world and I personally decided to stick with it in my virtual world because it IS easiers but usable in every situation.Perhaps it is possible for me to edit the tutorials so I can put a more clear disclaimer at the top stating the method used in it is not the common one and that people who would like to learn the common method should look elsewhere, but that it IS a real world method...? It would be a pity to see a few hours of work gone to waste. And no, Don, unfortunately I don't have the post on my PC... I even deleted the pictures because I presumed they were safe here...I understand that those who are used to the common method simply don't get this new method and keep applying there own rules to it, which will never work, but it IS a good method and hence it would be an interesting alternative here on Avsim for all those people who have problems using VOR the usual way.

@dburne: the tutorials aren't listed on the tutorial forum anymore, but I noticed the links in my OP still work... So if you still want to see if it is something for you, use those links to get the information! I already copied everything, including screenshots, so all won't be lost for eternity. :wink:You can read more about the methods using the link in my previous post. There are a few articles about it on that site, including some more complicated ones.

The VOR gauge is not a command instrument you simply follow, it is an instrument that needs to be read.

This is true of many instruments tho... you have to read and then decide based on other instruments, if the information is accurate. One constantly needs to do this. You don't "take anything" for granted.

where someone with an ATP certificate and CFII and AGII certificates uses and teaches this new method...!

I cannot say that is a "new" method Jeroen...I have been flying VOR Nav that way since as long as I can remember. It is what I would teach also."I know… you first did what the Instrument Flying Handbook tells you to do, right? On page 7-14 of the 2007 manual, it states to turn to a heading to parallel the track. Next to determine the difference between the radial you want and the radial you are currently on. " etc...Nope, sry didn't do all that fussing around with the instrument. Simply looked at it and turned to an intercept heading. As long as heading is ± 90° of the selected VOR course, you'll have normal sensing.In "his" example, you have less than full needle deflection... so... 330° should be plenty good for a no wind situation.

TITPIT. Haven't heard that in a while.

What is that???

it would be an interesting alternative here on Avsim for all those people who have problems using VOR the usual way.

If it works for you, it's a good method. As long as "you know" and understand from a practical use standpoint... that is what matters.There's no "one size fits all" in (flight) education.

I cannot say that is a "new" method Jeroen...I have been flying VOR Nav that way since as long as I can remember. It is what I would teach also."I know… you first did what the Instrument Flying Handbook tells you to do, right? On page 7-14 of the 2007 manual, it states to turn to a heading to parallel the track. Next to determine the difference between the radial you want and the radial you are currently on. " etc...Nope, sry didn't do all that fussing around with the instrument. Simply looked at it and turned to an intercept heading. As long as heading is ± 90° of the selected VOR course, you'll have normal sensing.In "his" example, you have less than full needle deflection... so... 330° should be plenty good for a no wind situation.If it works for you, it's a good method. As long as "you know" and understand from a practical use standpoint... that is what matters.There's no "one size fits all" in (flight) education.

Ah! Thanks for your post, Rob! I could use that, haha! Good to know at least ONE other person on Avsim is using this method!!! ^_^ I will definitely keep on using it, because I think it's great. I don't feel the need at ALL to do what the Flying handbook tells me if I know a way that get's me in the right direction by simply looking for a second at the VOR gauge... instead of turning the knob a few times and doing some math...

Posted Today, 06:28 AM@dburne: the tutorials aren't listed on the tutorial forum anymore, but I noticed the links in my OP still work... So if you still want to see if it is something for you, use those links to get the information! I already copied everything, including screenshots, so all won't be lost for eternity.

Hey Jeroen,Those links in your OP in this thread do not work for me, I get the below error message:[#10TUT009] The selected tutorial must be approved before you can perform this actionNot sure I understand why it needs to be removed from the tutorial section - sounds like something that could help many, such as myself, in learing and applying VOR flight in the sim. Whether or not it is widely used today in the real world, imho should not make the difference on something like this?Well anyway I should not question I guess a mod's decision on what gets posted and what does not in the tutorial section here.Since you have now copied it for safekeeping - thank goodness - is this something maybe that can be emailed to me perhaps? I really feel compelled to gain the knowledge to be able to fly VOR without just looking out the window and trying to figure out what is where . I got very proficient in ILS/IFR flying in FSX and is what I always did, as my preference was flying the tubeliners, and with Flight now I am really interested in flying GA aircraft. Sounds like something that will come in handy with flying in the new Alaska DLC when it is released as well.Let me know, and thanks.