Last week I discovered another way of using VORs. It seems that it is the way VORs were intended to be used. I used what I learned in MS Flight (I am not a real world pilot) and immediately created two tutorials about it. In addition I posted some more information because some people didn't understand it or tried to apply the usual VOR method to my tutorials.Tutorialshttp://forum.avsim.net/tutorials/article/34-intercepting-a-vor-radial-inbound-and-outbound-the-easy-way/http://forum.avsim.net/tutorials/article/33-getting-there-the-easy-and-original-way-using-vors/Additional posthttp://forum.avsim.net/topic/366627-my-vor-tutorials-additional-information/Now the reason that I post about it in this forum is that I am very curious how many real world pilots actually use this method... and I also wonder what real world pilots think about it. When you understand how it works, it simply is more easy to use imho (although when you are used to the common method, you have to unlearn some habits!). I even wonder why this method isn't the official method they teach you at pilot schools...!Whenever I am enthusiastic about something, I like to talk and specially read about it :( but... I can't find anything about this method on the internet apart from the information which can be found in the topics posted above... So I also hope some real world pilots can show me some more information about it all!

50$ this thread will spiral into a VOR vs GPS debate :(

LOL Could well be... :wink:But to tell you the truth... I honestly wish I had discovered this easy method years ago...! Flying around using VORs (and not only direct to etc. but also getting to places using triangulation) is a LOT more fun then simply following a line on a GPS...! The latter may be easier and it's the future, but now I've found a way to actually use VORs without getting crazy, I love it! It gives you something to do during flying! :( I now begin to understand (after all these years, and I've been simming since the early nineties) why some people say it's sad VORs are disappearing...!

I read your tutorials, they were interesting and this method is actually easier as you said!

I'm trying to make sense of it at work on my phone. Looks like a very elementary way of using VORs so far, buy I'll take a closer look when I get home. I love this topic with students.Whatever gets you there and works!

Scratch that I see what you did there. While yes it works it is better practice to navigate with normal sensing.

Scratch that I see what you did there. While yes it works it is better practice to navigate with normal sensing.

Because...? :(

Because it's a lot easier to remember to fly to the needle when it hits the fan and you get busy.

Because it's a lot easier to remember to fly to the needle when it hits the fan and you get busy.

That's only because you are used to it, I think. :( With the usual VOR method you will have to deal with reverse sensing one time or another, which won't be the case with the method I use. The problem is you need to get the current method out of your head. :(

That's only because you are used to it, I think. :( With the usual VOR method you will have to deal with reverse sensing one time or another, which won't be the case with the method I use. The problem is you need to get the current method out of your head. :(

Well it is considered an operational error by the pilot to do it that way.http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/instrument_flying_handbook/media/FAA-H-8083-15A%20-%20Chapter%2007.pdfThe examiner may also get you on not being able to correctly set the course to be flown. I've seen it happen before when a student said he liked to fly the reverse sensing.http://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/airmen/test_standards/media/faa-s-8081-4e.pdf

I am a real-world instrument-rated commercial pilot in airplanes and helicopters. I'm a CFI and will soon be a CFII. I will never, ever, EVER teach any of my students to set up a VOR to deliberately use reverse-sensing to track a course, and if any of them do it or try to use this method, I will NOT endorse them for anything until I have thoroughly beaten this tendency out of them. I'm sure the other CFIs and pilots on here will agree.I really don't intend any offense here. But you asked for pilots' opinions, and that's what I think. I'm sticking with the current method because that's how we do it in the real world. Sometimes it's dogmatic to say that, but sometimes it's right, too. This time it's right. "Normal" sensing is the way VOR receivers are designed to work, and to say otherwise is false.When you're intercepting a radial, you put the COURSE you want to fly into the OBS, not the RADIAL. What radial you're on doesn't really matter, and figuring it out really doesn't enter my brain when I'm trying to track a COURSE to or from a station. If you ask me, I can figure it out, but it's really not the most important thing.To say this is the "easy" way, and how VORs were "meant to be used" is just plain wrong. VORs were "meant to be used" as a system of points to define IFR airways to replace the four-course radio range system. You're supposed to use them to fly point-to-point along known courses. Yes, you can use them to determine your position if you're really, hopelessly lost. But that's not really what they're for.Putting this out as a "tutorial" is confusing and counter-productive for people who want to learn about instrument navigation. You're a lot better off just learning how to do it the right way the first time around.Good luck,Dave

That's only because you are used to it, I think. :( With the usual VOR method you will have to deal with reverse sensing one time or another, which won't be the case with the method I use. The problem is you need to get the current method out of your head. :(

The current method is the correct method. :( Not yours. Learn the correct way. Chris is a professional.

I am a real-world instrument-rated commercial pilot in airplanes and helicopters. I'm a CFI and will soon be a CFII. I will never, ever, EVER teach any of my students to set up a VOR to deliberately use reverse-sensing to track a course, and if any of them do it or try to use this method, I will NOT endorse them for anything until I have thoroughly beaten this tendency out of them. I'm sure the other CFIs and pilots on here will agree.I really don't intend any offense here. But you asked for pilots' opinions, and that's what I think. I'm sticking with the current method because that's how we do it in the real world. Sometimes it's dogmatic to say that, but sometimes it's right, too. This time it's right. "Normal" sensing is the way VOR receivers are designed to work, and to say otherwise is false.When you're intercepting a radial, you put the COURSE you want to fly into the OBS, not the RADIAL. What radial you're on doesn't really matter, and figuring it out really doesn't enter my brain when I'm trying to track a COURSE to or from a station. If you ask me, I can figure it out, but it's really not the most important thing.To say this is the "easy" way, and how VORs were "meant to be used" is just plain wrong. VORs were "meant to be used" as a system of points to define IFR airways to replace the four-course radio range system. You're supposed to use them to fly point-to-point along known courses. Yes, you can use them to determine your position if you're really, hopelessly lost. But that's not really what they're for.Putting this out as a "tutorial" is confusing and counter-productive for people who want to learn about instrument navigation. You're a lot better off just learning how to do it the right way the first time around.Good luck,Dave

Yes. Yes. And Yes. I really wish the internet didn't harbor so much incorrect information for people without the knowledge to know better.Dealing with the reciprocal math is a hell of a lot easier than dealing with the reverse sensing while in the soup. If you can't add or subtract 180 within 5 seconds, you need practice.

I really don't intend any offense here. But you asked for pilots' opinions,To say this is the "easy" way, and how VORs were "meant to be used" is just plain wrong.Putting this out as a "tutorial" is confusing and counter-productive for people who want to learn about instrument navigation. You're a lot better off just learning how to do it the right way the first time around.Good luck,

Good luck: I am going to need it, haha! :( No offense is taken, on the contrary, I am glad you gave such a clear answer! The simple thing is that I could never grasp the whole VOR idea... until I read the pdf about this 'other' method. And I found out it immediately worked. I simply believed that when the writers said 'this is how it was meant to be' and 'this is easy' that they were telling the truth. One of them is a Commercial Pilot, Flight Instructor, Instrument Instructor, Advanced/Instrument and Ground Instructor" so... who am I to question his authority!? :wink:I have to admit that I didn't really think about the consequences of my tutorials: I posted them on the MS Flight forum... considered a game by many. :( I didn't think about the fact that Avsim is not simply a game site but that a lot of real world pilots come here but also wannebe pilots who may well be real world pilots in the future. I understand that my tutorial may be confusing for someone who is thinking about doing it all for real in the future. But again, I also didn't think about that too much because the articles I read state that this method is being used in real life as we speak.

The current method is the correct method. :( Not yours. Learn the correct way. Chris is a professional.Yes. Yes. And Yes. I really wish the internet didn't harbor so much incorrect information for people without the knowledge to know better.Dealing with the reciprocal math is a hell of a lot easier than dealing with the reverse sensing while in the soup. If you can't add or subtract 180 within 5 seconds, you need practice.

I think I will not post anymore tutorials about this method, haha, or at least not until a real world pilot that really uses this method has chimed in... Until then I have to say that I will be using the method in my virtual flying world because, believe me, it works perfectly well and it is easier then the real world method. But I understand that's hard to believe or understand when the official method is deeply embedded in your system.P.S. O, wait, I found this.https://allaboutairplanes.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/tracking-and-intercepting-vors/http://allaboutairplanes.wordpress.com/category/instruments/vor/page/2/It's from a guy who has an ATP certificate, CFII and AGII certificates. B) How about that.

*facepalm*I'm not sure you understood that last article you posted. (The second one is a dead link, btw.) The author is giving a technique for orienting oneself and how to AVOID reverse sensing. Your "tutorial" used a technique where you tracked a radial using a course which was the reciprocal of your heading. This is reverse sensing, and if used in the way you demonstrated will probably cause you to fail a checkride. Big difference. People are getting really wrapped around the axle about this VOR business. It's really not terribly complicated, so you're better off just practicing it the right way until you "get it" instead of inventing all these methods to confuse yourself and everyone else. Here are some exercises to try if you want to play with VORs:1) Tracking to a station: Position yourself somewhere near a VOR on a random heading. To find the course to the station, twist the OBS knob until the CDI needle centers with a "to" flag. Turn to the heading corresponding to the course selected and practice tracking with the CDI until you get to the station. You can use the same procedure, except with a "from" flag to track a course outbound. Radial intercepts: once you're tracking to or from a station, pick a different course you'd like to intercept. Twist the OBS to the new course. The CDI will deflect in the direction you need to turn in order to intercept the new course. There are various rules of thumb out there for how much of an intercept angle to use, but it really doesn't matter as long as you use enough to get there but not so much that you overshoot. Over-the-station intercepts: track inbound on a course to the station. Track outbound on a different course. As soon as you're over the station, turn to the new course. Then twist the new course into the CDI and intercept the radial. Those are the basic building blocks of radio navigation. As you practice, you'll get better at interpreting the instruments and knowing what's going on. If you're confused, take advantage of the fact you're using a desktop sim and take a look at the GPS or the map. It's confusing at first, but it really isn't complicated. You're better off spending your time practicing than trying to figure out new ways to confuse yourself like you've been doing.

The second link is just fine. The author also explains that most of this was taken from a book called “The Theory and Design of Quadrature Navigational Systems” published around 1949, which makes that book my age incidently... :(