Another VOR navigation method

[Cessnaflyer 56]

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... :(

You youngin'!I was feeling old until you posted!Although the idea is fundamentally wrong with how you are supposed to use a VOR it is a cleaver way to navigate.Sometimes mentally putting yourself in relation to a VOR helps some navigate as well. You can do that by centering your CDI needle with a from flag and that gives you the radial you are on. You can then use that to help you find which direction to fly to intercept another radial. It doesn't work for everyone but it is one way to give yourself a mental orientation to where you are in space.

[Guest]

I received mail from Campbell and Sarangan and both acknowledged that this method is being used in real life today (all over the world) and that it is applicable in any situation. They also said that it is normal that people who are used to using VOR the usual way don't get it at first... and that it is no surprise those people say the method is wrong and too simple and not for use in real life. But that's simply because they keep on using their current VOR knowledge when looking at the new method.I am sticking with the method because it IS more simple to understand and more simple to use. You guys almost had me going back to learning VOR the usual way... :wink:Just have another look at this site: https://allaboutairplanes.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/tracking-and-intercepting-vors/I know which method I prefer...! :(

[Brett_Henderson 5]

I hope he takes your invitation to join this discussion..

[Guest]

I hope he takes your invitation to join this discussion..

Campbell sort of made clear he won't, but Sarangan might, if he finds the time for it. I also invited the guy from the allaboutairplanes site to join in. :( It's not that I want to show you I am right and you are wrong, haha, but I myself also want to know if this method is really applicable in every possible situation. Because it IS easier and because real world pilots DO use it, it's a bit annoying :( to see my tutorials being taken offline and everyone flaming them, hehehe... :wink:This article uses the method in a bit more complicated situation (as far as I can tell) then simply intercepting a radial:https://allaboutairplanes.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/travelling-along-victor-airways/Obviously this is getting a bit out of my scope (if that's how you say it in English) because I only fly on my PC and I only use VORs for simple tasks. Still, it's an interesting subject, so I really hope some SHI-users will join!

[Brett_Henderson 5]

Sure, it's applicable in any situation.. just a bit counter-intuitive, and adds un-needed variables to something that is straight-forward.In your last post (#19) the link is for moderately complex course. I read through it, many times.. and can only conclude that it needed to be lengthy and wordy itself, because of where he starts explaing simple radial tracking, in the first place.I'd sum it up like this:You now have before you, a multi-leg, radial-based course.. all you have to do, is have each leg's course dialed in on the OBS, and then logical CDI.. To/From, indications will take you all the way through it.. be it by one, or alternating VOR recievers.. no need for walking fingers, or mentally shaded compass cards..If, at that point, your situational awareness is that vague, you got bigger problems than what method of radial intercepting/tracking you choose (and it's where I'd suggest the weak situational awareness IS a product of using VOR learning, short-cuts)..

[Cessnaflyer 56]

Again it works but I have never seen it in use any where. I've been a flight instructor for a college, started my own flight instruction business, flown corporate for a few years and now fly for an airline. Never once has anyone used reverse sensing to navigate besides doing BC approaches.

[Guest]

Ok, clear. The tutorials are offline now and in another topic about it I said it's probably the best to keep them offline. Wait, let me copy and paste what I said there (short explanation so you know what I am talking about: I created a pdf of the tutorial but decided to not post it online but only post it to people who really want it and hence clearly know the pdf is not the conventional method!):

Thirdly, even though the method works, it IS an unusual method and I now understand it may confuse people... I did edit the content when I made a pdf of it today, but I only edited out all the blah blah about how nice it all is and only kept the parts where I actually explain things. So what the tutorial teaches is still the same unconventional method... and as it is now, considering various reactions AND considering the fact that I can't really back it up or give feedback to it due to lack of knowledge, I think it's better if people have to take the trouble of PM'ing me if they really want the pdf: making it easily available may be 'dangerous' for those that know nothing about VOR navigation because switching between the two methods isn't easy. Creating a tutorial that works is nice and all but not being able to explain how it can be used in different more complicated situations, which is a must with VOR navigation, isn't too good, because in that case people might still have to learn the 'other' method, making things only more complicated. If you know what I mean, haha! :wink:So... as far as I am concerned they may stay offline.

I think this ends the discussion... Lesson learned, hehe. :wink:Now let's see if I can find a regular VOR tutorial that I can understand... :(

[Brett_Henderson 5]

Just some additional food for thought.. as I surely don't want you to be discouraged..ON a planned flight (especially a filed, instrument flight), you'd have the leisure of working out how you'd deal with each leg, with the luxury of time to spare.. dove-tail it nicely while analyzing winds aloft for each leg (where you'l learn that mixing not only a heading/course difference.. wind compensation, with mixed sensing, becomes an un-needed mess).. with a nice little nav-log of VOR frequecies and courses/radials.. including alternates, with a big En-route chart spread out in front of you .. :Cuppa:Per some of the examples though, you're talking about just suddenly deciding, or needing to fly to a certain VOR, via a specific radial. We can limit this to VFR, as your own reference for such an event while IFR, shows we'd avail ATC vectors (where instinctual situational awareness eliminates finger-walking and compass shading). So....the first question would be, "why not just fly directly TO the VOR from your current location ?" .. simply set the OBS to a centered CDI (up arrow), and just fly that course ?If the answer is; airspace restictions or terrain.. then we have two tools. Terrain can be avoided by using the Mk1 eyebal device **grin**, until you intercecpt the radial radial you'd track to the VOR. Since you know the inbound course.. why do anything other than set it, and wait for positive-sensing interception/tracking, complete with logical To/From indication ?Airspace is a bit trickier to avoid.. as you can't "see" its boundaries, aside from obvious ground references (ie. get past that lake and it's safe start turning inbound). At this point, you cannot just venture toward the radial, via shaded compass, course estimations without risking airspace violation. You'll need another nav-aid.. even an NDB will do (I can navigate VFR from Columbus, Ohio - to - Mackinac Island, Michigan, and back; avoiding all airspaces by periodically checking the bearings by ADF, to the powerful AM radio stations in Columbus/Detroit/Chicago.. no VOR or GPS needed). If an NDB is conveniently located (and still in service), you might be able to just fly TO or FROM it (flying to/from NDBs, compensating for winds aloft-no radials and nifty CDIs-is a navigational lesson unto itself, using instincts develpoed because you didn't learn VOR by short-cut), until you intercept the desired radial.. But more likely, you'll need find a VOR radial that will keep you clear of the airspace. And then again I'd ask.. why do anything other than set the OBS for the course you'll fly, and use normal sensing and logical TO/FROM to intercept/track that raidial ? If, with chart in hand, you don't know your position relative to that "space avoidance" radial, and resort to shaded-compasses, you might blast through some OTHER restricted area, or waste a bunch of time/fuel figuring it out..My big point, is and always has been.. that consistent, instinctive, logical CDI, TO/FROM, use, will serve you best in the long run.. and you've already got all the intuition needed to master it.. :(

[Guest]

Thanks, Brett. It all makes sense. :( I did watch a video tonight

and it helped my understand the importance of for instance the line of ambiguity, which I never really thought about: I know what TO and FROM means but I never looked at like that. I think. I mean, I think I understand it now, hehehe. There is a difference between knowing something and understanding something.Anyway, it was very interesting (and also very basic, although in the video, which I haven't finished watching completely yet, the teacher also shows how to avoid airspaces: hopefull he will tell more about getting to intersections... :( ). And I it was also fun to notice I had all the answers correct (and I was amazed most of the people in that classroom didn't seem to grasp it yet, hahaha! Come on, people...! B) ).I certainly am not discouraged! On the contrary, I'd almost say. :( Fooling around with the SHI method awoke an interest and an eagerness to learn all about VORs. And yes, you are right, usually there is no need to SUDDENLY fly to some unknown intersection... But if that time comes, I want to make it alive... B)

[Brett_Henderson 5]

As any questions pop up.. feel free to ask :)

[wbeard52 0]

For the real pilots on this forum, what is fundamentally wrong with this "unusual" method? If a pilot can determine the correct heading to intercept the selected radial (after tuning and identifying) what is wrong with that? Could it not be a great situational backup of where not to fly on a VFR flight? For example, anything east of the 360 radial of the ABC VOR is restricted airspace.For the real instrument rated pilots on this forum. Have you ever been given a vector from ATC that was wrong? Is the pilots life in danger if ATC errs in their vector or their life? What if we could verify the vectored heading is correct for the route they cleared us for? N123AB fly heading 320 intercept the 270 degree radial from ABC VOR proceed on course. Have you ever gotten a clearance like that? How about this... N123AB turn right heading 095 intercept the final approach course cleared ILS 12L approach. If we had set up the VOR correctly, we can quickly verify the heading ATC has given us.What about this situation? You are south of the runway on the downwind leg for runway 09 heading west. You are getting radar vectors for the ILS 09 approach; how would you setup the VOR indicator? Any common sense pilot would set the inbound course of 090 into the VOR even though the airplane is heading west (270). What would the needle show... a left turn or a right turn? If you answered a left turn, you would be correct but if you think about it... a left turn from a heading of west will make you travel south and away from the final approach course. (But you followed that damn needle!... It has to be correct). If you were to look at those shaded heading under that needle, it would clearly show a northerly heading to intercept the course and not a southerly heading. No reverse sensing with this easy method like there is with the more common method.What if there was a national security concern and GPS was shut down by the government? To make matters worse, there is no radar coverage in your area of travel. How are you going to verify that you haven't passed that intersection on the victor airway where you were supposed to turn or take the chance of running into the side of the mountain? Simple, use the second VOR and set it up for the radial FROM or course TO (depending on the situation) the low enroute chart calls for and let your finger doing the walking. If your current heading is shaded, you have not passed the intersection but if you current heading on the second VOR is not shaded you have gone too far.No math... no figuring out which radial you are on to triangulate your position... just using the VOR the easiest way possible for maximum situational awareness. These are just some of my real life examples that I have been given flying in the U.S. airspace. This "simple" method allows us to have more time for the most important activity in a real pilots world... seeing and avoiding other aircraft and terrain.

[Cessnaflyer 56]

When you are flying you should always know what your position is in relation to what is around you. So if you are given a heading to intercept a radial it shouldn't be that hard to picture where you are located and if the intercept heading is a correct one. This is all tested on the very first navigational cross-country flights and students have to be able to pass this to be able to get their cross country endorsements. If they are instrument rated and can't figure out how to use a VOR and has no spatial orientation then that is one very dangerous pilot.VORs are very simple tools unfortunately people look to far into them and think they are some magical navaid that is difficult to use. If people understand that all it does is show you how far into one quadrant of the four life would be a lot simpler for them.

[Propane 16]

For the real pilots on this forum, what is fundamentally wrong with this "unusual" method? If a pilot can determine the correct heading to intercept the selected radial (after tuning and identifying) what is wrong with that?

It's not so much that it's fundamentally wrong, it's just very basic and prone to certain errors. For instance;We need to intercept 090 inbound. Course 090 is set in the OBI, the CDI deflects left and the TO/FROM indicator shows FROM (or SHI points down if you will). Imagine the instrument and then think of the headings displayed in the lower left quadrant. That would be anything between 270 to 360. According to this method, what would be a nice intercept heading? Heading 315 perhaps?Sorry, but heading 315 would never bring us inbound 090. In fact, we would pass the VOR and probably even start flying outbound 270. Because the CDI is centered right?Another one;Again we want 090 inbound. It's set in the OBI, CDI deflects left and we have a TO indication. So my intercept heading lies somewhere in between 000-090. The happy medium according to this method would be 045. Check the image and plot that heading for yourself;You would again pass the VOR and possibly never get inbound 090. Unless of course, you are aware that you need to end up on a track of 270 to get inbound. In that case, you're already working with reciprocal math, so why take this 'easy' method?Yes, the method works up to a certain point and yes, it provides some sort of situational awareness in a glance. But that situational awareness is just a sketch with incorrect measurements. By twisting the OBS to determine where you are and combining it with a DME measurement, that sketch becomes irrelevant because you now have a blueprint with exact measurements.

[wbeard52 0]

Yes, the method works up to a certain point and yes, it provides some sort of situational awareness in a glance. But that situational awareness is just a sketch with incorrect measurements. By twisting the OBS to determine where you are and combining it with a DME measurement, that sketch becomes irrelevant because you now have a blueprint with exact measurements.

Did not both CDI's center with your example? I never said it would tell you that a certain heading will cause you to intercept that course TO or radial FROM before or after the VOR. I simply stated the CDI would in fact center and is great for situational awareness. How would the "common" method be better especially since I didn't reference a DME in my post like you did. Using only the VOR how can you be certain that your selected turn left or right will center the needle before station passage? The simple fact is... you can't. You could be 1 NM from station passage or 50 NM... the indications would be the same especially if you're at the same angle to the selected course. The common method has more steps than this simpler method. Plus the common method has this misconception called reverse sensing.

We need to intercept 090 inbound. Course 090 is set in the OBI, the CDI deflects left and the TO/FROM indicator shows FROM (or SHI points down if you will). Imagine the instrument and then think of the headings displayed in the lower left quadrant. That would be anything between 270 to 360. According to this method, what would be a nice intercept heading? Heading 315 perhaps?

Terminology correction from the quote: The 090 radial inbound is the 270 course TO the station. You should state the 270 course TO the station and not mix radials with TO's. It is always a radial FROM or a course TO and never the opposite. Take a look at your picture again. The VOR would show a FROM indication with a left deflection and the selected heading will infact intercept the course TO or radial FROM the station. Thanks for proving my point. I appreciate it. It is not within the confines of this discussion to determine an intercept heading that will intercept either the course TO or radial FROM but I am willing to listen if you have an idea of how to do that easily only using the VOR indicator...no DMEs.

Again we want 090 inbound. It's set in the OBI, CDI deflects left and we have a TO indication. So my intercept heading lies somewhere in between 000-090. The happy medium according to this method would be 045. Check the image and plot that heading for yourself;

A heading of 030, 045, 060, etc will intercept the course TO the station or radial FROM the station. I never stated differently. Again, proved my point. In fact, a 089 track will also intercept the course just take a greater distance. Again, I'm all ears if your common method of paralleling the track and then turning left of right will solve this problem for you.-------------------------------------------------------------------------There is absolutely a way to tell if a given heading will intercept the given course TO or radial FROM the station using only the VOR station (no DME... no GPS... no vectors) using the VOR needle and a RMI needle. Curious read my post here: Using the RMI and HSI for situational awareness but that is beyond the scope of this article.

[megs8888 20]

Hi guys I'm new to this and this thread is confusing me can someone point me in the right direction on the best place to learn VOR navigation please I am struggling to understand it meant thanks.wayne