May 17, 201214 yr Hi, I previously posted this as a suggested replacement for the inaccurate hint: "5,000 feet. 210 degrees to the Lanai VOR, 88 to Maui VOR, 285 to Molokai VOR." Apparently this was still confusing. Here's an alternate that defines the same location: "5,000 feet. On the Lanai VOR 30 radial, the Maui VOR 88 radial, and on the Molokai VOR 285 radial." Jim F.
May 17, 201214 yr Apparently this was still confusing. Here's an alternate that defines the same location: "5,000 feet. On the Lanai VOR 30 radial, the Maui VOR 88 radial, and on the Molokai VOR 285 radial." I think the best description would be: "5,000 feet. On the intersection of the Lanai VOR 30 radial, the Maui VOR 88 radial and the Molokai VOR 285 radial."
May 17, 201214 yr The easiest way would be to choose the closest VOR to intercept the radial, follow along it (having an HSI would make things a little bit easier, and an RMI would even make it better...). Tune it to your NAV1 and use NAV2 for the other two stations, choosing the 2nd closest to dial the radial on NAV2. Alternate between the two NAV2 freqs when you think you're getting closer... Flying gliders since 1980 Flightsimming since 1992 AMD Ryzen 5600x, 32GB RAM, GPU Nvidia RTX 3060 Ti 8 GB, 1 TB and 500 GB nvme2 SSD drives, HP 27" 60Hz LED monitor @ 1920x1080, T16000, Hotas from old X52 Pro, Saitek Combat Rudder Pro (2010 model)
May 17, 201214 yr Cool - something to try this evening :) How critical is that 5,000ft? Would +/- 250ft do it? Not that I can't hold 5,000 exactly, of course ;) Just wondering how big that target zone is...
May 17, 201214 yr I believe it would be easier to mantain in the Maule than in the RV6... Also you have to zoom considerably to read the instruments... Suggestion: use the options for additional stability in the Gameplay section.... I don't know if it'll make the airplane more stable in pitch though... Flying gliders since 1980 Flightsimming since 1992 AMD Ryzen 5600x, 32GB RAM, GPU Nvidia RTX 3060 Ti 8 GB, 1 TB and 500 GB nvme2 SSD drives, HP 27" 60Hz LED monitor @ 1920x1080, T16000, Hotas from old X52 Pro, Saitek Combat Rudder Pro (2010 model)
May 17, 201214 yr "5,000 feet. On the intersection of the Lanai VOR 30 radial, the Maui VOR 88 radial and the Molokai VOR 285 radial." The Maui VOR 88° radial and the Molokai VOR 285° radial do not intersect each other. The Lanai VOR radial is correct... just need the reciprocal for the other two... The easiest way would be to choose the closest VOR to intercept the radial, When identifying an intersection... it is best (accuracy wise) to have a VOR that intersects your course to as close as possible to perpendicular the course being flown. For example... departing Kapalua - will be easy to make a turn to the West and intercept the OGG 268° Radial (FROM Indication - NAV1). There is relative agreement between the Heading and NAV1 course selected (i.e. Normal Sensing). NAV2 would preferably have LNY with 30° as the course selected (FROM Indication). Since the station is on the left (with that FROM indication) the needle should be on the left if the Radial has not been crossed. I believe it would be easier to mantain in the Maule than in the RV6... Also you have to zoom considerably to read the instruments... You can set those two Radials up on the ground... once in the air, you are just looking to maintain a centered needle on NAV1 and waiting for the NAV2 needle to start to swing in. No problems doing in the RV-6 btw. How critical is that 5,000ft? Would +/- 250ft do it? You'll be fine. :-)
May 17, 201214 yr The Maui VOR 88° radial and the Molokai VOR 285° radial do not intersect each other. The Lanai VOR radial is correct... just need the reciprocal for the other two... Ah, ok. My post was about using the proper terminology. I didn't check things out but simply presumed Jim had the radials worked out already since he was talking about being 'on' the radials. So his 'alternate definition' was still wrong. Apparently it should read: "5,000 feet. On the intersection of the Lanai VOR 30 radial, the Maui VOR 268 radial and the Molokai VOR 105 radial." Next time I will check it before I post something like this.
May 17, 201214 yr I didn't check things out but simply presumed Jim had the radials worked out already since he was talking about being 'on' the radials. Shame, shame Jim... almost had me thinking less of Jeroen. :LMAO: & This is some nutty stuff btw... for those of you having a bit of trouble still... once you "get it" it's like riding a bike... you won't forget it.
May 17, 201214 yr And that one... : "Never Fly TO on FROM or FROM on TO..." :-) Flying gliders since 1980 Flightsimming since 1992 AMD Ryzen 5600x, 32GB RAM, GPU Nvidia RTX 3060 Ti 8 GB, 1 TB and 500 GB nvme2 SSD drives, HP 27" 60Hz LED monitor @ 1920x1080, T16000, Hotas from old X52 Pro, Saitek Combat Rudder Pro (2010 model)
May 17, 201214 yr And that one... : "Never Fly TO on FROM or FROM on TO..." :-) well... as long as you realize you have "reverse sensing" it's no problem. :P & Which reminds me... am wondering how long before someone like Jeroen or the RoboRay comes up with a tute (short tutorial) on Back Courses. One very interesting one at Kahului. http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1205/00762LDBC20.PDF
May 17, 201214 yr well... as long as you realize you have "reverse sensing" it's no problem. :P & Which reminds me... am wondering how long before someone like Jeroen or the RoboRay comes up with a tute (short tutorial) on Back Courses. One very interesting one at Kahului. http://aeronav.faa.g...00762LDBC20.PDF Hm, well, all you need to add to the existing tutorial is that when you fly a back course heading you need to use reverse sensing with a VOR gauge: when the CDI is left you need to turn right and when the CDI is right you need to turn left. And with an HSI you can simply set the course selector to the opposite direction (as if it's a reciprocal of a VOR): then left will still be left and the other way around. (Right...? ) And this ends the short tutorial on back course approaches.
May 17, 201214 yr Author Hi, In my suggestion for an alternate hint it was my intention to simply replace the heading values I previously suggested with the radial values but neglected to change Maui and Molokai. I don't recall ever having a problem differentiating a heading value and a radial and have been at a loss to understand why others are confused. This is my confusion. My initial suggestion was: "5,000 feet. 210 degrees to the Lanai VOR, 88 to Maui VOR, 285 to Molokai VOR." Does anyone disagree that this defines the aerocache location? If so, please let me know specifically what you think is wrong. I am bewildered. Jim F.
May 17, 201214 yr My initial suggestion was: "5,000 feet. 210 degrees to the Lanai VOR, 88 to Maui VOR, 285 to Molokai VOR." Does anyone disagree that this defines the aerocache location? If so, please let me know specifically what you think is wrong. I am bewildered. Lanai @ 030, Maui @268 & Molokai @ 105.. I just like referring to outbound radials to identify a spot.
May 17, 201214 yr Hi, In my suggestion for an alternate hint it was my intention to simply replace the heading values I previously suggested with the radial values but neglected to change Maui and Molokai. I don't recall ever having a problem differentiating a heading value and a radial and have been at a loss to understand why others are confused. This is my confusion. My initial suggestion was: "5,000 feet. 210 degrees to the Lanai VOR, 88 to Maui VOR, 285 to Molokai VOR." Does anyone disagree that this defines the aerocache location? If so, please let me know specifically what you think is wrong. I am bewildered. Jim F. LOL I wish I knew what the original description was... What airport did you have to take off from? That aerocache isn't available anymore, is it? I just had a look at the map in Flight and when I have to use the numbers that have been posted so far, the ONLY right description should be the one I posted as last: '"5,000 feet. On the intersection of the Lanai VOR 30 radial, the Maui VOR 268 radial and the Molokai VOR 105 radial." Those three radials DO intersect at one point. When you use '210 degrees to the Lanai VOR' you are moving AWAY from where I presume the aerocache was... BTW I don't know why they used three VORs: Using Lanai with Molokai or Lanai with Maui would have been sufficient too. Lanai @ 030, Maui @268 & Molokai @ 105.. I just like referring to outbound radials to identify a spot. Exactly. And afaik this is the ONLY proper and official way to put it! With intersections you always use the radials that actually intersect! (Radials are always outbound so no need to call them 'outbound radials' because there aren't any 'inbound radials' ). How a pilot gets there (using those radials or reciprocals) is up to the pilot, of course, but there is only ONE way of putting it right so everyone can understand what they have to do. It's a shame (not the first time I said this) that MS refuses to use proper terminology and hence makes things a lot more complicated then necessary.
May 17, 201214 yr Author Hey meshman, Now that would be confusing to me. "Lanai @ 030" sounds as though Lanai would be located at 30 degrees from the aerocache location. Jim F.
Create an account or sign in to comment