Honestly, though, if MS is at least saying "bearing to" rather than "radial to" now (while describing a bearing from the aircraft's location), I'll be somewhat satisfied. "Vague" is an improvement over "Incorrect!" :Thinking:

if you think we are posting all this just to prove we are right and you are wrong, you couldn't be more far off. I (let me speak for myself) am simply trying to help you and others to understand it all better, hoping you will benefit from it in the future. That's it.

 

This is precisely the tack I take... although seems it does not always appear that way. I must confess a bit of selfishness here as I know participation in the discussion will benefit me too.

 

When you look at the instruments you either see "To" or "From". The word radial never appears.

 

What you say is true... however... let me direct your attention to e.g. the Kahului "ILS or LOC RWY 2" Approach. http://aeronav.faa.g...05/00762IL2.PDF

 

In the lower left of the Planview, you can see three intersections that are also on the Sectional Chart: KEIKI, CAMPS and HARPO.

 

Taking HARPO for example, you see it is defined by LNY "R-095"... the Lanai 095° Radial (and a DME mileage). There's also a pair of Lead Radials (LR) which are used to help assist when the inbound turn to the Final Approach Course should be started. Fwiw an example of where the term is actually used.

Hi,

 

As I read over these and other posts regarding the use of VORs I was trying to understand the source of the confusion. Microsoft not excluded. I was careful to say "my best guess" as that was what it was. If it came across as my saying that the understanding, of what a radial is, was not important that was certainly not my intention.

Somone created a mission for FSX that involved flying at night in bad weather over mountains in Central America. It made extensive use of using VORs not only for navigating the route but used intersections to get on the ILS for the final landing. If I can find it I'll post as I think it was not only a lot of fun but educational as well.

 

Jim F.

Hi,

 

In case anyone is interested, I mentioned an FSX mission in my previous post. It's located here:

http://www.4shared.c...raca-beta2.html

I recall having a problem with the mission as I didn't add the scenery suggested and couldn't locate an NDB because it was part of that added scenery.

 

I also thought of the procedure I followed when first locating the Kalohi - Pailolo aerocache and thought perhaps if I oulined it, that would clarify my confusion as to problems others expressed. Here goes:

I may have done a search but I think the title mentioned channel so I knew it was over the water someplace. I also knew the departure airport was on Maui. I think in terms of going to places as opposed to coming from a place so I chose the Molokai and Lanai VORs. When I went to set the headings and the frequency I quickly realized that one or more of the directions was incorrect and compensated. From the map I saw that Molokai was the most distant so I decided to get on that radial first. Note, I used the word radial but simply thought of it as a signal originating from the VOR in a specific direction and didn't give it further thought. While climbing I pointed the plane in the direction of the Molokai VOR and saw by the needle which direction I would have to turn to get the needle centered. While still paying attention to the Molokai VOR and my altitude I saw the aerocache. I don't recall ever looking at the the Nav tuned to the Lanai VOR but if this had been a point in space at which a change of course was required I would have turned when that Nav needle was centered.

I hope this explanation wasn't confusing and hope that it helps explain my bewilderment at the problems that were expressed. Or perhaps it's crystal clear to each of us and just think that others may be confused and are trying to help them out.

 

Jim F.

Or perhaps it's crystal clear to each of us and just think that others may be confused and are trying to help them out.

 

LOL Well, it IS crystal clear how you did it. You did in fact do what I could have done too! You just didn't think in terms of 'radials'. So I understand how you got there anyway.

 

But... as I said I was trying to "help you and others to understand it all better, hoping you will benefit from it in the future". The thing is: you read the description and figured out the aerocache had to be above the water, a channel. You also knew the departure airport was on Maui. So you more or less knew where to look for the aerocache.

Now imagine you were blindfolded and someone put you in a plane on an unknown spot with no map on your lap. Would you still be able to find that aerocache? I doubt it. However, with the proper knowledge of VOR you WOULD be able to find that aerocache! But ONLY... if someone told you which radials would intersect at that location, so using the proper terminology!

 

So it's not as much about being able to play the game but it's about learning to use VOR the proper way so you can get anywhere you want to out of any situation thanks to proper terminology and proper usage of VOR. Of course you may never need that knowledge in Flight, but if you want to learn about VOR I think it is best to learn it the proper way and that is why I think it is a shame that MS does NOT use the proper terminololy for these aerocaches. In the end they only make things more complicated and people don't really learn how to use VOR. They may THINK they learn something, but they simply learn a little bit about it and in the wrong way too.

 

Hence my (and others) determination to teach everyone the proper terminology.

 

EDIT

In my 'blindfolded example' you would only need two frequencies and two radials on a piece of paper in order to find the aerocache without having to think about it. But with MS's description that wouldn't be possible. You would have to know more. You might want to ask someone what he means exactly (headings? radials? inbound, outbound?) or you would need additional hints to get there. If everyone uses the same terminology there is no room for confusion and errors as there is with MS's way of describing the location. And apart from that: it's simply more fun using real world terminology and procedures.

LOL Well, it IS crystal clear how you did it. You did in fact do what I could have done too! You just didn't think in terms of 'radials'. So I understand how you got there anyway.

 

But... as I said I was trying to "help you and others to understand it all better, hoping you will benefit from it in the future". The thing is: you read the description and figured out the aerocache had to be above the water, a channel. You also knew the departure airport was on Maui. So you more or less knew where to look for the aerocache.

Now imagine you were blindfolded and someone put you in a plane on an unknown spot with no map on your lap. Would you still be able to find that aerocache? I doubt it. However, with the proper knowledge of VOR you WOULD be able to find that aerocache! But ONLY... if someone told you which radials would intersect at that location, so using the proper terminology!

 

You forgot to include "and somebody painted over the windows on your airplane!" :LMAO:

 

But yes, that is really the point. If you supplement the information from MS's tips with your own knowledge of the aircraft's starting location and simply looking outside to see where you are, you can figure things out using the provided information.

 

But, take away all the other references and MS's tips become inadequate. Specifying the actual intersecting radials makes it trivial to find the right spot using only your instruments, with no other information needed.

I used the VOR terminology I learned from J van E et al to figure it out, and I could not do it a couple weeks ago.

In hindsight, I could have just left from Lanai going 030, which is the direction of the runway, flew at 5000 ft, and eventually 'cached-in'. ;)

But I now fly around with zoomed-in cockpit using instruments to try and get around, but still have a lot to learn. Still gotta use external view to check.

I give up. I really believe that something that is very simple is being made to appear complicated. Just let things sink in and over time you'll realize how simple navigation using just VORs and NDBs really is. Perhaps creating a few routes involving intersections would be helpful.

 

Jim F.

I give up. I really believe that something that is very simple is being made to appear complicated. Just let things sink in and over time you'll realize how simple navigation using just VORs and NDBs really is. Perhaps creating a few routes involving intersections would be helpful.

 

You "give up" on what?

 

How is using the world-wide standard term for something rather than using a multi-word description that equals that term "making things complicated"?

 

VOR navigation is simple. You understand it. We understand it.

 

Not everyone understands it. When you're teaching somebody something (which MS is doing with VOR aerocaches), it's quite important to teach them the correct way to do do the task. This includes use of proper, non-ambiguous names and terms, rather than merely describing the concepts of those terms without actually naming them.

 

There have already been multiple people coming to this and other forums with VOR questions, confused by the vague and even incorrect usage of these technical terms by Microsoft. I'm not sure why explaining those terms to the people trying to learn how to use VOR navigation (because, unlike you, and us, they haven't mastered it's simplicity yet) is problematic for you.

 

Continuously insinuating that "we" don't understand VORs as well as you do is getting tiring. Perhaps you should check out the AVSIM Tutorials section for MS Flight.

Uhh, I may be wrong, but can't use NDBs on MSF.

I used the VOR terminology I learned from J van E et al to figure it out, and I could not do it a couple weeks ago.

In hindsight, I could have just left from Lanai going 030, which is the direction of the runway, flew at 5000 ft, and eventually 'cached-in'. ;)

But I now fly around with zoomed-in cockpit using instruments to try and get around, but still have a lot to learn. Still gotta use external view to check.

 

If you need the external view to check, your situational awareness isn't good enough. You don't only use VOR to get you where you want to, but you should also use it to know where you are right now. You should ALWAYS know where you are, even in dense fog in the middle of the night. So as soon as doubt creeps in and you feel the need to use the external view, use VOR instead to see on which radials you currently are (turn the OBS until it is centered and FROM is activated and you will see the radial you are on): as soon as you figured that out, you won't feel the need anymore to look outside.

 

Obviously there is nothing wrong with looking outside but it's just fun being able to get anywhere you want to using VOR only! Every now and then (I am getting older) I take off from an airport and I forgot which one it was... It happened twice last week. I expected the VORs to show me specific things but in no time I noticed the readings were different. I checked my position using two VORs and after that I immediately knew where I was and how to proceed. This simply is big FUN and very satisfying!

 

Uhh, I may be wrong, but can't use NDBs on MSF.

 

Correct. There are NDB's in the game but no plane yet to use them.

 

EDIT

About knowing where you are: I always have a bit of a problem picturing the VOR in my head and to know where the radial is that I am on.So... I have the following picture printed and lying on my desk. When I need to check where I am, I figure out the radial I am on and then simply look at that picture which always has 360 at the top and I immediately know where I am. Maybe in time it will become easier for me to paint that picture in my mind (I already look at that print less and less), but until then this works like a charm. Of course you can also look at the VOR gauge or heading indicator but usually they don't have north at the top and you have to turn the dial around 'mentally' or actually twist your neck to see it clearly.

 

You can navigate with ADF? I thought it was just for listening to AM radio stations. :unknw:

I want to use VOR only, but when I land, the VOR 'tower' is before the runway, i.e. Hilo, and I land hard and early. But I'll get it.

Next day off is next Wednesday. have to wait 'til then.

10 hour work day with commute =13.5hr :Straight Face:

Continuously insinuating that "we" don't understand VORs as well as you do is getting tiring.

 

I thought I was sensing some hostility in your posts but did not understand the cause of it. It was not my intention to imply that you lacked the understanding of VORs but I was trying to stress that simply using them as a tool doesn't require knowledge of the intricacies of the technology.

 

Jim F.

I want to use VOR only, but when I land, the VOR 'tower' is before the runway, i.e. Hilo, and I land hard and early. But I'll get it.

 

Don't use the VOR to land! Use the VOR only to get you to the airport and then land 'on visuals'. You can only use ILS for landing guidance!