Hi all.

 

After reading this topic, no problema to understand the "HOT" mark.

Using VOR's take some time to get used to it, remember the compass as a youngster?

using them as a tool doesn't require knowledge of the intricacies of the technology.

 

Defining a single word is not delving into the "intricacies of the technology."

 

You seem to be missing a very key point of the importance of using non-ambiguous terms... As mentioned previously, you used various other sources of information to supplement the bearings MS gave you.

 

If you had not had access to those other sources of information (such as knowing your precise starting point and roughly where the target was on your map, not to mention looking out your windows), finding it would have been much more difficult due to MS's vaguely worded tips.

 

This is all we're saying. Yes, you can accept vague descriptions and figure it out, using supplemental non-VOR information to find a VOR reference. But that's not really using the VOR system. Not just the VOR system, anyway.

 

Now try it without using anything but the VOR references, when somebody has randomly positioned your plane on the Map and zoomed your view into the instrument panel so you can't see out, and you can't pull up the Map screen to see where you are. If they're given as radials, you'll have no problems because there's no need to work things out in your head, in advance, aided by supplemental information. You can simply adjust the instruments as directed and off you go.

 

If you only have bearings, and were uncertain if they were "to" or "from", the plane or the station, where the stations were located relative to one another, or even where you are, it becomes more difficult because there is more than one solution for the equation. And only one solution is correct, but you have no way to determine which it is, short of trial and error.

 

Non-ambiguous technical terms are created precisely to prevent this type of confusing scenario.

 

I thought I was sensing some hostility in your posts but did not understand the cause of it.

 

Please do not tell someone who provided a legitimate (and real) example that their "strawman rarely helps prove a point" and pretend you are unaware of where any "hostility" may have originated.

 

There are no positive connotations to "strawman" nor your use of it. It is a universally derogatory word.

 

Please do not tell someone to "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" and pretend you are not telling them they need to learn how this works.

 

My response regarding your "insinuation" was merely being polite about it, when your opinion was clearly stated.

 

I, for one, have been navigating the real world using the VOR and functionally similar TACAN systems for more than 25 years. An important, no, the most important judgment of my understanding of the system must simply be: I have always arrived at my destination.

Hi RoboRay,

 

Sorry for not responding sooner. I apologize for any offense I may have given Any attempt at rehashing things would probably be counter-productive. I just looked at some previous posts in this thread and I actually think you said it best:"Specifying the actual intersecting radials makes it trivial to find the right spot using only your instruments, with no other information needed." That sums up my position exactly. I hope there are no long term hard feelings. It's been my honest belief that all concerned have been trying to be as helpful as possible.

 

Jim F.

Oh no, no hard feelings at all, and I hope it's mutual. It's far too easy to misunderstand someone to take forum comments very seriously.

 

We are all trying to help those who are just learning this stuff. The main reason I keep insisting on the use of standard terminology is for the benefit of those who do not yet have an intuitive understanding of how the system works. Once you've grasped it, then it becomes easy to figure things out, even with vague or partial information.

 

However, some of those just beginning are having trouble doing that, so I would simply like MS to provide their information using the standard terminology that doesn't leave any room for mistaken interpretations, just like it's done in the real world.

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!

 

Ay yi yi... Jeroen... :Doh:

 

With very nice VOR approaches available like the VOR/DME RWY26 Approach at Hilo (http://aeronav.faa.g.../00756VDT26.PDF)... even has a VDP (Visual Descent Point - the heavy "V" at ITO 0.2DME) how, my learned and astute compadre, could you say such a thing! :Shocked:

 

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.

 

What is great here you have found something that helps you sort out "things"... but I am having a very difficult time grasping why you do this... maybe you could explain more?

 

Jeroen, do you happen to be using an IFR Enroute chart by chance (I think you would have to purchase one btw ) found one we can download: http://aeronav.faa.g...&end=05-31-2012 and there is a link under "Hawaii / Pacific" (EPHI1/EPHI2.zip).

Jereon, just to add to the confusion - true north is straight up and down on the map. Magnetic north - the one that all of the instruments and beacons work off - is not. It's rotated about 9.5° clockwise at Hawaii, so true north is about 350.5° magnetic. I hate to have to throw that one in as well.

 

 

Mike

Ay yi yi... Jeroen... :Doh:

 

With very nice VOR approaches available like the VOR/DME RWY26 Approach at Hilo (http://aeronav.faa.g.../00756VDT26.PDF)... even has a VDP (Visual Descent Point - the heavy "V" at ITO 0.2DME) how, my learned and astute compadre, could you say such a thing! :Shocked:

 

LOL Of course I know about VOR approaches: I fly them all the time! But I was reacting to this: "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." He clearly is using the VOR as if it's an ILS and THAT is not the case. The approach you posted is a good one for this: the VOR is ahead of the runway: InboundFour953 is aiming for that VOR while he should be aiming for the runway that's a nm ahead! I even said the VOR is needed to approach the airport and that you have to land on visuals which you acknowledge by pointing at that big V. So I still stand for what I said: you shouldn't use a VOR to LAND like you would do with an ILS, but you should use a VOR to get you to the airport where you have to land on visuals.

 

What is great here you have found something that helps you sort out "things"... but I am having a very difficult time grasping why you do this... maybe you could explain more?

 

I already was afraid some wouldn't understand what I was trying to say... I don't know if I can explain this well enough, though... The thing is, when I started using VOR and I figured out I was (for instance) on the 234 radial I really would have to think hard where 234 would be on the 'compass rose'. I would think something like 'Er... 180 is south, 270 is west, so it's in between there somewhere, er... so I am somewhere... THERE' I would also look at the compass rose (or whatever you call that) of the VOR gauge or heading indicator: I'd look where 234 was, look where 360 was and then I would have turn the compass rose in my head so that 360 would show north and I would know where I was when looking at a map.

 

Er... I don't think that explained it well, did it? LOL

 

Simply put: I didn't know yet automatically, without having to use tricks, where a specific radial was. As I said I don't look at that print that often anymore, but still it sometimes helps me to see where I am when looking at a map (not the ingame one of course). I can SEE the radial I am on and I can SEE the radial I want to be on and that paints a perfect picture for me.

 

LOL If I talk too much it usually is because English isn't my native language and I have no idea how to put it short. (Although... scrap that: I think I also talk too much on Dutch forums, haha... )

 

Jereon, just to add to the confusion - true north is straight up and down on the map. Magnetic north - the one that all of the instruments and beacons work off - is not. It's rotated about 9.5° clockwise at Hawaii, so true north is about 350.5° magnetic. I hate to have to throw that one in as well.

 

No problem. I knew about true and magnetic north but I always work with and think about 'magnetic north', really. As long as I can get somewhere using VOR I don't care too much about that deviation (if that's the right word).

No problem. I knew about true and magnetic north but I always work with and think about 'magnetic north', really. As long as I can get somewhere using VOR I don't care too much about that deviation (if that's the right word).

 

But, never forget... "The Weather man allways says the TRUE!..." ;-) A very useful mnemonic... although we all know that outside of wind reporting for an aerodrome, this is really not the case... poor guys...

"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." He clearly is using the VOR as if it's an ILS and THAT is not the case.

 

 

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!

 

Landing guidance... aha. When you say "landing guidance" what you are referring to is the (roughly) 3° approach slope (or descent angle) to the runway that the glideslope portion of the ILS establishes you on. Well... thing is... you have to "land on visuals" with either approach... and I think this is the source of our different perspectives here.

 

To me... I look at a precision approach and non-precision approach as very much the same thing. Both are taking me from a final approach altitude to a minimum altitude that I may descend to without any visual reference to the runway. When I reach DH (Decision Height for the ILS) or MDA (Minimum Descent Altitude - Non-Precision Approach)... I MUST be able to satisfy the 3 requirements of 91.175{c}{3} (U.S.) if I wish to continue my descent to landing:

• In a position to make a normal descent to landing (rate of descent and maneuvering-wise)
  
• Flight Visibility is at or above the visibility required for that approach
  
• At least one visual reference to the runway (and there is a list of qualifying items e.g. threshold lights)
  

A nice feature of the ILS is that it helps to satisfy requirement one (In a position to make a normal descent to landing) as you are on (typically) a 3° approach slope in a stabilized configuration (power setting etc...)

 

I even said the VOR is needed to approach the airport and that you have to land on visuals which you acknowledge by pointing at that big V.

 

Here again... I look at it as land on visuals with both... it is just with the VOR Approach (in this example) once at the FAF, I can descend at whatever rate I desire... But... I should arrive at MDA well before the MAP. The VDP gives me a point where I should begin my descent again (to landing - assuming the 3 requirements of 91.175{c}{3} are met)... waiting until the VDP to descend puts me back on that nice, "stabilized" 3° approach slope to the runway.

 

Btw... one needs DME to ID these VDPs and (of course) not all GA aircraft are equipped with DME. Afaik, VDPs are not "regulatory" in nature for non-commercial operations... once you meet 91.175, you can begin descent to landing when you wish... before or after the VDP if the pilot chooses to do so.

 

Whether an ILS or VOR / non-precision approach... One must strictly adhere to the approach chart... so I am not sure why InboundFour953 thought the VOR provides vertical guidance or is something to "aim for"... InboundFour953... why did you think this? Maybe all this technobabble about ILS Approaches and seemed VORs should be included this way too? Not that it's a big deal... just want to make sure you get it sorted.

 

LOL Of course I know about VOR approaches:

 

Sorry about that, but... when I saw the "Don't use the VOR to land!" and the "land on visuals" part... well... my eyes get real big and I do a Scooby-Doo "huuuuhhhh?"

"Whether an ILS or VOR / non-precision approach... One must strictly adhere to the approach chart... so I am not sure why InboundFour953 thought the VOR provides vertical guidance or is something to "aim for"... InboundFour953... why did you think this? Maybe all this technobabble about ILS Approaches and seemed VORs should be included this way too? Not that it's a big deal... just want to make sure you get it sorted."

 

 

I'm new to this game, and am happy to get this far, with the help of the input of you all.

I aimed for it because I'm in a learning curve: what to do, what not to do.

i'm happy as a pig in S### to be able to loosely follow what is being posted.

i will learn, i will get better.

Thank you for all your help.

Pretty soon i'll be talking S### like you guys. :)

Nice post Inbound :good: & :clapping: & :drinks:

 

"i will learn, i will get better." us too... always something to learn and improve on... no chance of being bored.

 

I am excited about... well... I recently got a book on loan from a library outside my state... F.E. Potts' "Guide to Bush Flying" (in "preparation" for the Alaska scenery). I would have purchased it, but out of print and if you go to Amazon.com and search for a used copy... you will see why I am borrowing it.

Well... thing is... you have to "land on visuals" with either approach... and I think this is the source of our different perspectives here.

 

Ah, ok, I see your point. Well, I think we do agree on it all but I just have problems finding the right words/terms/descriptions for things. ILS approaches are more precise and VOR approaches are less precise. Obviously. An ILS will guide you more then a VOR approach. An ILS approach always brings you on the right runway course while a VOR approach doesn't do that necessarily (it does quite often but not always). Et cetera.

 

I have to add though that up to now I regarded ILS approaches as approaches that would lead you to the treshold no matter what: I understand now that even an ILS approach ends with 'visuals'. So I have learned something again. I can see that now on the charts too: I had the idea the side view on ILS charts showed the flight path all the way to the treshold (while you can clearly see the path (usually) level off on VOR aproach charts), but now I do see it is the ILS arrow that ends at the treshold while the flight path ends where it shows the go around arrow (or whatever you call that).

 

I love it when I've learned something new again.

 

About "One must strictly adhere to the approach chart": I wonder if InboundFour953 actually uses charts? It could well be that he simply thought that a VOR could be used in the same way as an ILS when it comes to guidance to the runway and that's it. He simply aimed at the VOR thinking it would bring him to the treshold. But I think by now the difference between a VOR and an ILS is a bit more clear.

Real quick, I'm at work.

The only chart I use is the maps at MSF.

At Hilo, I have used ILS to land,adding the the length of the runway to know where to hit . And I do mean hit .:)

Oh, ok, so it's alright to look up when touching down. -visual-

Also, don't foget that contrarily to what most think, the LOC component antennas are installed on the opposite end of the rw, so, on a 03/21 the LOC antennas of ILS 03 will be at the departure end of rw 03...

 

It's not bad what we get here at wikipedia

For the "Southward of Civilization" aerocache, the numbers 180 and 262 may be of interest (or something close to that anyway, as I didn't verify them until after passing through the cache).

 

I had actually guessed at the 180 and 260 radials, so was pleasantly surprised.