Is it common practice to use, say, a radial and distance from a VOR to position yourself for a 45 degree entry to a pattern?Thanks,Andrew

I often use navaids in FS whilst flying VFR to help me maintain situational awareness, as the visual cues in FS while flying VFR are not as good as IRL.If you've got them, there is no reason why you can't use navaids while flying VFR.Dan.

In real life I normally use sectional charts and airport diagrams to orient myself. The direction that I'm coming from determines my plan for entering the pattern. Once in the air step one is to pick out the airport visually and confirm my orientation to the pattern. Step two is enter the pattern based on my prior inspection of the charts, taking into account any variation in my planning position. While you certainly *can* use VORs VFR navigation is based on visual awareness of your position so that's the first thing I rely on.In FS you have the advantage of being able to pull up the map at any time to assess where you are. The map symbols show you runway orientation. Then all you need to do is spot the airport from 5-10 miles out and start your approach.There are a lot of real-world references that would probably be helpful to you. I don't have a list off hand but a search of forum threads for keywords like "pattern", "landing" and "training" should give you good results.

Thanks guys - Actually, I have two "real life" solos under my belt... my question isn't so much about the pattern itself, or entry, but whether navaids are commonly used by VFR pilots outside the airport's visual range in order to navigate to an entry position...For example, 12nm on the 200 degree radial of VOR (XYZ) - if you have a safe way of navigating toward that goal along the radial, it seems like it's sensible.That said, I'm primarily visualizing this from the approach to either of my local airports, where I'm already familiar with the landmarks. As I haven't done any cross-country yet, I'm not sure how this works out in unfamiliar terrain.Thanks,Andrew

>Is it common practice to use, say, a radial and distance from>a VOR to position yourself for a 45 degree entry to a>pattern?You could do that, assuming you're landing at an airport with a VOR. Most pilots just "eyeball" a rough 45 degree angle, though. It is important to note, however, that it's supposed to be a 45 degree angle from the approach end of the runway. Meaning your aiming point is the end of the runway, not the center of the runway or the middle of the airport. The VOR station you are tracking isn't likely to be actually on the runway ;) So you'd probably just use the VOR to get you close enough to the airport that you can see the approach end of the runway, and then you'd just eyeball your 45 degree angle. Edit:Of course, this assumes you're flying VFR. If you're flying IFR, then you'd follow whatever the published approach plate procedures are for the approach you're going to fly.ExpendableC172R/S APSEL (soon to be IFR student)http://visualflightrules.com/images/vfrSig.gif

Hi Expendable - "You could do that, assuming you're landing at an airport with a VOR."Why does the VOR have to be at the airport?In fact, it's quite likely it isn't; what I'm saying - given 12.4 miles to XXX VOR on the 200 radial is the 45 entry point for RWY XX, then why not use that point as the point to which you navigate to enter the pattern?This, assuming you're going for a 45 entry. I've just eyeballed it, but never used it as an approach point from any distance.BTW, I've never entered the pattern using the runway end as the target point! Interesting! I always went for the runway centerpoint, both as the 45 target and (when downwind) as the point I pulled the throttle back to 1800 from 2200.Hm...I think the reason is that we used the threshold as the signal point for the first flaps, and if you arrive, essentially, at that point and turn into downwind, you're activating the flaps during a transient maneuver?...Not sure, I haven't been at it for a few years. Am I remembering this right? ;)Andrew

>In fact, it's quite likely it isn't; what I'm saying - given>12.4 miles to XXX VOR on the 200 radial is the 45 entry point>for RWY XX, then why not use that point as the point to which>you navigate to enter the pattern?Ah, gotcha. I thought you wanted to track a VOR on the same radial all they way into the airport while staying on the 45. Yep, there's no reason you couldn't use a VOR (or even better, 2 VOR's!) to get you to a specific point that you want to use as the starting point for the 45. >I think the reason is that we used the threshold as the signal>point for the first flaps, and if you arrive, essentially, at>that point and turn into downwind, you're activating the flaps>during a transient maneuver?...No, I still enter the downwind at midfield. In other words, the imaginary 45 degree line I'm flying extends all the way to the end of the runway, but I stop following it when I reach the pattern. I turn onto the downwind at roughly midfield. I think it'll vary slightly depending on the length of the runway, though. If I aimed for the center of the runway, then I'm more likely to enter the downwind near the departure end of the runway -- which is not necessarily a bad thing.>Not sure, I haven't been at it for a few years. Am I>remembering this right? ;)Well, it's the way I was taught by my instructor and the King Schools/Cessna Private Pilot multimedia ground training kit... But that doesn't mean it's the only way. We probably both end up with the same end result, just taught a little bit differently.

>account any variation in my planning position. While you>certainly *can* use VORs VFR navigation is based on visual>awareness of your position so that's the first thing I rely>on.>I find it very difficult to navigate in FS relaying only onvisual awareness. Is FS lacking in realism here?My impression of using FS is that using VOR or GPS makesnavigation much easier and that there are no reason to relaypurely on visual guidence. Has FS given me false ideas regarding this?

Not necessarily. The sim might be a little more realistic than you think... Flying in real life using pilotage (using outside references to determine position) is not always easy, especially when you're flying in unfamiliar territory. I know I've gotten myself "lost" for a few minutes while I tried to figure out where I was on more than one occasion in my 200+ hours of real life flying. Also, it will be harder to figure out where you are if you are at a lower altitude. If you get lost, you can always climb so you can see more landmarks further out. I believe that the USA Roads add-on (which I do not yet own) adds a lot of realism to FS2004 by adding virtually every road in the country to the scenery. Makes it easier to follow along on a sectional chart while you're flying.

>Is it common practice to use, say, a radial and distance from>a VOR to position yourself for a 45 degree entry to a>pattern?>I do understand your question but I would say the answer is no, it is very uncommon.When you enter a pattern you should already have full airport in view (and 3 miles min VFR should be enough) so there shuld be plenty of visibility left for you to not having to depend on any VORs.Even in IFR flying when you are doing circling approach - when you enter the pattern you do everyting visually. Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

If so why then flying VFR? From what I have understand GPS exist inalmost every plane nowdays. And why can't PPL pilot fly in restricted visibility? Instruments makes it so easy compared to VFR?

>If so why then flying VFR? From what I have understand GPS>exist in>almost every plane nowdays. A lot of planes still don't have GPS, especially older aircraft. And there are far more older aircraft than newer aircraft. The older ones that do have GPS usually have hand-held types and not panel-mounted. But to tell you the truth, I usually do use a GPS when flying to airport, but mainly so I can give accurate position reports. I just eyeball my 45 pattern entry.>And why can't PPL pilot fly in>restricted visibility? Instruments makes it so easy compared>to VFR?An excellent question. Flying in instrument conditions is extremely dangerous to somebody who is not instrument rated because of spatial disorientation. This sentence sums it up...Without training and experience in flying by instruments alone (no visual horizon), VFR pilots can suffer from vertigo, motion sickness, fatigue, poor hand-eye coordination (flight controls), impaired judgment and panic. VFR pilots who fly into these conditions literally place the life of themselves and their passengers into their hands.- Steven V. GilbertThis is from an abstract about the death of J. F. Kennedy, Jr due to spatial disorientation.http://members.aol.com/SVG2253/VFR.htmHere's a quote from an article by Paula Gibbs that has a pretty good explanation as to how one gets into spatial disorientation:What can happen in this situation is pilots suffer from spatial disorientation. This can be traced to the inner ear, which is the key to our ability to balance, and to remain oriented in space in a plane. ... A pamphlet distributed by the FAA says, ``the problem occurs when the outside visual input is obscured. Fluid in the inner ear reacts only to rate of change, not a sustained change. For example, when you start a banking left turn, your inner ear will detect the roll into the turn, but if you hold the turn constant, your inner ear will compensate and rather quickly, although inaccurately, sense that it has returned to level flight.'' ``As a result, when you finally level the wings, that new change will cause your inner ear to produce signals that make you believe you're banking to the right. This is the crux of the problem you have when flying without instruments in low visibility weather. ``Even the best of pilots will quickly become disoriented if they attempt to fly without instruments when there are no outside visual references. That's because vision provides the predominant and coordinating sense we rely upon for stability.'' http://wiscassetnewspaper.maine.com/1999-0...rientation.htmlBy the way, spatial disorientation can not be simulated in a flight simulator unless it is a full motion simulator!

>>By the way, spatial disorientation can not be simulated in a>flight simulator unless it is a full motion simulator!>>I once tried an FAA vertigo simulator. It was a real looking single engine jet fighter style cockpit. But with a four knob transponder located "very" low in the center. The "controller" had you begin a climbing turn, and then at somepoint they got you to take your eye off the attitude indicator to change squawk code on the transponder.The end result is that you "swear" you're turning when they suddenly open the blacked out canopy & you're sitting absolutely motionless.Quite effective!!!L.Adamson

I agree with Michael.One thing I do though is when getting close set my hsi to point the landing runway direction. This way I have a situational awareness of how I relate to the runway even if difficult to see. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

"One thing I do though is when getting close set my hsi to point the landing runway direction. This way I have a situational awareness of how I relate to the runway even if difficult to see."I may set the heading bug if I'm not flying something with an HSI (in FS...) and the 172 I was training in didn't have either!Still, I think I'm going to try this out. The only question, really, is how to determine where these 45 points are.It's not something that's supposed to take the place of seeing the airport - just an off-airport "target" to use as a reference when you're well beyond the range of the airport.For that matter, though, since I've only flown VFR, we generally used rivers and roads and so forth, but didn't fly to too many unfamiliar airports.