How do i fly a radial to / from VOR?

[AKar]

You'd be blown away at how little instrumentation is required for IFR flight.

Not really blown away .. all kinds of unnecessary stuff is listed there already! Who needs attitude indicator anyway. Anyways, it is the definition of "navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown" is what I'm wondering.

There's a couple considerations. As Cody posted, you need navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown. That doesn't seem to be a great concern since you are so close to the SSR VOR and those two fixes very close off the VOR. A KNS80 would make that simple, particularly if the legs were longer, as that was one of its functions. That seems to be the real question here i.e. "how far off-airway am I allowed to navigate with just a VOR & DME". I don't really have a precise answer atm.

That looks like a cool piece of equipment, that KLN80. Never seen one, but likely was handy before GPS things came available.

And yes, that's kind of what I wonder: while the two waypoints are definable by VOR/DME, the leg in between them is not. In my example it is very short, but if we extend that arbitrarily, our navigation performance starts to depend on stuff our navigation instruments can't readily display. We'd likely have to pre-calculate several DME distances at different radial crossings over the leg, even though the navigation performance requirements for VOR flying are quite loose as far as I recall. It would be nice exercise when planned beforehand, but then we should also be able to revise and commit to such a plan inflight - likely not doable by most of us without navigator onboard! At some point the cryogenic chambers where the aviation inspectors are stored must start hissing and flicker their lights if we push our plans enough.

-Esa

[Great Ozzie]

That looks like a cool piece of equipment, that KLN80. Never seen one, but likely was handy before GPS things came available.

Great piece of equipment that. And not many approaches left that use it. KBRO has one - the "VOR/DME RNAV or GPS RWY 35".

At some point the cryogenic chambers where the aviation inspectors are stored must start hissing and flicker their lights if we push our plans enough.

That - or one has some sort of incident... and ATC is wondering why you are not "on course," instead are straying some miles from your clearance.

even though the navigation performance requirements for VOR flying are quite loose as far as I recall.

4 nm either side of the centerline, but the expectation is to make turns early to stay on the course centerline.

[janice]

Hi Cody - than worked. Needle centered at 11.9 and 259 degrees right at 2500'.

J.

[janice]

Hi Cody - (not sure what happen to my post - sorry if this is a repeat). Found it flying 6 degrees. Needle centred at 259 and 11.9 at 2500 feet. Wouldn't want to land there is a stiff breeze. You might like to visit CYGB (Gillies Bay) and CAH3 (Courtenay Airfield).

J.

[William Hughes]

There are various minimum altitudes that apply when off airway. An approach chart near your airport will provide 25 mile minimum altitudes for various sectors. There is also the 100 mile minimum altitude. The IFR low charts will have minimum altitudes for sectors.

You can fly an IFR flight plan in uncontrolled airspace and this is routine practice. Yes, you can file IFR flight plans with only a VOR, DME, and ADF, but this depends upon the weather along your route, destination, alternate, and the status of the ground based beacons. You need to have enough radio navigation to complete an approach, a missed approach, and an approach at your alternate, even if one of the pieces of equipment fails.

But the regulations are written deliberately vague since equipment changes so fast. Reasonable person test applies. Do you have enough equipment so that you can find your destination or alternate and land there, even if one of your pieces fails? Remember that the ground based equipment can and does fail at random (lightning strikes.)

With an ADF and a VOR you could file to a destination with only a non-precision ADF approach, but your alternate must have an approach that could be performed with an VOR/DME/ILS system.

You can take off from an uncontrolled aerodrome, fly through uncontrolled airspace, use dead reckoning to intercept a VOR radial that passes over your destination uncontrolled aerodrome, and descend and land there. If the aerodrome has no published approach then the ceiling must allow you to pass into VFR conditions above the applicable minimum altitude. You'll be doing a lot of radio calls into the void on 126.7 while you do it, but it is a routine and common practice (depending on where you live, of course.) If your VOR gives out then you need to have a backup plan involving the ADF that allows you to find it.

[CodyValkyrie]

Hi Cody - (not sure what happen to my post - sorry if this is a repeat). Found it flying 6 degrees. Needle centred at 259 and 11.9 at 2500 feet. Wouldn't want to land there is a stiff breeze. You might like to visit CYGB (Gillies Bay) and CAH3 (Courtenay Airfield).

J.

Yeah, it's pretty tiny. Orbx did a rendition on it, if you're looking for something a bit nicer looking. I'll certainly check out the airports you mentioned. I just got back in Washington from a long flight out of California, so I'm back to exploring the Northwest again, my old stomping ground.

[FishermanIvan]

Unfortunately, GPS navigation is making VOR navigation entirely pedantic, and it seems less and less people know how to shoot ADF and VOR radials. It's a shame, because I find it not only more challenging and interesting, it also gives you a much better understanding of the fundamentals of geometry and how (and why) the navigation systems were set up in the first place.

In the real world, I'll take GPS any day. It's easily just as accurate, it's way more convenient, and with a program like ForeFlight (or even SkyVector) it's so easy to set up it's ridiculous. I was shooting VOR radials on my last flight, just for fun, and the only thing going through my head in a C172SP/G was "I'm so glad we barely use these things anymore". VORs are going the way of the NDB, and I'm happy to see it. GPS and RNAV/LPV is the way to go, IMO.

[AKar]

I don't know. At least in the sim, I think VOR/DMEs are still the easiest way to position myself "this much to that direction" literally on the fly. The GPS is somewhat awkward in that unless there happens to be a waypoint or some distinct terrain feature.

Personally I believe the current way of doing RNAV is already somewhat obsolete though. I believe a decade or two from now, the trend will be towards 'simulated' visual flight, or virtual reality, where the terrain, air spaces, procedures and so on are displayed in 3D view. Outside of certain terminal procedures, the flights are planned and executed in real time, with data links sharing the information in between the flights, about their movements and intentions. Especially more maneuverable airplanes could transition from rigid procedures into "free flight" and fly something close to regular visual patterns even in full instrument conditions.

It would likely look something like this.

-Esa

[Nick - A2A]

It would likely look something like this.

Yes, and I used the "visual flight path" feature in MSFS when I first started using it. Flying through those rectangles or 'telegraph poles' was much easier than trying to chase needles...

Nick

[AKar]

And these visual flight paths are already out there. The technology is here, but practicability for wide-spread use maybe is not.

The strangest thing to me is this: many old-school pilots oppose these developments. But seeing that the pilot is the very first element that is eventually deemed unnecessary, and very specifically in our "civilized world" where we do have the infrastructure to outsource him, all this return to data source fusion and to visual picture enables him to be the artist once again. I mean, who wouldn't beat an Apollo era computer like that FMC if one had a complete picture represented clearly to him regardless of the conditions!

But why don't any of the navigation solutions I know offer any virtual VOR display? I mean: this direction and this far from, say, this arbitrary point! If I want to navigate by that, why I must still use the radio navs if I want to be quick and select on the fly.

Oh well, maybe that's why I use my camera still in manual over aperture priority, which I use over any other modes there are typically!

-Esa

[William Hughes]

It is an interesting point. However, despite a GPS moving map being the most amazing and accurate situational awareness tool for IFR flight, I still keep the steam instruments TITed. Even when VFR flying I'll keep the old radio nav aids tuned to a nearby station and take a few moments to orient.

An emergency is unknowable. By definition we just don't know what will go wrong. So keeping all the systems in the aircraft working and ready and cross-checked against each other is good airmanship. If a gps or synthetic vision or a panel suddenly fails then the backup instruments are already tuned in and ready to go. Or vice versa for that matter.

Northern Canada still has ADB low altitude routes, they are usable, and they get used. Many small airfields use them as their sole means of approach guidance. I agree that space-based navigation is the way it is going to be, but we don't really know what that will ultimately look like.

Gotta say that synthetic vision is nice, though. I hope it looks like that. Definitely on the wish list!

[CodyValkyrie]

Couldn't agree more William. I used to fly in Alaska, and using an NDB was fairly commonplace. Even with the advent of these technologies, I always practiced keeping orientation through instruments, especially when flying with other pilots. Hell, many of them would want us to join them in a cockpit just for this reason, and to have a second set of eyes working the navigational radios just for this purpose.

[William Hughes]

I will admit that my NDB approaches are far more precise if I glance at the GPS every now and then...