My VOR tutorials: additional information

[Guest]

I posted two tutorials about how to use the VOR the way it was intended when they were invented... which is something else than the way they are usually used...! I got some reactions to that and I notice I need to make two things a bit more clear.The tutorials can be found here:http://forum.avsim.n...way-using-vors/http://forum.avsim.n...d-the-easy-way/First of all a 'disclaimer'. I never really understood how to use VORs the way everyone is using them. So I am no expert. The tutorials I posted are based on what I learned THIS week and it uses a completely different method than the common used one. The fact that I feel confident enough to post tutorials and this new topic about it proves imho that this 'new' method (which is in fact the original one!) is SIMPLE. A lot simpler then the usual VOR method.If you don't want to read this complete post, only read the bold lines.. but beware, I found out that people who are used to the common VOR method have a hard time really getting it! :wink:Ok, what I need to make clear is this:1. Forget everything you have learned about using VORs!2. The needle NEVER EVER tells you to go left or right. Looking at the reactions I've got point 2 is the most important one. To make sure you understand what point 2 means: I could also say 'you never simply fly left when the needle goes left or the other way around'. The VOR gauge is not a command instrument you simply follow, it is an instrument that needs to be read. I notice that people try to apply their current knowledge about VORs on my tutorial and that won't work. As said in point 1: you need to forget everything you've learned about VORs so also everything about reciprocal radials and reverse sensing. The funny thing is that as soon as people do that, things become COMPLICATED... while the method I used is meant to make VORs SIMPLE! :wink:With the usual method of using VORs you get a set of rules but... you also get a set of exceptions. And those exceptions makes the use of VORs complicated for people who are new to it.The common rule is that when the needle goes left, you go left and when the needle goes right, you go right. Sounds simple. But all that simplicity is out of the window when 'reverse sensing' is introduced.Another confusing thing is that you can't fly TO a certain radial (which is nonsense, really): you have to set the OBS to the reciprocal radial. Again something that makes it all complicated.When you throw in the TO FROM indicator and combine it with reverse sensing and reciprocals... you can bet newbies (and some oldies too) will make big mistakes.Now with the method I used you only get two rules and there are no exceptions. These two rules ALWAYS apply. And when you forget about the usual VOR method and only apply these two rules, you will get anywhere you want to without mistakes and without having to do maths or having to twist the OBS know a few times!The rules are:1. The needle always points to the headings (hemisphere of headings: half of the VOR gauge, left or right) you need to fly towards.2. The TO FROM indicator always points towards the headings (hemisphere of headings: half of the VOR gauge, top or bottom) where the VOR station is.(Obviously, but I'll add it anyway, these rules of course only apply when you have set the radial you want to work with. )The needle does NOT indicate if you have to fly left or right but it points towards the possible headings (with a maximum of 180) you need to fly to get where you want to. This totally gets rid of the 'reverse sensing'. I was told that my tutorial of intercepting a radial uses reverse sensing anyway but reverse sensing is ONLY possible when you think of the needle as a command instrument that tells you to go left or right...! But this method doesn't look at the needle that way. The needle points at possible headings, period!Take the first example. I set the OBS to the 90 radial. After intercepting the radial I want to fly towards the station. I look at the TO FROM indicator and see that I need to fly a heading of 270 (and not 90). Now imagine I wander a bit offline and see the needle move. Using the usual method I would FIRST have to check where the TO FROM arrow is pointing and then I would OR follow the needle (going left when the needle goes left and the other way around) or I would have to use reverse sensing (going right when the needle goes left or the other way around). One rule but two options. But with this new method I do NOT follow the needle left or right. As rule 1 says the needle always points towards the headings that take me back to my course so... when I wander off I look at the headings the needle points towards and fly THAT way to correct my course. This rule ALWAYS works and never has to be turned around. No matter if you fly to or from the station, no matter if you entered the radial you are working with or (for some reason) the reciprocal radial. Whatever you do... IT WORKS according to the two very simple to understand rules.Mind you, this method needs a huge change of mind for those who have been using the common method! But when you grasp it, you will see it's easy and also less time consuming. No need to touch the OSB knob a few times, no need to figure out if you should use reverse sensing or reciprocals... Just READ the gauge and fly. Easy as that.This method is so easy to grasp that I honestly don't understand why people are still tought the common method... I'd almost call it a disgrace. :wink:Well, that's it. Again, I am new to all this myself, but since I found out it WORKS, I decided to post those tutorials, specially for those who can't grasp the common VOR method but also for those who are used to it but who would like to use an easier method.

[RoboRay 126]

I just wanted you to know that I read that using the Sham-WOW guy voice in my head and it was great.

[Guest]

I just wanted you to know that I read that using the Sham-WOW guy voice in my head and it was great.

Er... I am afraid I haven't got a clue what you are trying to say, haha!

[dburne 2]

Hey Jeroen,First off I want to thank you very much, for taking the time first to lean this method, and more importantly taking the time to put it together in a tuturial to share and post here for others benefit. That is one of the things that makes these forums, and this fs community, so great. I have gained so much knowlege, from taking the time to read things like this, first with FSX and now with Flight.My hats off to you sir for doing this, and to everyone in the community that does the same! I truly appreciate the efforts all you guys do for folks like myself, the average flight simmer.Secondly, I am very excited about this. While I have logged several hundred hours in FSX, this topic is one thing I never bothered to take the time to learn. I moved on to IFR/ILS flying, learned it well, and all my hours of flight time in FSX consisted of just that. Now I have had a tremendous about of enjoyment from it, but this will greatly broaden my abilities. I briefly had checked out VOR flying in the learning center of FSX and for whatever reason at the time I did that I was just overwhelmed, and never went back to it.The reason I am excited now, it sounds like something I can now get into and learn, especially as it is so acclamated to flying in Flight. And the way it sounds, this method is simple and easy to learn. Now this aging flight simmer, likes things VERY MUCH kept simple. I am homebound the next several days, and plan to take the time to read up on your tuturials, and get proficient at VOR flying - FINALLY! And I figure since I am one that does not have to forget everything I have learned already about VOR flying, I will certainly be well positioned for a good start with this.Thanks again, I look forward to trying and learning this in the upcoming days... give me something to do to pass the time anyways.

[RoboRay 126]

Er... I am afraid I haven't got a clue what you are trying to say, haha!

Sorry, late-night American TV ad.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjqLwaSflgYGood info on VORs, though. I'm an old-school VOR user and am still trying to wrap my head around this.

[Guest]

LOL ShamWow... I suppose my posts are too long and too enthusiastic, haha!?! @Don: you're very welcome. I also never got into VORs but this method is easy. And not having any prior (incompatible) knowledge will sure make it even more easier to get into it. The only drawback is that there hardly is any information on the internet using this method... All online hints and tips use the 'complicated' method, which is a shame if you, like me, like to read more about it... Whenever you read something about VORs elsewhere, you will have to keep in mind they are talking about something really different. I mean, even the often referred to site http://www.navfltsm.addr.com/vor-nav.htm works with the common method and hence is useless for a large part when you want to dig deeper into it all.

[dburne 2]

 

Er... I am afraid I haven't got a clue what you are trying to say, haha!

Yeah, you have to have " been there". Lol, I thought everyone had seen those Sham-Wow commercials by now!Jeroen,Just curious, where did this method originate from?

[Guest]

Just curious, where did this method originate from?

Well, I personally got to know this method just a few days ago from a post from N6330V here:http://forum.avsim.n...ost__p__2296119He refers to a pdf and that pdf refers to this article:http://www.campbells...es/VOR/vor.htmlYou will discover that this method ins't a new trick but it's how VORs are supposed to be used...!Let me quote the history part of that link here, to make discussing it a bit simpler:

Pre-VOR navigation consisted of NDBs (radio compasses) and the low-frequency "AN" system. (...) The AN system was the primary means of radio navigation familiar to tens of thousands of pilots who returned from WWII. In the AN system, the pilot flies between pairs of directional radio transmitters, each modulated with a Morse code identifier. When the aircraft is on one side of the course, a Morse 'A' is heard; when the aircraft is on the other side of the course an 'N' is heard. When on course, the pilot hears only a steady tone. When directly over the station, no sound is heard ("the cone of silence").It's important to understand that the NDB and the AN system have an important characteristic in common--they are command instruments. That is, both instruments tell the pilot unambiguously whether to turn right or left to reach the desired course. This is an important point--this was the form of navigation most pilots were familiar with. Their expectations and training apparently shaped the way in which the new VOR technology was presented to the pilot population.From the technical information available, it's pretty clear that the VOR was originally intended to be interpreted in the way I've just described (EDIT Which is the method I used in my tutorials). During certification testing in the late forties and early fifties, however, officials observed that pilots, many of whom were familiar with the AN and NDB systems, tended always to turn toward the needle, regardless of the SHI. Exactly half the time thus flying the VOR as a command instrument--that is, turning left or right toward the CDI without regard to the SHI--sends the aircraft off in the wrong direction.Concerned about the safety of the system, the CAA (the predecessor of the FAA) decided that new procedures would have to be developed to accomodate pilots' insistence on flying the VOR receiver as a command instrument. The word STATION between the two flags was replaced with the words TO and FROM inscribed below the individual arrows. Many Cessna instruments (and doubtless others) are labeled this way. In later designs, the words TO and FROM replace the arrows. In some instruments, a single flag flips to display either TO or FROM.Changing the names alone did not solve the problem of pilot misinterpretation because pilots apparently took the names TO and FROM literally. As one might predict, pilots were uncomfortable flying toward the station on a heading that falls in the FROM half of the OBS. This infelicity was "corrected" by a simple procedure change: when flying to the station, the OBS is tuned to the reciprocal of the desired radial. In this way, the headings to the station always lie at the top of the OBS and on the side of the CDI. No such rule exists when flying away from the station--the OBS is remains tuned to the desired radial. This view of the VOR as a command instrument persists to this day.

Another interesting quote which shows this method is in fact easier:

In fact, I believe the SHI method (EDIT Which is Campbell's name for the method used in the tutorial) is easier to learn because there are no reverse tuning rules to master. To prove this hypothesis, I used my son Ben (age 28) as a guinea pig. While he was obtaining his Private certificate, I asked him to ignore all instruction on VOR navigation and learn the SHI method instead. Not only did he correctly answer all the questions on his written exam, his ability to instantly solve complicated navigation and position problems greatly vexed his instructors and the examiner on his check ride. (To their credit, no one failed him just because they didn't understand his methodology.)

[dburne 2]

Well, I personally got to know this method just a few days ago from a post from N6330V here:

Good info, thanks.

[Brett_Henderson 5]

Firstly. I too want to thank you for your time and enthusiasm (why I responded by PM, instead of arguing with you about your tutorial, like a grumpy nay-sayer :) )Again, in the sprit of being positive and wanting to encourge you, and not lecture you.. I'll just quantify it like this:Your method kinda takes the edge off learning VOR fundementals (it can be very difficult to grasp), but only as it applies to a very simple application. If you get into realistic, complex VOR navigation (ie.. flying to/from a set of VOR radial intersections).. trying to keep track of which CDI is reverse-sensing, and which is not, is an un-needed variable, in a busy, IMC cockpit...Now, using the CDI as something other than what it is (ignoring reverse indications in favor of 1/2 the compass heading references), and treating the TO/FROM flag as something other than TO=up, FROM=down; takes away much of what the CDI and Flag can tell you. And putting completey aside, the purpose of the reference marks between, centered, and fully deflected (good homework); and putting completely aside using the OBS and TO/FROM flag to determine the radial you're currently on (gives you a much better intercetp reference than 1/2 or 1/4 the the possible headings), and putting aside using the OBS pre interception to gauge not only your progress, but a feel for any wind you're dealing with... Your method can become problematic for flying IMC and executing published VOR approaches, or even following ATC instructions, and position reporting.In summary.. you're sorta simplifying a simple task at the cost of complicating other, more utile tasks.

[Guest]

Thanks for your input, Brett! Much appreciated! As said I am new to all this and apart from the fact that I find this 'new' method easier to understand, I simply relied on what the author of the article said: that this method is easier and, quite important, quicker (if that's how you say it in English) to use too (meaning it takes less time to set things up and to figure things out).The problem is of course that I can't really compare both methods because I never understood the usual one... However, I just did a flight using a set of VOR intersections and landed succesfully on an airport without a VOR... and I think that's quite something when you consider I only heard about this method five days ago! You say yourself the fundamentals of VOR are difficult to grasp and so I wonder (but really don't know!!!) if someone who has started to learn using VOR the usual way would also be able to fly using a set of radial intersections. :wink:BTW You say that "trying to keep track of which CDI is reverse-sensing, and which is not, is an un-needed variable, in a busy, IMC cockpit" but as I said, there is no reverse-sensing in this method. That alone makes this 'new' method more simple imho. And as far as I can tell this method is so great because it does make things more simple in a busy IMC cockpit, and not more complicated.Again, I am new to all this and the article from Joe Campbell ends with a few examples I don't quite understand yet, haha, but the things I do understand enabled me to get anywhere using VORs as I described in my tutorials and I am pretty excited about that. For everything else I have to trust Campbell's judgement on this all, who says this method is easier to use in all situations because it simple requires (my words) less thinking and less OBS knob twitching. I am no expert and I am certainly not saying I know it better! But I do like to discuss about it and learn more!BTW Knowing which radial you are on or flying direct to a VOR work the same in both methods. It's of course not prohibited to figure out the radial you are on, but it's not mandatory either.On another forum someone said, after some discussion, he noticed this 'new' method does indeed work but because he is used to the 'old' way, he is still wondering why the heck it works like it does. I think that for people who are new to VORs this 'new' method simply is easier to understand?

[Brett_Henderson 5]

Fair enough :) ... But just to let you know, you already understand VOR navigation pretty darn well.. pretty much self-taught.. and grasp the big picture better than many real pilots I've come across.. As you dive deeper into it, and execute more and more of it.. dollars to donuts says you'll transition your methedology to more traditional, probably not even realizing it.. especially as you get into things like VOR approaches, and flying VOR-based holds...I've presided over countless, instrument ground school classes (been flying since 1979, instrument/commercial rated since 2005, active CFI from 2006-2009).. and would be delighted to have a handful of "yous" in a class :)

[Brett_Henderson 5]

Just for fun.. consider your other tutorial (flying to a VOR intersection).For the sake of pointing out the tools at hand.. I'll pretend I have no idea where I am..Firstly, tune both VORs in and then spin the OBS's until both needles center with TO (arrow up) indication. This not only tells me exactly where I am (we know that a 'TO' indication means the actual radial is the reciprocal); it lets me decide the boolean TO/FROM combination (TO/TO TO/FROM FROM/TO FROM/FROM), IOW, am I inside, or outside of the "cone" made up of the radials "from" the destination , in terms of heading needed to fly efficiently to the intersection (airport in this case).Now we see the invaluable, subconscious math used when noting the amount of deflection per change in selected radial (that homework), because a CDI is not supposed to just point at 1/2 the compass.. the amount of deflection, and rate of deflection change per OBS movement, is a volume of useful information, even a sort of DME within a certain distance. By periodically checking each VOR, you can get a more direct course (based on an estimation per your initial position check), as opposed to flying all the way into one side of the "cone" and following that radial (this is where a consistent, methodical use of the CDI comes in, ala no reverse sensing).. I promise you that you'll forget, or be at least momentarialy confused, trying to remember which VOR CDI is reversed, or even which is which.. lol ... while trying to maintain an efficient course, constantly checking each VOR by OBS adjustment..Ideally, you'll see both CDIs center at once.. because of the intimate understanding of the winds you gained by en-route position checking.. :)ANYway.. yes, this requires more mental effort than your method, but only for simpler tasks (or if you don't mind flying much further than needed.. boucing around inside the "cone".. or don't mind an inneficient course TO the cone.. One step forward becomes two steps backward..

[LHookins 3,107]

I'm not sure why, but I can't read this without my eyes glazing over. It's not that you guys aren't good writers, it's just that what you're describing seems a lot more complicated than what I do in the simulated cockpit.I read a story recently by a guy who complained that the whole instrument training course only taught him to pass the instrument checkride; it didn't teach him anything about real world navigation. He had to figure that out on his own. I had to figure it out the same way myself in FSX.In my case, I'm normally flying either TO a vor or FROM one, and as long as the to/from indicator is pointing in the right direction I use the needle as I would the white line in the center of a road. If I'm flying to a postion where I'll be intercepting a VOR radial, I set the to/from according to whether I'll be flying to the VOR when I intercept it or away from it, and the needle is used the same way. The only case where I have to use reverse sensing is if I'm landing at a runway using the ILS for the opposite end of the runway.Are there other cases that don't fit into the above description?I suspect that learning this with the HSI rather than the older gauges made it a lot easier for me to understand, and a lot of the confusion comes from the difficulties of figuring out what the older gauges are telling you. I don't have a problem translating what I learned from the HSI to the older gauges.Hook

[Guest]

and would be delighted to have a handful of "yous" in a class :)

Well, thank you! :wink:Now let me post the first things that springs to mind when I read your example! (I say 'springs to mind' because I can't fall back on too much knowledge and what I say is my first reaction, which may be wrong, haha!) Oh and btw thanks for taking the time to help me understand it all better and feel free to not spend too much or any time in this er... free class! ^_^

Firstly, tune both VORs in and then spin the OBS's until both needles center with TO (arrow up) indication. This not only tells me exactly where I am (we know that a 'TO' indication means the actual radial is the reciprocal); it lets me decide the boolean TO/FROM combination (TO/TO TO/FROM FROM/TO FROM/FROM), IOW, am I inside, or outside of the "cone" made up of the radials "from" the destination , in terms of heading needed to fly efficiently to the intersection (airport in this case).

With the SHI method (which stands for Station Heading Indicator and it is the name Campbell gave this method: up to now I called it the 'new' method or 'what I did' but that's not convenient, so for now I'll call it SHI!) TO and FROM are of no importance unless you really need to fly TO or FROM the station. In all other circumstances, like getting to an intersection, it doesn't matter which way the arrow points. I can simply see in a second which heading I need to fly to get into the cone without having to touch the OBS knob. In fact, as far as I know, there is no need to figure out where you are because the SHI method gets you there anyway. Afaik that is.

Now we see the invaluable, subconscious math used when noting the amount of deflection per change in selected radial (that homework), because a CDI is not supposed to just point at 1/2 the compass.. the amount of deflection, and rate of deflection change per OBS movement, is a volume of useful information, even a sort of DME within a certain distance. By periodically checking each VOR, you can get a more direct course (based on an estimation per your initial position check), as opposed to flying all the way into one side of the "cone" and following that radial (this is where a consistent, methodical use of the CDI comes in, ala no reverse sensing).. I promise you that you'll forget, or be at least momentarialy confused, trying to remember which VOR CDI is reversed, or even which is which.. lol ... while trying to maintain an efficient course, constantly checking each VOR by OBS adjustment..Ideally, you'll see both CDIs center at once.. because of the intimate understanding of the winds you gained by en-route position checking.. :)ANYway.. yes, this requires more mental effort than your method, but only for simpler tasks (or if you don't mind flying much further than needed.. boucing around inside the "cone".. or don't mind an inneficient course TO the cone.. One step forward becomes two steps backward..

Got it. Using HSI the way I do it let's me fly into the cone in a certain direction until I intercept a radial and from then I follow that one until the other needle start to center too and when it does, I know I have arrived. I understand that it would be more efficient to see the two needles center at the same time! I am sure there is a way of doing this better... but since I have no more information than one pdf and one article that explains the basic, I would have to figure this one out myself... I am at a disadvantage here, haha, because I can't fall back on years of experience (be it my own or from books/the internet). Still, I will think about it... Obviously knowing where you are and knowing where the VORs are located, would already give an indication of the heading directly towards the intersection... As I said it is not forbidden to turn the OBS knob to see in where the VORs are, but figuring out how to calculate the best heading towards the intersection in various conditions... makes my head ache. :wink:BTW There is no bouncing around inside the cone, not at all! I fly ONE heading until I intercept one radials, so yes, the distance to the target is longer then if I had a way of getting there with the two needles centering at once, but that's the only difference.BTW 2: You said "I promise you that you'll forget, or be at least momentarialy confused, trying to remember which VOR CDI is reversed, or even which is which": that is bound to happen with the SHI method, you mean? I doubt it because although I know where the word 'reversed' is coming from in this example, nothing is ever 'reversed' when you completely go for the SHI method and forget everything about the usual method.I would love to have some sort of challenge or lesson to see if I can get it done in MS Flight using the SHI method and to see if I do get confused...!!!

In my case, I'm normally flying either TO a vor or FROM one, and as long as the to/from indicator is pointing in the right direction I use the needle as I would the white line in the center of a road. If I'm flying to a postion where I'll be intercepting a VOR radial, I set the to/from according to whether I'll be flying to the VOR when I intercept it or away from it, and the needle is used the same way. The only case where I have to use reverse sensing is if I'm landing at a runway using the ILS for the opposite end of the runway.Are there other cases that don't fit into the above description?

First of all: as I virtual pilot I don't need this information at all. I can fly around, click on M and check the map to see where I am and where I should be heading, haha. Obviously this is not about doing this the easy way and yes, it is more complicated then what you do. But I just like to KNOW how this works. I like to learn. And since the usual way of using VOR doesn't work for me, I am glad I found another method that does. (BTW It could well be, as Brett already said, that what I learn using ths SHI method might help me understand the usual method better and who knows, one day I will be using that method without knowing it.)About other cases: for example, how do you fly to an intersection? Flying VOR to VOR is easy and you can get anywhere you want to, but that's even less efficient then the SHI method, hehe!