Paul Tomblin wrote:

In a previous article, said:
Paul Tomblin wrote:
That wasn't clear from your message. In any case, the VOR is 78 miles
Since the entire article was about using GPSes instead of VORs, I don't
see *how* you could get the impression that it had anything to do with
obstacle clearance. But to each his own.

Why the hostility?

Not hostility, just confusion. I didn't see any way you could have read
it the way you did, so I was wondering if there was something there in the
way I worded it that I missed.

I guess I am confused, too. When ATC clears you to a *VOR* that is not
possible to receive, terrain nothwithstanding, it is all about a clearance to
Aa VOR, not a GPS waypoint, and whether a VFR handheld can be used to navigate
to the VOR as a waypoint rather than as a VOR.

The entire system is full of confusion about the use of RNAV. As to the
terrain, I read into it "they are sending me towards higher terrain without a
vector." Had you stated that your concerns about the terrain was blocking of
VOR signal I would have understood.

In any case, the entire article was about VOR and GPS. ;-)