VOR and reverse sensing

Some one please give me an "Amen!" if they feel as I do

Most of the VOR terminology mentioned in this thread is correct, but that
doesn't make it useful for a beginner.

Yes, if I'm SE of the station with a heading of 300, an OBS setting of 300,
and a TO indication, I am indeed on the 120 degree radial. This is the
"technically correct" way to describe the situation, and when our friend
starts doing IFR stuff, it is also the more intuitive in respect to doing
holds.

But he isn't doing holds, he's navigating, and is probably a student pilot
who is just getting into cross-country stuff. It is FAR more intuitive for
him to think in terms of being on an imaginary extension of the 300 degree
radial. And that too is overcomplicating it. What is wrong with percieving
radials as going through a station instead of as spokes on a wheel? When I
was learning thats how I did it, and all VOR tasks seemed simpler that way,
ESPECIALLY reverse sensing, which is easy to explain if you draw a radial on
paper that extends through the station.

Now I'm learning IFR stuff. Even though the way I thought of VORs wasn't the
official way, it was the way that gave me a thorough understanding of how to
use them for all tasks. This understanding made it easier to transition to
the more accepted way of describing radials, which admittedly makes more
sense for some IFR tasks, like holds fort instance.

Can I get an Amen?

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 01:04:26 GMT, "Dan Moos"
wrote:

Some one please give me an "Amen!" if they feel as I do

Most of the VOR terminology mentioned in this thread is correct, but that
doesn't make it useful for a beginner.

You can't have one from me.

Learn and use a VOR the way it was designed: as an instrument which
tells you your *position*, *not* your course line, and you'll never
have a problem with reverse sensing.

What is wrong with percieving
radials as going through a station instead of as spokes on a wheel?

If you do it that way, you're not perceiving radials, you're
perceiving lines. If you want to follow an arrow to your course, use
an ADF. VOR's are better for position detection.

Rob

"Robert Perkins" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 01:04:26 GMT, "Dan Moos"
wrote:

Some one please give me an "Amen!" if they feel as I do

Most of the VOR terminology mentioned in this thread is correct, but that
doesn't make it useful for a beginner.

You can't have one from me.

Learn and use a VOR the way it was designed: as an instrument which
tells you your *position*, *not* your course line, and you'll never
have a problem with reverse sensing.


Yes, and no. First of all, my method doesn't disagree with what you say.
Nothing I wrote suggests that I know which way the plane is pointing by
looking at a snapshot of the CDI needle. Because it doesn't.

BUT, if I have 300 degrees dialed in to the OBS and keep the needle centered
for a few minutes or more, I think the VOR is great for giving you a course
line. Thats why it is the primary instrument for IFR navigation. Of course,
you need to use other instruments to establish yourself on that course line,
and until you do, it is true that the VOR only gives you your position. And
as far as describing your position to someonelse (ATC maybe), your method
is much more proper. That is why when ATC says "Hold southeast of HUH on the
120 degree radial", it makes sense.

If you do it that way, you're not perceiving radials, you're
perceiving lines.

Precisely. Most people understand lines, whereas radials require some
simplification. Really the only difference in doing it my way is that I
don't have to deal with reciprical values. I get the same results as your
method. I have NEVER misinterpreted a VOR reading, and personally think it
is the way of describing radials that is is taght in most places that is
responsible for confusing people about a simple instrument.

If you want to follow an arrow to your course, use
an ADF. VOR's are better for position detection.


My method works equally on ADF. I just think of an ADF as a VOR that
requires me to read my compass or DG to get what I need. You CAN follows
"radials" on an ADF this way, and my imaginary line through the NDB method
is especialy usefull here because there is enough calculation going on in
your head to follow a specific course line with the ADF that you don't need
weird reciprical course values to muddle things up.

Actually, I think a VOR is a FAR superior course following instrument then
an ADF. Look at it this way. I'm enroute IFR to the IAF. Lets first suggest
that the IAF in this case is an NDB. I'm enroute, and I lose my directional
gyro. lets also say that turbulence isa makeing the mag compass unreadable.
At this point I have no concrete idea What my course line is. What is the
wind doing? Who knows, because to use the ADF for COURSE information, I need
to also know my actual heading. No DG or compass, and the wind could
eventually make my track WAY of line. And if I'm aproaching the IAF, I'll be
maybe 1000 feet or less above pattern altitude when I get there, not good if
I have no real idea from which direction I'm approaching the station.

Do the same exercise whith the VOR. No problem, because the VOR is giving
you constant COURSE information. If the wind screws with you, you will see
it.

Here lies the main problem. If you truly believe that the VOR gives you no
course line info, then your way of thinking has caused you to not really
understand the instrument.

Learn and use a VOR the way it was designed: as an instrument which
tells you your *position*, *not* your course line, and you'll never
have a problem with reverse sensing.

No, with one exception, it does not tell you your position. That single
exception is when you overfly the antenna. Then, you may presume the antenna
is some altitude dependent radius from the nadir. Otherwise, the only thing
the VOR will tell you is BEARING from the station.