VOR and reverse sensing

"Casey Wilson" wrote in message
...
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.

How is that not "position"? Granted, it's not a very accurate description
of one's position, but it certainly describes one's position to an extent.

Given that the word "position" is simply being used to contrast with
heading, course, and other related terms, your objection seems pretty silly
to me.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Casey Wilson" wrote in message
...
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.

How is that not "position"? Granted, it's not a very accurate description
of one's position, but it certainly describes one's position to an extent.

Given that the word "position" is simply being used to contrast with
heading, course, and other related terms, your objection seems pretty
silly
to me.

Who is being silly? You are relating apples and oranges. Bearing is
related to heading and course, position is related to geographical
coordinates. A single VOR won't tell you squat about geographical
coordinates.
Given that the "standard service volume" (AIM 1-1-8) is at least 40
nautical miles, the definition is not a trivial thing. I have tuned into VOR
stations as much as 85 miles away. So, where am I on that line from the
station.
Let's consider that the acceptable angular error [ FAR 91.171(b)(3) ]
can be plus/minus 6 degrees. I don't have my calculator, but I think the
formula is cosine of the angle times the distance... I'm only guessing, but
I think that at the forty mile limit, the aircraft could be as much as five
to seven miles on either side of the displayed bearing angle. Hmm, let's
see: base times height divided by two [40 miles times 5 miles then divide by
2] gives 100 square miles. Wait, that was only the half-angle -- multiply
by two to cover the other side and we are up to 200 square miles of area
over which the airplane could be flying.
I like using the VOR, I like having two of them in the panel. Hell, I
even like the ADF -- got one of those too. When I triangulate any two of
those, I have a rough idea of my 'position.'

"Casey Wilson" wrote in message
...
Who is being silly? You are relating apples and oranges. Bearing is
related to heading and course, position is related to geographical
coordinates. A single VOR won't tell you squat about geographical
coordinates.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Bearing relative to the VOR station is all about your position relative to
the station. Knowing your bearing relative to the station greatly narrows
down your geographical coordinates. You can get a lot more accurate using a
second VOR or DME, but that doesn't change the fact that even a single VOR
is telling you a lot about your geographical coordinates.

While on the other hand, the bearing relative to the VOR has NOTHING to do
with heading or course. Nothing at all. It boggles my mind that you would
say it does. The mistaken impression that it does have something to do with
heading or course is where lots of people (the original poster included) get
confused. You're just making matters worse by saying that it does.

Given that the "standard service volume" (AIM 1-1-8) is at least 40
nautical miles, the definition is not a trivial thing. I have tuned into
VOR
stations as much as 85 miles away. So, where am I on that line from the
station.

Just knowing you're on that line is useful GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION
information.

[...] and we are up to 200 square miles of area
over which the airplane could be flying.

All you're doing is bickering about just how accurate the GEOGRAPHICAL
POSITION information is. A single VOR isn't very accurate at all. Two VORs
are more accurate. A VOR with DME is even more accurate. Two VORs with DME
each are even more accurate. And a GPS receiver is even more accurate. So
what? They all still give you geographical positions.

I like using the VOR, I like having two of them in the panel. Hell, I
even like the ADF -- got one of those too. When I triangulate any two of
those, I have a rough idea of my 'position.'

No triangulation is needed to get a rough idea of your position.
Triangulation reduces the "roughness" of your position estimate, but a
single VOR receiver alone gives you a rough idea of your position. (An ADF,
of course, does no such thing...it MUST be referenced to another instrument
to provide ANY positional information at all).

Pete

"Peter Duniho"
*** I have no idea what you're talking about*****

In an unusual turn of events, the newsgroup idiot has spoken with some
knowledge. Peter has no clue since his head has been up his ass for so long
it's stuck there.

Knowing the radial one is on is only half the position formula. Position is
a vector quantity. Knowing your radial is a scalar quantity and distance is
needed to provide the vector quantity, position.

*****No triangulation is needed to get a rough idea of your position.
Triangulation reduces the "roughness" of your position estimate, but a
single VOR receiver alone gives you a rough idea of your position. (An
ADF,*****

Were you asleep in basic algebra, Peter? As you certainly were in private
pilot ground school. Peter, you are so easy to pigeon hole. Too bad aviation
has become such an easy place for fat ass know it alls to flop.

http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/docs/physics/u1b3phy.html


Karl