VOR routes without VORs

how can it be illegal to file a simulated IFR flight plan from the computer
to the desktop
and then illegal to fly a PC simulator??

does not compute(r)
B

"ZikZak" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 15, 1:53 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
ZikZak writes:
No, it's just fine. Current regs require backup nav equipment be
aboard when navigating by GPS under IFR, but it doesn't require that
you actually use it.

Thanks.

So if I file IFR and my route uses VORs, and at some point I'm out of
range of
all the VORs on my route (but still navigating okay because of the GPS,
which
just treats them as waypoints and doesn't actually need to be able to
receive
the VOR signals), does that mean I'm technically illegal because I
wouldn't be
able to fall back onto the VOR receivers I have aboard if the GPS failed?

No, you're not illegal because if the GPS fails you can dead reckon to
the service volume of the next VOR, triangulate your position from
VORs that you're actually in range of, use the ADF, request vectors,
etc.

On Apr 15, 2:20 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
But why would anyone do that unless you are talking about using GPS
to get from VOR to VOR?

That's what I'm talking about. I set the route up using VORs, but I actually
fly it by GPS. The GPS doesn't care if the VORs are actually in range,
because it just navigates to waypoints that are coincident with the VOR
locations. This means that I could be completely out of range of any of the
VORs and still navigate ... unless the GPS fails, in which case I'm out of
luck, since I can't tune the VORs if I'm out of range.

That's why I wondered if it was cheating. If I understand correctly, then,
I'm not allowed to do this if I'm IFR (because I can't fall back on the VOR
receivers?), but I can do it if I'm VFR, at my own risk.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

This is something I'm interested in too. I've personally never had a
situation where I've had to file VOR to VOR when the VOR's I'm
planning on using are out of range, but I'm sure the possibility of
this condition exists. I either have a GPS, and file direct, or its a
short trip, and I only end up using one of the 3 or 4 VOR's in range
on my homsbase.

If I were in the situation, I'd just use one signal until it becomes
unusable, then just keep that heading until the next signal comes in.
As long as the winds are stable, and the "area of uncertainty" is
quick, I don't see it being too unsafe, especially in a radar
environment.

Oh, if only people would take these threads seriously...

buttman wrote:
On Apr 15, 2:20 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
But why would anyone do that unless you are talking about using GPS
to get from VOR to VOR?

That's what I'm talking about. I set the route up using VORs, but I actually
fly it by GPS. The GPS doesn't care if the VORs are actually in range,
because it just navigates to waypoints that are coincident with the VOR
locations. This means that I could be completely out of range of any of the
VORs and still navigate ... unless the GPS fails, in which case I'm out of
luck, since I can't tune the VORs if I'm out of range.

That's why I wondered if it was cheating. If I understand correctly, then,
I'm not allowed to do this if I'm IFR (because I can't fall back on the VOR
receivers?), but I can do it if I'm VFR, at my own risk.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

This is something I'm interested in too. I've personally never had a
situation where I've had to file VOR to VOR when the VOR's I'm
planning on using are out of range, but I'm sure the possibility of
this condition exists. I either have a GPS, and file direct, or its a
short trip, and I only end up using one of the 3 or 4 VOR's in range
on my homsbase.

If I were in the situation, I'd just use one signal until it becomes
unusable, then just keep that heading until the next signal comes in.
As long as the winds are stable, and the "area of uncertainty" is
quick, I don't see it being too unsafe, especially in a radar
environment.

Oh, if only people would take these threads seriously...

Why would it ever be unsafe?

If IFR someone is going to ask you what the hell you are doing if
you are too far off.

If VFR you look out the windows and compare what you see with the
sectional.

More to the point, is there anywhere in the US where you would get
assigned an altitude out of range of a VOR if you've filed VOR to VOR?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

If IFR someone is going to ask you what the hell you are doing if
you are too far off.

If anyone notices.

More to the point, is there anywhere in the US where you would get
assigned an altitude out of range of a VOR if you've filed VOR to VOR?

The lateral range is the question. I don't know if ATC verifies that all VORs
mentioned on the flight plan are in range when they should be.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Apr 15, 11:17 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Is it "cheating" or bad form or against regulations to plan a route based on
VORs and then fly it by GPS, particularly when the aircraft may be out of
range of the VORs at some point along its route?


what do you care? You don't, can't/won't fly.

Ever

Bertie

On Apr 16, 4:20 am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
Jesus F**kin' Christ!!!
Will you buy a f**kin' book on remedial piloting? Or go to the library?
Or borrow a book from these "Airline Pilots" that you say you know?
90% of your idiotic questions could be answered in an hour or 2 of reading.
I mean, ****.......When I went for my Private license, I did no ground school
and needed to ask no inane questions on usenet. I bought the Piper
Private Pilot Manual and a copy of the FAR/AIM on a Friday. Read and
studied it on Saturday and Sunday, and then went and took my written
test on Monday. It ain't that f**kin' hard. And with you "superior" intellect,

Sure, you can do that for the FAA test. But the extra knowledge that
covers most of flying is something gained over years of extra study,
magazine reading, forum postings, personal experiences, etc.

The rest of us are actually interested in the careful answers some
people give to Mx's questions. (This doesn't mean we're interested in
his followups, however.)

In either case, we're *not* at all interested in your foul mouthed
responses.

Kev


you should be able to learn things in a day. Yet you've been nothing
more than an ignorant, chattering monkey on this group for months.
Add a book on instrument flying, and you'll know 75% of what you need
to know about IFR. The other 25%, while crucial to successful instrument
flight, you will NEVER learn 'cause it's gotta be learned in a REAL plane.
And you will never even learn what that 25% is without getting in a REAL
plane.
THREE F**KIN' books, pal. If you won't do that, you're done here since
I've noticed that the people here who DO know have mostly stopped
seriously answering your questions. Most of the ones who are trying
to answer you, now, don't know ****. And, funny, being the genius that you
are, those are the answers you accept.
But, of course, it really won't matter what answer you get because you're
only playing a game. Make up your own answer and call it a simulated
usenet reply.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iQCVAwUBRiNe0JMoscYxZNI5AQFEiAP9H1Jq9wO2JzSkVAZ3oJ GUE7bGvuotiXU6
FhP00YB3/W0gYHslcwxvrop2axlrmivPrRMYlQLRWdgXQFuL8JlfIJCQ4N4 W/2LG
NzHMtSyuUfygBSxOIQu54sQ8eCypDcjaUTr384af+5NDmU1vxp hxjOkPoGJM8FcG
RvNJ25gFWog=
=oEY5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Apr 15, 6:35 pm, wrote:
A real pilot in a real airplane would simply continue to follow a
magnetic heading from the magnetic compass you don't understand or
trust until the next VOR came into range, or maybe climb to get a
better signal, or both.

That was a good response. Here in the NE you have to read the
Airport/Facility Directory carefully to see if a VOR has unusable
radials, especially at lower (3000' and below) altitudes.

Don't even bother; you haven't a clue how IFR is filed or flown.

Many lurkers are interested in the answers Mx gets. When you post
remarks like this one, it only harms _your_ reputation. It has no
effect on his, which is what it already is.

Cheers, Kev

This is something I'm interested in too. I've personally never had a
situation where I've had to file VOR to VOR when the VOR's I'm
planning on using are out of range, but I'm sure the possibility of
this condition exists. I either have a GPS, and file direct, or its a
short trip, and I only end up using one of the 3 or 4 VOR's in range
on my homsbase.

If I were in the situation, I'd just use one signal until it becomes
unusable, then just keep that heading until the next signal comes in.
As long as the winds are stable, and the "area of uncertainty" is
quick, I don't see it being too unsafe, especially in a radar
environment.

Oh, if only people would take these threads seriously...

OK, I'll try, just this one last time... ;-)

Any Victor airway should be in range of the appropriate navaid(s) for all
altitudes from the MEA to the floor of the Jet-ways--I presume that would be
part of the definition. IIRC, from what I recall as a student pilot 20+
years ago, that would be MEA to about 19000 feet.

As you recall, I am not presently a pilot; but I can recommend a definitive
source of information: If you are in the USA, then link to
http://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/default.aspx and enter your postal zip-code
and the radius within which you are willing to travel. That will give you a
list of FAA safety seminars in your area, and you can ask about this sort of
thing at any of the seminars intended for pilots--they also have seminars
for mechanics.

Obviously, you can also ask a qualified instructor; and, if you choose to
participate in the Wings program, you will have ample opportunity to do
both. Instructors, pilots, students, and wannabees frequently attend (so
you can also find an instructor) and controllers are normally present at
seminars of airport markings and at events specific to opperations at
particular airports.

That should give you a good source for correct and traceable information.

Peter

PS: I presume that other countries with a large presence of GA may also
have programs, although I also presume that some particuars vary wildly.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

If IFR someone is going to ask you what the hell you are doing if
you are too far off.

If anyone notices.

Yeah, right, ATC pays no attention to whether or not an IFR aircraft
is where it is supposed to be.

More to the point, is there anywhere in the US where you would get
assigned an altitude out of range of a VOR if you've filed VOR to VOR?

The lateral range is the question. I don't know if ATC verifies that all VORs
mentioned on the flight plan are in range when they should be.

When IFR you are going to be assigned an altitude that will NOT be
3000 feet AGL.

If you file VOR to VOR, the route has probably been flown many thousands
of times for decades. If there were a problem with the route/altitude,
someone would have noticed decades ago.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Kev" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 15, 6:35 pm, wrote:
A real pilot in a real airplane would simply continue to follow a
magnetic heading from the magnetic compass you don't understand or
trust until the next VOR came into range, or maybe climb to get a
better signal, or both.

That was a good response. Here in the NE you have to read the
Airport/Facility Directory carefully to see if a VOR has unusable
radials, especially at lower (3000' and below) altitudes.

Don't even bother; you haven't a clue how IFR is filed or flown.

Many lurkers are interested in the answers Mx gets. When you post
remarks like this one, it only harms _your_ reputation. It has no
effect on his, which is what it already is.

Cheers, Kev


I can assure you, opinions vary. If you have a question, post it yourself.