In the legend on sectional charts there are a number of frequencies
listed for the various class B and C airspaces and airports.

For example, the northern florida chart has jacksonville listed as
"120.75 (091-180)". Now, during my commercial checkride a month ago my
examiner asked me what the numbers in parenthesis were and I said they
were courses from that C-airspace primary airport. So if you would draw
lines from Jacksonville international and out on a magnetic course of
091 and 180 degrees, you would have as a result a pie-shaped sector on
the chart. If you're approaching the C-airspace and your location is
withing that pie-sector you should use 120.75 Mhz to get your clearance
to enter the airspace.

There is also a small COMMs box on the chart itself located southeast
of the airspace so that makes sense to me.

However, my examiner said that 091-180 in the legend are in fact
RADIALS. The airspace in question on my checkride was the B airspace
around orlando, and she said these numbers are radials from (in that
case) ORL VOR and not courses from the airport.

1. Why would they use VOR radials for this on a VFR chart, when a VOR
isn't even required for VFR flight?

2. The C airspace set up for Jacksonville international doesn't even
have a VOR.


Is there a source where I can get more information on the legend that
the sectionals have?

The Aeronautical Chart User's Guide? I couldn't find anything in it that
helps, though.

Bob Gardner

"Magnus" > wrote in message
...
> In the legend on sectional charts there are a number of frequencies
> listed for the various class B and C airspaces and airports.
>
> For example, the northern florida chart has jacksonville listed as
> "120.75 (091-180)". Now, during my commercial checkride a month ago my
> examiner asked me what the numbers in parenthesis were and I said they
> were courses from that C-airspace primary airport. So if you would draw
> lines from Jacksonville international and out on a magnetic course of
> 091 and 180 degrees, you would have as a result a pie-shaped sector on
> the chart. If you're approaching the C-airspace and your location is
> withing that pie-sector you should use 120.75 Mhz to get your clearance
> to enter the airspace.
>
> There is also a small COMMs box on the chart itself located southeast
> of the airspace so that makes sense to me.
>
> However, my examiner said that 091-180 in the legend are in fact
> RADIALS. The airspace in question on my checkride was the B airspace
> around orlando, and she said these numbers are radials from (in that
> case) ORL VOR and not courses from the airport.
>
> 1. Why would they use VOR radials for this on a VFR chart, when a VOR
> isn't even required for VFR flight?
>
> 2. The C airspace set up for Jacksonville international doesn't even
> have a VOR.
>
>
> Is there a source where I can get more information on the legend that
> the sectionals have?
>

The radial from the VOR merely defines the airspace for that frequency. It
does not require that you use the VOR in flight to determine whether you are
in that space or not. The same is true for defining TSAs and many restricted
or prohibited airspace.

Relate the information to your sectional and then determine your position
relative to that airspace via normal pilotage.

--
-------------------------------
Travis
"Magnus" > wrote in message
...
> In the legend on sectional charts there are a number of frequencies
> listed for the various class B and C airspaces and airports.
>
> For example, the northern florida chart has jacksonville listed as
> "120.75 (091-180)". Now, during my commercial checkride a month ago my
> examiner asked me what the numbers in parenthesis were and I said they
> were courses from that C-airspace primary airport. So if you would draw
> lines from Jacksonville international and out on a magnetic course of
> 091 and 180 degrees, you would have as a result a pie-shaped sector on
> the chart. If you're approaching the C-airspace and your location is
> withing that pie-sector you should use 120.75 Mhz to get your clearance
> to enter the airspace.
>
> There is also a small COMMs box on the chart itself located southeast
> of the airspace so that makes sense to me.
>
> However, my examiner said that 091-180 in the legend are in fact
> RADIALS. The airspace in question on my checkride was the B airspace
> around orlando, and she said these numbers are radials from (in that
> case) ORL VOR and not courses from the airport.
>
> 1. Why would they use VOR radials for this on a VFR chart, when a VOR
> isn't even required for VFR flight?
>
> 2. The C airspace set up for Jacksonville international doesn't even
> have a VOR.
>
>
> Is there a source where I can get more information on the legend that
> the sectionals have?
>

That doesn't make any sense to me. So which VOR am I supposed to use
for Jacksonvill Intl. then? It doesn't havve a VOR anywhere in the C
airspace. The only VOR in that entire region is Craig, but that's not
even close to jacksonville.

It doesn't make sense to me to have a chart that defines COMM areas
based on VORs when the chart is for VFR flights only.

If I'm flying to Jacksonville VFR I won't have a VOR to use as my point
of reference because there's none there.

Why would the makers of the chart even consider using radiostations,
all that matters is to have a point of reference from which the courses
should be drawn so you can identify which fq you should contact
approach on, and from that viewpoint using the actual airport makes
more sense than some VOR that might or might not be there.

More importantly, I have NOT found any information that actually states
how the legend on the sectional was meant to be used. Surely there must
be some source of information for these charts detailing how they
should be used? How do examiners and instructors determine that these
numbers next to the frequencies are from VORs? There's nothing on the
chart legend that suggest it.


On 2004-04-24 08:48:20 -0400, "Travis Marlatte"
> said:

> The radial from the VOR merely defines the airspace for that frequency. It
> does not require that you use the VOR in flight to determine whether you are
> in that space or not. The same is true for defining TSAs and many restricted
> or prohibited airspace.
>
> Relate the information to your sectional and then determine your position
> relative to that airspace via normal pilotage.

"Magnus" > wrote in message
...
>
> In the legend on sectional charts there are a number of frequencies
> listed for the various class B and C airspaces and airports.
>
> For example, the northern florida chart has jacksonville listed as
> "120.75 (091-180)". Now, during my commercial checkride a
> month ago my examiner asked me what the numbers in
> parenthesis were and I said they were courses from that C-airspace
> primary airport. So if you would draw lines from Jacksonville
> international and out on a magnetic course of 091 and 180 degrees,
> you would have as a result a pie-shaped sector on the chart. If
> you're approaching the C-airspace and your location is withing
> that pie-sector you should use 120.75 Mhz to get your clearance
> to enter the airspace.
>
> There is also a small COMMs box on the chart itself located southeast
> of the airspace so that makes sense to me.
>
> However, my examiner said that 091-180 in the legend are in fact
> RADIALS. The airspace in question on my checkride was the B
> airspace around orlando, and she said these numbers are radials
> from (in that case) ORL VOR and not courses from the airport.
>
> 1. Why would they use VOR radials for this on a VFR chart,
> when a VOR isn't even required for VFR flight?
>
> 2. The C airspace set up for Jacksonville international doesn't
> even have a VOR.
>
>
> Is there a source where I can get more information on the legend that
> the sectionals have?
>

The A/FD doesn't have any additional information. I don't recall seeing
anything that actually stated these were bearings from the field, but, like
you, I always assumed they were. Obviously, they can't be radials in
airspace without VORs, so to be consistent they'd have to be bearings from
the field. In the case of ORL, it wouldn't make a difference as the VOR is
on the field. I would've asked the examiner for her source on that.

"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> The radial from the VOR merely defines the airspace for that
> frequency. It does not require that you use the VOR in flight
> to determine whether you are in that space or not. The same is
> true for defining TSAs and many restricted or prohibited airspace.
>

What's a TSA?

"Magnus" > wrote in message
...
>
> That doesn't make any sense to me. So which VOR am I supposed
> to use for Jacksonvill Intl. then? It doesn't havve a VOR anywhere
> in the C airspace. The only VOR in that entire region is Craig, but
> that's not even close to jacksonville.
>
> It doesn't make sense to me to have a chart that defines COMM
> areas based on VORs when the chart is for VFR flights only.
>
> If I'm flying to Jacksonville VFR I won't have a VOR to use as
> my point of reference because there's none there.
>
> Why would the makers of the chart even consider using radiostations,
> all that matters is to have a point of reference from which the courses
> should be drawn so you can identify which fq you should contact
> approach on, and from that viewpoint using the actual airport makes
> more sense than some VOR that might or might not be there.
>
> More importantly, I have NOT found any information that actually
> states how the legend on the sectional was meant to be used.
> Surely there must be some source of information for these charts
> detailing how they should be used? How do examiners and
> instructors determine that these numbers next to the frequencies
> are from VORs? There's nothing on the chart legend that suggest
> it.
>

Some facilities don't use bearings at all. Madison approach splits East and
West, and that's how it's indicated in the frequency tab on the sectional.
The Letter of Agreement with Chicago Center designates the division as the
extended centerlines of runway 18/36. They could have used VOR radials, I
suppose, as Madison VOR is on the field. But they didn't. More anecdotal
evidence that these are not radials.

A little more info:

This is all from the Chicago Sectional.

There are three VOR's located inside the Chicago Class B. The frequency
split (in degrees) is: 360 - 179, and 180 - 359.

The split for the Madison Class C is East and West.

The split for the Milwaukee Class C is Southeast and Northwest.

The split for the Moline Class C is S/SE of active runway and N/NE of active
runway.

And finally, the split for the Muskegon TRSA is N of V2 (low altitude
airway) and S of V2.

Given all of this, I think it would be a safe bet that these splits are NOT
based on VOR radials, and the level of precision required is very low.


"Magnus" > wrote in message
...
> That doesn't make any sense to me. So which VOR am I supposed to use
> for Jacksonvill Intl. then? It doesn't havve a VOR anywhere in the C
> airspace. The only VOR in that entire region is Craig, but that's not
> even close to jacksonville.
>
> It doesn't make sense to me to have a chart that defines COMM areas
> based on VORs when the chart is for VFR flights only.
>
> If I'm flying to Jacksonville VFR I won't have a VOR to use as my point
> of reference because there's none there.
>
> Why would the makers of the chart even consider using radiostations,
> all that matters is to have a point of reference from which the courses
> should be drawn so you can identify which fq you should contact
> approach on, and from that viewpoint using the actual airport makes
> more sense than some VOR that might or might not be there.
>
> More importantly, I have NOT found any information that actually states
> how the legend on the sectional was meant to be used. Surely there must
> be some source of information for these charts detailing how they
> should be used? How do examiners and instructors determine that these
> numbers next to the frequencies are from VORs? There's nothing on the
> chart legend that suggest it.
>
>
> On 2004-04-24 08:48:20 -0400, "Travis Marlatte"
> > said:
>
> > The radial from the VOR merely defines the airspace for that frequency.
It
> > does not require that you use the VOR in flight to determine whether you
are
> > in that space or not. The same is true for defining TSAs and many
restricted
> > or prohibited airspace.
> >
> > Relate the information to your sectional and then determine your
position
> > relative to that airspace via normal pilotage.
>
>

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
>
> The split for the Madison Class C is East and West.
>
> The split for the Milwaukee Class C is Southeast and Northwest.
>

Milwaukee's split, like Madison's, is along the extended runway centerline.
Madison's is fixed along runway 18/36, but Milwaukee's varies with runway
usage. Sometimes it's along runway 7/25, sometimes it's along runway 1/19.

"Magnus" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> 1. Why would they use VOR radials for this on a VFR chart, when a VOR
> isn't even required for VFR flight?

Someone else answered that. You don't need a VOR receiver to be able to
know where a VOR radial is, when flying VFR.

> 2. The C airspace set up for Jacksonville international doesn't even
> have a VOR.
>
> Is there a source where I can get more information on the legend that
> the sectionals have?

I'm still trying to figure out why it matters. At an airport without a VOR,
obviously they cannot be radials from the VOR. At an airport with a VOR,
the difference between a radial and a bearing from the airport is, for the
purposes of determining which frequency to use for ATC, inconsequential. If
you are so close to the radial/bearing that it makes a difference, the right
frequency to use is the one for the sector you're about the fly into,
regardless of which side of which boundary you happen to be on.

The only boundary case I can see even coming close to mattering is if you
happen to be flying inbound or outbound right smack on the boundary itself.
My guess is that in that case, ATC doesn't care which sector you contact.
If they do, it is easy enough for them to send you over to the correct one,
if you happen to choose the wrong one.

If I had to guess, I'd guess it's bearing from the airport, for the reasons
pointed out already (that defining it as VOR radials would be meaningless at
an airport without a VOR). But in reality, the sectors can be chopped up
differently from what's on the chart anyway, due to those pesky letters of
agreement. Use the chart as a guideline as best you can, and if you get it
wrong, no big deal. ATC will straighten things out.

Pete

My stuff came from the 11/01/2001 Chicago Sectional so revisions are
possible.

But I would have to question your statement: "Milwaukee's varies with runway
usage. Sometimes it's along runway 7/25, sometimes it's along runway 1/19".

How often would a pilot know the active runway prior to calling Approach? I
just don't see anything other than a fixed point being used for this
purpose.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The split for the Madison Class C is East and West.
> >
> > The split for the Milwaukee Class C is Southeast and Northwest.
> >
>
> Milwaukee's split, like Madison's, is along the extended runway
centerline.
> Madison's is fixed along runway 18/36, but Milwaukee's varies with runway
> usage. Sometimes it's along runway 7/25, sometimes it's along runway
1/19.
>
>

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> But I would have to question your statement: "Milwaukee's varies with
runway
> usage. Sometimes it's along runway 7/25, sometimes it's along runway
1/19".
>
> How often would a pilot know the active runway prior to calling Approach?

Seattle has a similar situation. Before calling Approach, you listen to the
ATIS, because the sector divisions (some of them) depend on which direction
the traffic is flowing.

So the answer to your question is: listen to the ATIS. It's not like they
are keeping the active runway secret until you actually talk to them.
"Seattle Approach, Cessna 12345, 20 miles west, 2000', pssst what runway are
you guys using?"

Pete

Thanks for the info...


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > [...]
> > But I would have to question your statement: "Milwaukee's varies with
> runway
> > usage. Sometimes it's along runway 7/25, sometimes it's along runway
> 1/19".
> >
> > How often would a pilot know the active runway prior to calling
Approach?
>
> Seattle has a similar situation. Before calling Approach, you listen to
the
> ATIS, because the sector divisions (some of them) depend on which
direction
> the traffic is flowing.
>
> So the answer to your question is: listen to the ATIS. It's not like they
> are keeping the active runway secret until you actually talk to them.
> "Seattle Approach, Cessna 12345, 20 miles west, 2000', pssst what runway
are
> you guys using?"
>
> Pete
>
>

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> Someone else answered that. You don't need a VOR receiver to
> be able to know where a VOR radial is, when flying VFR.
>

No navigation equipment is required for VFR entry of Class B or C airspace.
How does one know where a VOR radial is without using any navigation
equipment?

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
>
> But I would have to question your statement: "Milwaukee's varies
> with runway usage. Sometimes it's along runway 7/25, sometimes
> it's along runway 1/19".
>

Well, that's the way it is. It's specified that way in the Letter of
Agreement between Milwaukee approach and Chicago Center. I'm familiar with
the letter because I was a controller at Chicago Center.


>
> How often would a pilot know the active runway prior to
> calling Approach?
>

A pilot would know the active runway upon listening to the ATIS. If he does
that before he calls approach then he knows the active runway prior to
calling approach.


>
> I just don't see anything other than a fixed point being used for this
> purpose.
>

Believe what you wish.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
t...
> No navigation equipment is required for VFR entry of Class B or C
airspace.

So? What's that got to do with this thead?

> How does one know where a VOR radial is without using any navigation
> equipment?

Look at your chart. When you can see out the window, this is a much more
reliable way of identifying a VOR radial than using the actual radio (which
is permitted to have as much as 6 degrees of error anyway).

Pete

Thanks for the info!


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > But I would have to question your statement: "Milwaukee's varies
> > with runway usage. Sometimes it's along runway 7/25, sometimes
> > it's along runway 1/19".
> >
>
> Well, that's the way it is. It's specified that way in the Letter of
> Agreement between Milwaukee approach and Chicago Center. I'm familiar
with
> the letter because I was a controller at Chicago Center.
>
>
> >
> > How often would a pilot know the active runway prior to
> > calling Approach?
> >
>
> A pilot would know the active runway upon listening to the ATIS. If he
does
> that before he calls approach then he knows the active runway prior to
> calling approach.
>
>
> >
> > I just don't see anything other than a fixed point being used for this
> > purpose.
> >
>
> Believe what you wish.
>
>

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> So? What's that got to do with this thead?
>

It was a response to the statement, "You don't need a VOR receiver to be
able to know where a VOR radial is, when flying VFR." You don't see the
connection?


>
> Look at your chart. When you can see out the window, this is a
> much more reliable way of identifying a VOR radial than using
> the actual radio (which is permitted to have as much as 6 degrees
> of error anyway).
>

Please explain how it's done.

I don't have an operational problem with using the chart and I know
that approach control won't go crazy if I somehow manage to use the
wrong frequency.

My issue is being told by a designated examiner something that a:
doesn't make sense and b: she can't back up with a source

It's not the radials that's the problem, it's the selected starting
point from where the bearings in the legend should extend. Claiming
that the bearings should extend from anything other than the primary
airport for the airspace seems crazy to me.

Apart from the fact that some airports don't have VORs, even if it
does, your not flying to a VOR, you're flying to the airport and the
airport and VOR don't necessarily have to be co-located so to me, the
reference point naturally should be the airport and not any nav-aid
that happens to be in the area.

But like I said, I'd like to find a proper source where I can read
about these charts.


On 2004-04-24 12:33:25 -0400, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> said:

>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Someone else answered that. You don't need a VOR receiver to
>> be able to know where a VOR radial is, when flying VFR.
>>
>
> No navigation equipment is required for VFR entry of Class B or C airspace.
> How does one know where a VOR radial is without using any navigation
> equipment?

"Magnus" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't have an operational problem with using the chart and I know
> that approach control won't go crazy if I somehow manage to use the
> wrong frequency.
>
> My issue is being told by a designated examiner something that a:
> doesn't make sense and b: she can't back up with a source
>

Indicators that she's quite probably mistaken.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
et...
> It was a response to the statement, "You don't need a VOR receiver to be
> able to know where a VOR radial is, when flying VFR." You don't see the
> connection?

No, I don't.

> Please explain how it's done.

For VORs with a printed compass rose, it's trivial. The compass rose will
be oriented to match the radials, and you simply plot the radial based on
that. For VORs without a printed compass rose, just correct magnetic
heading with the deviation for the VOR, and plot the radial based on that.

Either way, you get a line that is drawn on your chart. You use your
eyeballs to visually identify landmarks on the ground that show you where
the line is.

Honestly, it makes me wonder how you ever became a pilot, given that you
can't figure out basic stuff like this. You must find it difficult just to
navigate your way out of a paper bag.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > [...]
> > But I would have to question your statement: "Milwaukee's varies with
> runway
> > usage. Sometimes it's along runway 7/25, sometimes it's along runway
> 1/19".
> >
> > How often would a pilot know the active runway prior to calling
Approach?
>
> Seattle has a similar situation. Before calling Approach, you listen to
the
> ATIS, because the sector divisions (some of them) depend on which
direction
> the traffic is flowing.

They're not secret. They're just incomprehensible.

Nearby Boeing Field has the same flow-dependent sector boundaries as SeaTac
(http://www.airnav.com/airport/KBFI), and like the OP there is no stated
point on which they are based. If you need to be accurate, assume the SEA
VOR. Don't try asking Boeing Tower which frequency to use for flight
following either; at least while I was based there, they usually couldn't
figure it out.

I much prefer it up at Everett, where approach and departure is handled by
one Center frequency (yes! a Center controller lining up spam-cans for one
of 5 different approaches).

-- David Brooks

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> They're not secret. They're just incomprehensible.

I didn't suggest that anyone thought the sector boundaries were secret. The
only secrecy mentioned in my post was the active runway.

> Nearby Boeing Field has the same flow-dependent sector boundaries as
SeaTac
> (http://www.airnav.com/airport/KBFI), and like the OP there is no stated
> point on which they are based.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "the same flow-dependent sector
boundaries". If you mean that the approach/departure control listed in the
AFD is the same facility listed for SeaTac, and thus has the same sectors,
I'd have to agree with that. But then, the same thing is true for any
airport using the SeaTac app/dep facility, and I'm not sure it's meaningful
to mention it. Since it's the same facility, of course the boundaries are
the same.

If you mean that Boeing has its own sectors which are similarly dependent on
the current flow, I'll have to disagree. Boeing has no ATC sectors of its
own, since they aren't a radar facility. It does have two tower
frequencies, but those are selected according to the runway you want to land
on, not the active runway.

> If you need to be accurate, assume the SEA VOR.

That's my point. You have no need to be so accurate that it matters whether
you assume the VOR or the airport.

> Don't try asking Boeing Tower which frequency to use for flight
> following either; at least while I was based there, they usually couldn't
> figure it out.

Just depends on the controller. I suspect to some extent, controllers don't
want to be bothered. However, if you really want flight following out of
Boeing, what I'd do is call up the clearance delivery frequency before
taxiing and ask if you can get assigned a squawk and controller frequency
for departure.

> I much prefer it up at Everett, where approach and departure is handled by
> one Center frequency (yes! a Center controller lining up spam-cans for one
> of 5 different approaches).

I like PAE better too (after all, that's where my plane is :) ), but mainly
because it's easier to get a word in edgewise. I never had any trouble
figuring out the frequency to use at Boeing, but finding a quiet moment on
the radio with which to call up the app/dep controller was problematic much
of the time.

Pete

Well then. there you have it..

A DE gave you bad information :)

(s)he is human. It happens. Old Wives tales get passed on and bad
information perpetuates itself.

SHould it happen? No. Does it happen? Yes.

What can you do? If you REALLY want to, refer it to the FSDO and they
can point it out to the examiner. You didnt (improperly) receive a
notice of disapproval over it did you? You have your ticket so go out
there and use it, and chalk this up to experience.

Dave

Magnus wrote:
> I don't have an operational problem with using the chart and I know that
> approach control won't go crazy if I somehow manage to use the wrong
> frequency.
>
> My issue is being told by a designated examiner something that a:
> doesn't make sense and b: she can't back up with a source
>
> It's not the radials that's the problem, it's the selected starting
> point from where the bearings in the legend should extend. Claiming that
> the bearings should extend from anything other than the primary airport
> for the airspace seems crazy to me.
>
> Apart from the fact that some airports don't have VORs, even if it does,
> your not flying to a VOR, you're flying to the airport and the airport
> and VOR don't necessarily have to be co-located so to me, the reference
> point naturally should be the airport and not any nav-aid that happens
> to be in the area.
>
> But like I said, I'd like to find a proper source where I can read about
> these charts.
>
>
> On 2004-04-24 12:33:25 -0400, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > said:
>
>>
>> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> Someone else answered that. You don't need a VOR receiver to
>>> be able to know where a VOR radial is, when flying VFR.
>>>
>>
>> No navigation equipment is required for VFR entry of Class B or C
>> airspace.
>> How does one know where a VOR radial is without using any navigation
>> equipment?
>
>
>

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> For VORs with a printed compass rose, it's trivial. The compass
> rose will be oriented to match the radials, and you simply plot the
> radial based on that. For VORs without a printed compass rose,
> just correct magnetic heading with the deviation for the VOR, and
> plot the radial based on that.
>
> Either way, you get a line that is drawn on your chart. You use
> your eyeballs to visually identify landmarks on the ground that show
> you where the line is.
>

What do you do where there are no landmarks?


>
> Honestly, it makes me wonder how you ever became a pilot, given
> that you can't figure out basic stuff like this.
>

Why would I do this?


>
> You must find it difficult just to
> navigate your way out of a paper bag.
>

Navigation's a snap.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> What do you do where there are no landmarks?

No landmarks within the lateral limits of Class B airspace? Not possible.
I can believe that there are no landmarks that you are capable of
identifying, but that's your own limitation. It has nothing to do with the
general technique.

> > Honestly, it makes me wonder how you ever became a pilot, given
> > that you can't figure out basic stuff like this.
>
> Why would I do this?

Sorry, I thought you were actually paying attention to this thread.

> Navigation's a snap.

Not according to your posts.

Pete

> No landmarks within the lateral limits of Class B airspace? Not possible.
> I can believe that there are no landmarks that you are capable of
> identifying, but that's your own limitation. It has nothing to do with the
> general technique.

Ahh... technique. That's why I can't find any landmarks to determine the
eastern edge of the Miami class B airspace.

haha

"Bob Webster" > wrote in message
...
> Ahh... technique. That's why I can't find any landmarks to determine the
> eastern edge of the Miami class B airspace.

As far as I know, that edge is not defined by a VOR radial. In any case,
the real issue here is whether you can determine the right approach
frequency to use without a VOR receiver. If you have no landmarks with
which to navigate, you'd darn well better be using *something* to know where
you are, and that includes when you are out over open water.

Even if that's just a clock and a compass, the original point -- that you do
NOT need to have a VOR receiver in order to determine what approach
frequency to use, or even to identify the general location of VOR radials --
is completely correct.

All that said, I'm puzzled why you bothered to reply to this portion of the
thread. Everyone else understands the basic point regarding whether it
matters whether the sectors for approach frequencies are based relative to
the airport or VOR (that is, it doesn't matter), and I would've thought that
everyone else would understand that having a VOR receiver is not a
requirement for knowing where you are on your chart relative to other
objects on the chart.

The only reason *I* am even bothering to reply to Steve is that I enjoy
watching his pathological need to twist an argument until something falls
out that he can eat. He is 100% predictable, and it makes a fun side-show.
Why are YOU joining in, especially since your point doesn't do anything to
contradict what I've said?

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Bob Webster" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Ahh... technique. That's why I can't find any landmarks to determine the
>>eastern edge of the Miami class B airspace.
>
>
> As far as I know, that edge is not defined by a VOR radial. In any case,
> the real issue here is whether you can determine the right approach
> frequency to use without a VOR receiver. If you have no landmarks with
> which to navigate, you'd darn well better be using *something* to know where
> you are, and that includes when you are out over open water.

I had a curious assignment by Daytona Approach 2-3 weeks ago. They said
to stay 1/2 mile offshore. I had no clue how far that was, other than by
guessing on the GPS map. So I stayed clear of their Class C.

"Bob Webster" > wrote in message
.. .
> I had a curious assignment by Daytona Approach 2-3 weeks ago. They said
> to stay 1/2 mile offshore. I had no clue how far that was, other than by
> guessing on the GPS map. So I stayed clear of their Class C.

"1/2 mile offshore" sounds like "downwind leg along the shoreline". With a
visible shoreline, 1/2 mile offshore should be easy to fly visually,
especially since with a request like that, I can't imagine they care
anything other than that you are out over the water rather than over land.

Pete

Oh, hell, that's easy. If you are cruising at 2000' or so above the water, keep
the shore at an apparent twice your distance above the water. 5000' above, keep
it as far away as you are above the water.

And so on.

Jim



Bob Webster >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->I had a curious assignment by Daytona Approach 2-3 weeks ago. They said
->to stay 1/2 mile offshore. I had no clue how far that was, other than by
->guessing on the GPS map. So I stayed clear of their Class C.

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

>>
How does one know where a VOR radial is without using any navigation
equipment?
<<

Look out the window. The radials are painted on the ground. every five
degrees.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)