question on VOR intersections

[Skywise]

First off, I'm a sim enthusiast. But I try to make my sim
flying as realistic as possible. Besides, getting my ticket
is still on my to-do list... some day.

Lately I've been practicing navigation. It's too easy in
a 747 with an FMS computer, so I'm putting around in a 172
and getting around with VOR's and ADF's. Add some clouds...
at night... weeeeeeee

Anyway, what I'm wondering is, is there a resource somewhere
that lists intersections and gives the VOR's and radials that
make them?

Say I'm navigating between intersections. I can use the GPS to
fly direct to these positions. However, it seems to me that,
since intersections are exactly that, an intersection of
radials from two or more VOR's, using this information makes
a good backup in case the GPS goes south. Redundancy,
redundancy, and more redundancy.

But looking at the sectional charts, it's not always readily
apparent what the exact radials are. Sure, I could break out
the straight edge and get a rough idea. But I would think that
since their positions are officially defined by someone (FAA?)
there would be a precise definition somewhere.

I've googled and looked on the FAA website, but either it
doesn't exist, or I don't know the right search terms.

Anyone know what I'm looking for?

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Don Poitras]

Airnav has the info:

http://www.airnav.com/airspace/fix/

Skywise > wrote:
> First off, I'm a sim enthusiast. But I try to make my sim
> flying as realistic as possible. Besides, getting my ticket
> is still on my to-do list... some day.

> Lately I've been practicing navigation. It's too easy in
> a 747 with an FMS computer, so I'm putting around in a 172
> and getting around with VOR's and ADF's. Add some clouds...
> at night... weeeeeeee

> Anyway, what I'm wondering is, is there a resource somewhere
> that lists intersections and gives the VOR's and radials that
> make them?

> Say I'm navigating between intersections. I can use the GPS to
> fly direct to these positions. However, it seems to me that,
> since intersections are exactly that, an intersection of
> radials from two or more VOR's, using this information makes
> a good backup in case the GPS goes south. Redundancy,
> redundancy, and more redundancy.

> But looking at the sectional charts, it's not always readily
> apparent what the exact radials are. Sure, I could break out
> the straight edge and get a rough idea. But I would think that
> since their positions are officially defined by someone (FAA?)
> there would be a precise definition somewhere.

> I've googled and looked on the FAA website, but either it
> doesn't exist, or I don't know the right search terms.

> Anyone know what I'm looking for?

> Brian

--
Don Poitras

[Edwin Johnson]

On 2011-12-19, Skywise > wrote:
> First off, I'm a sim enthusiast. But I try to make my sim
>
> Anyway, what I'm wondering is, is there a resource somewhere
> that lists intersections and gives the VOR's and radials that
> make them?

If your program has access to the IFR Enroute Low Altitude charts, all of
the intersections are shown and defined with arrows from the VORs which
define them, DME fixes, etc. as well as Minimum Reception Altitudes (MRA)
and Minimum Crossing Altitudes (MCA). Incidentally, an intersection can be
defined with one radial and a DME fix.

Probably the reason for not showing all of this on VFR charts is clutter and
the fact that VFR pilots will not be needing all of these intersections.

If you are interested in looking at these go to the FAA site:

http://aeronav.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=aeronav/applications/IFR/chartlist_enroute

Click on the bottom on IFR Enroute Aeronautical Charts and that will lead
you to a page where you can download the individual charts. Near the top of
that page is a link to show you a map of the US and location of the charts.
It appears they are in .pdf format, which is strange since most gov charts
are the traditional .tif format with coordinates embedded in the file.
Anyway you can easily look at the .pdf charts.

....Edwin
__________________________________________________ __________
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes
turned skyward, for there you have been, there you long to
return."-da Vinci http://bellsouthpwp2.net/e/d/edwinljohnson

[Skywise]

(Edward A. Falk) wrote in
:

> As a previous poster pointed out, you can find that information at
> airnav.com (an excellent resource, btw), but that's not how real flying
> works.
>
> In practice, you don't fly direct from waypoint to waypoint unless you
> have a GPS, and even then you think twice before you do it.

That's the problem with not having 'real' lessons or experience,
so I don't know how it's done in real life.


> The normal IFR flying procedure, especially in low-altitude aircraft,
> is to follow the victor airways.

I generally am, but what I've found is I need to intercept the
airway after takeoff, and there's usually a waypoint nearby,
or in a recent case, the airway changes direction at a waypoint.



> or download one from the FAA.
> The disadvantage of downloading is that your screen isn't as big as a
> paper chart, and you'll need a second screen while you're running the
> flight sim program.

Well, since it is only a sim, expiring charts aren't much of an
issue as the sim will not change. And I have twin 1080p's. I
have downloaded sectionals from the FAA and throw them on the
other monitor. It's no big deal to scroll and zoom a bit. I've
got good graphics editing software.


Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Skywise]

(Don Poitras) wrote in :

> Airnav has the info:
>
> http://www.airnav.com/airspace/fix/

Thank you!!!

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Skywise]

Edwin Johnson > wrote in
:


> If your program has access to the IFR Enroute Low Altitude charts,

It only has rudimentary charts, but all the basic info is accurate.

BTW, I use X-Plane, which just released version 10. Much more accurate
flight model. What's sad is I can pull off a CAT-III approach in a
777 about as easy as I can stay on course in a 172.... sheesh.

I can 'fly', but I know in the real world you can't always 'just fly'
anywhere you want.


> If you are interested in looking at these go to the FAA site:
>
> http://aeronav.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=aeronav/applications/IFR/chartlist_e
> nroute

I've snagged regular sectionals already. I'll go snag these, too.


> since most gov charts are the traditional .tif format with coordinates
> embedded in the file. Anyway you can easily look at the .pdf charts.

tif...pdf... doesn't matter to me. the tiffs are probably geotiffs
for use in GIS software.... which I have too. Another interest of mine
is maps and related stuff. Was doing "Google Earth" type stuff before
Google Earth existed.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[RST Engineering[_2_]]

>> If you are interested in looking at these go to the FAA site:
>>
>> http://aeronav.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=aeronav/applications/IFR/chartlist_e
>> nroute


www.skyvector.com has the sectionals, WACs, instrument charts and a
neat little mouseover for all airports that report weather with the
latest METAR and TAF.

Jim

[Don Poitras]

Edward A. Falk > wrote:
> In article >,
> Edwin Johnson > wrote:
> >On 2011-12-19, Skywise > wrote:
> >> First off, I'm a sim enthusiast. But I try to make my sim
> >>
> >> Anyway, what I'm wondering is, is there a resource somewhere
> >> that lists intersections and gives the VOR's and radials that
> >> make them?

> As a previous poster pointed out, you can find that information at airnav.com
> (an excellent resource, btw), but that's not how real flying works.

> In practice, you don't fly direct from waypoint to waypoint unless you
> have a GPS, and even then you think twice before you do it.

Perhaps in some parts of the US. Here in the southeast, you can file
all the airways you want and the first controller that notices you
are slant-golf is going to say, "you are cleared direct XYZ."

> The normal IFR flying procedure, especially in low-altitude aircraft,
> is to follow the victor airways. These have been surveyed by the FAA to
> confirm that as long as you stick to the MEA, you'll clear the terrain and
> remain in radio reception range for both communciations and navigation.
> If you make up your own routes by flying direct, then you're responsible
> for making sure that you'll be in range and clear of terrain at all times.
> Technically, this means looking up every radio facility you'll be using,
> finding out what their effective range is, and so forth and so on.

I guess it depends how low you want to go. If I'm going from Raleigh to DC
at 7000 feet, there just isn't any terrain to worry about. As you get close
to the larger airports, you will get clearances to Victor airways and VORs
but south of DC, it's pretty open. The only radio issues are at low
altitudes or perhaps running off the coast.

--
Don Poitras

[Skywise]

RST Engineering > wrote in
:

> www.skyvector.com has the sectionals, WACs, instrument charts and a
> neat little mouseover for all airports that report weather with the
> latest METAR and TAF.

Now that could be useful. X-Plane can already download real time
weather from the net and configure the sim accordingly.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Skywise]

(Edward A. Falk) wrote in news:jcp584$re3$1@blue-
new.rahul.net:


Thank you much for the explanation. Turns out I've intuited
pretty much most of this procedure. It just makes sense.


> For flight simulator programs, there won't be an ATC to give you a
> flight plan, so you just wing it.

Actually, the flight sims do have ATC. X-Plane allows me to
file flight plans using anything but SIDs and STARs.

They're not perfect, though. Recently, for instance, (I fly
around LA), I took off from KFUL on rwy 6 and was told to turn
to 350. This fit my flight plan as my intent was to intercept
V16 to my north, then head 256 to my first waypoint at the LAX
vortac. But then ATC told me to turn to course 070. huh?????
Well, I did, figuring it had some reason. After a couple minutes
I was then given "own navigation" so I proceeded to turn back
around to go the right way and get back on V16. At that point
the ATC kept barking at me for being "off course." I finally
had to cancel IFR to get it to shut up!!! hahaha

Well, version 10 just came out, so it's got a few bugs yet. If
I find repeatable errors I file bug reports.

BTW, X-Plane is less 'game' and more simulator. It's written
by pilots and aeronautical engineers. The program can be used
to make FAA certified simulators.

BTW, thank you everyone for the help. Someday I hope to join
you all in the air. Been a dream for twenty+ years now and I
haven't given up. Just haven't got all the ducks lined up yet.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Jim Logajan]

Skywise > wrote:
> Anyone know what I'm looking for?

I believe the "National Flight Data Center" (NFDC) is THE source that the
sites mentioned by other posters get their data from (I believe even FAA's
Aeronav gets their raw data from NFDC):

https://nfdc.faa.gov/portal/index.jsp

Click on "FAA Airspace Fix Lookup" which takes you here:

https://nfdc.faa.gov/nfdcApps/airportLookup/fixes.jsp

Enter the fix name (or select a state to get a list of all the fixes in
that state.) They should give you the exact latitude/longitude, DME
distances and VOR radials of the fix.

Notice they also have other databases, too, like a "Terrain and Obstacles
Database":

https://nfdc.faa.gov/tod/public/index.html
https://nfdc.faa.gov/tod/public/TOD_DOF.html

[Jim Logajan]

I wrote:
> Click on "FAA Airspace Fix Lookup" which takes you here:
>
> https://nfdc.faa.gov/nfdcApps/airportLookup/fixes.jsp

Here's a copy-and-paste of the info for a fix in Oregon called VAUGN which
is a few dozen miles from my house:

Details for Fix: VAUGN

Latitude: 43-57-15.22 N
Longitude: 123-26-57.26 W
Country: UNITED STATES
State: OREGON
ARTCC: ZSE
Fix Type: RP
NAV-FAC-AZIMUTH/DSTC: RBG*VOR/DME*334.81
NAV-FAC-AZIMUTH/DSTC: EUG*VORTAC*204.50/14.00
Updated: 02/16/2006

So the VAUGN fix is 14.00 miles SW of the Eugene Oregon (EUG) VORTAC on
radial 204.5 and NW of the Roseburg Oregon (RBG) VOR/DME on radial 334.81.
Note that only one distance is needed.

Or you can plug in the lat/long values into your simulated GPS.

[Skywise]

Jim Logajan > wrote in news:Xns9FC1C90729228JamesLLugojcom@
216.168.3.30:

> https://nfdc.faa.gov/portal/index.jsp
>
> Click on "FAA Airspace Fix Lookup" which takes you here:
>
> https://nfdc.faa.gov/nfdcApps/airportLookup/fixes.jsp

> https://nfdc.faa.gov/tod/public/index.html
> https://nfdc.faa.gov/tod/public/TOD_DOF.html


Thank you, Jim. I'll bookmark these for future use. So far,
the enroute charts have let me do what I wanted.

In fact, it's becoming very apparent why I've seen some folks
push to get an IFR rating. Doing so seems to make navigating
complex airspace such as around LA a lot easier. When you
stick to the 'roads in the sky' and let ATC help you keep
separations, it seems to really enhance the safety and
efficiency of getting from point A to point B.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Mxsmanic]

Skywise writes:

> Anyway, what I'm wondering is, is there a resource somewhere
> that lists intersections and gives the VOR's and radials that
> make them?

Standard aeronautical charts. Visit http://www.skyvector.com to examine charts
online. On charts, intersections that can be located using VORs will have
little arrows that point to the VOR stations that define them.

> Say I'm navigating between intersections. I can use the GPS to
> fly direct to these positions. However, it seems to me that,
> since intersections are exactly that, an intersection of
> radials from two or more VOR's, using this information makes
> a good backup in case the GPS goes south. Redundancy,
> redundancy, and more redundancy.

Quite so. And with a chart you can use VORs to navigate to most intersections.


> But looking at the sectional charts, it's not always readily
> apparent what the exact radials are. Sure, I could break out
> the straight edge and get a rough idea. But I would think that
> since their positions are officially defined by someone (FAA?)
> there would be a precise definition somewhere.

The radials are always identified somewhere on the chart, typically near the
VOR station itself. Follow the arrows backwards from the intersection to the
reference VORs, and the radials will be marked there.

Is that what you mean?

[Mxsmanic]

Skywise writes:

> That's the problem with not having 'real' lessons or experience,
> so I don't know how it's done in real life.

You can fly directly from waypoint to waypoint using only VORs, as long as the
waypoints are defined with reference to VORs. It's more tedious with VORs, but
it's certainly possible and practical.

> I generally am, but what I've found is I need to intercept the
> airway after takeoff, and there's usually a waypoint nearby,
> or in a recent case, the airway changes direction at a waypoint.

If you use SkyVector, you can plot a route that will provide you with
headings, radials, etc., that you can follow.

> Well, since it is only a sim, expiring charts aren't much of an
> issue as the sim will not change. And I have twin 1080p's. I
> have downloaded sectionals from the FAA and throw them on the
> other monitor. It's no big deal to scroll and zoom a bit. I've
> got good graphics editing software.

SkyVector is more practical, in my experience.

[Mxsmanic]

Edward A. Falk writes:

> For flight simulator programs, there won't be an ATC to give you a
> flight plan, so you just wing it.

If you join VATSIM or IVAO, you can get live ATC for the sim.

[Mxsmanic]

Skywise writes:

> Actually, the flight sims do have ATC. X-Plane allows me to
> file flight plans using anything but SIDs and STARs.

That's nothing compared to VATSIM. Use VATSIM, and you'll have procedures that
are the same as real life, including SIDs and STARs (and voice communication).

> BTW, X-Plane is less 'game' and more simulator. It's written
> by pilots and aeronautical engineers. The program can be used
> to make FAA certified simulators.

That's true for Flight Simulator as well.

[VOR DME]

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 13:40:56 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

> That's

*PLONK*

[Skywise]

VOR DME > wrote in :

> On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 13:40:56 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> That's
>
> *PLONK*

I used to peruse this forum years ago. That handle does sound
familiar, and not in a good way, IIRC.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?