VOR routes without VORs

[Mxsmanic]

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?

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

[ZikZak]

On Apr 15, 1:17 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?

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. When VFR, it makes no difference at all.

[Mxsmanic]

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?

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

[[email protected]]

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?

IFR: yes
VFR: no

But why would anyone do that unless you are talking about using GPS
to get from VOR to VOR?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[[email protected]]

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, it means you have no clue how IFR flights are planned and flown.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

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.

In your case, you would be out of luck.

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'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.

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

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ron Natalie]

ZikZak wrote:
> On Apr 15, 1:17 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?
>
> 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. When VFR, it makes no difference at all.
>
>
There is no such requirement if you have a TSO-C146 GPS.

[ZikZak]

On Apr 15, 7:03 pm, Ron Natalie > wrote:
> ZikZak wrote:
> > On Apr 15, 1:17 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?
>
> > 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. When VFR, it makes no difference at all.
>
> There is no such requirement if you have a TSO-C146 GPS.

Correct, I meant to say "navigating by most GPSs."

[ZikZak]

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.

[BT]

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.
>

[buttman]

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...

[[email protected]]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

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

[Kev]

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-----

[Kev]

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

[Peter Dohm]

>
> 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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[Maxwell]

"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.

[Maxwell]

"Kev" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> 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.
>>

Then take your question to rec.aviation.student and post them yourself. All
this chatter about things every pilot already knows is clearly off topic in
this forum.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

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

You can be IFR without being in communication with ATC, and you can be out of
radar range even when you are communicating with ATC. So there may not be
anyone who knows where you are besides yourself. Which means that if you
don't know your own position yourself, you have a problem.

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

When you are IFR in a small aircraft you're not going to be assigned FL330.
There may be obstacles between you and a VOR, or you may simply be out of
range.

> 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.

And?

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

[ZikZak]

On Apr 16, 8:04 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Yeah, right, ATC pays no attention to whether or not an IFR aircraft
> > is where it is supposed to be.
>
> You can be IFR without being in communication with ATC, and you can be out of
> radar range even when you are communicating with ATC. So there may not be
> anyone who knows where you are besides yourself. Which means that if you
> don't know your own position yourself, you have a problem.
>
> > When IFR you are going to be assigned an altitude that will NOT be
> > 3000 feet AGL.
>
> When you are IFR in a small aircraft you're not going to be assigned FL330.
> There may be obstacles between you and a VOR, or you may simply be out of
> range.

Under IFR, the Minimum Enroute Altitude of a victor airway (depicted
on the IFR enroute chart) assures VOR coverage. So when it's really
important, you have that information readily available.

[ArtP]

If you are flying VOR to VOR on an airway the reception has been
tested. If you are flying an off airway route than you use 40 miles as
the maximum distance from a VOR that you can receive a signal. If you
are off an airway you will fly at or above to minimum off airway
obstacle clearance altitude between you and the VOR so the VOR will
not be blocked by an obstacle. The altitudes and distances can be
found on the enroute charts. As someone else already pointed out if
you are flying off an airway you will have to use the AF/D to
determine if you can get VOR reception in the direction and altitude
you will be heading. If this sounds more involved than you are use to,
it is because it is. If MSFS simulated all aspects of flying people
would down rate the game for having too steep a learning curve and
nobody would buy it. I like MSFS for certain things: IFR approach
procedures, CRM, and even landing, but you can't practice those things
unless you know what they are, and have all of the documentation
required to perform them.

[Mxsmanic]

ZikZak writes:

> Under IFR, the Minimum Enroute Altitude of a victor airway (depicted
> on the IFR enroute chart) assures VOR coverage. So when it's really
> important, you have that information readily available.

I keep hoping that SkyVector will start providing enroute IFR charts someday,
as well as sectionals and TACs.

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

[Mxsmanic]

ArtP writes:

> If this sounds more involved than you are use to,
> it is because it is. If MSFS simulated all aspects of flying people
> would down rate the game for having too steep a learning curve and
> nobody would buy it.

Actually, MSFS does simulate such things; that's how I became aware of the
problem, and that's what prompted me to ask the question. I noticed that I
was out of range of some of the VORs I had planned to use, and sometimes they
would come and go at lower altitudes as things (like mountains) got in the
way.

> I like MSFS for certain things: IFR approach
> procedures, CRM, and even landing, but you can't practice those things
> unless you know what they are, and have all of the documentation
> required to perform them.

I'm making progress, little by little.

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

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

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

> You can be IFR without being in communication with ATC, and you can be out of
> radar range even when you are communicating with ATC. So there may not be
> anyone who knows where you are besides yourself. Which means that if you
> don't know your own position yourself, you have a problem.

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

> When you are IFR in a small aircraft you're not going to be assigned FL330.
> There may be obstacles between you and a VOR, or you may simply be out of
> range.

> > 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.

> And?

And... from the above you haven't a clue about real flying.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[ArtP]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:14:11 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:


>Actually, MSFS does simulate such things; that's how I became aware of the
>problem, and that's what prompted me to ask the question. I noticed that I
>was out of range of some of the VORs I had planned to use, and sometimes they
>would come and go at lower altitudes as things (like mountains) got in the
>way.

What MSFS does not simulate is the training required to learn what
documentation is required, how to use it, how to file, what are your
legal limitations, how your equipment works, what to do if it doesn't,
etc. If you are really serious about learning spend a few bucks on an
enroute chart and buy a book that will tell you how to read it.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> ArtP writes:

> > If this sounds more involved than you are use to,
> > it is because it is. If MSFS simulated all aspects of flying people
> > would down rate the game for having too steep a learning curve and
> > nobody would buy it.

> Actually, MSFS does simulate such things; that's how I became aware of the
> problem, and that's what prompted me to ask the question. I noticed that I
> was out of range of some of the VORs I had planned to use, and sometimes they
> would come and go at lower altitudes as things (like mountains) got in the
> way.

No real pilot would plan using a VOR behind a mountain unless they
also planed to fly higher than the mountain.

> > I like MSFS for certain things: IFR approach
> > procedures, CRM, and even landing, but you can't practice those things
> > unless you know what they are, and have all of the documentation
> > required to perform them.

> I'm making progress, little by little.

Not evident from the crap you post.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

ArtP writes:

> What MSFS does not simulate is the training required to learn what
> documentation is required, how to use it, how to file, what are your
> legal limitations, how your equipment works, what to do if it doesn't,
> etc.

No simulator simulates training.

> If you are really serious about learning spend a few bucks on an
> enroute chart and buy a book that will tell you how to read it.

I have both, although I haven't been able to get enroute charts for the U.S.,
where I actually fly.

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

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> No real pilot would plan using a VOR behind a mountain unless they
> also planed to fly higher than the mountain.

There are real pilots who don't plan at all.

> Not evident from the crap you post.

What do you think might be evident from what you post?

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

[Rip]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> I have both, although I haven't been able to get enroute charts for the U.S.,
> where I actually fly.
>
No, Anthony, you don't actually fly. You actually simulate flight using
a game produced by Microsoft.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> > Not evident from the crap you post.
>
> What do you think might be evident from what you post?
>

That he knows what he's talking about. It's quite apparent that you
have no idea how ridiculous an impression your posts make.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[swag]

On Apr 16, 8:15 am, wrote:
> 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.

I have often been assigned altitudes that were less than 3000 agl
within 30 miles of my destination.
I think you must be confusing filing VOR to VOR on an airway with
filing VOR to VOR not on an airway.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > No real pilot would plan using a VOR behind a mountain unless they
> > also planed to fly higher than the mountain.

> There are real pilots who don't plan at all.

Ahh, more semantic word games with worthless statements.

> > Not evident from the crap you post.

> What do you think might be evident from what you post?

That I have at least a basic understanding of real flying as opposed
to the crap you post.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

swag > wrote:
> On Apr 16, 8:15 am, wrote:
> > 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.

> I have often been assigned altitudes that were less than 3000 agl
> within 30 miles of my destination.
> I think you must be confusing filing VOR to VOR on an airway with
> filing VOR to VOR not on an airway.

No, I was talking about enroute over a distance where the VOR coverage
becomes a factor.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.