If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Yes, and every other VOR on that frequency as well. The altitude/distance limits ensure you won't receive an unwanted VOR signal. Note that the service volume decreases from 130 miles to 100 miles above FL 450. Exactly! And that was the reason for my confusion and original question. Antonio |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Grumman-581 wrote:
"Antoņio" wrote in message ... I'm not sure of what that remark means. The earth is round... Radio travels line of sight, which means a straight line...Draw a large circle with a protractor... Choose a point on the circumference at the top of the circle... Draw a line tangent to the circle through this point... The line is horizontal... If an object is above this line, it will be able to 'see' the original point, if it is below the line, but above the circumference, it will not be able to 'see' the original point since the body of the circle (i.e. the earth) is getting in the way of the signal... The greater the distance the object is above the circumference of the circle, the more of the circle it is able to 'see'... Now, extend this concept into three dimensions... That argument would be acceptable if the service volumes were increased at regular rates as one increased in altitude. However, according to the AIM, they do not. In fact the configuration presented is non-linear. Once again I say take a look at the drawings in the AIM of the service volumes. The distances that VOR's of varying service offerings are depicted to offer is schematically represented as sort of like stacked tires of differing sizes! Your linear geometric model explanation just does not hold up to what is pictured there in the AIM. Antonio |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Hilton wrote:
Yes, if we all had extremely efficient receivers, but we don't. The FAA and some radio guys got together and decided on applicable distances. Once they figured that out, they had a bunch of semi-spheres. While it would have been 'correct' to define the service volumes are a semi-sphere, it wouldn't have been all that useful to us (pilots). So the FAA made them (mostly) cylinders (and ensured that the cylinder lay within the semi-sphere) to make it easy for pilots to figure out whether or not they were in the service volume. i.e. it is a combination of radio effectiveness and pilot usefulness that describes the service volume. I just made that up, but it sure sounds convincing, logical, and almost as good as if I had stayed at a Holiday Inn last night... instead of working on software. Hilton If the FAA simply depicted a cylinder of theoretical signal strength within the actual "semi-sphere" of service, I would completely follow the analogy. However, the FAA has depicted cylinders of various diameters stacked upon each other. Given that the VOR is line-of-sight, I did not understand why, for example, a VOR would be received 130nm out at FL180 yet only be received 100nm at FL500. Doesn't it logically follow that at the higher altitude the VOR would be able to be received further out? (See AIM 1-1-8)and then order some room service! ;-) Antonio |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Antoņio" wrote in message news If the FAA simply depicted a cylinder of theoretical signal strength within the actual "semi-sphere" of service, I would completely follow the analogy. However, the FAA has depicted cylinders of various diameters stacked upon each other. Given that the VOR is line-of-sight, I did not understand why, for example, a VOR would be received 130nm out at FL180 yet only be received 100nm at FL500. Doesn't it logically follow that at the higher altitude the VOR would be able to be received further out? Yes, it does logically follow that at the higher altitude the VOR would be able to be received further out. Do you now understand why the distance is less at higher altitude? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message 1... Isn't that the reason certain airways have a MAA - Maximum Authorized Altitude? Frequency overlap is probably the most common reason but they may also exist due to conflicts with special use airspace. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
I did not understand why, for example, a VOR would be received 130nm out at FL180 yet only be received 100nm at FL500. Doesn't it logically follow that at the higher altitude the VOR would be able to be received further out
Depends on the antenna radiation pattern, and interference from other emitters. Jose -- Money: what you need when you run out of brains. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
The signal strength from a VOR decreases with distance. You are on a
straight line to the VOR from the moon but the signal strength would be too low to create guidance. -- Darrell R. Schmidt B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/ - "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message nk.net... "Antoņio" wrote in message ... I was at a CFI safety meeting today and the subject of VOR service volumes came up. The AIM describes the Standard High Service Volume as providing positive course guidance at varying distances depending on your altitude--40nm at 1000ft., 100nm at 14,500ft, 130nm at 45,000ft, etc. If the VOR is a "line of sight" signal device. How can there be varying distances of service at varying altitudes? I mean, shouldn't I be able to pick up a VOR radial from the moon as long as no obstructions intervene? Yes, and every other VOR on that frequency as well. The altitude/distance limits ensure you won't receive an unwanted VOR signal. Note that the service volume decreases from 130 miles to 100 miles above FL 450. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Darrell S" wrote in message news:4R4he.25286$tQ.4405@fed1read06... The signal strength from a VOR decreases with distance. You are on a straight line to the VOR from the moon but the signal strength would be too low to create guidance. I think he was speaking figuratively, aircraft do not operate very well outside the atmosphere. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Yes, it does logically follow that at the higher altitude the VOR would be able to be received further out. Do you now understand why the distance is less at higher altitude? I am not sure. Is it because the radiation pattern is spherical and not line-of-sight? Antonio |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Darrell S" wrote in message news:4R4he.25286$tQ.4405@fed1read06... The signal strength from a VOR decreases with distance. You are on a straight line to the VOR from the moon but the signal strength would be too low to create guidance. Signal is too weak to use with today's receivers, but a signal is never too weak, with the right receiver. Look at the space robots; still in contact, at the edge of the solar system. Amazing. -- Jim in NC |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
millionaire on the Internet... in weeks! | Malcolm Austin | Soaring | 0 | November 5th 04 11:14 PM |