Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Vor to Vor Vs Direct GPS

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 4:22:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Hi all.

I know I have probably asked this question before, but I can´t figure out
the difference between flying Direct GPS compared to a VOR to VOR...

When do I use what...??

It seems to me that flying VOR to VOR is a longer trip, or am I wrong??

Thanks in advance.

More about : vor vor direct gps

Anonymous
May 14, 2005 4:22:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Erik Selde" <erik.selde@mail.dk> wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> I know I have probably asked this question before, but I can´t figure out
> the difference between flying Direct GPS compared to a VOR to VOR...
>
> When do I use what...??
>
> It seems to me that flying VOR to VOR is a longer trip, or am I wrong??
>
> Thanks in advance.

Yep, VOR to VOR will take longer than Direct GPS navigation. However, many
small airplanes do not have a GPS system and the VOR becomes the method of
navigation.

When I plot a GPS route, I will typically use VOR routes and intersections
just in case the GPS fails I will still be able to navigate. Of course,
pilotage is still a must. I do not want to get lost. May end up with
F16's off my wing over Washington DC that way. :-)

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com
May 14, 2005 4:22:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Erik;
VOR is what was used after Compass and Chart and before GPS. If you were
to get a chart of an area that you would be intrested in flying in (local
pilot shop or map store). You could use the chart to do all of the
"straight line" calculations (how far .. what direction (radial) etc) after
getting an idea of what your basic plan was you would get a weather brefing.
Using your basic plan you would now make corrections based on winds,
altitude, etc. Now you would have a plan that had been corrected for winds
etc. You would then file the plan. From that point on you would
continually update your calculations based on current weather briefings.
Actually the fun part for me is making the calc's just to see how accurate I
can navigate through winds...how accurate I can be with fuel use etc. Heck
just calculating the time between waypoints ... true airspeed...density
altitude all of the basic airmanship stuff is the fun of it for me.
I'm sure I have left stuff out but that is the basics.
I like VOR plans because it lets me stay more active in the cockpit ...
helps to keep me in the "groove" so to speak of the flight

Happy Navigating
meh


"Erik Selde" <erik.selde@mail.dk> wrote in message
news:428528aa$0$50634$edfadb0f@dread14.news.tele.dk...
> Hi all.
>
> I know I have probably asked this question before, but I can´t figure out
> the difference between flying Direct GPS compared to a VOR to VOR...
>
> When do I use what...??
>
> It seems to me that flying VOR to VOR is a longer trip, or am I wrong??
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 4:22:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Erik Selde <erik.selde@mail.dk> wrote:

> I know I have probably asked this question before, but I can´t figure out
> the difference between flying Direct GPS compared to a VOR to VOR...
>
> When do I use what...??
>
> It seems to me that flying VOR to VOR is a longer trip, or am I wrong??

Strictly speaking, flying VOR to VOR will be longer than flying direct with
the GPS.

As was pointed out elsewhere in this thread, VOR navigation has been in
existence since approximately the 1950s, whereas GPS has only been on the
scene for the last ten years or so. This means that the majority of the
older GA aircraft still flying IFR probably only have one or two VOR
receivers.

In the US, an aircraft that has an IFR certified, panel-mounted GPS is
still required to have an alternate IFR-certified navigational device
aboard; in almost all cases this is the VOR.

You can use either the GPS or VOR, or you can use pilotage (look out the
window and compare it to a map or your knowledge of the terrain) or dead
reckoning (use time and distance to calculate speed and position).

In the US, the national airspace is made up of airways (below 18,000 feet)
and jetways (above 18,000 feet into the flight levels). These airways and
jetways are defined by radials off VORs. In very busy airspace, such as
the northeast US, IFR aircraft are most often given routing along these
airways, rather than direct routing. This means pilots can use either
their VOR receivers to navigate along these routes or they can use their
GPS (by using intersections and VORs as GPS flightplan waypoints).

In less busy airspace or during off peak (early mornings or later in the
evenings), ATC most likely will give direct routing to IFR aircraft. In
the case of smaller aircraft, direct routing from departure airport to
destination airport requires a GPS to be onboard. ATC knows what equipment
is on board when an IFR flight plan is filed. No GPS, no direct routing.

Now, to answer your question: In real life, more and more pilots are using
GPS's for IFR navigation, whether they are flying direct or VOR-to-VOR. In
the sim, using the GPS for navigation significantly reduces the amount of
work you have to do and, hence, reduces a lot of the cockpit interaction.

Many people have commented in this group that it simply is more fun to
navigate with the VOR because it requires more work. In the end, use what
you find more enjoyable, but know that if you want to fly direct to an
airport many miles away and conditions preclude you from seeing out the
window, you will most likely have to use GPS, unless there is a VOR located
at the airport.




--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 4:55:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

> When I plot a GPS route, I will typically use VOR routes and intersections
> just in case the GPS fails I will still be able to navigate.

It's so simple in MsFS - you just click "Calculate Route".
But how does it happen in a real life?
How is the route (IFR) calculated?
How (and when) is the ATC informed about your route?

What about VFR routes? Are they planned like that too?

Thanks,

latet
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 4:55:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"latet" <latet@latet.pl> wrote in message
news:D 63b9i$gb$1@host102-ursus.spray.net.pl...
>> When I plot a GPS route, I will typically use VOR routes and
>> intersections
>> just in case the GPS fails I will still be able to navigate.
>
> It's so simple in MsFS - you just click "Calculate Route".
> But how does it happen in a real life?
> How is the route (IFR) calculated?
> How (and when) is the ATC informed about your route?
>
> What about VFR routes? Are they planned like that too?
>
> Thanks,
>
> latet
>

For both IFR and VFR flights you spend time filling out a flight log ,
choosing waypoints or fixes that are on the way to where you want to go,
then go back and calculate the effect of winds on your flight (usually after
you get a weather briefing from the phone system), and if you are VFR you
can file, but don't have to (with a few exceptions), if you are IFR you call
the flight service station with your flight plan, time, all that good stuff.
Then when you are IFR you call up clearance delivery, and they read back
what they want YOU to fly, sometimes its exactly what you filed, sometimes
its 150% different. And then again what happens when you actually get in
the air will entail more changes to your clearance as you go on about your
flight. There is a lot to it than just calling in where you want to go, and
there isn't a calculate route button in the airplane.....
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 4:55:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

I can not speak for IFR routes... As for VFR, I get my trusty aviation
map and a navigation plotter (essentially a ruler with a protractor
built in) and select good waypoints. These are determined by my
ability to visually find it on the ground while flying. Then I
essentially play connect the dots. There are wind correction angles
and spped adjustements made after that point. This method is flying
by sight reference to the ground...

Additionally, you add VOR navigation to the picture. This helps for
going longer distances, or tracking your progress along your
anticipated route.

As for ATC, you fill out a flight plan and call it in. You tell them
who you are, when you are leaving, when you will arrive and a lot of
other information.

As far as simple, it gets easier with practice... Like anything I
would imagine. With a GPS is really is simple, but I do not want to
loose sight of the basics. For the GPS gods may callith my unit home
while I am in the middle of the boonies, and leavith me stranded in
the sky with no place to go but down.



On Sat, 14 May 2005 00:55:24 +0200, "latet" <latet@latet.pl> wrote:

>> When I plot a GPS route, I will typically use VOR routes and intersections
>> just in case the GPS fails I will still be able to navigate.
>
>It's so simple in MsFS - you just click "Calculate Route".
>But how does it happen in a real life?
>How is the route (IFR) calculated?
>How (and when) is the ATC informed about your route?
>
>What about VFR routes? Are they planned like that too?
>
>Thanks,
>
>latet
>


Mike Alexander
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
See my online aerial photo album at
http://flying.4alexanders.com
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 4:55:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

My CFI used to give me a hard time because it would take me 3 hours to
plan a 1 hour flight... :-)

I have gotten much bettter now, but I would rather take the time while
on the ground and get it right. Being in the air and having the
realization that you messed up is not an option...

On Fri, 13 May 2005 16:31:51 -0700, "nooneimportant" <no.spam@me>
wrote:

>
>"latet" <latet@latet.pl> wrote in message
>news:D 63b9i$gb$1@host102-ursus.spray.net.pl...
>>> When I plot a GPS route, I will typically use VOR routes and
>>> intersections
>>> just in case the GPS fails I will still be able to navigate.
>>
>> It's so simple in MsFS - you just click "Calculate Route".
>> But how does it happen in a real life?
>> How is the route (IFR) calculated?
>> How (and when) is the ATC informed about your route?
>>
>> What about VFR routes? Are they planned like that too?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> latet
>>
>
>For both IFR and VFR flights you spend time filling out a flight log ,
>choosing waypoints or fixes that are on the way to where you want to go,
>then go back and calculate the effect of winds on your flight (usually after
>you get a weather briefing from the phone system), and if you are VFR you
>can file, but don't have to (with a few exceptions), if you are IFR you call
>the flight service station with your flight plan, time, all that good stuff.
>Then when you are IFR you call up clearance delivery, and they read back
>what they want YOU to fly, sometimes its exactly what you filed, sometimes
>its 150% different. And then again what happens when you actually get in
>the air will entail more changes to your clearance as you go on about your
>flight. There is a lot to it than just calling in where you want to go, and
>there isn't a calculate route button in the airplane.....
>


Mike Alexander
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
See my online aerial photo album at
http://flying.4alexanders.com
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 4:55:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

It gets better... it really does. I eventually got down to about 30 minutes
for most flights as far as the planning goes. Anymore I just plug it into
duats.com or somesuch, figure i've done enough by hand that I can do it the
easy way from time to time. Still do the occasional by hand just for the
practice. As much as i Love to file IFR, it kind of seems pointless to
plan IFR cus as soon as you get flying they change your entire routing on
you. Especially if you file /g cant tell you how many times I've been
asked "You guys gps equiped?", "yes", "Ok... in that case proced direct such
and such, then proceed on course. Now that direct just cut down on my
distance a little, but it removed my chance to do some VOR navigation.... oh
well...


"Mike 'Flyin'8'" <yeah.right@guess.again> wrote in message
news:rgoa81tq3e21r4q5bm484d6fe1bphpd4up@4ax.com...
> My CFI used to give me a hard time because it would take me 3 hours to
> plan a 1 hour flight... :-)
>
> I have gotten much bettter now, but I would rather take the time while
> on the ground and get it right. Being in the air and having the
> realization that you messed up is not an option...
>
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 16:31:51 -0700, "nooneimportant" <no.spam@me>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"latet" <latet@latet.pl> wrote in message
>>news:D 63b9i$gb$1@host102-ursus.spray.net.pl...
>>>> When I plot a GPS route, I will typically use VOR routes and
>>>> intersections
>>>> just in case the GPS fails I will still be able to navigate.
>>>
>>> It's so simple in MsFS - you just click "Calculate Route".
>>> But how does it happen in a real life?
>>> How is the route (IFR) calculated?
>>> How (and when) is the ATC informed about your route?
>>>
>>> What about VFR routes? Are they planned like that too?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> latet
>>>
>>
>>For both IFR and VFR flights you spend time filling out a flight log ,
>>choosing waypoints or fixes that are on the way to where you want to go,
>>then go back and calculate the effect of winds on your flight (usually
>>after
>>you get a weather briefing from the phone system), and if you are VFR you
>>can file, but don't have to (with a few exceptions), if you are IFR you
>>call
>>the flight service station with your flight plan, time, all that good
>>stuff.
>>Then when you are IFR you call up clearance delivery, and they read back
>>what they want YOU to fly, sometimes its exactly what you filed, sometimes
>>its 150% different. And then again what happens when you actually get in
>>the air will entail more changes to your clearance as you go on about your
>>flight. There is a lot to it than just calling in where you want to go,
>>and
>>there isn't a calculate route button in the airplane.....
>>
>
>
> Mike Alexander
> PP-ASEL
> Temecula, CA
> See my online aerial photo album at
> http://flying.4alexanders.com
May 14, 2005 12:25:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Fri, 13 May 2005 19:35:38 -0700, Mike 'Flyin'8'
<yeah.right@guess.again> brought the following to our attention:

>I can not speak for IFR routes... As for VFR, I get my trusty aviation
>map and a navigation plotter (essentially a ruler with a protractor
>built in) and select good waypoints. These are determined by my
>ability to visually find it on the ground while flying. Then I
>essentially play connect the dots. There are wind correction angles
>and spped adjustements made after that point. This method is flying
>by sight reference to the ground...
>
>Additionally, you add VOR navigation to the picture. This helps for
>going longer distances, or tracking your progress along your
>anticipated route.

So glad you're discussing flight plans.. what FP'r do you use for Sim?
FSNav?.. FSBuild?.. what's the one with elevation views of the ILS?
An online FP'r or two? How about a small or miniature laptop strictly
setup as a FP device? with wireless net-device even! ;) 

-G

>As for ATC, you fill out a flight plan and call it in. You tell them
>who you are, when you are leaving, when you will arrive and a lot of
>other information.
>
>As far as simple, it gets easier with practice... Like anything I
>would imagine. With a GPS is really is simple, but I do not want to
>loose sight of the basics. For the GPS gods may callith my unit home
>while I am in the middle of the boonies, and leavith me stranded in
>the sky with no place to go but down.
>
>
>On Sat, 14 May 2005 00:55:24 +0200, "latet" <latet@latet.pl> wrote:
>
>>> When I plot a GPS route, I will typically use VOR routes and intersections
>>> just in case the GPS fails I will still be able to navigate.
>>
>>It's so simple in MsFS - you just click "Calculate Route".
>>But how does it happen in a real life?
>>How is the route (IFR) calculated?
>>How (and when) is the ATC informed about your route?
>>
>>What about VFR routes? Are they planned like that too?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>latet
>>
>
>
>Mike Alexander
>PP-ASEL
>Temecula, CA
>See my online aerial photo album at
>http://flying.4alexanders.com
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 2:53:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

>There is a lot to it than just calling in where you want to go, and there
>isn't a calculate route button in the airplane.....

There are "calculate route" buttons even in rather simple GPS
systems in cars... I'm a little surprized there are not used in
planes...

latet
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 5:53:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"In the US, an aircraft that has an IFR certified, panel-mounted GPS is
still required to have an alternate IFR-certified navigational device
aboard; in almost all cases this is the VOR".

Where did you get this info? From what I have been reading, this is not the
case, at least for Part 91.

According to the FAR's, all that is required is: "Two-way radio
communications system and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground
facilities to be used."

While I have not personally seen it, my understanding is that an IFR enroute
certified GPS will meet this requirement (landings excluded).

After all, theoretically, you could legally fly IFR with only an ADF (talk
about cockpit workload!)

Just as an aside, thank you for saving me a lot of typing over the years. I
will be reading a thread and come across either a point that has been
omitted or poorly explained and begin formulating a post in my mind, then
come across a "pr-post" and 99 times out of 100, you have covered either the
missing or less-clear material.

You are definitely an asset to the group!





"pr" <nope@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:77yah71p4gb7$.dlg@ID-259643.user.individual.net...
> Erik Selde <erik.selde@mail.dk> wrote:
>
> > I know I have probably asked this question before, but I can´t figure
out
> > the difference between flying Direct GPS compared to a VOR to VOR...
> >
> > When do I use what...??
> >
> > It seems to me that flying VOR to VOR is a longer trip, or am I wrong??
>
> Strictly speaking, flying VOR to VOR will be longer than flying direct
with
> the GPS.
>
> As was pointed out elsewhere in this thread, VOR navigation has been in
> existence since approximately the 1950s, whereas GPS has only been on the
> scene for the last ten years or so. This means that the majority of the
> older GA aircraft still flying IFR probably only have one or two VOR
> receivers.
>
> In the US, an aircraft that has an IFR certified, panel-mounted GPS is
> still required to have an alternate IFR-certified navigational device
> aboard; in almost all cases this is the VOR.
>
> You can use either the GPS or VOR, or you can use pilotage (look out the
> window and compare it to a map or your knowledge of the terrain) or dead
> reckoning (use time and distance to calculate speed and position).
>
> In the US, the national airspace is made up of airways (below 18,000 feet)
> and jetways (above 18,000 feet into the flight levels). These airways and
> jetways are defined by radials off VORs. In very busy airspace, such as
> the northeast US, IFR aircraft are most often given routing along these
> airways, rather than direct routing. This means pilots can use either
> their VOR receivers to navigate along these routes or they can use their
> GPS (by using intersections and VORs as GPS flightplan waypoints).
>
> In less busy airspace or during off peak (early mornings or later in the
> evenings), ATC most likely will give direct routing to IFR aircraft. In
> the case of smaller aircraft, direct routing from departure airport to
> destination airport requires a GPS to be onboard. ATC knows what
equipment
> is on board when an IFR flight plan is filed. No GPS, no direct routing.
>
> Now, to answer your question: In real life, more and more pilots are
using
> GPS's for IFR navigation, whether they are flying direct or VOR-to-VOR.
In
> the sim, using the GPS for navigation significantly reduces the amount of
> work you have to do and, hence, reduces a lot of the cockpit interaction.
>
> Many people have commented in this group that it simply is more fun to
> navigate with the VOR because it requires more work. In the end, use what
> you find more enjoyable, but know that if you want to fly direct to an
> airport many miles away and conditions preclude you from seeing out the
> window, you will most likely have to use GPS, unless there is a VOR
located
> at the airport.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 5:53:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Lakeview Bill <bdentonchi@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Where did you get this info? From what I have been reading, this is not the
> case, at least for Part 91.

Bill, in the US, the AIM has the pertinent section. I need to see where in
the FARS this requirement is spelled out:

http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/Chap1/aim0101.html#1-1-19

1-1-19. Global Positioning System

section d,1,b:

------------ AIM quote --------------------------------------

(b) Aircraft using GPS navigation equipment under IFR must be equipped with
an approved and operational alternate means of navigation appropriate to
the flight. Active monitoring of alternative navigation equipment is not
required if the GPS receiver uses RAIM for integrity monitoring. Active
monitoring of an alternate means of navigation is required when the RAIM
capability of the GPS equipment is lost.

--------------- end quote ------------------------------------


> While I have not personally seen it, my understanding is that
> an IFR enroute certified GPS will meet this requirement
> (landings excluded).

Read the entire 1-1-19 (linked above) for all information about GPS use in
both VFR and IFR flight.

> After all, theoretically, you could legally fly IFR with only an ADF

True, but this is irrelevant to the discussion of GPS and an alternate
means of navigation. It is my opinion that GPS specifically is still not
100% trusted by the FAA (US aviation regulation group), as demonstrated by
the above quote.

> Just as an aside, thank you for saving me a lot of typing over the years. I
> will be reading a thread and come across either a point that has been
> omitted or poorly explained and begin formulating a post in my mind, then
> come across a "pr-post" and 99 times out of 100, you have covered either the
> missing or less-clear material.

Please don't let me stop you from contributing. Despite acting like a
know-it-all, I am sure there are areas where I am lacking. I am only a
single engine, general aviation pilot who flies a lot of actual IMC flights
out of the northeast US. I average about 250-300 hours per year these
days, flying for business, pleasure, and charity.

> You are definitely an asset to the group!

You are too kind. :)  I enjoy sharing what I have learned so far. There
are a lot of individuals here who really have an interest in how real-world
compares to the sim, or have genuine questions about equipment and/or
procedures. Where the questions fall into my range of experiences and
knowledge to-date, I enjoy helping out.

This group has a lot of real world active and retired pilots from all areas
of aviation. What is your background?

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 6:22:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

..

> You are definitely an asset to the group!


He is, he is I agree :-)
--
Cheers,

Quilly











An individual reply goes into my spam filter
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 6:22:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Quilljar <wykehill-flightsim@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> He is, he is I agree :-)

IMO, so are you! :) 

BTW, where's Oskar these days? Last I knew he was working hard at
recreating all the lakes and rivers for the sim in his home country. Has
that project taken all of his free Usenet time? :-)

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 8:11:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

RE: Background

Still just doing the FS thing.

Dad was WWII Navy fighter pilot, so grew up around aviation.

Back in the early 80's, for about a year had a pilot who flew me around in a
Piper Arrow and/or Lance 2-3 times per week, and I picked up a lot of info
from him.

Slowly but surely working toward a Sport Pilot ticket, but no air time yet.




"pr" <nope@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:1iktxjs8j73jm.dlg@ID-259643.user.individual.net...
> Lakeview Bill <bdentonchi@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Where did you get this info? From what I have been reading, this is not
the
> > case, at least for Part 91.
>
> Bill, in the US, the AIM has the pertinent section. I need to see where
in
> the FARS this requirement is spelled out:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/Chap1/aim0101.html#1-1-19
>
> 1-1-19. Global Positioning System
>
> section d,1,b:
>
> ------------ AIM quote --------------------------------------
>
> (b) Aircraft using GPS navigation equipment under IFR must be equipped
with
> an approved and operational alternate means of navigation appropriate to
> the flight. Active monitoring of alternative navigation equipment is not
> required if the GPS receiver uses RAIM for integrity monitoring. Active
> monitoring of an alternate means of navigation is required when the RAIM
> capability of the GPS equipment is lost.
>
> --------------- end quote ------------------------------------
>
>
> > While I have not personally seen it, my understanding is that
> > an IFR enroute certified GPS will meet this requirement
> > (landings excluded).
>
> Read the entire 1-1-19 (linked above) for all information about GPS use in
> both VFR and IFR flight.
>
> > After all, theoretically, you could legally fly IFR with only an ADF
>
> True, but this is irrelevant to the discussion of GPS and an alternate
> means of navigation. It is my opinion that GPS specifically is still not
> 100% trusted by the FAA (US aviation regulation group), as demonstrated by
> the above quote.
>
> > Just as an aside, thank you for saving me a lot of typing over the
years. I
> > will be reading a thread and come across either a point that has been
> > omitted or poorly explained and begin formulating a post in my mind,
then
> > come across a "pr-post" and 99 times out of 100, you have covered either
the
> > missing or less-clear material.
>
> Please don't let me stop you from contributing. Despite acting like a
> know-it-all, I am sure there are areas where I am lacking. I am only a
> single engine, general aviation pilot who flies a lot of actual IMC
flights
> out of the northeast US. I average about 250-300 hours per year these
> days, flying for business, pleasure, and charity.
>
> > You are definitely an asset to the group!
>
> You are too kind. :)  I enjoy sharing what I have learned so far. There
> are a lot of individuals here who really have an interest in how
real-world
> compares to the sim, or have genuine questions about equipment and/or
> procedures. Where the questions fall into my range of experiences and
> knowledge to-date, I enjoy helping out.
>
> This group has a lot of real world active and retired pilots from all
areas
> of aviation. What is your background?
>
> --
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 8:18:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

>>Additionally, you add VOR navigation to the picture. This helps for
>>going longer distances, or tracking your progress along your
>>anticipated route.
>
>So glad you're discussing flight plans.. what FP'r do you use for Sim?
>FSNav?.. FSBuild?.. what's the one with elevation views of the ILS?
>An online FP'r or two? How about a small or miniature laptop strictly
>setup as a FP device? with wireless net-device even! ;) 

When I fly in the sim, I actually plan the route on my real navigation
map. When flying for real, I use the AOPA online flight planner
software after plotting it out manually. I check for accuracy that
way. I an not sure of the flight plan SW with the elevation... Maybe
Golden Eagle or Airplan Lite. I think those are both free and work
ok.

I know there is an application that piggybacks on top of MS Flight Sim
that allows you to connect a real GPS to it, but have not gone any
firther than that. Wonder if I could make it work with my AirMap
1000...



Mike Alexander
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
See my online aerial photo album at
http://flying.4alexanders.com
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 11:34:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

I say thanks for all the responses. I´ll try and use a little of both...
"pr" <nope@nospam.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:77yah71p4gb7$.dlg@ID-259643.user.individual.net...
> Erik Selde <erik.selde@mail.dk> wrote:
>
>> I know I have probably asked this question before, but I can´t figure out
>> the difference between flying Direct GPS compared to a VOR to VOR...
>>
>> When do I use what...??
>>
>> It seems to me that flying VOR to VOR is a longer trip, or am I wrong??
>
> Strictly speaking, flying VOR to VOR will be longer than flying direct
> with
> the GPS.
>
> As was pointed out elsewhere in this thread, VOR navigation has been in
> existence since approximately the 1950s, whereas GPS has only been on the
> scene for the last ten years or so. This means that the majority of the
> older GA aircraft still flying IFR probably only have one or two VOR
> receivers.
>
> In the US, an aircraft that has an IFR certified, panel-mounted GPS is
> still required to have an alternate IFR-certified navigational device
> aboard; in almost all cases this is the VOR.
>
> You can use either the GPS or VOR, or you can use pilotage (look out the
> window and compare it to a map or your knowledge of the terrain) or dead
> reckoning (use time and distance to calculate speed and position).
>
> In the US, the national airspace is made up of airways (below 18,000 feet)
> and jetways (above 18,000 feet into the flight levels). These airways and
> jetways are defined by radials off VORs. In very busy airspace, such as
> the northeast US, IFR aircraft are most often given routing along these
> airways, rather than direct routing. This means pilots can use either
> their VOR receivers to navigate along these routes or they can use their
> GPS (by using intersections and VORs as GPS flightplan waypoints).
>
> In less busy airspace or during off peak (early mornings or later in the
> evenings), ATC most likely will give direct routing to IFR aircraft. In
> the case of smaller aircraft, direct routing from departure airport to
> destination airport requires a GPS to be onboard. ATC knows what
> equipment
> is on board when an IFR flight plan is filed. No GPS, no direct routing.
>
> Now, to answer your question: In real life, more and more pilots are
> using
> GPS's for IFR navigation, whether they are flying direct or VOR-to-VOR.
> In
> the sim, using the GPS for navigation significantly reduces the amount of
> work you have to do and, hence, reduces a lot of the cockpit interaction.
>
> Many people have commented in this group that it simply is more fun to
> navigate with the VOR because it requires more work. In the end, use what
> you find more enjoyable, but know that if you want to fly direct to an
> airport many miles away and conditions preclude you from seeing out the
> window, you will most likely have to use GPS, unless there is a VOR
> located
> at the airport.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
> Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
> =----
May 15, 2005 1:11:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Sat, 14 May 2005 16:18:46 -0700, Mike 'Flyin'8'
<yeah.right@guess.again> brought the following to our attention:

>>>Additionally, you add VOR navigation to the picture. This helps for
>>>going longer distances, or tracking your progress along your
>>>anticipated route.

[GA]
>>So glad you're discussing flight plans.. what FP'r do you use for Sim?
>>FSNav?.. FSBuild?.. what's the one with elevation views of the ILS?
>>An online FP'r or two? How about a small or miniature laptop strictly
>>setup as a FP device? with wireless net-device even! ;) 
>>


>When I fly in the sim, I actually plan the route on my real navigation
>map. When flying for real, I use the AOPA online flight planner
>software after plotting it out manually. I check for accuracy that
>way. I an not sure of the flight plan SW with the elevation... Maybe
>Golden Eagle or Airplan Lite. I think those are both free and work
>ok.
>
>I know there is an application that piggybacks on top of MS Flight Sim
>that allows you to connect a real GPS to it, but have not gone any
>firther than that. Wonder if I could make it work with my AirMap
>1000...
>

...was thinking of FlightSim Commander.. it has elevation view of the
ILS.. a feature hard to overlook. The other two popular ones are
FSBuild and FSNavigator (or FSNav) which I have already. FSBuild has
detailed AC specific tables for FF vs ALT.. etc. Agreed it's a very
good idea to make FPs.. however some have advocated aimlessly
and mischievously Simming about the countryside. :] Gawd would that
make for yawns!! :)  let's not get started on that topic however.

-Gregory
!