Victor Airways and VOR navigation

Josh Whitman said:
I have my private pilot checkride coming up and I am planning my cross country flight. The examiner wants me to track to two VORs near the departure airport and then navigate however I'd like to the specified destination. I started planing the flight by hoping from VOR to VOR along the route but now I've seen where some people say to stay off victor airways unless you are IFR or in an airliner for various reasons. Some of the legs are indeed victor airways. But I also see people say don't rely on GPS and don't just go direct incase the GPS fails. Those people suggest navigating by VOR so you can use the GPS and the VOR and have either as a backup.

Obviously pilotage and dead reckoning are a back up to either method and neither GPS or VOR relieve me of proper planing.

On two of my cross countries I've flown inbound to a VOR and outbound to my destination, but neither of those were on airways. I've also flown one GPS direct to. So which is "right"? I know it's not a cut and dry answer but I overthink these things. Is one method overwhelmingly prefered over the other? Do I need to stay away from Victor Airways?
Click to expand...

Josh, have a discussion with your CFI to clarify questions. The are generally 4 components to the cross country portion of the test. A pilotage /dead reckoning segment with no electronic navigation aids (no position information from EFB either). A Navigations Systems and ATC services segment where you will demonstrate VOR tracking. A diversion segment. A lost procedures segment. There are many options an examiner may use to do these tasks.

If your CFI has not discussed the test standards with you, here is a link to the ACS. https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/acs/media/private_airplane_acs.pdf
 
tspear said:
Your instructor is an idiot. Outside if emergency training you will never use VOR again. And if the **** hits the fan and GPS goes down, you along with everyone else will be getting vectors from ATC.

Tim

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That's not the FAA expectation....the ATC system will be overloaded and they want the pilot population to live up to their "pilot in command" responsibilities. AIM 1-1-3.

Bob
 
PaulS said:
The thing is, even with the GPS, the only real part of it approved to navigate by is the CDI, the needles. The map with the magenta line, to be used only for situational awareness, still very useful though. So in reality the GPS works pretty much like the VOR, only more automated. It is definitely worthwhile to learn how to navigate with a VOR.
Click to expand...

What FAA document can I reference a VFR requirement stating the only part approved to navigate using GPS is the CDI? Where can I reference the FAA document that says I just can’t use a tablet and EFB for VFR navigation?
 
Clip4 said:
You are commenting in a thread referencing VFR navigation for a flight test.
Click to expand...
PaulS said:
Careful folks, thread police are here.
Click to expand...
It's a fair comment. You are quite correct but we are talking about a private pilot checkride, so discussion of IFR issues might be confusing unless they are at least identified as such.

OTOH, the prohibition tends to be in the "Limitations" section of the AFM supplement (sample below). Since Limitations is an ACS subject, knowing it's there might be at least as fair a subject of inquiry as the 24-month pitot-static and altimeter checks.

upload_2018-12-25_13-9-14.png
 
midlifeflyer said:
Nah. A mile off when everything is centered and perfect doesn't meet my definition of accuracy.

I agree with @Mooney Fan. Used to navigate from almost 250 NM back to my home base using nothing but an AM radio station.
Click to expand...

Yep, Westbound at the Colorado River southern Nevada, Needles area etc, I would pick up KNX in LA with ease. If San Diego bound, the blow torch back then XTRA Sports 690
 
midlifeflyer said:
It's a fair comment. You are quite correct but we are talking about a private pilot checkride, so discussion of IFR issues might be confusing unless they are at least identified as such.

OTOH, the prohibition tends to be in the "Limitations" section of the AFM supplement (sample below). Since Limitations is an ACS subject, knowing it's there might be at least as fair a subject of inquiry as the 24-month pitot-static and altimeter checks.

View attachment 70240
Click to expand...

I also took under consideration the topic, and refrained from discussing the usefulness of MEA's listed on the Victor Airways while flying VFR . That's a discussion for another day as the pilot progresses past his current stage of training
 
PaulS said:
That's the truth, I was told a story by professional pilot who said that he experienced a GPS outage while on a flight that ended with an approach. He had to fly his plan via VORs and ended with an ILS approach. He said the GPS signal came back when he was on the ground. It's very improbable for this to happen, but if it does the VORs are very good to have and know how to use.
Click to expand...
Considering the regularity of GPS-interference NOTAMs, I'm not sure how improbable it is, although I admit that I haven't experienced this personally.
 
tspear said:
This is a tough crowd that does not understand sarcasm very well.

To the OP. The ACS will require pilotage and ability to use other navigation sources available in your plane. This has not changed.

From a practical perspective, if your plane is GPS equipped you should know and be able to use the VOR as a backup. If GPS goes down hard and not just in a local area you will need to know how to get somewhere and land safely.

Lastly, if your plane has a capability and your instructor says do not use it. Ask why, and mostly likely consider finding a new instructor. I have yet to hear of a valid reason to not use the tools which have been provided.
Click to expand...

Plenty of people have brains and refuse to use them, valid reasons or not. I mean, if you think about it... ;)
 
tspear said:
Your instructor is an idiot. Outside if emergency training you will never use VOR again. And if the **** hits the fan and GPS goes down, you along with everyone else will be getting vectors from ATC.

Tim

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Vectors from ATC while VFR (would never happen, but let’s pretend) will be super useful if you lose comm with ATC.
 
Good luck on your checkride. Fly between vors Victor airways vfr levels. Get flight following unless your examiner says otherwise.
 
Man, people will defend the magenta line to the bitter end...to the OP, I hope you become and stay proficient in several forms of navigation, that will make you a much better pilot. Everyone has their own opinions (some are more correct than others), but please do not make your only back up plan to a GPS outage ATC vectors, you may very well end up SOL.
 
Make sure you identify VOR with the Morse code identifier. That will help you impress and get off on the right foot. Good habit too as VORs are being decommissioned all the time
 
Clip4 said:
Josh, have a discussion with your CFI to clarify questions. The are generally 4 components to the cross country portion of the test. A pilotage /dead reckoning segment with no electronic navigation aids (no position information from EFB either). A Navigations Systems and ATC services segment where you will demonstrate VOR tracking. A diversion segment. A lost procedures segment. There are many options an examiner may use to do these tasks.

If your CFI has not discussed the test standards with you, here is a link to the ACS. https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/acs/media/private_airplane_acs.pdf
Click to expand...
Josh Whitman said:
I have my private pilot checkride coming up and I am planning my cross country flight. The examiner wants me to track to two VORs near the departure airport and then navigate however I'd like to the specified destination. I started planing the flight by hoping from VOR to VOR along the route but now I've seen where some people say to stay off victor airways unless you are IFR or in an airliner for various reasons. Some of the legs are indeed victor airways. But I also see people say don't rely on GPS and don't just go direct incase the GPS fails. Those people suggest navigating by VOR so you can use the GPS and the VOR and have either as a backup.

Obviously pilotage and dead reckoning are a back up to either method and neither GPS or VOR relieve me of proper planing.

On two of my cross countries I've flown inbound to a VOR and outbound to my destination, but neither of those were on airways. I've also flown one GPS direct to. So which is "right"? I know it's not a cut and dry answer but I overthink these things. Is one method overwhelmingly prefered over the other? Do I need to stay away from Victor Airways?
Click to expand...

There are advantages to flying along airways even under VFR, but it also carries some risks of encountering other airplanes unless you are receiving traffic advisories from ATC. This is something to keep in mind.
 
sarangan said:
There are advantages to flying along airways even under VFR, but it also carries some risks of encountering other airplanes unless you are receiving traffic advisories from ATC. This is something to keep in mind.
Click to expand...
The risk was based on people using VOR navigation (that modern innovation which caused pilots to decry the loss of "real" pilotage and dead reckoning skills :D). The concern was that planes from all sorts of directions would converge there. Even with the hemispheric rule above 3,000 AGL, that's 180 degrees.

Personally, I always thought that risk was always way over-exaggerated (I never encountered it in real life when I did it regularly). With most everyone using GPS for VFR navigation in place of VORs, I doubt there is any appreciable risk at all now.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The risk was based on people using VOR navigation (that modern innovation which caused pilots to decry the loss of "real" pilotage and dead reckoning skills :D). The concern was that planes from all sorts of directions would converge there. Even with the hemispheric rule above 3,000 AGL, that's 180 degrees.

Personally, I always thought that risk was always way over-exaggerated (I never encountered it in real life when I did it regularly). With most everyone using GPS for VFR navigation in place of VORs, I doubt there is any appreciable risk at all now.
Click to expand...

My personal experience is that it is not exaggerated. We have many vors around here and they get busy. I was practicing holds at one about a week ago and there were several other aircraft over that vor at different times during my practice. A couple we had to change course for, keep your eyes open, ads b makes it a little easier to find them.
 
BillTIZ said:
I remember most of my XC during training were pilotage. Draw the line, chose your visual checkpoints, plan your TVMDC to get a compass heading, figure your wind for expected ground speed/time and go. Long distances of direct with no direct to VOR flying.

We could always do VOR radial Cross checks to verify our pilotage position.
Click to expand...

This is how to prepare for your checkride.

As a new pilot, my first trip was 200nm down the spine of the Appalachians with two VORs and no GPS, and my course was direct. No muss, no fuss no problem. But it horrified some pilots at my home base . . . "Oh my God! You can't fly like that without a GPS!" But apparently I can.

When I bought the Mooney and upgraded the 430 to WAAS, even while flying the magical magenta line, I back up my position with VORs. Draw the line on the map, every now and then tune in a VOR, spin the OBS to center the needle, then lay your plotter on that VOR aligned to match the OBS and you should be "there" on your line. Check with a second VOR if there is still one in the area, so many have gone away just since my checkride in 2007 . . . .
 
midlifeflyer said:
The risk was based on people using VOR navigation (that modern innovation which caused pilots to decry the loss of "real" pilotage and dead reckoning skills :D). The concern was that planes from all sorts of directions would converge there. Even with the hemispheric rule above 3,000 AGL, that's 180 degrees.

Personally, I always thought that risk was always way over-exaggerated (I never encountered it in real life when I did it regularly). With most everyone using GPS for VFR navigation in place of VORs, I doubt there is any appreciable risk at all now.
Click to expand...

The closest I have ever come to an airplane while VFR was near an enroute fix (admittedly not an airway fix). The closing speed was so great that I could not have avoided it visually. Luckily, some aspects of the big sky theory still held true, which is why we did not collide.
 
sarangan said:
The closest I have ever come to an airplane while VFR was near an enroute fix (admittedly not an airway fix). The closing speed was so great that I could not have avoided it visually. Luckily, some aspects of the big sky theory still held true, which is why we did not collide.
Click to expand...

My closest call was while VFR, GPS direct a little north of AVL. Wife pointed out opposite direction traffic, I pressed my forehead against the side window to watch the other Mooney pass under me. Not long afterwards, ATC called him out as traffic to me; he was IFR into AVL, so I'm guessing he was 500' below me. Nice paint job, too!
 
PaulS said:
My personal experience is that it is not exaggerated. We have many vors around here and they get busy. I was practicing holds at one about a week ago and there were several other aircraft over that vor at different times during my practice. A couple we had to change course for, keep your eyes open, ads b makes it a little easier to find them.
Click to expand...
Practicing approaches at the same time someone else is practicing approaches is literally the only time I have come across the issue, and it has not been limited to VORs.

Lack of an appreciable risk doesn't mean no risk at all. But I'd bet the stats indicate coming to almost any airport traffic pattern has a significantly higher risk of collision.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Practicing approaches at the same time someone else is practicing approaches is literally the only time I have come across the issue, and it has not been limited to VORs.

Lack of an appreciable risk doesn't mean no risk at all. But I'd bet the stats indicate coming to almost any airport traffic pattern has a significantly higher risk of collision.
Click to expand...

I'm telling you Mark, just about every flight up here in Mass, I'm turning for or watching an airplane pass close by. Yesterday it was a Bonanza that was maneuvering in our flight path, we were IFR, in VMC, he was called out by the controller. We passed him, about 1/2 mile off the left wing, pretty much our altitude. I definitely shutter when I hear anyone talk about "big sky", not the case here, you need to keep being vigilant.
 
OP, cover your eyes while you read this IFR stuff:

weilke said:
DPE put an NDB approach into my IR checkride and commented 'you can be a mile off the airport and it still counts'.
Click to expand...

midlifeflyer said:
As you point out, easiest instrument to use if you don't care about accuracy.
Click to expand...
What is "accuracy", being furthest from the primary lateral obstruction boundary or closest to the airport? NDB final approach segments have a 2.5 NM width, at the least, greater for off-airport FAFs. RNAV final approaches are less than half that, I think. Using a GPS approach demands more accurate flying from the PIC to maintain the same safety buffer, is my conclusion. BUT, I will defer to any bored engineer who can decifer Order 8260.54A and explain the error of my ways.
 
PaulS said:
I'm telling you Mark, just about every flight up here in Mass, I'm turning for or watching an airplane pass close by. Yesterday it was a Bonanza that was maneuvering in our flight path, we were IFR, in VMC, he was called out by the controller. We passed him, about 1/2 mile off the left wing, pretty much our altitude. I definitely shutter when I hear anyone talk about "big sky", not the case here, you need to keep being vigilant.
Click to expand...
You always need to be vigilant.

I didn't even see it in Mass when I was navigating via VOR as a student and new pilot, but I guess I'm wrong about how many are still using VOR and the "magenta line" decriers have nothing to worry about.
 
dtuuri said:
OP, cover your eyes while you read this IFR stuff:




What is "accuracy", being furthest from the primary lateral obstruction boundary or closest to the airport? NDB final approach segments have a 2.5 NM width, at the least, greater for off-airport FAFs. RNAV final approaches are less than half that, I think. Using a GPS approach demands more accurate flying from the PIC to maintain the same safety buffer, is my conclusion. BUT, I will defer to any bored engineer who can decifer Order 8260.54A and explain the error of my ways.
Click to expand...
Funny, I used to see it the other way. I described NDB approaches as the approaches which have the least precision in nav course but require the most precision from the pilot. That was in large part because DG precession can really put you of the way when navigating a bearing from the NDB.
 
Groundpounder said:
Fake news!

Side note, I've been flying professionally for 12 years or so, and I've never had to navigate enroute using only ground based navaids.
Click to expand...

PaulS said:
What a great time we are living in!!!
Click to expand...

Ah, I remember back to the "good old days" with grid navigation in the northern latitudes. The magenta line is much more civilized but it's still nice to be proficient with VORs and, gasp, NDBs.
 
PaulS said:
That's the truth, I was told a story by professional pilot who said that he experienced a GPS outage while on a flight that ended with an approach. He had to fly his plan via VORs and ended with an ILS approach. He said the GPS signal came back when he was on the ground. It's very improbable for this to happen, but if it does the VORs are very good to have and know how to use.
Click to expand...

GPS loss may be improbable but MEL deferred FMS is not !

I was ending my IOE (Initial operating experience) at the airline as a brand spanking new FO coming from helicopters, never flew anything with an autopilot, had 20 total hours on turbine helicopter and 2 total hours actual IMC... the last trip on IOE is differences training in the CRJ 200 after passing initial in the CRJ 700/900. In other words I finally made it from the tail feathers up into the cockpit. Jump in the 200 and BAM ! no FMS had to fly all day 5 legs all with Green Needles which is VOR to VOR.

Finally all that cheap IFR time building I did in a clapped out 150 with no GPS or DME aka /A paid off !

OP - don't underestimate the value of truly understanding VOR navigation, 250kts and 50/65/76 passengers on board isn't the time to figure it out :eek:
 
Very few here have flown cross (the) country several years ago. You could depart New York for Phoenix and the a clearence once airborne would be “fly heading 280 until receiving SSO.”
That was actually commonplace.

My how times have changed.
 
Nostalgia, Grid Celestial Navigation over open water with a crappy Doppler for ground speed. FL350, .82M.

NDB is not much different than an AM radio station.
We were once inbound to an airport for an airshow, small country airport, only NDB approach to find the airport. I told the pilot I would load the approach heading as a bomb run, all he had to do was follow the track the bomb run on the inbound. “Roger, Nav has the Aircraft”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top