VFR Beacon Hopping?

[Dimensional]

I've noticed in quite a few threads on here that an awful lot of people prefer navigation using radio beacons on VFR routes. Having been trained to use visual features throughout my Nav, this confuses me a little -- is there something I'm missing here? Why do people try and navigate by following a needle and/or trying to spot a small round transmitter when there's a huge lake/town/other feature not a million miles away?

Please note: this is not meant as a dig to anyone, at all! I'm just curious, because it's at odds with everything I've done so far.

-D

[Mike Cross]

Lots of reasons

It's convenient. The controllers understand your routing.
If you have additional means of navigation its common sense to use them.
It's also generally more accurate.
If you practice using the aids when in sight of the ground it makes you more proficient in using them when the vis goes nasty or when you go for your IMC.
Navaids are generally not located in prohibited airspace or danger areas.
All of the navaids are generally named in GPS databases. While towns are, you generally don't want to overfly them, and lakes and other ground features are generally not named and so not so easy to incorporate in a GPS route unless you want to pan and scan all over the built in map to enter them.

Mike

[vancouv]

I don't think you can have too much help when navigating. I always try to plan a route using VORs if possible, and then confirm where I am by visual map reading - plus a GPS just to be on the safe side!

I find VORs to be the easiest way of getting about - the needle tells you just where you are (especially with a DME) and you don't have to worry about the wind being different to that forecast so long as you follow the pointer.

Particuarly good in poor viz when it can be difficult to spot things.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Personally I use the concepts of "primary" and "secondary" navigation when flying.

Primary navigation is the method by which my route is principally defined and I am using to mark my progress.

Secondary navigation is the method by which my route is checked as I go along.



Depending upon how and what I'm flying I might do it differently, but for instance it's not a bad practice (particularly if the landscape is reasonably indistinct or unfamiliar) to define your route by VORS - use that as your primary reference and define your route by it, and then use landmarks and say ADF or GPS as secondary.

An alternative of-course is to define your route by landmarks (equally legitimate) and use VOR / GPS / ADF - whatever is available as backup.

Equally I'd argue that GPS (much maligned by some) is a perfectly good source of primary navigation - suitably backed up by something else.


The only thing, personally I'd regard as bad practice is to use any navigation tool for sole navigation. Even if "by landmark" is your primary, ded-reckoning should always back you up.


Clearly sometimes one or more tools may let you down - visibility may become too poor for visual navigation (8km viz in the middle of the English channel for example would be legal VMC with adequate potential for lookout but not navigation. A beacon may go down or you lose line-of-sight. Your GPS batteries may run out. Ultimately, any tool, even a compass, can fail, and in such cases you may need to resort to a single method only, but it's deeply undesirable to do so.


So, each time I plan a route I consciously think "right, on this route my primary tool is...., and my secondary navigation will be...." and fill out my kneeboard sheets accordingly. I normally look for one primary and two secondary - beyond that the workload gets silly and starts to degrade things like lookout, checks and just enjoying the flight.

Depending upon what you're flying, the choice of tools (in no particular order) may be:-

VOR
VOR/DME
VOR/VOR
ADF
ADF+HSI
DME (rarely used as primary)
RNAV (my personal favourite for primary in a light aircraft if it's available)
Ded-reckoning (what we all learn at our FIs knee, probably the best primary in poor viz, and really should be one of your secondaries if not used for primary)
GPS (if you've a handheld and know how to use it well, probably the most flexible primary tool available)
Landmarks.


I should qualify this by saying I'm not an instructor, have not been taught this philosophy - it's just my private views from flying a lot of aeroplanes around various parts of the world for about 17 years.

G

[Chilli Monster]

ADF+HSI
:confused: :confused: :confused:

HSI is an instrument, not a NAVaid in its on right - please explain?

[FullyFlapped]

Try flying, say, Norwich - Amsterdam. Even in perfect VMC, pretty hard to handle only by looking out of the window !

Joking aside (although not entirely, having done the above), I think Genghis is spot on. I completely concur regarding the "primary/secondary" philosophy : but there again, I reckon most pilots do, in actual fact.

Personally (and I stand by for the gasps of horror from the "establishment" crowd), I happily use GPS/moving map for primary tracking, and a combination of the other navaids (including looking out of the window) as a continuous cross-check. I've had (very rare) GPS failures, wouldn't want to be totally reliant on this - or anything else by choice, as Genghis says.

Also, flying in VMC is a great time to practice with the needles : and I don't know about other pilots who fly IFR from time to time, but this one certainly needs the practice !

FF :ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

Add or subtract ADF reading and drift to HSI to give magnetic bearing to beacon. Yes you can do it with a plain compass reading as well, but less easily and I'm sure you get my drift.

ADF on it's own really only allows you to fly beacon-to-beacon.

G

[Chilli Monster]

So - for the 95% of GA who don't have access to one, replace HSI with Directional Gyro ;) (Or Direction Indicator depending on whatever side of the Atlantic you learnt on)

Bearing in mind of course that if you have an HSI by definition you must also have a VOR, thereby negating the ADF side of the equation :) )

[Droopystop]

As a helicopter pilot I was never taught how to use VORs or ADFs, mainly because they weren't fitted to many machines. So landmark and DR or GPS were the order of the day. In my experience, beacons tend to be a magnet for aircraft, particularly the ones around London, so lookout becomes doubly important, especially as there is a tendency to be concentrating on the dials rather than what is going on outside.

Drawing a straight line across a chart is quicker, if a little more challenging, but with practice it becomes easier and very satisfying. It is all part of the fun of flying. I think you will find that Landmarks + GPS works for most helo pilots.

[cblinton@blueyonder.]

Map reading in a car is a pain in the :* and even more :confused: in an aircraft. Draw a line on the map, throw it in the back and follow your VOR and gps wether your vfr or imc.

Far more relaxing:ok:

[ShyTorque]

We avoid beacons like the plague when operating in class G under VFR.

Anyone guess why?

[Cusco]

Shy Torque:



Honeypot?

I claim the prize:ok:


Cusco

[Mike Cross]

You can of course avoid the source of sweetness by cutting the corner and passing abeam of it rather than overhead.

The same applies to VRP's

And there is of course a rule applicable to those following line features.

Honeypot syndrome applies just as much to visual features as it does to navaids.

Come to think of it we could avoid potential conflict by all doing non-standard joins at aerodromes so we're not all aiming at the same point. ;)

I confess to being somewhat bemused by those who complain they can't use a/d identifiers in a route on the AIS Narrow Route Brief though.

Mike

[Cusco]

I'm a great believer in triple redundancy when travelling from A to B.

As well as the map and grandfather clock, I have the GPS fired up (with a spare in the flight bag) but will also use the beacons.

The RNAV is a great bit of kit which allows you, in VOR PAR mode, to parallel the track to the VOR and pass it by a few miles abeam, thus avoiding the honey pot.

I'm with Genghis on this one: use everything available but look outa the winder.

Cusco

[High Wing Drifter]

I generally do not use beacons for VFR. To me they are another thing to look at and most of the time they don't add much. Chart to ground (with the occasional ground to chart!) is pretty low workload really. My (possibly misguided) view is that adding beacons to your nav is basically one more thing that can go wrong (From flag instead of To, miscalced relative bearing, QDR instead of QDM, DME Freq instead of RMT, etc, etc). I think they are very useful to check your position, but once accomplished, I switch back to the chart again :ok:

Oh yes, and the honeypot syndrome that ShyTorque brought up. However, with everybody cutting corners the best place is probably in the Cone of Confusion :}

[ShyTorque]

Cusco, yours is the prize. especially when there are those who think that it is relaxing to fly beacon to beacon rather than look out.

I have given up counting those who never saw us or at least never realised it was THEIR responsibility to give way / avoid.

DTY is a classic honeypot. It seems many pilots are looking to see if they can spot the beacon on the ground rather than looking out for other aircraft :rolleyes:

[Gerhardt]

Your question was WHY so many people use VOR for navigation. I'd venture to say that it's because it's one of the primary tools students taught to fly with by flight instructors.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Chilli Monster Said
So - for the 95% of GA who don't have access to one, replace HSI with Directional Gyro (Or Direction Indicator depending on whatever side of the Atlantic you learnt on)
Yeah, alright, I should have said DI.


Cusco said
The RNAV is a great bit of kit which allows you, in VOR PAR mode, to parallel the track to the VOR and pass it by a few miles abeam, thus avoiding the honey pot.

True enough, but I can't help think that's a bit of a waste of a clever bit of kit. RNAV (or at-least the KNS80 I know) will allow "simulated VOR/DME" waypoints to be established almost anywhere allowing a nearest-possible-to-straight-line route with a CDI to take you twixt intermediate waypoints.

Not only does it avoid the honeypots above VORS, but you never have the fly through the cone of confusion, and should you get to plan the most direct route that terrain and airspace allow.

Shytorque said
especially when there are those who think that it is relaxing to fly beacon to beacon rather than look out.
Surely the point of flying Beacon-to-beacon (or any other "follow the needle" navaid) is that it allows you to minimise the mental effort involved in navigation and thus can spend more time looking out!

G

[cblinton@blueyonder.]

especially when there are those who think that it is relaxing to fly beacon to beacon rather than look out.

Genghis thanks, you got there before me, I am far more likely to spot the "traffic" when looking occasionally at the CDI than staring at a map on my knees!!! I have put the line on the map for the only reason of checking which zone I may need transit through and wether there are any areas to avoid. If enroute I need to become IMC then there is no worry about nav.


So therfore, yes it is far more relaxing to fly beacon to beacon:ok:

[Droopystop]

Surely the point of flying Beacon-to-beacon (or any other "follow the needle" navaid) is that it allows you to minimise the mental effort involved in navigation and thus can spend more time looking out!


Yes it may well be more relaxing to fly beacons and you may be able to keep a better look out, but in my (and seemingly Shy Torque's) experience, there are plenty of pilots more interested in what the needle is doing than what other airspace users are doing.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Quite possibly.

And if they didn't have a CDI or GPS to play with, the same pilot would probably spend their life carefully inspecting the chart and still not looking out of the window.

G

[Whirlybird]

I use everything I've got that I think I need.

If it's a nice day, with good vis, and I have a route with good visual features, I draw a line and fly it. I also use dead reckoning; it's amazing how many pilots forget about that. This means you're looking out of the window most of the time; you don't need to be constantly studying your map if you know some town is due to come up in five minutes; you just look out for it at the right time. If there's a VOR in the vicinity, and the aircraft has one, I might use that too. And I might put the route in the GPS, though I won't waste the batteries switching it on unless I think I need it.

If it's marginal vis, near controlled airspace, and/or across miles and miles of featureless countryside, I'll look for a VOR, switch on the GPS...but I'll still draw that line on the map. And actually, I've yet to find any totally featureless terrain - except crossing the sea. But OK, I haven't flown in Africa or the Australian outback...yet.

I believe in a belt and braces approach. After all, GPS batteries can die...ever tried to change them when flying solo in turbulent conditions? VORs can decide to pick that day for a test. Maps can fall down the back of the seat...that happened with my AIC with all the pictures on my way to last year's PFA Rally, luckily I'd memorised the route. So why not use everything you have?

One thing though. "Use it or lose it" applies to navigation to a huge extent. Visual nav is only easy if you practise it. If you don't use VORs regularly, when the workload increases you can start doing stupid things like setting them for reciprocal headings or forgetting they're not heading sensitive...I haven't done that, but as a new PPL someone with a lot more experience than me tried to fly me in a circle round a VOR. If you don't use your GPS for a while, you forget how to programme it; I do anyway.

So personally I think we should get rid of all this primary and secondary stuff, stop saying one way of nav is better than any other per se, and just use the lot!

[High Wing Drifter]

Surely the point of flying Beacon-to-beacon (or any other "follow the needle" navaid) is that it allows you to minimise the mental effort involved in navigation and thus can spend more time looking out!
I'm not saying that isn't the case. But unless one knows how to manage VOR or ADF homing/tracking and is disciplined in this approach then I think it is just as likely to be a focus of fixation in the same way a chart is for pilots who don't DR Whirly stylee.

[airac]

If you've got it use it, seems to be the general concensus ,BUT if you're using a beacon associated with a particular airfield talk to the ATC unit concerned. PLEASE:ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

So personally I think we should get rid of all this primary and secondary stuff, stop saying one way of nav is better than any other per se, and just use the lot!

I'm afraid I'm not with you there Whirly.

Depending upon circumstances, it is not unusual that one method of nav is better than another - there are parts of the UK where we have magnetic mountains and DR would be a poor choice, there are plenty of places (water crossings for example, but parts of East Anglia at times) where you can't rely upon landscape, occasionally VORs can mislead due to landscape and suchlike. Around CBs, ADF is a waste of time as anything but a stormscope.

Plus, different types of route lend themselves to different navigation techniques. Let's say I want to fly from Bembridge to Shoreham - my primary will be visual since I'm following a clear line feature. On the other hand Lydd to Le Touquet I really want to plan by reference to whatever electronic navaid I have available. No navaids, but the destination is on a major river - DR is almost certainly the best tool.

My point about primary was that this is the tool, on the day, that suits that route best and is the basis for your planning. Secondary is that which you use to check it.

So there may often be a "best" navigational tool, but it is not the same on different routes, in different aeroplanes, or with different conditions. The pilot who has the biggest toolbox of navigational methods, is best equipped to pick the tool for the job.

My problem with "using the lot", is that I may fly an aeroplane with (for example), RNAV, VOR, ADF, GPS, Compass+DI, backup GPS (actually I've just described my 1/17th of a PA28). Using all of those simultaneously is just going to swamp me with unnecessary and excessive workload - I prefer 1 primary method and two backup, that's quite enough.

G

[Whirlybird]

Genghis,
I agree entirely; I just put it a different way...at least that's how it seemed to me. The one thing I hadn't thought of was having TOO MANY ways of navigating; I've never flown an aircraft with enough navaids to give me that problem!

[ShyTorque]

"I am far more likely to spot the "traffic" when looking occasionally at the CDI than staring at a map on my knees!!!"

True, that's why the military teach pilots to hold the map up to the coaming when taking a look at it and definitely NOT rest it on your knees.

The real danger is at the turning point. If you are looking in at the CDI or VOR needle in order to judge your turn, just remember that the guy coming the other way or from your right is likely to be doing just the same thing....

Having said that, the more VFR aircraft there are going over the beacon, the safer for me because I won't be. :ok: