VFR Beacon Hopping?
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
From: Here to Eternity
VFR Beacon Hopping?
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
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
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
From: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
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
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
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
From: uk
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.
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.
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
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
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
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 25th June 2005 at 12:10.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
From: Yorkshire
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
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
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
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
ADF on it's own really only allows you to fly beacon-to-beacon.
G
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
From: Anywhere
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
)
(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
)
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
From: UK
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.
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.
and even more Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
From: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
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.
[irony]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.[/irony]
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
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.
[irony]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.[/irony]
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
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,102
Likes: 0
From: E Anglia
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
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
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
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
Avoid imitations
Joined: Nov 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 15,116
Likes: 1,091
From: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
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
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
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
Chilli Monster Said
Yeah, alright, I should have said DI.
Cusco said
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
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
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)
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.
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.
G
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
From: cheltenham
especially when there are those who think that it is relaxing to fly beacon to beacon rather than look out.
So therfore, yes it is far more relaxing to fly beacon to beacon
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
From: UK
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.