VORs & Victor airways in FAA sectionals
I'm sure Lindbergh would have been using celestial navigation alongside the dead reckoning!
Lindbergh navigated the Spirit of St. Louis on his transatlantic flight with an earth inductor compass, a drift sight, a speed timer (a stopwatch for the drift sight), and an eight-day clock.
Despite weather deviations and extreme fatigue, Lindbergh reached the coast of Ireland within 5 kilometers (3 miles) of his intended great circle course. But he knew that chance, not skill or equipment, had allowed such accuracy—winds during his flight had caused no significant drift.
Despite weather deviations and extreme fatigue, Lindbergh reached the coast of Ireland within 5 kilometers (3 miles) of his intended great circle course. But he knew that chance, not skill or equipment, had allowed such accuracy—winds during his flight had caused no significant drift.
He subsequently learn celestial navigation from Charles Weems.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What people forget is that Lindberg only needed to hold a heading within about plus or minus 10 degrees, to hit Ireland, and from Ireland you would have to be blind to not hit Europe.
We don't hear about those who ended up on the bottom of the sea.
Those epic flights were an epic bet on the primitive engine lasting the flight, an epic exercise in staying awake, managing the toilet requirements, and vitally (for many) raising the funding. Not navigation really - so long as you were in VMC and saw the ground occasionally.
The preflight weather was obtainable by radio from countless ocean liners running the route.
There was no possibility of getting busted for busting CAS. You only had to hit a whole country somewhere and you were a hero.
On a decent day you can see a coast from 50-100nm away so provided the coast has any features, landing within 3nm of a desired place is easy if you have a map of the coast.
Same for Columbus. He only had to sail west with enough food and booze for the crew and he would have hit America.
Not wishing to triviallise the adventure but people need to see what the real challenges were.
We don't hear about those who ended up on the bottom of the sea.
Those epic flights were an epic bet on the primitive engine lasting the flight, an epic exercise in staying awake, managing the toilet requirements, and vitally (for many) raising the funding. Not navigation really - so long as you were in VMC and saw the ground occasionally.
The preflight weather was obtainable by radio from countless ocean liners running the route.
There was no possibility of getting busted for busting CAS. You only had to hit a whole country somewhere and you were a hero.
On a decent day you can see a coast from 50-100nm away so provided the coast has any features, landing within 3nm of a desired place is easy if you have a map of the coast.
Same for Columbus. He only had to sail west with enough food and booze for the crew and he would have hit America.
Not wishing to triviallise the adventure but people need to see what the real challenges were.
Last edited by peterh337; 27th Jun 2013 at 13:38.
If you're flying a Victor Airway, the radials defining the airway are printed on the chart, no need to read them off the rose. If you're going to a point in space, yes, draw a line and relate it to the compass rose. Yes, it may be off a couple degrees. You think the wind forecast is going to be exact to the knot and degree? In the end, your circular error probability ought to be in the range of your eyeball.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MarkerInbound:
Exactly! Maybe this topic is trivial to others, but for some reason I, and many of my pilot friends (even some instructors I talked to), were not aware of the error made by flying VOR radials not read from the VOR rose. Finally no excuses any more for being off track.
Thanks for your help in understanding this subtlety!
englishal:
Again I agree with your two methods a) and b) and most of what you wrote.
As for making a problem out of nothing:
If (say, in PPL ground school, or the real world, you'd plot the magnetic track off by three degrees out of sloppiness, then this would be (considered) bad airmanship.
Now, if you do VOR navigation and you mix'n match your methods a) and b) for the lack of better knowledge, as did I before (i.e., fly a VOR radial measured with a protractor, converted from true to magnetic), then you'd have exactly the same situation: You'll be flying off course by several degrees, since the radial you measured is not the radial you drew on the chart.
So while I agree that it's not a big deal but merely a noteworthy peculiarity, I can't see why this easily avoidable systematic inaccuracy is a non-issue at all.
Blue skies,
Lindbergh
Exactly! Maybe this topic is trivial to others, but for some reason I, and many of my pilot friends (even some instructors I talked to), were not aware of the error made by flying VOR radials not read from the VOR rose. Finally no excuses any more for being off track.
Thanks for your help in understanding this subtlety!
englishal:
Again I agree with your two methods a) and b) and most of what you wrote.
As for making a problem out of nothing:
If (say, in PPL ground school, or the real world
, you'd plot the magnetic track off by three degrees out of sloppiness, then this would be (considered) bad airmanship.Now, if you do VOR navigation and you mix'n match your methods a) and b) for the lack of better knowledge, as did I before (i.e., fly a VOR radial measured with a protractor, converted from true to magnetic), then you'd have exactly the same situation: You'll be flying off course by several degrees, since the radial you measured is not the radial you drew on the chart.
So while I agree that it's not a big deal but merely a noteworthy peculiarity, I can't see why this easily avoidable systematic inaccuracy is a non-issue at all.
Blue skies,
Lindbergh
Last edited by Zonkor; 27th Jun 2013 at 15:49.
