Question regarding VOR needles.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Up aboce
Age: 39
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question regarding VOR needles.
I don't have any question regarding tuning a frequency, changing the course to set a radial and intercepting it.
Outbound stays the same, and inbounds becomes the reciprocal.
Is very straight forward.
However I do have a ques regarding ONLY looking at the VOR needle.
If you were flying a heading of 360 and found the tail of the VOR needle at 050.
Now if ATC told you to intercept radial 010, you would turn left to PULL that 050 radial to 010 and then come back to intercept it?
Firstly. Is this correct?
Secondly how many degrees would yo turn?
Also just to clarify for myself. The tail is always the radial correct?
Thanks guys.
Outbound stays the same, and inbounds becomes the reciprocal.
Is very straight forward.
However I do have a ques regarding ONLY looking at the VOR needle.
If you were flying a heading of 360 and found the tail of the VOR needle at 050.
Now if ATC told you to intercept radial 010, you would turn left to PULL that 050 radial to 010 and then come back to intercept it?
Firstly. Is this correct?
Secondly how many degrees would yo turn?
Also just to clarify for myself. The tail is always the radial correct?
Thanks guys.
Let me see if I can help.
Firstly unless I'm seriously mistaken the tail of the needle does not always mark the radial. Provided you've centred it of course, with no wind you are flying 360 degrees and/or in this case track to a beacon for example, the tail would be on the 180 degrees, and in this instance you are on the 180 radial inbound. However, if you're flying north away from the beacon with the head of the needle on 360 degrees, the tail is still on the 180, however you are now on the 360 radial. You have to remember the to/from flag.
If you are flying to the beacon with the arrow of the needle at the top, you'll have the 'TO' flag showing, and the tail is the radial. If you're flying away from a beacon with the From flag showing, the head is the radial (provided of course you've centred the arrow of the needle in the directions you are going).
Regarding your question about amount of degrees to turn to capture a different radial. In your example you would turn left, however there is no set amount of degrees to fly to intercept a different radial. The larger the cut you take out, the quicker you 'catch' the new radial. If you take a tiny cut, you'll get there but it will take a while. Turning more then 90 degrees and you'll probably end up closer to the beacon then you were when you left the initial radial.
Sorry if I haven't explained it to well, it's actually pretty hard to without showing you a sketch on a piece of paper.
Firstly unless I'm seriously mistaken the tail of the needle does not always mark the radial. Provided you've centred it of course, with no wind you are flying 360 degrees and/or in this case track to a beacon for example, the tail would be on the 180 degrees, and in this instance you are on the 180 radial inbound. However, if you're flying north away from the beacon with the head of the needle on 360 degrees, the tail is still on the 180, however you are now on the 360 radial. You have to remember the to/from flag.
If you are flying to the beacon with the arrow of the needle at the top, you'll have the 'TO' flag showing, and the tail is the radial. If you're flying away from a beacon with the From flag showing, the head is the radial (provided of course you've centred the arrow of the needle in the directions you are going).
Regarding your question about amount of degrees to turn to capture a different radial. In your example you would turn left, however there is no set amount of degrees to fly to intercept a different radial. The larger the cut you take out, the quicker you 'catch' the new radial. If you take a tiny cut, you'll get there but it will take a while. Turning more then 90 degrees and you'll probably end up closer to the beacon then you were when you left the initial radial.
Sorry if I haven't explained it to well, it's actually pretty hard to without showing you a sketch on a piece of paper.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I supect he is talking about having a RMI which you can change the needles to show VOR's instead of ADF.
In which case you use it just the same way as a NDB.
To be honest the best way to teach this is in front of a whiteboard.
In which case you use it just the same way as a NDB.
To be honest the best way to teach this is in front of a whiteboard.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming no wind and no time restriction to get to the radial, I would turn onto 325° M for outbound, 235° M for inbound (45° intercept).
mad_jock is spot on - it sounds like you are trying to interpret an RMI?
If so - treat it like a slaved ADF. Scrub out the aircraft in the middle and replace it with the station. Imagine your aircraft at the end of the needle flying straight ahead on 360° M.
Now imagine another needle representing the 010° radial - you now have a RADAR-esque view - no maths or black arts involved.
Get hold of 'Never Get Lost' by Wilhelm Thaller and become the artist... unshackle yourself from the bondage of dogma! You will have to work hard at understanding the translation, but this only enhances the understanding further.
mad_jock is spot on - it sounds like you are trying to interpret an RMI?
If so - treat it like a slaved ADF. Scrub out the aircraft in the middle and replace it with the station. Imagine your aircraft at the end of the needle flying straight ahead on 360° M.
Now imagine another needle representing the 010° radial - you now have a RADAR-esque view - no maths or black arts involved.
Get hold of 'Never Get Lost' by Wilhelm Thaller and become the artist... unshackle yourself from the bondage of dogma! You will have to work hard at understanding the translation, but this only enhances the understanding further.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Up aboce
Age: 39
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad jock,
Yes thats exactly what I mean. Sorry I was not clear.
Rmcb,
I honestly didn't understand much from that last part
Appreciate you trying to help though.
Is the concept of PUSH the head and PULL the tail correct?
With these kinds of needles, can it be that the tail is NOT indicating the radial?
I think it always does, since the head always points TO the station.
Clarify this to me please someone?
Thanks in advance.
Yes thats exactly what I mean. Sorry I was not clear.
Rmcb,
I honestly didn't understand much from that last part
Appreciate you trying to help though.
Is the concept of PUSH the head and PULL the tail correct?
With these kinds of needles, can it be that the tail is NOT indicating the radial?
I think it always does, since the head always points TO the station.
Clarify this to me please someone?
Thanks in advance.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are various ways of doing the magic with the neddles.
Some say to pull the tail and let the heavy head fall away and other shave their own way of doing it.
Personally I just have a mental picture of where we are in relation to the beacon and that works for me.
Never read the book recommended but its meant to be good.
The other thing to get your hands on is a copy of RANT XL.
Oddsoft Ltd
Some say to pull the tail and let the heavy head fall away and other shave their own way of doing it.
Personally I just have a mental picture of where we are in relation to the beacon and that works for me.
Never read the book recommended but its meant to be good.
The other thing to get your hands on is a copy of RANT XL.
Oddsoft Ltd
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thems neddles can be buggahs to interpret...
Yes, push the head and pull the tail is the correct axiom, but it only solves one problem; you might not have the spatial awareness issue licked.
If the head is pointing to the correctly tuned beacon then by default the tail is always the reciprocal bearing from the beacon (QDR with ADF, Radial with VOR).
mad_jock is correct with the RANT rant - invaluable bit of kit - it backs up and proves what Thaller says throughout his book. I do not 'do' maths and found the standard methods of explanation just didn't cut it. 'Never Get Lost' put the whole thing another way that I found clicked.
Get it, read it and my strange diatribe earlier will be clear.
Yes, push the head and pull the tail is the correct axiom, but it only solves one problem; you might not have the spatial awareness issue licked.
If the head is pointing to the correctly tuned beacon then by default the tail is always the reciprocal bearing from the beacon (QDR with ADF, Radial with VOR).
mad_jock is correct with the RANT rant - invaluable bit of kit - it backs up and proves what Thaller says throughout his book. I do not 'do' maths and found the standard methods of explanation just didn't cut it. 'Never Get Lost' put the whole thing another way that I found clicked.
Get it, read it and my strange diatribe earlier will be clear.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a further addition to this question...
Reduce your workload with this one. With the RMI, both VOR and ADF representations behave in the same way (except for ADF dip). Try to understand what the instrument is doing purely in the ADF context and accept that VOR questions are the same in process.
Temporarily forget there is [probably] an HSI and OBI in front of you!
The following link is an excerpt from the book: Never Get Lost. It is a teaser to tempt you into buying the whole book, but it illustrates what I was saying in the earlier posting.
Reduce your workload with this one. With the RMI, both VOR and ADF representations behave in the same way (except for ADF dip). Try to understand what the instrument is doing purely in the ADF context and accept that VOR questions are the same in process.
Temporarily forget there is [probably] an HSI and OBI in front of you!
The following link is an excerpt from the book: Never Get Lost. It is a teaser to tempt you into buying the whole book, but it illustrates what I was saying in the earlier posting.
Last edited by rmcb; 1st May 2012 at 12:15. Reason: speeling misstake
