|
|
Post by jazzthom on Jan 13, 2012 7:07:31 GMT -5
Hi there, first of all, I want to mention that these GAARs are all so thrilling and I appreciate all the work around them. Then, I never had any problems with navigation,...but I have a question: In the announcement of the test flight you see this line: Turn right to heading 045 and intersect the KU VOR 192 radial.....when you do this, then you will intersect the radial "12" inbound on a heading of 192 my explanation: all radials lead FROM the VOR,....so the radial 192 leads southern from the VOR and you will not cross it on the test flight instruction, cause after take off from runway 30 and right turn to 045 you will cross the NORTHERN part of the VOR radials,......so what you mean must be you intersect the "backside" of the 192 radial, what means that you are on the 12 radial inbound, TO the VOR and after you have overflewn the VOR with heading 192 you are really on the 192 radial outbound..... am I right or not? thanks for your help Thom and "Flying boxcar"  Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
|
|
Post by louross on Jan 13, 2012 11:43:52 GMT -5
You are correct.
lr.
|
|
|
|
Post by brett on Jan 13, 2012 16:21:54 GMT -5
I know that is technically correct but I always thought it was either or. It shows as inbound on the dial flying in from the backside when set at 192*. Is it wrong or semantics?
One thing I noticed was the test flight instruction say fly at 8500' but the flight plan has it at 6500'.
BTW, Does everyone else have a 21kt wind at the test altitude?
|
|
|
|
Post by rattler1 on Jan 13, 2012 16:31:22 GMT -5
I'll have to disagree. I believe convention has it that the radial is defined by the track you are flying; it saves a lot of mental gymnastics. Yes, you are on a bearing of 012 from the beacon, but think of what you have set on your OBS, or what the needle of your RMI is telling you. Both will say 192, which on this track is both the inbound (to) and outbound (from) radial. On the 012 radial, you would be flying the reciprocal.
|
|
|
|
Post by jazzthom on Jan 13, 2012 17:52:25 GMT -5
the bearing of 192 is clear,....and easy....
but if you get for example an announcement of an ATC you should intersect the radial 192 outbound, its different from the 12 radial inbound, cause you are north or south of the VOR and this could lead to an accident if you "just look at the bearing"....
sorry, but I want to understand navigation and thats why I ask....
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew Godden on Jan 13, 2012 18:00:47 GMT -5
I know that is technically correct but I always thought it was either or. It shows as inbound on the dial flying in from the backside when set at 192*. Is it wrong or semantics? One thing I noticed was the test flight instruction say fly at 8500' but the flight plan has it at 6500'. BTW, Does everyone else have a 21kt wind at the test altitude? Brett, Your post about the flight plan altitude and 21 kt winds has got me completely baffled. First off, the GAAR Test Flight download doesn't include a flight plan and second, the weather setup in the file is for perfect conditions. Even if you have winds aloft activated, it doesn't have an affect. I have just checked this again in both FS9 and FSX to be sure. Cheers Andrew |
|
|
|
Post by louross on Jan 13, 2012 18:07:36 GMT -5
The corect nomenclature, or verbology, is "turn right heading zero four five and intercept the zero one two degree radial inbound."
lr.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew Godden on Jan 13, 2012 18:38:54 GMT -5
Thank goodness we are all only sitting at a desk, in front of a computer and this is only a flight sim.  But in your own simulated "worlds" feel free to be as precise and accurate as you like.  Not everyone who enters the GAAR is a RW pilot or has knowledge of correct navigation nomenclature / verbology.  The instructions are deliberately simplified for the novice flyer who enters the GAAR and 192 degrees or heading 192 is the heading you need to be on as you overfly Kununurra (YPKU) for Argle (YARG).  Please don't think I am offended by the posts. As an Aussie, there are very few things we get upset by, except if someone spills your beer or runs off with your woman (but in the case of the later, you then realise they have probably done you a big favour anyway).  I merely respond to clarify why it is like it is because we sometimes forget there are novice participants in the GAAR.  Cheers Andrew ;D |
|
|
|
Post by louross on Jan 13, 2012 21:43:19 GMT -5
I understand that fully. I don't think there was an argument going. I was answering a question. You make a good point about the "novices", but my thinking has always been- why not also explain the real way as compared to someones misunderstanding or just lack of actual knowledge. I think most people using fs are aware that there are definite limitations as to what can actually be demonstrated. Well, maybe not most, but many. Actually, probably more like some. Well, a few, anyhow. lou. |
|
|
|
Post by jazzthom on Jan 14, 2012 3:05:13 GMT -5
OMG!
I did not want to offend anybody here,....
and as I wrote, I appreciate all the work and time around the GAAR s.
It was just a question to support my navigation knowledge, and as we see there is really something to talk about.
Anyway - as I told before - the description of the testflight itself is easy to follow and this here is just to deepen the "real thing"
and btw: I made my PPL licence 2 years ago and I have to tell you, Andrew, with the knowledge of the GAAR background I have learnt easily! Thanks for this support too!
So lets fly the GAAR anyway, and thanks to all of you, who helped me in this case....
Thom
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew Godden on Jan 14, 2012 4:11:32 GMT -5
Thom,
It's all OK, you haven't offended anyone. For me, I just wanted to explain why the Test Flight instructions are worded like they are. As I said, simplified for the guys who are less comfortable with radio navigation.
My response also had some Aussie humour in it which isn't always understood by those who are not familiar with the Aussie way. ;D
Cheers
Andrew
|
|
|
|
Post by jazzthom on Jan 14, 2012 7:33:52 GMT -5
Hi Andrew,
thanks for your words, and as we Austrians are often mixed up with you Australians, we have a good knowledge of "Aussie humor"....lol...
|
|
|
|
Post by brett on Jan 14, 2012 21:26:02 GMT -5
I know that is technically correct but I always thought it was either or. It shows as inbound on the dial flying in from the backside when set at 192*. Is it wrong or semantics? One thing I noticed was the test flight instruction say fly at 8500' but the flight plan has it at 6500'. BTW, Does everyone else have a 21kt wind at the test altitude? Brett, Your post about the flight plan altitude and 21 kt winds has got me completely baffled. First off, the GAAR Test Flight download doesn't include a flight plan and second, the weather setup in the file is for perfect conditions. Even if you have winds aloft activated, it doesn't have an affect. I have just checked this again in both FS9 and FSX to be sure. Cheers Andrew Oh oh, I might have made a mistake and flew the wrong flight, that will certainly mess up the flight time I have sent in. I had saved a copy of the test flight an included a flight plan, that I made up(flew the area in a newer aircraft). This might have been the problem. What a dummy, I will refly and email or PM you with my corrected time. Sorry about that. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew Godden on Jan 14, 2012 22:03:22 GMT -5
I will re-fly and email or PM you with my corrected time. Sorry about that. Brett, Please email your revised Test Flight time to the rally email address. Cheers Andrew |
|
