VORs vs. Direct...

[bowler_man]

Hey all. My knowledge of VORs and aviation navigation in general is very limited. But to me, it seems like traveling to a destination via VORs and waypoints is unnecessary. What are the benefits of skipping around from VOR to VOR instead of just using the GPS to go direct? I could understand the benefit when using SIDs and STARs, in order to help the air traffic controllers route traffic in an organized manner. Other than that, I don't understand how they are sometimes better than going direct. But like I said, my understanding of VORs is very, very little.

[Sir Puma]

commercial and some long range private flights use the "Highways" in the air. Since there are many aircraft zooming about, it's best to have them follow specific routes. Thus the various VOR routes at different elevations. If you were to just take your Cessna Citation up to FL370 and cruise around, you'd risk getting run over by a 747. But if you follow VOR routes you get into the lane, rather than just crossing it. Also, when making long runs it makes it easy to tune into the next VOR frequency and follow the NAV indicator.

When I was learning to fly, we never flew IFR, never used VOR. Heck his little 172I didn't even have NAV or ADF, just a COM. He certainly didn't have any XPonder. We happily flew seat of the pants and did all kinds of crazy stuff, dang near wrecked a couple times. But we also kept it below 10K and never went further than 75-100 miles from home. We also weren't in a high traffic area. The VOR helps navigate the highways of the sky, whether you're at the low elevation Flight Level or the Jetways at 35K.

Also, Magnetic N changes as you move across the globe as it it's exactly true north. When trying to use a compass to navigate long range the magnetic declination changes will put you off course.

All you REAL pilots out there could probably explain it better. Sadly I never did get far in my lessons. I was only 18 and was off serving my country before I could even make my first real landing.

[DaveSims]

The easy answer is GPS is the new thing in technology, VORs are the old approach to navigation.  You must remember VOR technology is 50+ years old, without any significant improvements over that time.  Even though GPS technology has been around for years, it has finally become more mainstream in the last five years.  What Puma said about the airways (highways in the sky) is true, but part of the NextGen system is to utilize GPS technology, to allow use of more of the airspace and reduce congestion on the airways.  As for being required to use the airways, it is traffic dependent.  If traffic allows, ATC will usually allow you a GPS direct path if requested.  That is one reason many private jets like to get above FL410, you get above the airline traffic and can almost always get GPS direct.

[Brett_Henderson]

Also.. don't forget that VORs are not just for flying to/from.. and their use is not limited to just the published airways.

You can make your own airways.. and use radials without ever getting near the VOR itself..

[Brett_Henderson]

As for VFR flying.. you actually want to avoid the VOR airways.. and the VORs themselves.. They can be congested points for traffic under radar control.

[bowler_man]

Thanks for the great help, guys! It definitely helped out!

[olderndirt]

FAA has been touting direct routing for quite a while now and about has everone but the controllers convinced.

[BSW727]

My simulator has no GPS or FMC. The only place I can go direct is between two nav aids or by being given a vector.

My flights live and die by nav aids and airways.

Besides, in a simulator, what fun is it to go direct?

[Brett_Henderson]

My simulator has no GPS or FMC. The only place I can go direct is between two nav aids or by being given a vector.

My flights live and die by nav aids and airways.

Besides, in a simulator, what fun is it to go direct?

AMEN !  ..  plus it's not much of a challange, nor learning experience, either..  8-)

[beaky]

My simulator has no GPS or FMC. The only place I can go direct is between two nav aids or by being given a vector.

My flights live and die by nav aids and airways.

Besides, in a simulator, what fun is it to go direct?

AMEN !

[Brett_Henderson]

That reminds me of a movie quote ('Hunt for Red October')..


"Give me a stopwatch and a map, and I'll fly the Alps in a plane with no windows"

8-)

I'll admit, that in real flying; the GPS has me spoiled and lazy. Honestly ? If it were'nt for MSFS, my navigating (and pilotage) skills might have deteriorated, dangerously.

[BSW727]

Same here. When I created the panel I use in the 727 the GPS was purposefully left out.

It forces me to keep my navigation skills sharp even though I no longer use them in the real world. It's the same priciples though and navigating this jet around is no different than the 172 I learned in.

Just faster.

I was training long before anyone thought to put a GPS in a light training aircraft. Anyone remember LORAN?

[jaime]

all I say is just give me a machine with the following items...

engin, wheels, working thrust system (prop or jet) and windows or some way to keep the wind out...and ill leave the rest to the physics...

it really depends on what you perfer, I usually go GPS direct if I need to know where Im going (ill manually fly my self with out AP but have the GPS line to indicate the start and stop points as a way to determine when and where I should start getting ready for decent and all that fun stuff)


in poor weather I would switch on AP and let it do the flying but I perfer to keep my nav skills honed...hehe

[Brett_Henderson]

Wouldn't Nav skills be figuring out all that stuff without the GPS ?

[beaky]

Wouldn't Nav skills be figuring out all that stuff without the GPS ?

"Nav skills", as I see it, are all about compass, clock, and chart.