I am trying to fly IFR from KORD to KJFK, using a route that I believe is pretty close to what they do in real life.  I have no problem flying from VOR to VOR, but the use of intersections is throwing me off a little.  

My navlog takes me heading 086 to ELX vor, then 097 to CRL vor.  So far so good, I know how to do that.  But then it says to use heading 093 to intersection COHOW (123.2 miles) , then 097 to intersection SURLY (11 miles) , then 098 to JHW vor (58.9 miles).  Now for the leg to COHOW, am I supposed to track the 093 radial from CRL?  Or do I just turn to heading 093 and hope the wind doesn't throw me too far off?  Then, for the leg to SURLY, do I change back to the 097 radial from CRL, or just turn to that heading and once again hope that I don't get too far off course due to wind?   I know how to use DME to know when I have come the right distance.    This is all supposed to be following airway J554.  

I hope this makes sense.  

Hi, David. This is sort of hard to read for me, being not familiar with the route there.

I would use some charts from e. g. http://skyvector.com/ and then look up the corresponding radials to fly to.
You can enter your flight plan there and see it superimposed on the rw charts.

Now on those charts, you see the intersections being defined as cross radials (and coordinates for the RNAV/INS guys), so with two working nav radios, you can spot the more or less exact location there.
For example, for COHOW you follow the J554 which at that stage is defined as the 089 radial from CRL (Carleton VOR) until you cross the 167 radial from YXU (London VOR). That cross section defines the intersection COHOW, so tune CRL on NAv1 and YXU on Nav2 with the corresponding courses set.

Watch the RMI to catch a glimpse on your current position in relation to those two stations then and you won't miss a thing.

Now, if you fly with the AP tracking a VOR course it will always adjust for the winds, at least when the deviation is big enough to deflect the needle and therefore trigger the 'I'm not on course' signal, roughly spoken. The AP will then hunt the needle which works good when not too close to the station.
So on your way to COHOW, you track course (does not necessarily mean heading) 089 from CRL and you then can read any deviation on your CDI. When flying manually, adjust for the winds or just let the AP do the work.

I've attached a useful map view for you, marking some of the necessary values in red. You mainly need the defined cross radials and the stations to tune.
Feel free to explore that SkyVector service, it's free.
http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/6223/mapeg.th.jpg
Click for big!
I've only set up a rough route there, so don't mind the actual route.

With the work on the cross radials and some DME readings, you can work very precisely there. This even allows you to turn 'smart', taking your groundspeed into account to not necessarily overfly any waypoint but to turn in the way a FMC would turn your plane, which means roughly some 10% of distance from your current GS value before the next waypoint.
So flying at 500 kts GS, you would start your turn around 5nm out of the waypoint, unless ATC or charts stress the need to overfly it.

For the pros, remember that DME readings don't read the ground based distance towards the station, but the one from the hypotenuse, so taking your actual height into account too. A greater distances though, the error effect there is close to nil (e. g. 130nm ground distance at FL340 give you a DME reading of 130,11 or so = not a problem).

From VOR CRL you track radial 093.
When you are 123.2nm out from CRL you are at intersection COHOW.
Then turn heading 097 and tune your nav to JHW and enter course 098 in the HSI.
When the HSI intercept the 098 radial towards JHW you are in fact at SURLY (or very close due to the short distance between COHOW and SURLY).

Happy flying  :)

David,

Here is a High altitude chart of the leg CRL to JHW. [ vfrmap.com ]

I don't know why the various headings since the intersections are on the Jet airway.

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/7959/crljc.jpg

The routing you talk about is J554, CRL to JHW.
You leave CRL on the 089 degree radial and fly
east to the X which
is the changeover point (I put a yellow circle around it).

This is the place you change from CRL to JHW.
The changeover point is not always the mid point
for many reasons such as VOR power and signal
because of its location, etc.

You will also see the two intersections are along J554.
COHOW is 71 DME from the JHW VOR and SURLY is 59 DME from JHW.
Example: COHOW is the 276 degree radial of JHW, but you would
place 096 in the OBS to fly TO the station.
The total mileage from CRL to JHW is 194 (Red Box).
If you add up each segment that is the total mileage.

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/9306/crl2.jpg

Lou


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Thanks for the replies.  I am in the middle of the flight right now, flying outbound on the CRL 093 radial heading for COHOW.   I am dead on the radial according to my HSI.  This is the maddening part---I just got instruction from ATC to turn left to heading 065!!!!   Checking the GPS (which I hate to do when I am trying to fly without using it)  I am indeed several miles to the right of the flight plan.   Why would this happen when I am following the radial dead-on?   Why would the Navlog have 093 as the correct radial to be on when going from CRL to COHOW if that is not correct?   GRRRRR!!!

Dave,

Just to show you what I have, here is a screen capture I just took of the 727 VOR tuned to JHW 114.7 and tracking inbound to the VOR on the 096 degree radial at 71 DME.

The GPS shows the COHOW intersection as slightly to the right less than an 1/8 of a mile.

* Remember, you must change over to the JHW VOR at the changeover point which is shown on the high altitude chart with an X.

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/134/cohow.jpg

This is a blow-up of the HSI showing the plane is slightly north of course which confirms the GPS.

Note: At sixty miles, one degree is one mile wide. This HSI indication would be very close and no ATC would ever even question the position.

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/8172/cohow2.jpg


Lou


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

On my chart, you go radial 089 from CRL, not 093. 093 sets you up too far right then. JHW radial is 276 later, or 096 inbound.
http://skyvector.com/

Another option.
Do you have the gyro drift in FSX enabled? Press D or turn it off completely in the FSX realism menu. It doesn't add realism but confusion only.  ;D

But I think the wrong course setting is the culprit in your case.

With ATC, maybe the old trick from the films work. Act as if you can't hear them.  ;D
Ok, nowadays you would actually see F-16 coming up left and right soon, so be aware.  :o

OK.  So it seems that the info provided for the FSX Navlog is WRONG.  That would explain what is going on here.  

Thanks for the links to skyvector.  That is insanely cool.   I think I'll try to do the flight again with the info from there, maybe I'll be able to stay on course.

Lou's link does the same I think, so praises to him first. Skyvector just adds the flight plan overlay.
I'd recommend that really short but superb video on their site to get behind their great and free service features.
Both sites are great and both (as a side note) had to fight some new payware 'solution' in the past, so supporting them is vital. Sadly, the service is mainly limited to the US.

Regarding some sim headings and the rw ones, you have to be aware of the magnetic declination though.
This is modelled in the sim, but it derives from another magnetic year, so not 2010 or 2011 or so, but much older. The offset therefore is bigger. I think FSX and FS9 even share their magnetic basis.
This alone will alter the course information in the sim, so they don't match the ones on current or close to current charts (using another, more current, magnetic year).

But you can update that magnetic declination file in FSX easily with the one from here. http://hsors.pagesperso-orange.fr/navaids.html
I'm using it since it came out and it adds much more precise data to the sim then since you actually update the modelled 'magnetic year' by this, which is a basis of the FSX system, so expect magnetic headings to be changed after the update. Worth a try.
It's just one small file, so you can backup the old one and replace it then. Instructions are included.


I never really used the FSX nav log, but if it gives you headings only, it's hard to fly along that given information since a heading only works in no wind scenarios, which do not happen when using any weather input in the sim.
Any slight winds and you're off that heading (regarding your real track on the surface), only FMC birds or the guys like Lou could compensate that efficiently and then really track 093 or whatever degrees (if commanded to do so, track).
For the rest, this will be some work and maths to do, turning the plane into the winds at the right amount to really fly 093 while you nose points e. g. to 098 and with a correction for every wind change. Devices like the INS also help you there if available.

But I wouldn't care much about the FSX planner, but set up my plans on sites like Skyvector or in some freeware planners which give you nice course (not heading) information and corresponding VORs for example.
For the simple VOR to VOR stuff, e. g. Plan-G is good and visualizes your route extremely well since it was meant as a VFR planner. http://www.tasoftware.co.uk/planG.htm

Geez, I hope that after my long texts, David hasn't gone MIA.  :-/

CoolP wrote on Jul 27^th, 2011 at 5:41pm:

Geez, I hope that after my long texts, David hasn't gone MIA.  :-/

Haha.  Actually, my silence has been due to my having a great deal of fun with all the useful info you guys gave me!

Still figuring it out little by little, but skyvector has been key to getting a better understanding.   I still have some issues with flightplans that make use of airways but don't provide information on VORs to fly them.  Mainly in Europe, where I can't seem to find any free chart sites that are similar to skyvector or vfrmap.


Today I was trying to fly from EGPF to EHAM, and the plan was making use of UL602, UL90, and UL602.   I was OK with U602, but then when I needed to turn onto UL90 I was lost, then even more so when I needed to turn onto UL603.  

I also had trouble trying to go from KCMI to KIAD today.  I managed to get turned onto J149 by using ROD radial 123, but then at intersection GEFFS I was supposed to start heading towards intersection SINDEE with a course of 99-100.  There is a VOR called AML that I wanted to track onto the radial 100 for, but I couldn't receive it before I was off course enough for ATC to have to help me.  

I'm not convinced David understands what he is doing wrong!  :-/

Lou

LOU wrote on Jul 27^th, 2011 at 8:22pm:

I'm not convinced David understands what he is doing wrong!  :-/ Lou

:D

Sadly, there's no such neat service in the European area, but you can access some free charts (without flight plan overlay or something) here and there.
I think Eurocontrol offers some, with a free registration.

For planning along flight sim routes, I'm using Flight Sim Commander though, but this is payware and may distract you when starting as it has a rather old interface. There's a free trial available, just google it if you like.
FS Build may also be a tip there, the older 1.x version were freeware I think.

There are tons of features included in both and maybe the moving map helps on the first few runs. You can display and measure distances, bearings and so on and current nav data is also supported.
At least one more or less serious flight planning tool like these can be recommended in my eyes.

There are online services too, offering a free and a payware area, but I haven't tested those. Some work on a subscription basis, which I don't like much. But some planning features did sound good though, including maps and charts of all kind.

LOU wrote on Jul 27^th, 2011 at 8:22pm:

I'm not convinced David understands what he is doing wrong!  :-/ Lou

The good thing about the sim: fail/try until you learn.
RW: fail once and hope you have learning time left.

In the high times of the Cold War, they've shot down a fully loaded airliner being hundreds of nm off course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007
A sad but interesting read.

David,

You said you were flying from Champaign/Urbana KCMI to KIAD via J149...

http://img814.imageshack.us/img814/3333/j149.jpg

J-149 is a one way airway so I wonder how ATC gave you that route, or did you just try to plan it that way?
Were you in the high altitude structure?
SINDE (all intersections are five letters long) is 123 miles from AML VOR, which is on the airport at KIAD. At high altitude you should have no problem receiving the VOR.
It is too bad you cannot get free maps of Europe or other places around the world.

Lou

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

LOU wrote on Jul 27^th, 2011 at 8:43pm:

David, You said you were flying from Champaign/Urbana KCMI to KIAD via J149... http://img814.imageshack.us/img814/3333/j149.jpg J-149 is a one way airway so I wonder how ATC gave you that route, or did you just try to plan it that way? Were you in the high altitude structure? SINDE (all intersections are five letters long) is 123 miles from AML VOR, which is on the airport at KIAD. At high altitude you should have no problem receiving the VOR. It is too bad you cannot get free maps of Europe or other places around the world. Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Actually, it was the FSX planner that came up with that beauty, lol.   And yes, it was using high alt airways.


Any idea what a real world route from KCMI to KIAD might be?  I was on such a flight around 1974 I think, flying as an unaccompanied minor on my way to Glasgow.  I don't remember what airline/aircraft it was.  Ozark was our main carrier here in Champaign back then, but I'm not sure if they flew that route.  

That's what I really like doing in FSX---recreating actual flights I've been on, trying to find out what real-world routing they used.

flightaware.com offers some rw route tracking.
And www.simroutes.com offers close to rw sim ones.

David,

Your routing could be:

Depart KCMI - Direct VHP - J24 - HVQ - ROYIL2 KIAD

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/4664/routev.jpg

http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/5559/route2c.jpg


You would depart CMI, radar vectors or direct VHP then fly J24 to HVQ and the STAR into IAD.

Depending on the plane you are flying you would select a proper cruise altitude and also depending on the weather you might need an alternate.

The Jepp charts we carried had standard routes, but from time to time you could modify the route depending on traffic or weather.

If CMI has a control tower and radar, you would get your clearance from the tower and after takeoff you would be switched to departure control for vectors, or told to contact the center to get an IFR clearance after takeoff, or get a clearance over the phone with a window of time to takeoff.

Lou

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Thanks, Lou.

Man, some of those legs on that STAR are so short!   What would be a typical airspeed to fly that in a 727?   It seems to me that at 250 knots, everything would happen so fast, it would be hard to stay ahead of things.  

Never mind on the speed--I just noticed it says 250k on the STAR chart.

Wow, I just flew the flight from KCMI to KIAD, including the STAR (until ATC started vectoring me in once I got to KERRE.)   I had the GPS window open just to see how I was doing, and I was following the magenta line like I was a train on a track!   Awesome.  The only thing that was a pain was the AML VOR didn't come in at all until I was only about 55-60 miles from it, so I had to use the BKW for longer than I would have.  I wonder if there is file I can edit to fix that and give it real world range.  

Navigation like this is so much fun.  It also keeps you busy, as opposed to just sitting there while the GPS does all the work.  

Thanks again Lou, CoolP, and the rest.  My only complaint at this point is that my jaw is aching from the perma-grin I have been wearing all morning.

David, I do wonder about the range of the VOR's. It appears they are not able to receive past 60 miles even at 10,000'.

If you fly the STAR you will see that Armel VOR is only used for 28 miles.

This is a bit busy, but I remember a few that were much harder to fly. You were fliping VOR frequencies faster than you can kiss a duck.

Here is another busy approach. It is a turboprop STAR, but still very busy.

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/7440/starpo.jpg

I guess you and many others enjoy using the on line ATC environment.

I had enough of that over the years and now I just fly the skies by myself and the AI planes FSX puts into the sky.  :P

Lou

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I do wonder about the range of the VOR's. It appears they are not able to receive past 60 miles even at 10,000'.
I can receive the signal from many VORs (DME type) from up to 200 miles. I can't be sure of the VORs that are not DME, because I have no idea how far away they are. ;)

Mark

LOU wrote on Jul 28^th, 2011 at 3:28pm:

David, I do wonder about the range of the VOR's. It appears they are not able to receive past 60 miles even at 10,000'. If you fly the STAR you will see that Armel VOR is only used for 28 miles. This is a bit busy, but I remember a few that were much harder to fly. You were fliping VOR frequencies faster than you can kiss a duck. Here is another busy approach. It is a turboprop STAR, but still very busy. http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/7440/starpo.jpg I guess you and many others enjoy using the on line ATC environment. I had enough of that over the years and now I just fly the skies by myself and the AI planes FSX puts into the sky.  :P Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Wow, that is "busy", lol.

Maybe I'm reading the Royil 2 STAR wrong.  I thought I was supposed to cross HVQ, then follow the 095 radial to DILNN, then pick up the BKW radial 072 till I hit PUTTZ.  Then turn onto the AML 259 (using 079 to track inbound) until I get to DOCCS, then head for LDN via radial 206 (026) .  But when I got to PUTTZ, I was not yet receiving AML, so I used BKW 079 until ATC started vectoring me in.  

Mark, I receive many VORs at up to 200 miles as well.  But some of the ones that I really need for navigation don't come into range until it is too late to use them as intended.  

As a licensed Amateur Radio Operator (Ham), I know that VHF transmissions between the ground and aircraft at altitude can be heard for hundreds of miles, even with just a few watts of power.  So this 50 mile limit on some VORs makes no sense to me.

I think that FSX models a sort of mesh influence on the stations, rendering their signals to be disregarded by the flight sim gauges in the cockpit under certain conditions .
But you are right, that 200 or 220 nm max. limit is hard coded it seems.

The only real trouble I have with that are the ADFs in my eyes, as they are way to limited in range in the sim while reports shows huge (useable) ranges in the rw on some.

I agree the AML VOR should be received well before PUTTZ. I have observed the same problem with some VOR's. The ADF's are also very short range - too!

Now there are high altitude VOR's and terminal VOR's, but anything on a STAR should be usable. The VOR is VFH and thus line of sight, so the higher you fly the longer the range.

Lou

Another Lou! Welcome.  :)


The CS forums have a cAsE sEnSiTiVe name login now (without an announcement though), so maybe you are still the old Lou, with a fall-back login though.
Anyway, welcome either way.  :)

Boy, you can't sneak anything around here!
Yes, it was Lou trying to come on the forum as lou since for some reason the Yabba Dabba Do would not accept my login.

Gee CoolP I did not think you were that mad at me!  ;)

Lou

Just checking to see if I'm still alive....NOPE!

[edit]The CS forums have a cAsE sEnSiTiVe name login now.[/edit]
Didn't that help?
You have to use your screen name and also make sure to write it with the capital letters (in your case).

So, in your case, you enter
Name: LOU        Password: darn sissy flyers  ;D

LOU wrote on Jul 28^th, 2011 at 3:28pm:

I guess you and many others enjoy using the on line ATC environment.

Lou, do you mean "online ATC" as in networks like VATSIM, or just the built in ATC that comes with FSX?   I am not flying on VATSIM, so when I say ATC starts vectoring me in before I get to complete the STAR, I mean the FSX ATC.

David, I don't use any ATC.

I tried Vatsim and found it to be a pain - too much like work.  ;)

I just fly from place to place whether I'm in the 727, 707, 757 or the Cub or 172. I have done a few long flights, but I like shorter more difficult flights better.

Lou