VOR navigation,identify the station!

[Keefe Overby]

me and David were picking up the TOP/ VOR from 60-70 miles away from the station,do the signals "bounce" off of the atmostsphere or clouds like an AM transmission can and some times do????i know there a different wave length than AM but couldnt it still bounce?conditions of the flight was haze and clear skies.

 

[kiloalpha]

VORs freqs are VHF like com freqs, so it would be line of sight. It would rarely "bounce."

Here's VHF on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vhf

 

[Berkut]

me and David were picking up the TOP/ VOR from 60-70 miles away from the station,do the signals "bounce" off of the atmostsphere

Yes, you probably experienced some kind of tropospheric enhancement. Rather than typing out some huge essay in which I'll get half of it wrong anyway, I'll just provide you with a link: http://www.dxfm.com/Content/propagation.htm Scroll down to "Tropospheric enhancements." It's not quite the same as what you get with the AM broadcast band, which bounces off the ionosphere. VHF usually passes through the ionosphere without being reflected.

 

[tgrayson]

picking up the TOP/ VOR from 60-70 miles away from the station,

Why would this be surprising? The standard service volumes are related to frequency protection from other VOR's, not how far you should be able to receive them.

 

[matt152]

What altitude were you at?

 

[Keefe Overby]

5,500 msl

 

[Keefe Overby]

O.K. i understand that the freqs must not interfear with other VOR freqs thats why im assuming i was getting some kind of signal "bounce" since normal acusition of the signal is 40 miles or so, im still trying to figure out why we were aquireing a reliable signal so far out,since we SHOULD have lost the signal due to line of sight,(we were over the horizon!from the station!)

 

[Keefe Overby]

Thanks Berkut that link was really helpful,im content with my "bounce" theory now!!

 

[Keefe Overby]

Also thank you kiloalpha, for your link!i was pretty confident that we were getting a signal refraction or as i call it a "bounce"!!

 

[tgrayson]

since we SHOULD have lost the signal due to line of sight,(we were over the horizon!from the station!)

Looks like you were about 4,500 AGL, which puts the horizon at about 78 nautical miles. That's still reasonably line-of-sight range. I normally pick up the MEM VOR 70 nm out or so.

 

[SteveC]

We often pick up VORs at 200+ miles out. Yeah, that's at 40,000+ feet, but just to let you know that the signal is plenty strong enough to reach out there. At those distances we often see "interference" from other stations that are on the same freq, but maybe a couple hundred miles in another direction. I use the word "interference" loosely because I am usually just playing games with myself by guessing at stations down the line and tuning them in to see how close we are going to pass over head. For example we do lots of runs in the winter to and from Florida (to Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconson) and I get used to tuning in CTY, MCN, ATL, GQO, VXV, CVG, FWA, IIU.... as a way to pass the time, and I pull up a needle on the FMS. The question of the day might be: "Going from KVNC to KPWK, will we pass east or west of Chattanooga on our flight plan route? No looking at charts to answer - just off the top of your head."

 

[Keefe Overby]

O.K.,ok,heres one,is this correct to say,but it can get confusing,so stay with me,im on the 170 radial and im flying to the station,this is a trick question,I think?

 

[Keefe Overby]

ok, i agree 4,500 and 70 miles out WOULD be line of sight still ,i was thinking in terms of being on the ground(im still a student)and i dont fly every day

 

[Keefe Overby]

im on the 170 radial from the station,flying TO the recipracal 340 radial,but why does it have to be so complicated:banghead:BUT it is ALOT funner to fly VOR than GPS,at least thats how i feel,more stuff to do with nobs and buttons,

 

[Keefe Overby]

So, every one here thinks im nutty for saying that if im on the 170 radial,then i cant be flying TO the station,But if i AM on the 170 radial,and im going toward the station then why wouldnt it be called flying TO the station on the 170 radial,because thats what im doing!and i completly understand that im actually flying TO the 340 radial,but it doesnt make since to me to say im on the 170 radial flying TO the 340 radial since i dont want to go anywere NEAR that radial i just want to get TO the station!BUT im still a student so im probably wrong

 

[JJ8Flyer]

So, every one here thinks im nutty for saying that if im on the 170 radial,then i cant be flying TO the station,But if i AM on the 170 radial,and im going toward the station then why wouldnt it be called flying TO the station on the 170 radial,because thats what im doing!and i completly understand that im actually flying TO the 340 radial,but it doesnt make since to me to say im on the 170 radial flying TO the 340 radial since i dont want to go anywere NEAR that radial i just want to get TO the station!BUT im still a student so im probably wrong

You can be on the 170 radial TO the station or on the 170 FROM the station. The reciprocal of 170 is 350, +2 -2. If you were south of the station flying to the vor you would not say you were on the 350 TO, it would be the 170 TO. You would however be flying a heading of approximately 350 for a TO indication depending on winds.

 

[Barty]

So, every one here thinks im nutty for saying that if im on the 170 radial,then i cant be flying TO the station,But if i AM on the 170 radial,and im going toward the station then why wouldnt it be called flying TO the station on the 170 radial,because thats what im doing!and i completly understand that im actually flying TO the 340 radial,but it doesnt make since to me to say im on the 170 radial flying TO the 340 radial since i dont want to go anywere NEAR that radial i just want to get TO the station!BUT im still a student so im probably wrong

Radials are always FROM, but the course (it occurred to me that the bearing to the station is dependent on your current position) to the station of course is TO. Same logic applies to NDBs, but there's no TO/FROM indication like a VOR.

 

[fish314]

So, every one here thinks im nutty for saying that if im on the 170 radial,then i cant be flying TO the station,But if i AM on the 170 radial,and im going toward the station then why wouldnt it be called flying TO the station on the 170 radial,because thats what im doing!and i completly understand that im actually flying TO the 340 radial,but it doesnt make since to me to say im on the 170 radial flying TO the 340 radial since i dont want to go anywere NEAR that radial i just want to get TO the station!BUT im still a student so im probably wrong

The problem you are having is just a terminology issue. Radials, by definition begin at the station and proceed out in the direction indicated by the number. You could fly either towards or away from the station on any radial you want, but if you choose to fly towards the station, once you pass the station you will be on the reciprocal radial.

Courses, on the other hand are not based on the station, but rather on your track along the ground. So for example, if you were on the 170R (that's the 170 radial) and flew inbound, that would be a 350 Course. Once you passed the station and kept going straight you would still be on a 350 Course, but you would also be on the 350 Radial (and you would now be proceeding OUTBOUND on the 350R).

Does that make sense Keefe?

 

[Keefe Overby]

YES!!!Thank you guys that clarified things for me, now I can explain things better (i understood the basics),BUT i was having a hard time conveying what i was thinking!now i will be prepared for my oral exam!!!:nana2:anic: Thanks again!!!!