Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8
User avatar
By rikur_
#1838732
James Chan wrote:.... and not every controller has the name of every village and feature overlaid on their screen either.

Indeed - I'm impressed at how well our local LARS units cope with the range of reference points people choose to pick - from obscure villages; football grounds; quarries; theme parks; stately homes; factories; etc.
#1838734
skydriller wrote:
Instructor Errant wrote:I pulled out my own, ahem, completely up to date chart and found MALBY on Q63 but not, for example, BADIM, WOTAN etc etc. and not SOKDU which begs another question...

"Why are some reproduced on the half-mill and some not?"


I dont know, but could it be due to what another poster mentioned about waypoint altitudes? I havent looked at an actual paper UK chart for a while, but presumably they have a max altitude like french charts do?

Regards, SD..


Ahh that could be it, the half-mill is FL100 and BADIM, WOTAN are lower whereas SOKDU is higher.
User avatar
By flybymike
#1838736
skydriller wrote:Garmin may well have VRPs in their database today on their new GPS systems, but I distinctly remember spending hours back in the day programming in VRPs to my old GPS196, and there was some effort on this forum to produce uploadable files for UK VRPs...

Regards, SD..


I seem to recall that Cub did some excellent work in this respect.
skydriller, PeteSpencer liked this
User avatar
By akg1486
#1838738
AlanM wrote:http://www.Skyvector.com

World Hi
World Lo
World VFR

All selectable and may explain some more

Very helpful @AlanM; thanks. I knew that the routes differ between Hi and Lo, but I wasn't aware that the reporting points might be used exclusively for one or the other. In the area were I mostly fly, the IFR reporting points all seem to be used for both Hi and Lo. The VFR layer on Skyvector doesn't fill me with confidence: in my town, there are NDBs on the map that were dismantled before I started flying in 2003. The TWR frequency at my airport was correct perhaps five years ago: it briefly changed completely until the introduction of 8.33 when it changed to the equivalent of the old frequency. The runway length, which was changed five years ago, is correct. A D-area that changed to an R-area a few years ago is also correct. So a mixed bag, all in all.

On topic: I used to plan my flights using VORs, either the beacons themselves or radial/distance. Now there are hardly any left, so I use IFR reporting points in my flight plans. I also make position reports relative to them unless I'm close to a "well-known" town: the controllers in southern Sweden cover a large area and can't be expected to know the smallest village. I've never had a response from ATS like the OP, though.
AlanM liked this
User avatar
By AlanM
#1838741
akg1486 wrote:The VFR layer on Skyvector doesn't fill me with confidence: in my town, there are NDBs on the map that were dismantled before I started flying in 2003. The TWR frequency at my airport was correct perhaps five years ago: it briefly changed completely until the introduction of 8.33 when it changed to the equivalent of the old frequency. The runway length, which was changed five years ago, is correct. A D-area that changed to an R-area a few years ago is also correct. So a mixed bag, all in all.


Yes, the VFR layer is questionable! Oddly though, the IFR hi and lo are much more accurate for the points that I am used to.

Not sure that I would use it to seriously..... but a good example of the high and low airways and RPs
User avatar
By flybymike
#1838744
riverrock wrote:I have IFR ("Airways") reporting points hidden on my SkyDemon screen to reduce clutter. I suspect that most local VFR flyers have the same?


I display them. I find them useful as route planning waypoints as well as reporting points.
For decluttering I don’t display roads, high res terrain, trees, railways etc, (although quite often asked to report crossing a particular motorway!)
User avatar
By akg1486
#1838747
riverrock wrote:I have IFR ("Airways") reporting points hidden on my SkyDemon screen to reduce clutter. I suspect that most local VFR flyers have the same?

It probably depends on where you fly: I would suspect the English Southeast has a clutter of IFR reporting points but it's not such an issue in West Sweden where I live and (mostly) fly. I have them turned on even when I don't actively use them. On our yearly European excursions (pre-Covid, but hopefully soon again), I use them for both planning and reporting: I don't know which towns and villages on the map that, e.g., Langen Information is familiar with. Never ever had an issue.

But that's one of many great things with SkyDemon: you can personalize it to your heart's content and what's best for me might not be what's best for you. Or even best from time to time.
User avatar
By Dave W
#1838748
flybymike wrote:For decluttering I don’t display roads, high res terrain, trees, railways etc,

Apologies in advance for the thread creep. I thought about this, and although it can be cluttered in the display I leave these features showing - on the grounds that if GPS is lost for any reason I still have a chart that is useful for visual navigation under the old "Yes, confirm that is Trowbridge, with the canal running there and the railway entering and leaving there, with bridges there and there.

I realised that a moving map can save your VFR bacon - even if it's not moving and has no little aeroplane symbol - so long as it shows useful stuff to relate ground to map.
johnm, rikur_, AlanM and 3 others liked this
By riverrock
#1838753
Me also - I do try to verify my GPS location based on what I can see on the ground. The GPS jamming NOTAMs are often enough, I want to be confident about where I am if GNSS get blocked.
I don't fancy trying to work out where I am from triangulating VORs on a moving map in the air. I know its possible in SD (select the VOR on the map, measure from here) but it isn't straight forward, and you can't put a line from two VOR at once.
User avatar
By flybymike
#1838774
Dave W wrote:
flybymike wrote:For decluttering I don’t display roads, high res terrain, trees, railways etc,

Apologies in advance for the thread creep. I thought about this, and although it can be cluttered in the display I leave these features showing - on the grounds that if GPS is lost for any reason I still have a chart that is useful for visual navigation under the old "Yes, confirm that is Trowbridge, with the canal running there and the railway entering and leaving there, with bridges there and there.

I realised that a moving map can save your VFR bacon - even if it's not moving and has no little aeroplane symbol - so long as it shows useful stuff to relate ground to map.


That’s a good point Dave.

I have SD running on two devices in the aircraft. I think I may now perhaps configure one of them with more features showing!
Dave W liked this
#1838775
AlanM wrote:More annoyingly is when pilots file lat/long - that increases the guessing game!


Does Sky Demon put this in a flightplan if you make a turning point in the middle of nowhere?

Is M4 J16 still a VRP or did that disappear with Lyneham?
User avatar
By GrahamB
#1838778
Rob P wrote:The controller was having none of it and insisted on routeing us in a zig-zag from one IFR reporting point to another. We had VFR charts and a mono Garmin 111.


Surely that would have been along one of the compulsory VFR itinéraires which were clearly marked on the charts and in the databases, even all those years ago? I remember going to Calvi back in 2005 and having to follow the LERMA-OMARD-Turn right at MERLU route (or at least something like it).
By IMCR
#1838779
Obvioulsy ATC has all the VOR's a point I make only because (arguably) if you were VFR you wouldnt be using VOR's for navigation either (although I accept they are easily identifiable features). Perhaps with the increasing use of electronic maps ATC will overlay IFRWP's as well. After all hopefully we will eventually move to an era where IFRWPs are just positioned on airways and the airspace becomes better utilised. Just a thought.

I wonder how many pilots VFROCAS use VOR's for navigation?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8