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.

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.

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.

FAA has been touting direct routing for quite a while now and about has everone but the controllers convinced.  One fact, they seem to ignore, is that no matter how directly traffic travels between airports those airports have certain runway acceptance rates.  Upping those rates should be a priority but that would be getting 'the horse before the cart' and that's not the FAA way  . 

BSW727 wrote on Nov 30^th, 2009 at 9:10pm:


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

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"



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.

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 wrote on Dec 1^st, 2009 at 9:07pm:





"Nav skills", as I see it, are all about compass, clock, and chart.  GPS, or any navaid that shows you constantly precisely where you are relative to the chart, is really a "partial autopilot"- it's not flying the plane, but it's navigating for you.

I agree with the submarine captain- technically, these techniques are sufficient even in hard IMC... pilots flew that way for years before even the old 4-course ranges. Often failed, but they often succeeded, and even today GPS-equipped planes still fly into mountains and thunderstorms, go figure.

I'm glad I haven't had a chance in RL to get too used to GPS- it does all the important stuff for you, and you just stop thinking about it. Any trip of 50 miles or more, I would feel odd not having even a simple plan and working pilotage and dead reckoning... even on a "thumbnail" basis.

When you get down to it, pilotage and DR are not difficult or complicated; it's just a little work, and the more you do it, the easier it gets. And when you're droning along at 9500 at 100-125 knots in a straight line for hours on end, it's a fun diversion... looking for things, trying new headings, noting time between landmarks and calculating airspeed.

   As for its accuracy vs. GPS- done correctly, it's very accurate, and pilots still somehow manage to wind up where they don't want to be when using GPS.

Only time it's a PITA is during high-workload periods: sneaking between airspaces is when you have to be spot on, but you are more likely to be changing ATC freqs, changing heading, even changing altitude. But if you plan ahead, taking a good look at the chart beforehand, it's not so bad... and you can always forgo marking times, etc if you know you are fat with fuel- you can always start up with that again later when you are on a long stretch between waypoints later on.

And that sort of task overload can certainly occur with GPS: programming a diversion, etc.

snippyfsxer wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2009 at 11:14am:


Very coooool