Talk:VHF omnidirectional range

message: "VORs are quickly being ignored in favour the much more user-friendly GPS system, and it is generally thought that they will be turned off around 2010. Oddly the airways have become so important to air traffic control that aircraft are forced to follow them even when they are using GPS for navigation."
This is a rather contentious statement, and contains some POV remarks "Oddly...". Nothing odd about it. VOR cannot be "ignored", since as yet GPS is not necessarily actually admitted as a primary means of navigation in many territories. In addition, GPS receivers that are approved for use for aerial navigation are very expensive pieces of kit - the cheap handheld and mobile units are not considered good enough for aircraft use. Thousands of GA aircraft do not have GPS, nor are ever likely to, yet many are fitted with VOR equipment. As a pilot, I have never heard that VOR is likely to be switched off, just as NDB have not been switched off despite being superceded decades ago. Unless you can point to a reliable source for this factoid, I for one am inclined to take it with a very big pinch of salt. Since it's also opinion-laden, I will remove it from the article until it can be verified and reworded.Graham 13:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  THere is much dispute on the NDB page over wether NDB's are obsolete or being phased out. a few authors contend there is no proof
they are being phased out. --71.178.199.89 (talk) 05:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

text: This does indeed seem to be an unsubstantiated statement - while I agree that GPS approaches appear to gradually be replacing VOR and NDB approaches, I don't believe that NDB approaches are more abundant than VOR approaches.  In Canada, both seem to be slowly disappearing, although that is strictly from observation, I have not seen any numbers to back this up.  Since the last comment was from June of last year and there has been nothing further added, I will change that statement per our comments.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiFlyChick (talk • contribs) 20:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute 

message: Thanks for this excellent explanation of VOR (VHF Omnidirectional Range)!  However, in the first sentence of the last paragraph of the sub-section titled "Using the VOR", the words "flight director" are intended to refer to a computer on the airplane but they link to a Wikipedia page describing the Chief of Flight Operations for a NASA space mission.
I'm a novice here, so I haven't made any changes regarding this possible incorrect link.  Perhaps a more knowlegable contributor can check/fix this.
Thanks for creating and maintaining this excellent encyclopedia!
Steve-vts  --  Sept 13, 2005
I have removed the incorrect link to flight director Sfisher 23:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible incorrect link in text of VOR description. 

message: * Oppose Capitalization may be a convenient way to clarify the abbreviation VOR, but this is not a proper noun and should remain in lower case.  —Michael Z. 2005-10-19 18:40 Z
* Oppose Just because an acronym is often capitalized, that doesn't mean the spelled out version should be. The capitalized acronym in the introductory paragraph as it should be, though it should probably follow rather than precede the spelled out version, which need not be capitalized nor hyphenated.  Gene Nygaard 05:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move to VHF Omnidirectional Range 

message: "Electronics can solve this problem, and the flight director makes such tasks almost foolproof. A flight director is an analog computer..."
The Flight Director is an analogue or digital computer that represents navigational data on the Attitude Indicator as an attitude and angle of bank or rate of turn to fly.
The term you need is "Area Navigation System" which has the slightly bizarre acronym "RNAV": this being an analogue or digital computer system that in its most basic form uses VOR/DME signals to allow direct flight to/from points other than the VORs themselves (these points in the basic equipment are defined as radials and DME distances from VOR/DMEs and are known as 'ghost stations').  Very advanced digital Area Navigation Systems use input from many other navigational sources and do lots more besides and are known as Flight Management Systems.
Corrected, and removed some other related text that was incorrect.
BaseTurnComplete 22:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flight Director

message: I added the accuracy standard ARINC 711 reference.
This standard is the most difficult to obtain but it is possible and can be far better using an optimal receiver algorithm.
--bloublou 18:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated in the article. 1.4 degree system accuracy per FRS that is cited. That probably includes the .4 ARINC specifies for reciever equipment and 1.0 FAA uses for ground based transmitter equipment. Ground based VORs are monitored with a +/- 1 degree tolerance and will shutdown if they exceed it. Dual Freq 22:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy

message: I removed the ILS subsection as VORs and ILS work completely differently.  Calling an ILS a "narrow" VOR is an inaccurate simplification. ChadScott 01:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ILS subsection 

message: I've pruned quite a bit of US-specific stuff and internationalized other stuff accordingly.  To our American friends:  you're not the only English speakers in the world, nor does the world end at your borders.  Please try to bear this in mind when editing articles that are not inherently US-specific!BaseTurnComplete 09:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internationalized 

message: I've deleted the work "electronic" from the sentence:
"A second, amplitude modulated 30 Hz signal is derived from the rotation of a directional antenna array 30 times a second."
(previously: "...derived from the electronic rotation...").
As I wrote under the discussion heading 'Operational description in error?', this sentence is true as it applies to conventional VORs, where the rotating field is created by mechanically rotating a directional antenna. If you talk about electronic rotation of an antenna array, then you're talking about a DVOR and here it's the 30Hz FM signal that's created by electronically scanning (rotating) the array, not the AM signal. Dulciana 11:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation of Rotating Field 

message: I see how the VOR works?
How does DME work?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokem (talk • contribs) 17:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DME 

message: An unregistered user edited the introduction, suggesting VOR = VHF Omnidirectional Radio. He or she apparently misunderstood the word "range"; it doesn't mean range in the sense of distance between the ground facility and the aircraft, rather "range" should be understood in the sense of an area of land that is served by the facility (cf. rifle range, testing range etc.). It's easier to understand the derivation of "omnidirectional range" if you're acquainted with the much older MF bidirectional radio range -- see the last paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Range#Lorenz.
Dulciana (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  VOR = VHF Omnidirectional Radio Range 

message: I changed the Future section so that one sentence that previously said (practically speaking, landings in "zero-zero" weather) to now say "zero visibility weather" as it makes more sense to the layman, and is more accurate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.205.221 (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "zero-zero" weather 

message: Last time I looked on the political map the USA is not equivalent to The World. As far as I know the FAA has no authority outside the USA. The developments in the USA are not always applicable to the rest of the world. I see the same approach on many, if not all, aviation pages on the Wiki. There is life outside the USA.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.74.116.14 (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: USA only information?

message: This article currently states that "An "ambiguity" (TO-FROM) indicator shows whether following the selected course would take the aircraft to, or away from the station." This is not entirely accurate since the VOR system has no way of knowing which direction you are flying along the radial.
I am currently studying PPL and my instructor showed me a practical example of this the other day. All radials come From the station and it's perfectly possible to fly towards a VOR beacon with the FROM indicator showing. It is equally possible to fly away from the VOR on a TO radial, which is the cause of much confusion to pilots unfamiliar with the system. Again, the beacon or the equipment in the aircraft doesn't know which direction you are flying.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.96.122 (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The "VOR system" consists of the transmitter and your receiver. Yes, your system does know if you are on flying to/from a radial provided you are referencing the correct radial. and not the line that runs through the radial an out the other side of the transmitter (On a course of 000 flying directly north at a VOR, your instruments can certainly show a FROM indication. It isn't wrong, you just have your equipment set up on a reciprocal heading. Put it on 180 and that TO/FROM indicator will show what you are expecting). I think this article explains it quite well, but if you think it can be improved, feel free to contribute and make a change! Buffs (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  To/From 

message: I've tried the online VOR simulator referenced in the External Links section with Flash version 11.8.800.175 but it doesn't seem to be working.
I am unable to update my flash due to system administrator settings. Can anyone else confirm that the simulator works? --203.94.174.142 (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me 69.12.250.21 (talk) 00:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simulator link not working? 

message: VOR signal strength is enhanced by reflections from clouds? Much of the "Features" paragraph is nonsense, what happened here? Did not have time to fix today. Altaphon (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, fixed. Added some references to balance the GPS-averse assertions made some time ago. Altaphon (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who knew? 

message: Sentence in question: "By comparing the phase of the secondary signal with the master, the angle (bearing) to the aircraft from the station can be determined."
Original edit:  (Unnecessary bolding: the bearing to the station can be determined just as easily)
Revert:  (The bearing "to" the station would not be a correct description of a VOR radial.)
But the sentence doesn't use the phrase "VOR radial". It just makes a statement which is equally true whether the word "to" or "from" is used, so the heavy emphasis on "from" is misleading. The term "radial" is introduced a couple of sentences later, and that's the place where the distinction should be made. – Smyth\talk 17:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bolding 

message: In reviewing the large chunk of edits made in May , I have found a significant number of factual errors and inappropriate material. For example:
* The FAA Pilots Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge says, "a radial is defined as a line of magnetic bearing extending outward from the VOR station". The repeated usage of the term  "radial" to refer to the bearing TO the station is therefore incorrect. 
* No WP:Reliable source has been provided to support use of the term "VOR Head", yet the above edit suggests it is preferred terminology.
* The statement "Live voice can also be received on VOR frequencies, to which the pilot must reply on a COM frequency (such as 122.100R)." is unsourced and presumably specific to a certain location.
* Other expanded explanations of principles are largely correct, but made longer and more complicated.
On balance, I do not feel this series of edits improve the article, so I have reverted  them. Any specific suggestions for improving the article can be discussed on this page in order for them to gain WP:CONSENSUS. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  May edits