EFB's: Could we make better use of 'Radial (from)'?

[Garfly]

In OzRunways (probably similar in AvPlan) if you hit the 'Closest POIs' button (bottom/left) you instantly get Distance and Radial (from) for a whole list of nearby airports/aids etc. It's a nicely precise definition of one's current position which might have lots of uses - like telling others where we're at.

 

(You get the same info just tapping near any place but the list is shorter.)

 

Of course, if our aim is just to go to any one of them, we hit 'Direct To' and we get a BRG (TO) - a far more useful number in the normal course of things. But having the radial info too, so easily available set me thinking about the way we commonly report our position on CTAF on approach to an airstrip.

 

For the most part, hearing "10 miles, south-east of the field inbound" etc. is quite accurate enough. But what about busy times? Or when, for whatever reason, you fear proximity? After all, on the 10 miles ring, 'south-east of ...' could apply to an arc maybe 8 miles wide. So if you hear that and think yourself to be at a similar distance/direction (+ altitude) you could just as easily be only meters directly above/below that traffic as you could a full 8 miles abeam it.

 

So here's the question I'd like to put to the more experienced pilots here (most of you ;-):

 

Could we make better use of the information now at hand to make better position reports when needed?

 

Would it ever make sense to report thus: "10 miles, inbound on the 120 radial, Caboolture airport. etc"

 

(I add 'airport', since this has long been language applied to VORs. Whereas now we can have omni's everywhere.)

 

Yes, I do foresee several problems myself, a biggie being that the early up-takers would be laughed off the field as pretentious gits. LOL. As a procedural innovation, it'd need to be generally agreed and officially sanctioned. Used in isolation it might be counter-productive. "What'd he say?"

 

Plus, I suppose its usefulness would be limited to aircraft on more or less direct inbound/outbound tracks (beyond the circuit) since in other close-in situations you'd cut across radials so fast as to make it pointless. But at least the direction data ought to be dependable since all EFBs (presumably) would place their virtual VORs at the same recognised point on the ground for that airport - or POI.

 

I'm sure there are other drawbacks I haven't imagined.

 

But then there may be other, better, ways to make use of this new data, such as when talking to Centre or when mixing it up with IFR/RPT traffic on the radio. Maybe they'd prefer to hear of our position precisely in terms they get rather than in random VFR-speak.

 

And it'd be more useful, still, if we could place a compass rose on any given POI as needed. It'd make visualisation even easier. (Which is actually a feature request I've put in to the OzRWY team.)

 

Anyway, just a little thought for the Suggestion Box.

 

 

[frank marriott]

"10 miles, inbound on the 120 radial, Caboolture airport. etc"

My thoughts: A radial should only used with a VOR [the VOR is often located some distance from the airport ref point, i.e. the GPS position, so you may not be on the "radial" quoted.

 

It would be accurate to say bearing 120 deg M.

 

A basic understanding of radials V headings is also required, which I suspect would only confuse quite a few, so my opinion for what it is worth, is radials/IFR reporting points etc. would only confuse the issue unless it became a component of the licence/certificate test.

 

At this time non TSOed GPS positions cannot be legally used, at least in my understanding anyway.

 

 

[Garfly]

Yes, I agree Frank, it'd first need to be 'trained' into the system for it to work at all.

 

And I suppose that in the case I cited the Bearing to Caboolture from my position would be 300 deg M.

 

And that points to the confusion you're talking about. The old TO/FROM thing with VORs.

 

But then, in our operations there are not that many strips that have associated VORs (getting fewer by the year?)

 

And in such cases it'd be necessary to say 'airport' to distinguish your EFB derived radial from the aid.

 

But I guess, I'm just trying to think up ways to exploit the fact we now have OMNIs anywhere we want.

 

To be sure, that's no use as far as the aid's original purpose goes, but maybe still good as a precise position format that can be quickly visualised by others (albeit with a bit of mental training).

 

But sure, we'd need to agree on the form of words first. But maybe by then we'll all have cheap reliable TCAS anyway.

 

 

[Yenn]

I have used 10miles 135degrees from Wherever for a long time. my GPS gives bearing to so I have to deduct or add 180 degrees, which can be a slow job at busy times.

 

 

[Garfly]

Yeah, we don't get to exercise the mental math part of our brains much these days.

 

But Yenn, would you ever throw in the words 'radial from' in such a report or do you reckon that might confuse more than clarify in a VFR environment? (Get people thinking VORs). I believe that in some contexts 'Bearing' and 'Radial' are used to disambiguate TO and FROM, but maybe not all. But as ground based aids are being rapidly decommissioned maybe we can start to reclaim the language. There's still - as much as ever - a need to be clear on that.

 

 

[Nobody]

If you are using the GPS to give you a radial at a location with a VOR remember to allow for the fact that VOR radials are magnetic. No point being precise and wrong.

 

 

[SDQDI]

I've stuffed up my north south and east west before when making my inbound calls, I can easily see people getting 180degrees out when only flying occasionally with that sort of system.

 

IMO it would just be introducing another thing that could be affected by human factors and you could (as nobody basically said) be giving a very accurate bearing that is completely wrong. I think the simple N,NNE,NE,ENE,E,ESE,SE,SSE,S,SSW,SW,WSW,W,WNW,NW,NNW divides the compass pretty good and if someone is in the same direction then use vertical height for separation. Always remember that there will be some without radio out and about so the more time the eyes are outside the better.

 

For sure it has a place in IFR but we are flying VISUAL

 

 

[Garfly]

In reply to Nobody:

 

True. But I think most people have their GPS set up for Magnetic direction anyway.

 

But again, my point's not about VORs per se but what we might call the 'virtual VORs' now available at any place that's near - just tap and read the radial. This I think is fairly new and it ain't for nav but for precise reporting that's easy to visualise - especially with a rose to help. (True, the Rose should be oriented for local declination.)

 

By the way, I'm not in favour of staring at your iPad instead of looking out the window. Quite the opposite. As much as anything, this is about mentally processing what it is you're hearing from others. Ideally set up, as I'd envisage it, only the merest glance at the iPad is needed.

 

But I agree there are problems with 'precise' information that really isn't. Vague is better than that, any day.

 

Heck if we were into precision for its own sake we could proudly announce our lat/long as we approached. That'd get some amusing responses in the circuit. But the funny thing is that 'Radial/distance from X' is just as precise as lat./long but a thousand times easier to picture. A million with a rose.

 

And to SDQDI ... sure Sam, I've also stuffed up such calls and got disoriented in that way too but I'm just wondering - throwing it out there - if maybe this newly available method wouldn't make it easier rather than harder for us. And, hey, looking at all that alphabet soup you've got up there ;-) ... wouldn't numbers work as well? I think I could place 160 quicker than Sou-Sou-East.

 

And true, we do fly visual but it's really alerted-see-and-avoid that I'm working with here. In the (okay, pretty extreme) example I gave above, of our hapless pilot looking for that other aircraft - also reporting 10 miles to the south-east of the field and at our altitude - 'visual' wasn't helping much in Case A since the threat was right underneath and in Case B it was 8 miles away. Whereas, if our chap/chapess confirmed being on the 115 radial inbound and the significant-other on, say, the 145, they could both relax and look towards the right piece of sky respectively.

 

Hey, maybe it's the fancy terminology that's our problem. What, if we just called 'em spokes? ;-))

 

anyway, all the best for the New Year,

 

gary.

 

 

[VFR Pilot]

I have used 10miles 135degrees from Wherever for a long time. my GPS gives bearing to so I have to deduct or add 180 degrees, which can be a slow job at busy times.

 

Easy to reverse a track Yenn, plus 2 minus 2 or minus 2 plus 2 depending on the direction of your track.

 

 

[Garfly]

Hey VFR, could you unpack that a bit? Give us some worked examples? Seems like a good trick.

 

 

[SDQDI]

Hey VFR, could you unpack that a bit? Give us some worked examples? Seems like a good trick.

Basically the same as what phil mentioned on another thread, you can either add 200 and then subtract 20 (so if you were heading 090 you get 290-20 equals 270) or subtract 200 and add 20 (so heading 340 is 140+20 equals 160). To decide which one is relatively easy if your answer falls below zero or above 360 you do the other one:thumb up:

 

 

[SDQDI]

Of course with practice just adding or subtracting 180 would work but working with neat hundreds does make it a lot easier and quicker for the 'occasional' flyer. Which of course most of us are.

 

 

[Garfly]

Thanks Sam, maybe this thread should have been called:

 

'Maths: could we make better use of our brains?'

 

LOL.

 

 

[Downunder]

I'm happy with "traffic xxxxx, call sign, is 10 miles north east at 4500, inbound, on descent, xxxxx"

 

Individuals in potential conflict can then communicate to sort it out.

 

For me, a verbal "north east" registers a faster mental picture of the location than "numbers".

 

Perhaps that's a result of always being RAA and never commercial or PPL.

 

 

[Garfly]

Yeah, I reckon that works pretty well for the most part too.

 

Especially at quieter places.

 

And just how 'radial' reporting would work in busier environments I wouldn't know.

 

I guess it would have to be trialled, but then who'd bother?

 

(Just hate to waste that good info. though. ;-)

 

Maybe individuals in potential conflict, like you mentioned, could still use it in an informal way. That's why I'd like to see it displayed more prominently as an HUD option - and that might happen, I suppose.

 

 

[kaz3g]

I have used 10miles 135degrees from Wherever for a long time. my GPS gives bearing to so I have to deduct or add 180 degrees, which can be a slow job at busy times.

Hi Yenn

 

Add 200 then subtract 20 from the total. It's quick and easy.

 

So if you are 135 from, add 200 makes 335, subtract 20 equals 315.

 

Kaz

 

 

[VFR Pilot]

Hey VFR, could you unpack that a bit? Give us some worked examples? Seems like a good trick.

 

Garfly. If you are tracking east, let's say 140 deg just add 2 to the hundreds and minus 2 from the tens =320 deg, if your track is westerly it's the opposite, say 270 then minus 2 from the hundreds and add 2 to the tens = 090. Pretty quick and easy.

 

vfr

 

 

[frank marriott]

Or you could just look at the tail of the ADF needle

[VFR Pilot]

Actually it's just the same as the other guys have said, only I don't look at it as hundreds and tens , I just add or subtract 2 from the first two numbers of the track.

 

I use FrankM's method too.

 

vfr

 

 

[Yenn]

Whats that ADF needle. all I have is a compass needle and I can,t see its tail. The maths is good, another aide memoir is that the reciprocal, tens of degrees add up to the same as the going tens, ie 130 deg reciprocal is 310, both tens add to 4. As used to get runway numbers.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Whats that ADF needle.

Yen, the thread is about EFBs. I realise most untralights don't have an ADF but the EFB with OzRunways and I assume the others that are available, do have this simulated information (or even a DG).

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

This is such a sensible idea it will never happen. When listening to the back and forth "where are you" drivel on CTAF it has occurred to me that use of radial/distance would be concise and precise.

 

So we're not allowed to use the GPS. How many here have looked outside and had a serious conflict between current GPS position and position by pilotage?

 

The gliding community worldwide has been using GPS flight recorders for contest position recording for 20 years. The GPS receivers are normal commercial units, not fancy TSO'd units . They also use commercial GPS based traffic warning systems (Flarm). I'm unaware of any serious position fix issues there also.

 

If CASA was interested in aviation safety this would happen ASAP, but they aren't so it won't.

 

We are really talking about a crude Flarm with a human in the loop that uses VHF instead of a peanut whistle low power transmitter with airframe shielding issues.

 

 

[VFR Pilot]

My GPS is spot on all the time, so much so that I have to make a conscious effort to navigate properly and use the GPS only as a backup.

 

I don't know what's with these CASA people, they have got their heads in the clouds alright but not in planes.

 

 

[Bevan]

Hi Folks

 

Just wondering why the quadrantal calls aren't good enough? (north, south, south east etc). Seems a lot simpler, and less prone to error. Lets you know where the traffic is, and leads your eyes outside, rather than try and work it all out on an iPad.

 

As I see it the only time its required if you are trying to separate yourself with IFR traffic, who tend to talk about radials and distances.

 

 

[kgwilson]

ADF = Automatic Direction Finder & points to the NDB (Non Directional Beacon). I haven't seen one in any modern aircraft. The NDB uses the old AM band. We used to use it to tune into radio stations years ago when we knew where we were or going for a bit of music or news.