Comments on: VOR Range https:/2009/02/vor-range/ Developer resources for the X-Plane flight simulator Tue, 01 Feb 2011 02:07:17 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.6.1 By: Paploo https:/2009/02/vor-range/#comment-796 Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:15:00 +0000 http://www.x-plane.com/dev_blog/?p=237#comment-796 Hey Ben. Speaking of all of this, I was talking to Robin about a problem in the nav.dat as well. Turns out that a bunch of the Low category VORs were set to the standard terminal service volume range (25 NM) instead of the standard low altitude service volume range (40 NM)!

Of course, these are *minimums*. When I looked at the my L-1/L-2 enroute chart, I can see that some of these that were set to 20 NM, have published victor airways that force them to be longer.

For example, Fortuna (114.0), up near Arcata, CA, seems to require reception to not less than 55 NM to the South in order to reach (JENNI) to intercept Menocino. V195, heading East, requires a similarly long 50 NM length.

And even worse, Williams (144.4), a published route (V200) that *requires* a change-over clear out at 84 NM (which requires looking at enroute L-9 just west of Reno to find)!

Each of these had 25 NM in the nav.dat, are categorized as low (and hence should have a 40 NM service volume), but actually have *much* bigger service volumes.

At this point in time, I’d expect that the priority would be given to published victor airways so that IFR navigation can be practiced. As such, Robin is increasing the ranges of the ones I report, but it would seem that the airway data could be utilized to help determine necessary ranges.

]]>