VOR Approaches gone ?

Doug Reid

Doug Reid

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Messages
1,307
Location
North Carolina
Display Name
Display name:
Doug Reid
I just noticed on ForeFlight that all our local VOR approaches are gone. Is this all over the country ? The VOR approach into my home base, KHBI, used the GSO VOR and DME which is still up and running as part of the GSO ILS. As a side note: the NDB approach at KRUQ is still in service.
 
The HBI VOR-A was canceled on 8/13/20. Public comments were due by 7/30/20 according to the FAA's IFP Gateway: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/fli...&tab=coordination&nasrId=HBI#searchResultsTop

The cancellation of VOR approaches is an initiative started about 6 years ago and cancellations started 3 or 4 years ago. It was published in the Federal Register and lots of the advocate groups (EAA, AOPA, NBAA, etc.) pushed out news articles about it. There were lots of public comments about specific approaches, and many were retained as a result.

Here is an example AOPA article: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...s-more-instrument-approaches-for-cancellation
 
Still an active one here.
 
To expand on my previous comment, no, not ALL of the VOR approaches are going away. But there has been a significant reduction in the last few years, and that's what you're noticing.

When the FAA started this process, they put out the rules they were using to consider VOR approaches for cancellation. It's probably in that article's link to the Federal Register, but if I remember right, it basically came down to the idea of "how many different ways do you really need to be able to land on one runway?"

There were runways out there with an ILS, RNAV (perhaps GPS and RNP both), a VOR and an NDB. Well, since most airplanes that have a VOR receiver also have an ILS receiver, identifying the VOR to be canceled is an easy first cut, pending further review. And there definitely was further review after the public comment period, many procedures were kept that were on the cancellation list. Such considerations as other nearby VOR approaches, training requirements and such were considered.

This is only tangentially related to the VOR MON program, the reduction of actual VOR facilities across the U.S. It's more about the cost of ongoing maintenance to the procedure itself, including recurring flight inspection and administrative work (amendments, evaluation for new obstacles, etc.)
 
Russ, thanks for your response. At KHBI, we are about 25 south of Class C KGSO, and our VOR-A approach was configured from GSO VORTAC. The only other approaches here are RNAV 3 and RNAV 21. This also affected two nearby airports KSCR and 2A5...they lost their VOR approaches from LIB VORTAC. Oh well....:)
 
Doug Reid said:
I just noticed on ForeFlight that all our local VOR approaches are gone. Is this all over the country ? The VOR approach into my home base, KHBI, used the GSO VOR and DME which is still up and running as part of the GSO ILS. As a side note: the NDB approach at KRUQ is still in service.
Click to expand...
Not quite all. Many of them are gone as part of the redundant VOR approach reduction program. As Russ said, that's not really related to the MON program to decommission VORs. Obviously, if a VOR is being decommissioned, the approaches have go away, but that's not vice versa. For example, LIB VOR is not slated for decommissioning.

Not quite sure how far you are but the BUY VOR-DME approach is still available. Supposed reason is LabCorp uses it when coming from the N-NE and landing to the east. It ends pretty much on a perfect 45 to downwind. The FAY and LHZ VOR approaches are also available. I haven't looked much further than that.
 
As the transition to the Minimum Operating Network continues apace, VORs are being decommisioned or not repaired, and if airports have one or more GPS approaches the VOR approaches may not be flight checked, NOTAMed out of service or outright decommissioned. Our VOR approach was out of service more often than not and was finally killed this year. The VOR is slated for decommissioning within the year anyway. Other nearby VORs (e.g. ULW) are out of service and not scheduled for repair in lieu of eventual decommissioning.
 
They were talking to eliminate the vor approach into kexx pretty soon
 
It is a bit annoying that I have literally dozens of approaches within 25 miles on my home airport. However every single one of now requires DME or GPS. Makes it a bit annoying when the two least expensive aircraft to train in are both capable of an ILS but don't have a DME or IFR GPS (that is legal). My students with there own airplanes that only have a VOR/Glideslope have to go over 100 miles just to shoot some approaches before they start renting more expensive airplanes that they need to complete the checkride in.

Brian
 
chemgeek said:
As the transition to the Minimum Operating Network continues apace, VORs are being decommisioned or not repaired, and if airports have one or more GPS approaches the VOR approaches may not be flight checked, NOTAMed out of service or outright decommissioned. Our VOR approach was out of service more often than not and was finally killed this year. The VOR is slated for decommissioning within the year anyway. Other nearby VORs (e.g. ULW) are out of service and not scheduled for repair in lieu of eventual decommissioning.
Click to expand...
The ones in NC he's talking about are not MON related.
 
Thanks Mark and Bean. I fly into KEXX regularly....also I am close to KBUY.
 
@Doug Reid, are you based at HBI? I fly there for landing practice from time to time rather than Siler because Siler doesn't have a taxiway.

The one at EXX was part if this round of cancellations. There were a bunch of them. BTW, since each approach is a regulation, elimination is announced in advance, with a public comment period.
 
Last edited:
brcase said:
It is a bit annoying that I have literally dozens of approaches within 25 miles on my home airport. However every single one of now requires DME or GPS. Makes it a bit annoying when the two least expensive aircraft to train in are both capable of an ILS but don't have a DME or IFR GPS (that is legal). My students with there own airplanes that only have a VOR/Glideslope have to go over 100 miles just to shoot some approaches before they start renting more expensive airplanes that they need to complete the checkride in.

Brian
Click to expand...
When I lived in Colorado I flew a Comanche for a few years. Great airplane but no DME (definitely no GPS!). Even back then, 10 or so years ago, lack of DME made real IFR flight unfeasible.
 
midlifeflyer said:
@Doug Reid, are you based at HBI? I fly there for landing practice from time to time rather than Siler because Siler doesn't have a taxiway.

The one at EXX was part if this round of cancellations. There were a bunch of them. BTW, since each approach is a regulation, elimination is announced in advance, with a public comment period.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am based at HBI. I am at the airport a couple times per week...never had a clue they were proposing an end to our VOR approach.
 
Doug Reid said:
Yes, I am based at HBI. I am at the airport a couple times per week...never had a clue they were proposing an end to our VOR approach.
Click to expand...
As Russ said, it was published in the federal register with the opportunity to comment. In theory airport managers were supposed to let the pilots and FBOs know on a timely basis.
 
Doug Reid said:
Yes, I am based at HBI. I am at the airport a couple times per week...never had a clue they were proposing an end to our VOR approach.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, one needs to know where to look. I knew about them months ago, even posted locally about the one at SCR with the comment date because we use it so much. I don't think anyone commented. OTOH, I'm not sure whether or not the FAA considers "we like it for flight training" a reason for retention.
 
RussR said:
When the FAA started this process, they put out the rules they were using to consider VOR approaches for cancellation. It's probably in that article's link to the Federal Register, but if I remember right, it basically came down to the idea of "how many different ways do you really need to be able to land on one runway?"
Click to expand...
And, the FAA should have reverted to the overlay program for at least some VOR approaches. I was participating in the WSA RAPT program for NBAA when my old home drome, KEMT came up for full amendment. I requested RNAV from the east and the northwest. I got the RNAV from the NW, but they said no to RNAV from the east. That approach (VOR-A) is always used unless the weather mandates use of the RNAV-B. It's a shame that all who have great RNAV equipment are saddled with a VOR approach.
 
aterpster said:
As Russ said, it was published in the federal register with the opportunity to comment. In theory airport managers were supposed to let the pilots and FBOs know on a timely basis.
Click to expand...
That assumes airport managers are following the federal register or the other FAA notice sources.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The ones in NC he's talking about are not MON related.
Click to expand...

Airports with other viable approaches (e.g. RNAV) and underutilized VOR approaches are being decommisioned. There are simply too many approaches now (about double what threre were prior to GPS) to sustainably flight check of maintain ground facilities. This effort has been underway since 2015 or so.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Unfortunately, one needs to know where to look. I knew about them months ago, even posted locally about the one at SCR with the comment date because we use it so much. I don't think anyone commented. OTOH, I'm not sure whether or not the FAA considers "we like it for flight training" a reason for retention.
Click to expand...

And even if you do comment, as we did for our airport, it is unlikely to have much effect if your airport has other viable approaches. The VOR approach wasn't great, but it did allow non GPS aircraft to have an approach choice. In the early days of GPS approaches much our turbine traffic was not certified to use GPS approaches, helping us keep it off the chopping vlock, but that has changed in the last few years.

The major problem for the FAA is trying to keep up with flight checking and ground facility maintenance for the redundant approaches. We used to have three GPS approaches, now down to two. And no VOR approach anymore. The VOR approach was getting to where it was not fight checked on time, and would get NOTAMed out of service.
 
chemgeek said:
And even if you do comment, as we did for our airport, it is unlikely to have much effect if your airport has other viable approaches. The VOR approach wasn't great, but it did allow non GPS aircraft to have an approach choice. In the early days of GPS approaches much our turbine traffic was not certified to use GPS approaches, helping us keep it off the chopping vlock, but that has changed in the last few years.
Click to expand...
Was the lack of non-GPS options the basis for the comment? More curious than anything else.

One of our local ones was interesting. One of the retained ones in our area is the BUY VOR/DME-A. BUY has one runway, 6/24. It has an ILS Z and ILS Y runway 6 and GPS approaches with LPV minima to both 6 and 24. Although that one remains, VOR approaches to the three other airports which use the same VOR were deleted in this last cycle.

I have not attempted to verify this at all, but the local rumor is that the BUY one remains because LabCorp, which has a base at BUY, uses it in their operations. And it's a good-sized operation. Looking at the charts, it kinda sorta makes sense. Runway 6 is the runway used most. Coming from the NNE, it's going to be a long extra trip to use the runway 6 approaches, so circle to land makes sense. And for circle to land, the VOR-A, which pretty much ends on a 45 to left downwind to 6, seems to make more sense than circling off the straight in RNAV (the circling minima are the same for both).

Now, of course, that's rumor and speculation, so you may be right. Heck, I don't even know if it was slated for removal and then commented on or whether it never even got into the cancellation queue. Just found it interesting given the other cancellations.
 
No, you don't need 3 or 4 approaches to a given runway. But when you eliminate ONE and the rest are all GPS dependent, you really only have one approach left.
 
No, you don't need 3 or 4 approaches to a runway. But, when you eliminate ONE and all the rest are GPS dependent, you really only have one approach left.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Was the lack of non-GPS options the basis for the comment? More curious than anything else.
Click to expand...

Yes, we had both turbine operators that were not yet allowed to use the GPS approaches by their ops procedures, and based aircraft that were not GPS-equipped. We argued that these operators needed the VOR approach to make the field viable for much of our IFR traffic. Ultimately, the FAA pulled the plug on the VOR approach in the latest revision of our approaches last year. Our three GPS approaches were redesigned to meet revised FAA standards and reduced to two, and the VOR approach was eliminated. I think most of our turbine operators are now able to utilize the GPS approaches, so the only losers are the non-IFR-GPS equipped aircraft. The FAA basically expects IFR traffic to be WAAS equipped at this point, I think.
 
chemgeek said:
Yes, we had both turbine operators that were not yet allowed to use the GPS approaches by their ops procedures, and based aircraft that were not GPS-equipped. We argued that these operators needed the VOR approach to make the field viable for much of our IFR traffic. Ultimately, the FAA pulled the plug on the VOR approach in the latest revision of our approaches last year. Our three GPS approaches were redesigned to meet revised FAA standards and reduced to two, and the VOR approach was eliminated. I think most of our turbine operators are now able to utilize the GPS approaches, so the only losers are the non-IFR-GPS equipped aircraft. The FAA basically expects IFR traffic to be WAAS equipped at this point, I think.
Click to expand...
That's too bad. I think you are right about the FAA's WAAS expectation.
 
The next VOR approach I fly will be the first VOR approach I fly.
 
It helps to comment. I noticed on the IFP Gateway that the KCMA VOR 26 was scheduled for cancellation. While I don't need it, I know that tons of folks still use it and the airport is way too busy to be GPS only, plus the approach is based on a MON terminal VOR that is being kept around for MON airport KOXR. They decided to not cancel it.

Rgbeard said:
Fortunately the VOR approach at SDM isn’t shut down.

when the ceiling supports using it, I prefer it by a large margin to the GPS.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is going anywhere. While SDM isn't a MON airport, PGY is a MON VOR and SCT seems to really prefer the VOR-A to the RNAV 8, if at all possible. It keeps people away from the border and also doesn't require vectoring in a way that interferes with SAN.

aterpster said:
And, the FAA should have reverted to the overlay program for at least some VOR approaches. I was participating in the WSA RAPT program for NBAA when my old home drome, KEMT came up for full amendment. I requested RNAV from the east and the northwest. I got the RNAV from the NW, but they said no to RNAV from the east. That approach (VOR-A) is always used unless the weather mandates use of the RNAV-B. It's a shame that all who have great RNAV equipment are saddled with a VOR approach.
Click to expand...

I totally don't get why they don't have an overlay on that VOR-A approach, so people who don't have VORs (there are some out there) can fly it.

Dr. O said:
No, you don't need 3 or 4 approaches to a given runway. But when you eliminate ONE and the rest are all GPS dependent, you really only have one approach left.
Click to expand...

Well, that depends. Some airports have LPV only approaches, then also have non-LPV approaches to the same runway.

eman1200 said:
The next VOR approach I fly will be the first VOR approach I fly.
Click to expand...

You didn't need to fly one on your checkride?
 
N1120A said:
I totally don't get why they don't have an overlay on that VOR-A approach, so people who don't have VORs (there are some out there) can fly it.
Click to expand...

One reason is that it is another approach to flight check. The FAA is trying to limit the number of approaches to a sustainable level to keep in service. A overlay approach still requires monitoring and maintaining the ground based navaid. Converting a VOR approach to GPS only would probably not meet current standards for GPS approaches.
 
N1120A said:
It helps to comment.
Click to expand...

This^

Our VOR approach came up for comment. Airport management got the local pilot community involved and we kept the approach. Same reasoning as above, the VOR was not being decommissioned, and if the ILS went down and you weren't GPS equipped you had no other approach in.
 
Palmpilot said:
Yet another "unfunded mandate." :(
Click to expand...

While I do sympathize, I wonder how the actual figures work out for aircraft regularly flown IFR.

I taught someone for their instrument rating about 4 years ago in a non-GPS equipped aircraft. Since then, in the dozens of owners' airplanes I've flown and taught in, only one did not have a WAAS GPS - and that one was an early G1000-equipped aircraft, so not exactly an "old school" aircraft - and that one non-GPS aircraft now does have a 430W. All of these were normal, light GA airplanes, single and twin-engine pistons. Many were 60's and 70's vintage.

Perhaps my experience is not typical, but at least among my client list, the number of non-WAAS aircraft is vanishingly tiny.
 
Somewhat topic drift (but still on aviation!) - is it possible to do a CFII checkride in a non-GPS plane now?

My trusty old Cardinal is still just dual VOR, ILS, DME, and a (gasp) ADF.
 
RussR said:
While I do sympathize, I wonder how the actual figures work out for aircraft regularly flown IFR.

I taught someone for their instrument rating about 4 years ago in a non-GPS equipped aircraft. Since then, in the dozens of owners' airplanes I've flown and taught in, only one did not have a WAAS GPS - and that one was an early G1000-equipped aircraft, so not exactly an "old school" aircraft - and that one non-GPS aircraft now does have a 430W. All of these were normal, light GA airplanes, single and twin-engine pistons. Many were 60's and 70's vintage.

Perhaps my experience is not typical, but at least among my client list, the number of non-WAAS aircraft is vanishingly tiny.
Click to expand...
There are still a fair number of rental aircraft without WAAS, and a some with no IFR GPS at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top