Alas poor VOR I knew ye well?

[AdamZ]

I was going to post this in my flying feels sooo good thread but wanted to create a different dicsussion about the subject. I'm starting to think that if you want to fly and don't want to futz around with pilotage or dead reckoning that you really really need to have a GPS even just a VFR GPS. My little flight yesterday was really pretty local but being the neruortic guy I am I called for a briefing ( BTW the briefer was very friendly and helpful) of the 4 VORS in the area every single one of them had unusable radials and some of them a LOT of unusable radials some were limited to being unsusable under 6000' but If I really needed to rely on the VORs it would have been a daunting task to re-review my entire flight plan taking into consideration all of the unusuable radial. That does not take into account the need to potentially replan and perhaps refile a potential flight plan.

Before it was perhaps a few radials here and there, but this was nuts.

Has the FAA decided not to repair these VORs?

I'm curious how much of a problem is this for navigation across the country. Is this situation uncommon?

 

[steingar]

One of our local VORs has been broken forever, and I am less than convinced the FAA will keep them all going. This is of particular concern to me, since I would still like to convert my aircraft for IFR operations.

 

[ScottM]

Budget issues have slowed down a lot of repairs.

 

[gismo]

Budget issues have slowed down a lot of repairs.

It's not just repairs. More than once trees and buildings have sprouted within line of sight of a VOR and the signal reflections from those objects caused enough multipath problems that some portions of the VOR signal were found to be out of tolerance when checked in the air. In that case the only viable "fix" is to move the VOR to somewhere else and that's very expensive. It may be time for the FSS to add a "no VOR" option to their standard briefing.

 

[nyoung]

In the Chicago area, DuPage and Janesville VORs have had a number of unuseable radials NOTAMd for a long time. I hadn't thought about the budget aspects, but I bet that's what's driving the slow repair.

I was going to post this in my flying feels sooo good thread but wanted to create a different dicsussion about the subject. I'm starting to think that if you want to fly and don't want to futz around with pilotage or dead reckoning that you really really need to have a GPS even just a VFR GPS. My little flight yesterday was really pretty local but being the neruortic guy I am I called for a briefing ( BTW the briefer was very friendly and helpful) of the 4 VORS in the area every single one of them had unusable radials and some of them a LOT of unusable radials some were limited to being unsusable under 6000' but If I really needed to rely on the VORs it would have been a daunting task to re-review my entire flight plan taking into consideration all of the unusuable radial. That does not take into account the need to potentially replan and perhaps refile a potential flight plan.

Before it was perhaps a few radials here and there, but this was nuts.

Has the FAA decided not to repair these VORs?

I'm curious how much of a problem is this for navigation across the country. Is this situation uncommon?

 

[SCCutler]

Well, at least we have Loran as a viable, robust and already-built option.

 

[ScottM]

Well, at least we have Loran as a viable, robust and already-built option.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Well, at least we have Loran as a viable, robust and already-built option.

How many years until VORs go the way of Loran?

 

[ScottM]

Maybe we need user fees to keep this stuff running?

 

[dmccormack]

Maybe we need user fees to keep this stuff running?

The shift has already occurred -- aircraft GPS removes the need for land-based nav systems.

Who pays for the GPS receiver?

The user, of course!

 

[ScottM]

The shift has already occurred -- aircraft GPS removes the need for land-based nav systems.

Who pays for the GPS receiver?

The user, of course!

The user also has to pay for a VOR receiver so I see not your point.

A GPS user does have to pay for a database from time to time which is more expensive than the chart that VOR users would have had to buy but could have lived without. The question is, who is paying for the GPS satellites?

 

[Trapper John]

Maybe we need user fees to keep this stuff running?

I already pay user fees - 9 bucks per sectional...


Trapper John

 

[OffCenter]

One of our local VORs has been broken forever, and I am less than convinced the FAA will keep them all going. This is of particular concern to me, since I would still like to convert my aircraft for IFR operations.

I was out Saturday and found that the Yardley VOR had many broken or unusable radials. Plus, the Pennridge VOR seems to be nowhere to be found despite the fact that online pages dated February this year indicate that it is still there. I'm guessing you and I may be talking about the same units?

 

[dmccormack]

The user also has to pay for a VOR receiver so I see not your point.

A GPS user does have to pay for a database from time to time which is more expensive than the chart that VOR users would have had to buy but could have lived without. The question is, who is paying for the GPS satellites?

Oh, puuhleeeeze, Scott...

 

[ScottM]

Oh, puuhleeeeze, Scott...

puuhleeeze what?? You response truly made no sense to me. To use either nav mode one has to buy a receiver. You are not given a VOR receiver at pilot birth. So what did you mean? I do agree that it cost more to maintain that GPS in a compliant mode than a VOR one. But that cost is to the database company, not the guys running the satellites.

 

[dmccormack]

puuhleeeze what?? You response truly made no sense to me. To use either nav mode one has to buy a receiver. You are not given a VOR receiver at pilot birth. So what did you mean? I do agree that it cost more to maintain that GPS in a compliant mode than a VOR one. But that cost is to the database company, not the guys running the satellites.

How many VOR facilities are there?

How many GPS Satellites?

VOR are dedicated exclusively to aviation aerial navigation.

GPS has no use limitation.

The GPS satellite sends out a signal indisciminately -- if you can catch it and interpret it, you can use it.

Thus the "cost" of navigation has shifted -- from a nationwide system of ground based, limited use facilities, to a receiver based on a ubiquitous signal.

You want to make this an argument about government subsidy.

When in fact aviation GPS reduces the direct cost per user as the number of users increases exponentially and the number of signal generators has been reduced.

 

[steingar]

I imagine we're the main users of VORs. I can't see the jets using them, they go by too fast. That is quite a subsidy.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

The question is, who is paying for the GPS satellites?

The DOD - it comes with our war on communism.

 

[ScottM]

How many VOR facilities are there?

How many GPS Satellites?

VOR are dedicated exclusively to aviation aerial navigation.

GPS has no use limitation.

The GPS satellite sends out a signal indisciminately -- if you can catch it and interpret it, you can use it.

Thus the "cost" of navigation has shifted -- from a nationwide system of ground based, limited use facilities, to a receiver based on a ubiquitous signal.

You want to make this an argument about government subsidy.

When in fact aviation GPS reduces the direct cost per user as the number of users increases exponentially and the number of signal generators has been reduced.

Well no one is arguing except you Dan. in either case the purchase of the receiver is accomplsihed by the consumer so I still have no idea what your post meant when you posted this:

The shift has already occurred -- aircraft GPS removes the need for land-based nav systems.

Who pays for the GPS receiver?

The user, of course!

I am simply pointing out that a user of VORs also has to pay for their receiver. Why the freak out?

I agree that GPS is more ubiquitous, it has more coverage and is available to larger groups of people for navigation. But how does that apply to keeping the VOR system running?

It costs a lot. Should we shut it down since it only serves a small population and mandate GPS in all aircraft? If not how do we pay to maitain VORs? Raise taxes, user fees, have Jesse put up a donation link for 'Save the VORs' on PoA?

What is more likely is the underused VORs, and by that I mean ones that airlines don't use, will probably get shut down.

 

[dmccormack]

It costs a lot. Should we shut it down since it only serves a small population and mandate GPS in all aircraft? If not how do we pay to maitain VORs? Raise taxes, user fees, have Jesse put up a donation link for 'Save the VORs' on PoA?

What is more likely is the underused VORs, and by that I mean ones that airlines don't use, will probably get shut down.

You tip your hand, here.

There's no need to mandate when utility pushes the market in a new direction.

It is likely VORs will slowly be decommissioned.

I think that announcement will be met with a significant yawn.

 

[ScottM]

You tip your hand, here.
.

Whatever.

But I would recommend cutting back on the caffeine.

 

[AdamZ]

I was out Saturday and found that the Yardley VOR had many broken or unusable radials. Plus, the Pennridge VOR seems to be nowhere to be found despite the fact that online pages dated February this year indicate that it is still there. I'm guessing you and I may be talking about the same units?

Yup ARD was one of the ones with multiple radials out. And Pennridge hasn't been usable in years. Its a shame too because the Pennridge VOR approach was a great approach for IR pratice.

 

[Jack Spectre]

I think it kind of boils down to this: what is the cost difference for a VFR airplane in terms of VOR receiver + antenna, and a handheld GPS? It's simply a better solution.

I'm a relatively new pilot, and I fly steamgauge airplanes, but I do bring a GPS unit with for backup navigation if needed. I learned how to use VORs when I was training, and still like to use them, but let's face it, GPS is faster, cheaper, more accurate, and has more features than VOR.

 

[etsisk]

if they're gonna get rid of the vor's, they'd better start certifying some handheld GPS units.


Like that's ever gonna happen.

 

[Skip Miller]

more accurate...

Yup. I did a 160 mile out and back flight yesterday. Somewhere near the middle of the flight, I passed a "golf ball" looking radome, estimated to be 1/2 mile to my left. Sure enough, on the return, it was about 1/2 mile on the right.

-Skip

 

[Cap'n Jack]

if they're gonna get rid of the vor's, they'd better start certifying some handheld GPS units.


Like that's ever gonna happen.

Why? I use a non-aviation hand held for my VFR flying...works with DR and pilotage quite well. And quite legal for VFR. It isn't difficult to get aviation information into it either.

Please look up 91.171...that VOR receiver needs to checked in the past 30 days for IFR operations...the checks aren't onerous but are needed for IFR flight. If you don't do the checks, I suppose you can use the VOR receiver for VFR.

About the only way I'd trust a hand-held for IFR is if it had an external antenna mounted correctly that it doesn't get blanked in turns and power from the plane. After doing this, may as well get a panel mount.

 

[John Collins]

I have two VOR receivers in my aircraft, but I only use them to do the 30 day checks and to cross check my GNS530W GPS position. It has been many years since I have used the VOR receivers for navigation with the exception of an ILS. Even with approaches, if a GPS or LPV approach is available, I prefer to fly them than the ILS, anytime conditions warrant.

 

[ScottM]

I have two VOR receivers in my aircraft, but I only use them to do the 30 day checks and to cross check my GNS530W GPS position. It has been many years since I have used the VOR receivers for navigation with the exception of an ILS. Even with approaches, if a GPS or LPV approach is available, I prefer to fly them than the ILS, anytime conditions warrant.

I am starting to get that way as well. Although I did fly a VOR coupled approach right after my new GPS was installed to make sure all systems were still operating normal.

 

[Hiperbiper]

In an AOPA mag a few years ago I read an article that stated (in part) that the FAA and DOD were going to KEEP the Loran chain and do away with the VOR's due to the VOR's being 700+ in number and serving only the US aircraft whereas the Loran system served both ships and aircraft. A cost thing I believe...
A hue and cry went up from GA and the Gov went to Silent Running on the whole subject.
Then all the sudden in Jan. '09 Loran is back on the chopping block again.

If the VOR system is allowed to degenerate (no repairs)to a point where some Gubbermint drone fields the idea that the cost/benefit ratio of the VOR repair favors the complete shutdown of the system then the system WILL be killed.

JMPO
Chris

 

[gismo]

About the only way I'd trust a hand-held for IFR is if it had an external antenna mounted correctly that it doesn't get blanked in turns and power from the plane

That would be a good start but AFaIK no handheld available to date has offered integrity monitoring, some form of which is required of all IFR GPSs.

 

[fgcason]

I'm a relatively new pilot, and I fly steamgauge airplanes, but I do bring a GPS unit with for backup navigation if needed. I learned how to use VORs when I was training, and still like to use them, but let's face it, GPS is faster, cheaper, more accurate, and has more features than VOR.

Eight foot position and speed to 0.1 knot accuracy is complete useless if I can't find the proper function mode to give that information.

Are the GPS units all standardized yet so I can jump into any plane with any GPS unit and operate the thing to the same level of proficiency without taking 3 days to read the manual and having to play with the buttons until it makes sense? Just wondering...

 

[gismo]

I have two VOR receivers in my aircraft, but I only use them to do the 30 day checks and to cross check my GNS530W GPS position. It has been many years since I have used the VOR receivers for navigation with the exception of an ILS. Even with approaches, if a GPS or LPV approach is available, I prefer to fly them than the ILS, anytime conditions warrant.

Given that my GPS is certified as sole source nav plus the fact that like you I never use it for IFR navigation, I quit doing the 30 day checks on a regular basis a while back. Sometimes I still do them when I'm bored on a long cross country flight but that's about it.

 

[Bob Noel]

That would be a good start but AFaIK no handheld available to date has offered integrity monitoring, some form of which is required of all IFR GPSs.

A number of years ago the FAA floated the idea of an AC to certify
handheld GPS receivers. The manufacturers were not interested.

While RAIM and FDE isn't free, adding them to a handheld wouldn't
be hard. The real challenge in getting a handheld GPS certifiable
would be the software.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

That would be a good start but AFaIK no handheld available to date has offered integrity monitoring, some form of which is required of all IFR GPSs.

You are correct, of course. If the manufacturers cared to, this could probably be built-into a hand-held, but I still wouldn't trust the system unless it was virtually a panel mount.

 

[ScottM]

In an AOPA mag a few years ago I read an article that stated (in part) that the FAA and DOD were going to KEEP the Loran chain and do away with the VOR's due to the VOR's being 700+ in number and serving only the US aircraft whereas the Loran system served both ships and aircraft. A cost thing I believe...
A hue and cry went up from GA and the Gov went to Silent Running on the whole subject.
Then all the sudden in Jan. '09 Loran is back on the chopping block again.

If the VOR system is allowed to degenerate (no repairs)to a point where some Gubbermint drone fields the idea that the cost/benefit ratio of the VOR repair favors the complete shutdown of the system then the system WILL be killed.

JMPO
Chris

The 'gubbermint' (watch the racist drawl ) did not go exactly quiet. But the USCG, who has to maintain the LORAN system asked if they would actually get budget money to keep the system alive. In the end the DHS decided that they were not willing to fund the system as no other agency stepped up and could make a case for it being a "back up to GPS". Fundamentally the commercial ship and plane operators did not state that they needed it.

Now they could be short sighted. But that is the story. For VORs I think in the end the VORs that the airlines cannot use will decay and die. How many years will that take? I dunno for sure but I'll bet it less than a decade away.

 

[Everskyward]

The 'gubbermint' (watch the racist drawl ) did not go exactly quiet. But the USCG, who has to maintain the LORAN system asked if they would actually get budget money to keep the system alive. In the end the DHS decided that they were not willing to fund the system as no other agency stepped up and could make a case for it being a "back up to GPS". Fundamentally the commercial ship and plane operators did not state that they needed it.

How many airplanes as of even 5 years ago had a working LORAN they could use as a backup?

Now they could be short sighted. But that is the story. For VORs I think in the end the VORs that the airlines cannot use will decay and die. How many years will that take? I dunno for sure but I'll bet it less than a decade away.

I think airlines use VORs and DMEs more than you think, only in a different way. FMS units use VOR and DME input as well as GPS to calculate their position.

4. Flight Management System (FMS). An FMS is an integrated suite of sensors, receivers, and computers, coupled with a navigation database. These systems generally provide performance and RNAV guidance to displays and automatic flight control systems.
Inputs can be accepted from multiple sources such as GPS, DME, VOR, LOC and IRU. These inputs may be applied to a navigation solution one at a time or in combination. Some FMSs provide for the detection and isolation of faulty navigation information.
When appropriate navigation signals are available, FMSs will normally rely on GPS and/or DME/DME (that is, the use of distance information from two or more DME stations) for position updates. Other inputs may also be incorporated based on FMS system architecture and navigation source geometry.

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/AIM/Chap1/aim0102.html

 

[SCCutler]

I think Scott's analysis, immediately above, is bottom-line on the deal.

As for Mari's observation about Loran receivers - on-point as usual, but the cost of equipping a bunch of planes with Loran sensors is a minute fraction of the cost of maintaining the VOR infrastructure. THe incremental cost of adding a Loran sensor to future devices (GPS/NAV/COMM) would be incrementally small.

All academic at this point.

 

[jsstevens]

How many airplanes as of even 5 years ago had a working LORAN they could use as a backup?
[snip]

One of the 172's I trained in (a 1980 M model, I beleive) had a Northstar Loran in it. I used it on my checkride as well. It still has the Loran, last time I flew it which was late last year.

It's probably not the best example, since it's a flying club plane and has been unchanged in the time I've been flying (since 2004).

John

 

[Bob Noel]

How many airplanes as of even 5 years ago had a working LORAN they could use as a backup?

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/AIM/Chap1/aim0102.html

I have a functioning LORAN. Well, I don't know if it's functioning
anymore.

I don't have a GPS in the airplane.

 

[Exocetid]

The FAA has already stated that the VOR system is going out. My guess is that they will let it die slowly. First, the little ones out in the middle of nowhere, then the ones around Class B and C airports and finally the high-altitude ones.

They were waiting for the NextGen nod from Congress, which they got recently.