Dual VOR Check

CC268

CC268

Final Approach
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
5,532
Display Name
Display name:
CC268
So according to 91.171:

(c) If dual system VOR (units independent of each other except for the antenna) is installed in the aircraft, the person checking the equipment may check one system against the other in place of the check procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this section. Both systems shall be tuned to the same VOR ground facility and note the indicated bearings to that station. The maximum permissible variation between the two indicated bearings is 4 degrees.

Dual VOR check is nice, because if I am reading this correctly, it doesn't require you to be on an established airway or within 20NM of the VOR, like a single VOR check requires (as described in Section b.4)

(d) Each person making the VOR operational check, as specified in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, shall enter the date, place, bearing error, and sign the aircraft log or other record...

In terms of logging the place for a dual VOR check...is it suitable to just write "15NM NW TFD VORTAC"?

Thanks.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I always just log the VOR for place.
Click to expand...

Thanks I just don’t want the checkride examiner to nitpick the VOR checks because I didn’t log the place correctly or something.
 
I typically log VOR identification, radial and distance.
 
CC268 said:
Thanks I just don’t want the checkride examiner to nitpick the VOR checks because I didn’t log the place correctly or something.
Click to expand...
Have a VOR check option at or near the airport you're taking the checkride.
 
In the air? I'd use VOR identifier, radial and distance. On the ground? I'd use the airport and VOR identifier. In a ditch? I'd use the format you mentioned.
 
I forget how spoiled I am to have a VOT on the field. :)

Side note, the AFM or whatever we’re calling it these days, also has VOR ground checkpoints listed. And lots of fields have a sign and markings where you are supposed to park for them.

Same deal on the answer though, VOR used, radial and distance. Along with the other stuff required.

If you find out that you’re flying regularly to anywhere with a VOT just make it a habit to check it whenever you’re there.

We can receive ours in front of our hangar. Sooooooo spoiled. :)
 
Curious how this reg might change once it’s all GPS and VORs are only found in history books.
 
AggieMike88 said:
Curious how this reg might change once it’s all GPS and VORs are only found in history books.
Click to expand...
1) If VOR’s are only found in history books, than there will be no need to test your VOR.

2) At the airline when we venture back out of class II airspace we do a VOR accuracy check. We compare the VOR radial/DME to the GPS generated equivalent.

The latter may be the way of the future.
 
asicer said:
In the air? I'd use VOR identifier, radial and distance. On the ground? I'd use the airport and VOR identifier. In a ditch? I'd use the format you mentioned.
Click to expand...
I will do VOR and radial for the place. I leave out distance, probably because I did my instrument training in an airplane with no DME.
 
MauleSkinner said:
If you've got WAAS, a VOR check isn't required right now until you actually navigate using VOR.
Click to expand...
Those few times need or want to navigate by VORs are probably not the times you want to do a VOR check (and maybe find you are out of compliance). I'm thinking back to discussions here where someone gets the odd departure clearance or in-flight instruction that includes a radial intercept much easier to do with a VOR than with a GPS, but I'm sure we can think of others.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Those few times need or want to navigate by VORs are probably not the times you want to do a VOR check (and maybe find you are out of compliance). I'm thinking back to discussions here where someone gets the odd departure clearance or in-flight instruction that includes a radial intercept much easier to do with a VOR than with a GPS, but I'm sure we can think of others.
Click to expand...
No arguments there...just pointing out that the future is now. ;)
 
denverpilot said:
I forget how spoiled I am to have a VOT on the field. :)

Side note, the AFM or whatever we’re calling it these days, also has VOR ground checkpoints listed. And lots of fields have a sign and markings where you are supposed to park for them.

Same deal on the answer though, VOR used, radial and distance. Along with the other stuff required.

If you find out that you’re flying regularly to anywhere with a VOT just make it a habit to check it whenever you’re there.

We can receive ours in front of our hangar. Sooooooo spoiled. :)
Click to expand...

Yea unfortunately there isn't a convenient VOT for me. I think it is Sky Harbor and Mesa Gateway (I don't have the AFD supplemental in front of me)
 
Kritchlow said:
1) If VOR’s are only found in history books, than there will be no need to test your VOR.

2) At the airline when we venture back out of class II airspace we do a VOR accuracy check. We compare the VOR radial/DME to the GPS generated equivalent.

The latter may be the way of the future.
Click to expand...

class II airspace?????
 
SCCutler said:
I typically log VOR identification, radial and distance.
Click to expand...
Ditto. My logging format is typically, something like "VOR check 3/31/18, 20 NW LEB, LEB 342, 0-1* diff" and my initials plus certificate number.

I've done it this way exclusively since moving to Vermont since I don't know of any fields nearby with a working VOT. (For that matter, there weren't many in Michigan either. Half the time the one at KDET seemed to be turned off or OTS, unbeknownst to the tower.)
 
denverpilot said:
I forget how spoiled I am to have a VOT on the field. :)

Side note, the AFM or whatever we’re calling it these days, also has VOR ground checkpoints listed. And lots of fields have a sign and markings where you are supposed to park for them.
Click to expand...
Hopefully we're still calling it the A/FD, or at least hopefully not the AFM. ;)
 
Lots of variations here, but IAW 91.171, it's simple. I’ll reiterate from the first post: the logging requirement is the date, place, bearing error, and signature. When checking 2 systems against each other, the place is the VOR ID and the radial. No distance, geographic point, pilot certificate number or any other info is required.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
It's technically Class II navigation, I believe.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I googled it after posting the ????. Not airspace with 'definite' boundaries. If your out of range of 'antique' NAVAIDS, you're in Class II. I think. I didn't read it in detail, maybe there are 'boundaries' drawn on a map somewhere.
 
luvflyin said:
Yeah. I googled it after posting the ????. Not airspace with 'definite' boundaries. If your out of range of 'antique' NAVAIDS, you're in Class II. I think. I didn't read it in detail, maybe there are 'boundaries' drawn on a map somewhere.
Click to expand...
"Not within the published service volumes of ground-based nav aids" would probably be more accurate. ;)

I never had to alter course to keep Class I navigation, but I did use the service volumes of NDBs frequently.
 
MauleSkinner said:
If you've got WAAS, a VOR check isn't required right now until you actually navigate using VOR.
Click to expand...
There are lots of rental 172s and 182s that have the factory-installed non-WAAS KLN 94 as the only GPS in the panel.
 
Palmpilot said:
There are lots of rental 172s and 182s that have the factory-installed non-WAAS KLN 94 as the only GPS in the panel.
Click to expand...
Then VOR checks are still required for those airplanes, even if you never use the VORs for navigation.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Then VOR checks are still required for those airplanes, even if you never use the VORs for navigation.
Click to expand...
And for that matter, though not legally required as a regular thing, they're not a bad idea even if you have WAAS, since you never know when you may have no GPS signal to rely on, or your GPS antenna or receiver goes on the fritz. If you're IFR in the clag and suddenly you get the dreaded "WARNING loss of navigation - insufficient sats" message, you'll be glad you can legally fall back on the good old VOR.
 
azure said:
Hopefully we're still calling it the A/FD, or at least hopefully not the AFM. ;)
Click to expand...

Argh, typed the wrong thing but even A/FD is wrong nowadays is what I was joking about at myself because I couldn’t remember the new naming hotness from FAA. Hahahah.

The dumb new name was what I was looking for: Chart Supplement.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/march/15/familiar-green-afds-disappear

Chart Supplement sounds like something old people would take to stave off scurvy or something. LOL.

Edit: And @JScarry also mentioned it. Ha. Thanks.
 
A/FD is not actually "wrong," it has just become Section 2 of the Chart Supplement.
 
Palmpilot said:
A/FD is not actually "wrong," it has just become Section 2 of the Chart Supplement.
Click to expand...

(Grabs walker...)

I’m going to the bathroom cabinet to get my Geritol now... gotta have my supplements! Can you crack me a can of Ensure to wash it down with? :)
 
MauleSkinner said:
It's technically Class II navigation, I believe.
Click to expand...
Correct... although often referred to as class II airspace.

Over the Gulf or headed to the Caribbean there can be a lot of class II airspace/nav.
 
Spin the knob on the 530 to newest, select a VOR that's a sensible distance away, put it in the 430, select VOR for both RMI needles on the eHSI, they line up, write down the ID and radial off the 530, done.

For the most part that's I'll I use the VOR stuff for, every 30 days, I'll also use the DME on rare occasions on SIDs or STARs, outside of the RMI
 
CC268 said:
So according to 91.171:

(c) If dual system VOR (units independent of each other except for the antenna) is installed in the aircraft, the person checking the equipment may check one system against the other in place of the check procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this section. Both systems shall be tuned to the same VOR ground facility and note the indicated bearings to that station. The maximum permissible variation between the two indicated bearings is 4 degrees.

Dual VOR check is nice, because if I am reading this correctly, it doesn't require you to be on an established airway or within 20NM of the VOR, like a single VOR check requires (as described in Section b.4)

(d) Each person making the VOR operational check, as specified in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, shall enter the date, place, bearing error, and sign the aircraft log or other record...

In terms of logging the place for a dual VOR check...is it suitable to just write "15NM NW TFD VORTAC"?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
CC268 said:
So according to 91.171:

(c) If dual system VOR (units independent of each other except for the antenna) is installed in the aircraft, the person checking the equipment may check one system against the other in place of the check procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this section. Both systems shall be tuned to the same VOR ground facility and note the indicated bearings to that station. The maximum permissible variation between the two indicated bearings is 4 degrees.

Dual VOR check is nice, because if I am reading this correctly, it doesn't require you to be on an established airway or within 20NM of the VOR, like a single VOR check requires (as described in Section b.4)

(d) Each person making the VOR operational check, as specified in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, shall enter the date, place, bearing error, and sign the aircraft log or other record...

In terms of logging the place for a dual VOR check...is it suitable to just write "15NM NW TFD VORTAC"?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

If I was flying VOR approaches, I would want a test under section (b)(1) or (2).
 
Clip4 said:
If I was flying VOR approaches, I would want a test under section (b)(1) or (2).
Click to expand...
The other types of checks are more than adequate for day to day operations. If you have a dual VOR check that passes when they would fail a VOT or green undo checkpoint, it'll be pretty obvious operationally if you have any situational awareness at all.
 
MauleSkinner said:
The other types of checks are more than adequate for day to day operations. If you have a dual VOR check that passes when they would fail a VOT or green undo checkpoint, it'll be pretty obvious operationally if you have any situational awareness at all.
Click to expand...

Assuming you have done a VOT or a green undo check point (lol) at regular intervals to know it would fa a dual.
 
Clip4 said:
Assuming you have done a VOT or a green undo check point (lol) at regular intervals to know it would fa a dual.
Click to expand...
I went years with just dual VOR checks...I've probably done a total of less than 5 VOTs and not more than a dozen green undos (just be glad it didn't autocorrect to "undies"!):rolleyes: ground checkpoints in the thirty-some years I've been flying IFR. it seems to me to be pretty obvious when a VOR receiver is bad.

And yes, I have actually had VORs pass a dual but we're out of tolerance for anything else.
 
The one VOR failure I’ve seen that the test often covers up if using a VOT or close by signal source, was a second Nav/Com where the Nav receiver had gone partially deaf.

It’d pass just fine with enough signal, but it wouldn’t work out to the edges of service volumes of VOR stations in-flight.

Wasn’t our current airplane. Rental. Receiver barely made spec but the real problem was a deteriorated old coax to the antenna.

It was pretty obvious... it’d wig out and flag itself long before the other one did, tuned to the same station.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top