GVO VOR out of service, yet VOR 25 approach still being used

wayneda40

wayneda40

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Jul 31, 2017
Messages
682
Display Name
waynemcc
Home Airfield
KSBA
@John Collins and @midlifeflyer -- John and Mark (and others): for the past week or so at KSBA...
--- GVO VOR is out of service
--- various procedures (ILS 7, SIDs) that use GVO for reference are NOTAMed that GPS is required for position references
--- BUT the VOR 25 instrument approach, which is based upon the GVO VOR, is not NOTAMed "out of service"... and is apparently being issued by Santa Barbara Approach

As we know, it is legal per the FAA to shoot a VOR approach via GPS as long as we monitor (e.g. via bearing pointer) the underlying VOR. Now, no complaints from any local pilots that I know, because the GVO VOR has been notoriously "noisy" and we're happy to fly the approach to rock-solid magenta.

Thoughts?
Wayne
 
I bet it was just missed. (VOR Approach, what's that??? :D)

I sent in an Aeronautical Inquiry, let's see if I hear anything back.
 
John or @RussR will probably know the answer.

I've seen this before, scratched my head, and figured someone along the way made the decision that if the primary navaid was OTS, the pilot would realize the approach based on it was unusable. That's unlike the situation with a procedure where its only a component of the approach
 
midlifeflyer said:
John or @RussR will probably know the answer.

I've seen this before, scratched my head, and figured someone along the way made the decision that if the primary navaid was OTS, the pilot would realize the approach based on it was unusable. That's unlike the situation with a procedure where its only a component of the approach
Click to expand...
Yeah. One NOTAM saying GVO is out is all that’s needed. They did it to a couple SID’s also besides those Approaches. What’s next? V12 and V27 are out between [fix] and [fix] except for planes with RNAV.
 
Is the VOR OTS or are some radials unusable?

Edit - I don’t see an OTS NOTAM for the station. There are some radials with limitation in the AFD. DME is pretty much unusable and the DME fixes are needed for the procedures you listed. Standard stuff to use approved RNAV for DME fixes

Once information is published, it is no longer a NOTAM.

GAVIOTA N34º31.88´ W120º05.47´ NOTAM FILE HHR.
(VL) (H) VORTACW 113.8 GVO Chan 85 277º 20.3 NM to Lompoc. 2616/16E.

TACAN AZIMUTH unusable:
000º–095º byd 20 NM blo 12,500´
117º–137º byd 35 NM
310º–095º byd 10 NM blo 8,500´

DME unusable:
000º–095º byd 20 NM blo 12,500´
117º–137º byd 35 NM
310º–095º byd 10 NM blo 8,500´


VOR unusable:
276º–282º byd 40 NM
292º–297º byd 40 NM
302º–312º byd 40 NM blo 6,000´
302º–312º byd 60 NM
352º–057º byd 40 NM
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
Edit - I don’t see an OTS NOTAM for the station. There are some radials with limitation in the AFD. DME is pretty much
Click to expand...
you are correct. The only GVO OTS language is within other NOTAM.

Great catch. But makes it even more curious.
 
midlifeflyer said:
John or @RussR will probably know the answer.

I've seen this before, scratched my head, and figured someone along the way made the decision that if the primary navaid was OTS, the pilot would realize the approach based on it was unusable. That's unlike the situation with a procedure where its only a component of the approach
Click to expand...

That is correct. If the primary facility is out of service, you will not see a separate NOTAM saying the approach is NA. But if the facility simply makes crossing radials or the missed approach, then you will see a separate procedure NOTAM.
 
midlifeflyer said:
you are correct. The only GVO OTS language is within other NOTAM.

Great catch. But makes it even more curious.
Click to expand...
Basically what the FAA is doing is back stopping the information published in the AF\D because no one researches navaid status these days.
 
I found a mistake like that recently at KCLM, Port Angeles.

The CVV VOR was out of service, so you couldn't use it for the missed on the ILS. So they did a Notam for an alternate missed procedure that used a LOM at KCLM that didn't exist any longer...

Sort of impossible to do the missed then wasn't it?
 
The FAA Responded:
"...The GVO VOR is out of service, but there is no NOTAM that the VOR RWY 25 into Santa Barbara Municipal (SBA) is Out of Service. There are NOTAMs for the other approaches into SBA that use GVO that GPS is required. But the VOR Approache itself is not mentioned anywhere I can find..."

No mention if they are going to put out a NOTAM on the VOR Approach, and at last check there wasn't. But at least they confirmed my question that there is no NOTAM on the VOR Approach. :D
 
wayneda40 said:
@John Collins and @midlifeflyer -- John and Mark (and others): for the past week or so at KSBA...
--- GVO VOR is out of service
--- various procedures (ILS 7, SIDs) that use GVO for reference are NOTAMed that GPS is required for position references
--- BUT the VOR 25 instrument approach, which is based upon the GVO VOR, is not NOTAMed "out of service"... and is apparently being issued by Santa Barbara Approach

As we know, it is legal per the FAA to shoot a VOR approach via GPS as long as we monitor (e.g. via bearing pointer) the underlying VOR. Now, no complaints from any local pilots that I know, because the GVO VOR has been notoriously "noisy" and we're happy to fly the approach to rock-solid magenta.

Thoughts?
Wayne
Click to expand...
Wayne, FAA NOTAM policy is to not issue an FDC NOTAM for an approach if a Navaid (VOR, TACAN, NDB) provides the only lateral guidance for the procedure and a NOTAM is issued for the Navaid is U/S (Out of Service). Their assumption is that the Navaid NOTAM is sufficient and the FDC NOTAM would be redundant. However, FDC NOTAMs will be issued if the Navaid is used on the approach to define a fix, cross radial, feeder route, or missed approach procedure such as you point out on the ILS. It is not legal for part 91 operators to fly the VOR approach using GPS when the VOR is NOTAM'd out of service, it must be in service and monitored for GPS to be used.

Edit:
From the FAA NOTAM order 7930.2U, in section 7−1−3. INSTRUMENT IFR FLIGHT PROCEDURES, e.:

7. When a NOTAM D is issued for a facility shutdown or outage, an FDC NOTAM denying IFP use is not required for those IFPs using only that facility. However, other IFPs in the vicinity must be reviewed to determine if that facility supports courses or fixes; in such cases, those IFPs require an FDC NOTAM. Particular attention must be given to fixes supporting stepdown minimums and missed approach procedures, which are predicated on the out of service facility. It is not necessary to issue NOTAMs for fixes and terminal route segments that are related to unusable airway segments from the subject facility. Do not issue “Radar Required” NOTAMs on unusable or restricted ATS route segments.
Click to expand...

This question comes up all the time when a VOR is NOTAM'd U/S, but the VOR approach is not tagged to deny its use. This makes it very difficult in ForeFlight to associate a VOR outage with a specific VOR approach procedure. In all other cases, there is an FDC NOTAM specifying the approach by its "name" and so it gets a red NOTAM banner when the approach chart using that "name" is displayed. There is nothing in the "name" of a VOR approach procedure that specifies which VOR is being used, so the fact that a VOR is out of service isn't able to be associated with the chart when there isn't an FDC notam published for the procedure. Usually the VOR outage will be available on the airport view as it is picked up as a nearby Navaid.
 
Last edited:
Having spent my life in healthcare, primarily in the military, this just doesn’t feel like a highly reliable process. Maybe I’m missing something but especially in an automated system, why not post relevant NOTAMs for everything affected? Have them all automatically expire at the same time. Yeah - redundant supposedly - but so what? Not sure I see the downside except “style points”.
 
Llewtrah381 said:
Having spent my life in healthcare, primarily in the military, this just doesn’t feel like a highly reliable process. Maybe I’m missing something but especially in an automated system, why not post relevant NOTAMs for everything affected? Have them all automatically expire at the same time. Yeah - redundant supposedly - but so what? Not sure I see the downside except “style points”.
Click to expand...
I agree, but this has been FAA policy for a long time. It does come up over and over.
 
John Collins said:
Wayne, FAA NOTAM policy is to not issue an FDC NOTAM for an approach if a Navaid (VOR, TACAN, NDB) provides the only lateral guidance for the procedure and a NOTAM is issued for the Navaid is U/S (Out of Service). Their assumption is that the Navaid NOTAM is sufficient and the FDC NOTAM would be redundant. However, FDC NOTAMs will be issued if the Navaid is used on the approach to define a fix, cross radial, feeder route, or missed approach procedure such as you point out on the ILS. It is not legal for part 91 operators to fly the VOR approach using GPS when the VOR is NOTAM'd out of service, it must be in service and monitored for GPS to be used.

Edit:
From the FAA NOTAM order 7930.2U, in section 7−1−3. INSTRUMENT IFR FLIGHT PROCEDURES, e.:



This question comes up all the time when a VOR is NOTAM'd U/S, but the VOR approach is not tagged to deny its use. This makes it very difficult in ForeFlight to associate a VOR outage with a specific VOR approach procedure. In all other cases, there is an FDC NOTAM specifying the approach by its "name" and so it gets a red NOTAM banner when the approach chart using that "name" is displayed. There is nothing in the "name" of a VOR approach procedure that specifies which VOR is being used, so the fact that a VOR is out of service isn't able to be associated with the chart when there isn't an FDC notam published for the procedure. Usually the VOR outage will be available on the airport view as it is picked up as a nearby Navaid.
Click to expand...
John, sincere thanks for thoroughly describing the policies behind what's going on with these VOR-related NOTAMs.
Wayne
 
wayneda40 said:
John, sincere thanks for thoroughly describing the policies behind what's going on with these VOR-related NOTAMs.
Wayne
Click to expand...
You are welcome. I called the FAA person who is responsible for the NOTAM order and asked him if the policy could be changed to create an FDC NOTAM when there is an outage of a Navaid. He is going to do some checking internally. I told him that I would probably bring this as an issue to the upcoming ACM in October. I explained that pilots have come to expect that there will be FDC NOTAMs for IAP when they can't be flown with the conventional Navaid and that even though a pilot should check D NOTAMs for outages of Navaid, it is often not obvious to determine the full effect of the outage. Certificated operators can fly these procedures if they have an appropriate Opspec, but part 91 operators are not allowed to do so with GPS substitution for the Navaid for lateral navigation on the FAC.
 
John, thanks for pursuing this. Seems to me there are 2 issues:

1. would be great to have the instrument approach affected by a primary NAVAID outage to be explicitly NOTAMed (as you've requested).

2. in this particular example, until a few months ago, there was a GPS-overlay for this approach... at that time titled "VOR or GPS 25". Not surprisingly, when flown to the NAVAID (green needles), the result was a very noisy lateral course (left image below)... when flown to GPS (magenta needles), the course was dead nuts. As part of a general movement (understandable?) the GPS overlay was dropped, leaving only the VOR 25 approach.
vor-or-gps-25.png
... of course, with the GVO VOR out of service... now we're stuck with no legal approach to runway 25. Until we have an actual RNAV approach into 25, we'd be better off having the GPS overlay reinstated. Hmmm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top