Preferred Routes and Equipment SDF

[MRC01]

Today I'm flying my IFR XC with my CFI. The preferred route from KTIW to KUAO is OLM, V165, UBG. But since the UBG VOR is U/S, I can't fly that route without GPS. I filed KTIW OLM V287 BTG. ATC accepted the flight plan but later amended it to V165 UBG. Apparently ATC did not see my equipment code and assigned a route I cannot fly.

I could say "unable" at the airport when I get my clearance, or negotiate it with ATC on the radio. But I'd like to avoid those last-minute changes. I amended the flight plan same route V287 BTG, adding "UNABLE V165 UBG NO GPS EQUIP SDF" in the remarks.

Is there something better I should do (other than install a certified GPS )?

 

[luvflyin]

Today I'm flying my IFR XC with my CFI. The preferred route from KTIW to KUAO is OLM, V165, UBG. But since the UBG VOR is U/S, I can't fly that route without GPS. I filed KTIW OLM V287 BTG. ATC accepted the flight plan but later amended it to V165 UBG. Apparently ATC did not see my equipment code and assigned a route I cannot fly.

I could say "unable" at the airport when I get my clearance, or negotiate it with ATC on the radio. But I'd like to avoid those last-minute changes. I amended the flight plan same route V287 BTG, adding "UNABLE V165 UBG NO GPS EQUIP SDF" in the remarks.

Is there something better I should do (other than install a certified GPS )?

That shouldn't have happened, but it did. Adding the remarks to the Flight Plan will probably not accomplish anything. When you call for your Clearance, if they give you UBG, tell them unable, you're a Slant A, U or whatever you are. If that confuses them let them know UBG is down. They may not have that up at Taco McNarrows.

 

[midlifeflyer]

That shouldn't have happened, but it did does.

...and it will happen even from ATC enroute since they expect everyone to have GPS and probably don't even look at the equipment codes (even if they have them). It was even happening when GPS was relatively new.

It was June, 2008. IFR dual cross country. We were /U. ATC gave us direct to destination.

 

[flyingron]

I guess they'd prefer you to get a GPS

 

[asicer]

We were /U. ATC gave us direct to destination.

That's their way of reminding you what you're missing.

 

[midlifeflyer]

That's their way of reminding you what you're missing.

It was during the days of “hint hint wink wink” handheld direct.

 

[MRC01]

It turned out OK but led to some back and forth. Before the flight I called clearance delivery on the phone and told them I couldn't fly the approved route because the VOR was U/S. They said they'd work it out. 10 mins later when I called on the radio from the ground to pick up my clearance, it was the one that I originally filed - yay! En route 30 minutes into the flight after Seattle transferred us to Portland, they gave me a heading off route and told me to fly direct to UBG (the preferred route). I told them unable, since I don't have a GPS and that VOR is down. So (after a pause to figure it out) they vectored me off-airway for the rest of the flight all the way to the LOC-17 approach at UAO.

The route back was smoother, since they gave me what I filed - BTG and V287, not V165. At first ATC said to fly to UBG but I asked, UBG is down, did he mean BTG and he said yes. Today was a valuable real-world education in negotiating with ATC for what you need, both on the ground and in the air.

 

[luvflyin]

It turned out OK but led to some back and forth. Before the flight I called clearance delivery on the phone and told them I couldn't fly the approved route because the VOR was U/S. They said they'd work it out. 10 mins later when I called on the radio from the ground to pick up my clearance, it was the one that I originally filed - yay! En route 30 minutes into the flight after Seattle transferred us to Portland, they gave me a heading off route and told me to fly direct to UBG (the preferred route). I told them unable, since I don't have a GPS and that VOR is down. So (after a pause to figure it out) they vectored me off-airway for the rest of the flight all the way to the LOC-17 approach at UAO.

The route back was smoother, since they gave me what I filed - BTG and V287, not V165. At first ATC said to fly to UBG but I asked, UBG is down, did he mean BTG and he said yes. Today was a valuable real-world education in negotiating with ATC for what you need, both on the ground and in the air.

Ya gotsta be on the same page with ATC. Sometimes they need a little guidance to find it.

 

[M20K]

But since the UBG VOR is U/S

Not really on point for your question. But I really hate the new US... Is the VOR "out of service" or is it really "unserviceable" and will never operate again???

 

[midlifeflyer]

Not really on point for your question. But I really hate the new US... Is the VOR "out of service" or is it really "unserviceable" and will never operate again???

Since it’s labeled “MON,” I guess the expectation is that the UBG will rise again,

 

[M20K]

Since it’s labeled “MON,”

Ha! I never looked at it on a chart to realize it was MON... But then these days, you never know if they'll fix it or not.

 

[MRC01]

Speaking of MON, is there any easy way to see which VORs are part of it? They aren't marked on charts like the MON airports are.

 

[John Collins]

Today I'm flying my IFR XC with my CFI. The preferred route from KTIW to KUAO is OLM, V165, UBG. But since the UBG VOR is U/S, I can't fly that route without GPS. I filed KTIW OLM V287 BTG. ATC accepted the flight plan but later amended it to V165 UBG. Apparently ATC did not see my equipment code and assigned a route I cannot fly.

I don't believe that ERAM checks for not having GPS navigation capability and adding remarks is not likely to make a difference. You just need to say "unable" and request your original routing or one that meets your equipment capabilities.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Speaking of MON, is there any easy way to see which VORs are part of it? They aren't marked on charts like the MON airports are.

At the bottom of this page, under “Current Status” are two links. They are to spreadsheets containing the candidates for discontinuance and those expected to be retained.

 

[WDD]

Net Net, IMHO you need to get a GPS.

Others might disagree, but I think it's a lot safer to fly with a GPS. The chances of a VOR, even an ILS, being out is so much greater than GPS being out. As well, you are constrained on where you can fly with only a Nav radio. The capabilities a GPS offers to navigate relatively easily to many more fixes, going direct, etc. is a not only a convenience but a safety factor as well.

As a matter of fact, IMHO to be IFR proficient you need to be GPS proficient. That should be an important part of training from your CFII.

Not really on point for your question. But I really hate the new US... Is the VOR "out of service" or is it really "unserviceable" and will never operate again???

Yeah.... things change. VOR oriented navigation is going away / gone for GA (and probably in that direction for 121 and 135 as well ?). I get to take of that VOR training I had for my check ride and now keep it in the back pocket for a back up. And I had to switch to the GPS first navigation, approaches, etc. Among other things, chances are the VOR just isn't going to be working regardless of the MON list. And I can't find a "NOTAM" for VOR list that tells you if a specific VOR is up or not.

Flying Amish with VOR is moving into the file folder along with LORAN, following railroad tracks and rivers, and reading a town's name on the water tower to figure out where you are.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Yeah.... things change.

There is still a US NAS where VOR capability has some value. We get GPS interference testing with some regularity in my area. OTOH, I don't mourn the disappearance of NDBs at all.

It's not on my list of GPS Tasks Pilots Don't Know How to Do, but a throwing in a simple VOR intercept into an IPC can get some interesting results. Even more interesting is a simulated MON approach with the GPS and EFB own ship turned off.

 

[Albany Tom]

Speaking of MON, is there any easy way to see which VORs are part of it? They aren't marked on charts like the MON airports are.

To do that, I think the FAA would have to know which VOR is working on any particular day. I don't think they have that capability. That's a guess, but I'm not joking about it. It's based on my understanding that they barely and not always have power to those sites, let alone any kind of telemetry.

 

[M20K]

Yeah.... things change. VOR oriented navigation is going away / gone for GA

Don't go down that road, you'll get bit in the butt one day. Lots of military training will jam GPS. And there have been reports around the world of people messing with GPS by installing Ground Stations that make your onboard system think you can be 10 miles off or hundreds of miles off. So that night VFR flight (or IFR flight) where you think that mountain peak is 40nm away... well it might not be.

Sure, unlikely to happen, but then it's "unlikely" I'm going to have a Comm failure, but I still plan for that too.

 

[WDD]

Don't go down that road, you'll get bit in the butt one day. Lots of military training will jam GPS. And there have been reports around the world of people messing with GPS by installing Ground Stations that make your onboard system think you can be 10 miles off or hundreds of miles off. So that night VFR flight (or IFR flight) where you think that mountain peak is 40nm away... well it might not be.

Sure, unlikely to happen, but then it's "unlikely" I'm going to have a Comm failure, but I still plan for that too.

I must have misspoken. Agree with you 100% that you also need to be NAV Radio capable and proficient. So much so, that I paid to upgrade my panel (GPS only when I got the plane) to add a NAV Radio function (GTN 650xi).

My point was that as much as you need a NAV Radio for a back up, you should first and foremost have and be proficient on a GPS Nav system.

GPS Navigation and proficiency is necessary, but not sufficient. A back up Nav radio is needed, even if you never actually use it except for your periodic training.

 

[MRC01]

To do that, I think the FAA would have to know which VOR is working on any particular day. I don't think they have that capability. That's a guess, but I'm not joking about it. It's based on my understanding that they barely and not always have power to those sites, let alone any kind of telemetry.

Knowing the current operational status would not be necessary. All the FAA needs to know is which VORs are designated part of the MON. That is, the "VOR Candidate Retention List" on the page that @midlifeflyer linked above.

 

[WDD]

Knowing the current operational status would not be necessary.

It would be necessary to a pilot who is planning to use it

 

[Palmpilot]

It would be necessary to a pilot who is planning to use it

That's why it's necessary to check NOTAMs.

 

[MRC01]

It would be necessary to a pilot who is planning to use it

That's why it's necessary to check NOTAMs.

Exactly. I want to know not only whether it's in service (NOTAMS) but whether it's designated part of the MON. Why, one might ask? Because when VORs are down for months (like HQM or UBG), the MON status is a clue to whether it will ever come back into service.

 

[WDD]

Where might I find the NOTAM for example to see if RMG VOR is in service? I’m familiar with NOTAM associated with airports, but not VORs.

And if the FAA knows enough to issue such NOTAM, then they must indeed know if the VOR working or not. So why not make it easy and update the VOR list real time with working or not working?

 

[midlifeflyer]

It would be necessary to a pilot who is planning to use it

Yes, but (context of the post) its operational status doesn't tell you whether it's part of the MON network or not.

For planning, if it's OTS by NOTAM it doesn't matter if it's a MON VOR or not. And if it is working, it doesn't matter either.

 

[midlifeflyer]

And if the FAA knows enough to issue such NOTAM, then they must indeed know if the VOR working or not. So why not make it easy and update the VOR list real time with working or not working?

Because the lists are about whether that VOR is going to be decommissioned or retained in the system. What does it's operational status today mean to that? At most it means if it's NOTAM'd OTS and it's on the retention list, the FAA is planning to repair it. If it's on the to be decommissioned list, they probably wont bother.

 

[MRC01]

Where might I find the NOTAM for example to see if RMG VOR is in service? I’m familiar with NOTAM associated with airports, but not VORs.

And if the FAA knows enough to issue such NOTAM, then they must indeed know if the VOR working or not. So why not make it easy and update the VOR list real time with working or not working?

Go to the FAA NOTAM site: https://notams.aim.faa.gov/notamSearch
Search for the VOR's identifier. If the VOR is U/S (or in service but not maintained, or any other abnormal status), it will tell you.
Also, when you get a briefing, it should include NOTAMs for any navaids near your route that have abnormal status.

PS regarding your example RMG, it says !RMG 03/029 RMG NAV TACAN U/S 2603270516-2604302000EST

 

[flyingron]

Decades back I was flying through FWA I think and their dme was out. The controller and I agreed that DME was probably going to be the first casualty in the GPS era.

 

[MRC01]

Decades back I was flying through FWA I think and their dme was out. The controller and I agreed that DME was probably going to be the first casualty in the GPS era.

Funny you say that. Several of the VOR approaches around here require DME. Others require "DME or radar". Others require identifying points along the FAC, which could be via DME, GPS or a nearby VOR. Sometimes that nearby VOR is U/S so DME or GPS is required. It's a good thing DME out here is reliable because if I didn't have one I would have to get a GPS just to finish my IFR training.

Of course, GPS can usually substitute for DME so if my DME dies it would be false economy to replace it. At that point I'd rip it out entirely and get a certified GPS. Crossing my fingers that the DME keeps working at least through my checkride. That will save me about 10 AMU.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Net Net, IMHO you need to get a GPS.

Others might disagree, but I think it's a lot safer to fly with a GPS. The chances of a VOR, even an ILS, being out is so much greater than GPS being out. As well, you are constrained on where you can fly with only a Nav radio. The capabilities a GPS offers to navigate relatively easily to many more fixes, going direct, etc. is a not only a convenience but a safety factor as well.

Agreed, for flying IFR.

When I got my Instrument rating, GPS existed but most GPS approaches were just "overlay" approaches, where the primary navaid was still a VOR or NDB. And the only vertically guided approaches you could do were ILS approaches, which are few and far between, especially at GA airports.

Today, nearly every little podunk municipal airport has RNAV approaches, and a large portion of them have LPV minima. It's like having ILSs all over the place. An engine failure in IMC is FAR more survivable today with a WAAS GPS than it was back in the day, and for everyday operations, having a nice stable LPV or even +V approach is far better than a VOR or NDB approach was.

With the advent of more reasonably priced units like the GPS 175 that give you full WAAS capability at the entry level end of panel mounts, it's hard to justify not having a panel mount GPS these days.

 

[MRC01]

Agreed, for flying IFR.
When I got my Instrument rating, GPS existed but most GPS approaches were just "overlay" approaches, where the primary navaid was still a VOR or NDB. And the only vertically guided approaches you could do were ILS approaches, which are few and far between, especially at GA airports.
Today, nearly every little podunk municipal airport has RNAV approaches, and a large portion of them have LPV minima. It's like having ILSs all over the place. An engine failure in IMC is FAR more survivable today with a WAAS GPS than it was back in the day, and for everyday operations, having a nice stable LPV or even +V approach is far better than a VOR or NDB approach was.
With the advent of more reasonably priced units like the GPS 175 that give you full WAAS capability at the entry level end of panel mounts, it's hard to justify not having a panel mount GPS these days.

I know and agree. Installing a GPS 175 costs about 10 AMU all in (parts, labor, etc.). Just because it's the cheapest doesn't mean it's "reasonable" - that depends on whether one actually uses it.

There are a few reasons why I am earning my IFR without a GPS or autopilot.

1. My primary goal is not for any practical use, but only to lean more and improve certain skills. After 18 years and 1700 hours of flying all over all the places in my sig map, all VFR, I know I don't need the rating to do the flying that I like to do.

2. Getting the rating with no autopilot or GPS means true competency. We occasionally read about IFR pilots who lose the autopilot or GPS and die within moments. They became automation dependent and could not fly the airplane on their own in actual IMC. This shouldn't happen, due to currency rules, BFRs and IPCs, but it still does which means this kind of "deviance" is sometimes "normalized".

3. This reminds me of one of my CFI's friends. He was a young man who trained for his IFR in a glass panel airplane with autopilot. His Dad (a professional pilot) was sponsoring him. When he was ready for his IFR checkride, his Dad made him repeat the training in a steam gauge airplane (equipment SD) having no autopilot, until he could fly that as well as the glass panel. It took him another 30+ hours flying that way to become proficient - which he did, passed the checkride and continued on. The skills he learned might save his life some day.

4. I already have a Stratux with ADS-B In, a GPS, a tablet with EFB software having full VFR & IFR databases and geo-referenced IAPs. Because of this, a certified panel GPS provides no value for my normal VFR flying.

In short, I know the GPS greatly increases the capabilities of IFR flying. But it does nothing for the VFR flying that I normally do, and I don't need it for the IFR training or the checkride. So I'm deferring that decision until I know whether I'd get any use out of it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

2. Getting the rating with no autopilot or GPS means true competency.

Let's just say it means true competency for flying without GPS or an autopilot. Don't make the mistake of imagining that GPS makes things easier. It really doesn't. When GPS first began to be added to light aircraft, the saying was that it made flying easier but the setup more difficult. If anything, that has gotten more true with the passing decades.

Easy example. When I got my instrument rating, it was in a airplane with two VORs (only one with glideslope) and an ADF. A week after earning the rating, I was on a cross country to a Class C airport during which I logged 1.3 total, 1.0 actual, 0.8 night, and flew and ILS approach to 550 AGL. That's not bragging; it was not that unusual. There just wasn't that much to screw up. Fast forward 30+ years. There's a flight school from some distance away that sends its applicants to my home base for checkrides. Typically two applicants and an instructor. So I sometimes talk with the instructors.

Me: If your student passes his instrument checkride today, is he prepared to file IFR and fly solo tomorrow?​

They: Absolutely not.​

There is so much more to learn for competence with a modern setup and the simple tasks trained for the checkride beardly break the surface. And btw, the DPE involved only allows very limited use of the autopilot, so those guys are well-trained in hand-flying.

Even easier example. There's a reason I have a list of GPS Tasks Pilots Don't Know How to Do I pull out for IPCs and recurrent training. Even relatively experienced IFR pilots have trouble with them. The one that gets screwed up the most includes the autopilot.

There is so much more to learn with GPS navigation than old school.

 

[WDD]

Well said @midlifeflyer

 

[MRC01]

2. Getting the rating with no autopilot or GPS means true competency. We occasionally read about IFR pilots who lose the autopilot or GPS and die within moments. They became automation dependent and could not fly the airplane on their own in actual IMC. This shouldn't happen, due to currency rules, BFRs and IPCs, but it still does which means this kind of "deviance" is sometimes "normalized".

What I have in mind is what happens when the GPS or autopilot fails. Don't make the mistake of imagining that they never fail. Autopilots could shut off due to turbulence, icing, or any number of other reasons. GPS can fail due to interference from natural or man-made sources, as well as a variety of other issues. When necessary (which will often be a surprise), the pilot must be able to hand fly the airplane or use non-GPS forms of navigation, which means exercising those skills when it's not necessary, else they won't be there when he needs them.

Let's just say it means true competency for flying without GPS or an autopilot. Don't make the mistake of imagining that GPS makes things easier. It really doesn't. When GPS first began to be added to light aircraft, the saying was that it made flying easier but the setup more difficult. If anything, that has gotten more true with the passing decades.

Yep, that's a whole 'nuther set of skills. Mastering automation systems that are complex and interconnected. Those who underestimate this probably don't fully realize the depth of functionality. I've been studying it in training materials and simulators, and using it in my friends' airplanes, it can be intimidating even to a career hardware/software engineer like me.

 

[midlifeflyer]

What I have in mind is what happens when the GPS or autopilot fails. Don't make the mistake of imagining that they never fail

These days, GPS on VLOC approaches are hard to avoid when training for the rating, but one thing I do in recurrent training is, except for an ILS, VLOC approaches assume GPS failure since that’s likely the only time pilots will do one in real life.

 

[John Collins]

Decades back I was flying through FWA I think and their dme was out. The controller and I agreed that DME was probably going to be the first casualty in the GPS era.

The MON program affects mostly VOR. More often than not, a collocated DME is kept for RNAV DME-DME use and in many cases, more DME's are added, particularly in association with ILS.

 

[M20K]

The MON program affects mostly VOR. More often than not, a collocated DME is kept for RNAV DME-DME use and in many cases, more DME's are added, particularly in association with ILS.

I'll often come across a DME on the chart that still exists where a VOR used to also be. Always assumed it was kept for DME-DME Nav.

And do you happen to know if any of the MON VORs that did not originally have DME are having it added? Possibly relocated from a VOR/DME that was decommissioned? It won't help me (no more DME), but I can see it helping those with DME-DME capabilities.

 

[midlifeflyer]

And do you happen to know if any of the MON VORs that did not originally have DME are having it added? Possibly relocated from a VOR/DME that was decommissioned? It won't help me (no more DME), but I can see it helping those with DME-DME capabilities.

DME/DME wouldn’t help you even if you had basic DME equipment.

I don’t know if it’s being added to accommodate DME/DME users, but MON is intended to

allow users to continue through the outage area using VOR station-to-station navigation or to proceed to a MON airport where an Instrument Landing System (ILS), Localizer (LOC) or VOR approach procedure can be flown without the necessity of GPS, Distance Measuring Equipment (DME), Automatic Direction Finder (ADF), or surveillance (emphasis added)​

 

[John Collins]

There are no NOTAMs issued when a "MON Airport" loses all approaches that qualify as MON approaches. Typically this is due to a VOR outage. Some of the outages last for multiple years. One in my neighborhood, KHKY depended on BZM, but it was out of service for at least a three year continuous stretch. It is finally back in service. At any point in time, I see between 100 and 130 VOR's out of service.

 

[WDD]

They can make it much simpler. Just keep a short list of VORs that are working.