VOR Approaches gone ?

[aterpster]

Not a pitfall so much as a feature. G1000 - use a bearing pointer to monitor the ground-based navaid for the VOR approach. This keeps you legal per AIM 1-2-3. Leave it in GPS nav for the VOR approach and allow the G1000 to operate as usual. These days, with suitable equipment on-board your best option is to use GPS to fly approaches such as VOR or NDB.

That's like flying VOR approach with an RMI. Not sufficient resolution. With an actual (raw data) VOR deviation indicator separate from the RNAV display, then what you suggest is fine. That's what the airlines do.

 

[Ryan F.]

That's like flying VOR approach with an RMI. Not sufficient resolution. With an actual (raw data) VOR deviation indicator separate from the RNAV display, then what you suggest is fine. That's what the airlines do.

No, a bearing pointer (or "RMI style presentation for ground-based navaid data") is acceptable and used regularly at the major 142 training centers, and is SOP for many operators. Review AIM 1-2-3 C, Note 5. The only reference is to "monitoring" the underlying navaid. There's no specific requirement for how this must be accomplished.

 

[aterpster]

No, a bearing pointer (or "RMI style presentation for ground-based navaid data") is acceptable and used regularly at the major 142 training centers, and is SOP for many operators. Review AIM 1-2-3 C, Note 5. The only reference is to "monitoring" the underlying navaid. There's no specific requirement for how this must be accomplished.

Which says:

5. Use of a suitable RNAV system as a means to navigate
on the final approach segment of an instrument approach
procedure based on a VOR, TACAN or NDB signal, is
allowable. The underlying NAVAID must be operational
and the NAVAID monitored for final segment course
alignment. (emphasis mine)

Can you assure alignment with a CDI? Yes, of course. With an RMI? Not in my background including how the FAA determined the total system error of the VOR system (4.5 degrees including flight technical error, 3.6 degrees without FTE).

The fact that Part 142 schools teach it with an RMI is unimpressive. They teach a lot of things without either corporate knowledge or depth of understanding.

Also, there is the human-factors element of using the RNAV course pointer. The pilot may have selected RNAV rather than VOR as the pointer's active waypoint, in which case he is trying to pull himself up by his bootstraps.

 

[Ryan F.]

You are reading it correctly.

 

[Ryan F.]

Which says:

5. Use of a suitable RNAV system as a means to navigate
on the final approach segment of an instrument approach
procedure based on a VOR, TACAN or NDB signal, is
allowable. The underlying NAVAID must be operational
and the NAVAID monitored for final segment course
alignment. (emphasis mine)

Can you assure alignment with a CDI? Yes, of course. With an RMI? Not in my background including how the FAA determined the total system error of the VOR system (4.5 degrees including flight technical error, 3.6 degrees without FTE).

The fact that Part 142 schools teach it with an RMI is unimpressive. They teach a lot of things without either corporate knowledge or depth of understanding.

Also, there is the human-factors element of using the RNAV course pointer. The pilot may have selected RNAV rather than VOR as the pointer's active waypoint, in which case he is trying to pull himself up by his bootstraps.

As far as opinions on technique go, that's a discussion which could be engaging and Informative. There are different techniques available and there are positives and negatives to those techniques. In a typical G1000 setup I'd opine the best use of the display would be GPS primary with the bearing pointer as secondary. This is also the vastly preferred technique in the training environment, in my experience. Given the constraints of the equipment the user would be forced to choose raw data if a typical HSI style presentation was desired, which in many cases degrades the available automation options.

However, let's be clear that there is no legal requirement regarding equipment used to monitor the ground-based navaid.

And in reality, the bearing pointer works fine for this purpose. No need to overthink this. It should point not only to the correct and functional navaid but be aligned with the final approach course. That is very easy to determine with an RMI style presentation. After all, we flew NDB approaches for a lot years with that style of RMI presentation, or even a fixed card ADF which offers less information.

 

[Palmpilot]

I haven't had a chance to try it yet, but it seems to me that since the RMI-type course line will be superimposed on the CDI's desired-course line when one is on course, any discrepancy should be pretty obvious if one is looking for it.

As far as the pilot selecting the wrong source for the active waypoint is concerned, that can be done on the CDI display as well. I know because that was one of the errors I made on the sim yesterday!

 

[VictorBravo]

Add another VOR approach to the de-commissioned list. They recently took away the VOR-A approach at KMIC. On the plus side, they did add a new RNAV for a total of 2 RNAV approaches (14/32). Call me old fashioned, but I got really good flying the VOR A with my instructor during training and it was my go to approach in IMC (Heck, I could fly that one with half my instruments failed and only a whisky compass, timer and 1 working VOR ). The interesting thing is the VOR GEP (Gopher) is not expected to be decommissioned and is still used for the VOR A approach at CFE and VOR 9 approach at ANE. If ANE can have a total of 5 approaches, I wonder why they could not maintain 3 at MIC?

 

[David Megginson]

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.

Less common than they used to be here, too, but we still have three for smaller airports in the Ottawa area as a backup to RNAV (ILS approaches exist only at larger airports in Canada). We've lost almost all our Eastern Ontario/West Quebec NDB approaches in the last two years, except for one in Pembroke (which is too far away from any VOR, but still an important alternate with no other IFR airports nearby).

 

[jsstevens]

Did they decommission the VOR or is it missing critical radials? I know they are not fixing some as they die.

 

[VictorBravo]

Did they decommission the VOR or is it missing critical radials? I know they are not fixing some as they die.

The VOR (GEP) is not on the list to be decommissioned and is still operational fully (to my knowledge). Two nearby VORs (MSP and FCM), however, are scheduled to be decommissioned in future phases.

 

[N1120A]

Add another VOR approach to the de-commissioned list. They recently took away the VOR-A approach at KMIC. On the plus side, they did add a new RNAV for a total of 2 RNAV approaches (14/32). Call me old fashioned, but I got really good flying the VOR A with my instructor during training and it was my go to approach in IMC (Heck, I could fly that one with half my instruments failed and only a whisky compass, timer and 1 working VOR ). The interesting thing is the VOR GEP (Gopher) is not expected to be decommissioned and is still used for the VOR A approach at CFE and VOR 9 approach at ANE. If ANE can have a total of 5 approaches, I wonder why they could not maintain 3 at MIC?

They give notice of these. I spoke up on one and they reversed themselves.