Alas poor VOR I knew ye well?

ScottM said:
Do you have a quote for that announcement?
Click to expand...

I would expect it in the Federal Radio Navigation Plan...

For amusement, look at versions of the plan since 1996.
 
ScottM said:
Do you have a quote for that announcement?
Click to expand...

Gawd I was afraid someone would ask for the cite. Well, it's been too long, so no.

HOWEVER, go read through all the stuff on NextGen, it's in there.

No, it wasn't an official announcement by the grand poobah, more like government-speak saying the VOR system will go away--but the reality is that the VOR system is slowly degrading and falling apart faster than they are fixing it. Go ahead, hang onto VOR like the poor fools did with LORAN. One day they woke up and it had been turned off, and no, it isn't going to get turned back on.
 
What do folks think of the loss of ground based navigation aids and primary radar together?

Are we comfortable with an ADS-B system only for IFR navigation?

I'm not worried about a reciever failure, but a large scale software or systemic collapse of the GPS system or the ATC machinery. Could we still revert to shrimp boats and mandatory position reporting today? Maybe its a moot point.

I still cling to the fact that as long as my AA batteries hold out I can get someplace with a ASR approach and be talked to the runway. I am not sure the PAR is still up at Volk but I used to be assured of reaching down to a runway using marconi, mouth and ears.

Will accelerometer based solid state "gyro" systems become cheap/accurate enough that I could have an INS system in my Cessna that could shepard me thru some level of non-precision approach from the point that my WAAS woosed out. I could have a self contained backup.

Its more significantly a strategic concern, could we continue large scale domestic operations even if we were denied GPS during an extended warfighting effort.

What do folks think? (about a GPS only universe, not about war with China).
 
Exocetid said:
Gawd I was afraid someone would ask for the cite. Well, it's been too long, so no.

HOWEVER, go read through all the stuff on NextGen, it's in there.

No, it wasn't an official announcement by the grand poobah, more like government-speak saying the VOR system will go away--but the reality is that the VOR system is slowly degrading and falling apart faster than they are fixing it. Go ahead, hang onto VOR like the poor fools did with LORAN. One day they woke up and it had been turned off, and no, it isn't going to get turned back on.
Click to expand...
I figures that what is happening is pretty much the plan of record. I thought I might have missed a more official notice.
 
twdeckard said:
What do folks think of the loss of ground based navigation aids and primary radar together?

Are we comfortable with an ADS-B system only for IFR navigation?

I'm not worried about a reciever failure, but a large scale software or systemic collapse of the GPS system or the ATC machinery. Could we still revert to shrimp boats and mandatory position reporting today? Maybe its a moot point.

I still cling to the fact that as long as my AA batteries hold out I can get someplace with a ASR approach and be talked to the runway. I am not sure the PAR is still up at Volk but I used to be assured of reaching down to a runway using marconi, mouth and ears.

Will accelerometer based solid state "gyro" systems become cheap/accurate enough that I could have an INS system in my Cessna that could shepard me thru some level of non-precision approach from the point that my WAAS woosed out. I could have a self contained backup.

Its more significantly a strategic concern, could we continue large scale domestic operations even if we were denied GPS during an extended warfighting effort.

What do folks think? (about a GPS only universe, not about war with China).
Click to expand...

I think we're only one major comet near miss away from a serious long term degradation of GPS function.
 
twdeckard said:
What do folks think of the loss of ground based navigation aids and primary radar together?

Are we comfortable with an ADS-B system only for IFR navigation?

.
Click to expand...


um, ADS-B is not a navigation system.
 
gismo said:
If a major chunk of comet hits the Earth, I doubt we'll be very concerned about the demise of GPS.
Click to expand...

How else do you think they navigated that 340 in the movie 2012? ;)
 
dmccormack said:
Pilotage and ded reckoning?
Click to expand...

What's the NOTAM shorthand for 'whole state has sunk into the ocean'? Anyway, why would comet strikes or near misses degrade the GPS system?
 
Ted DuPuis said:
How else do you think they navigated that 340 in the movie 2012? ;)
Click to expand...

I've only seen the trailer (which was sufficient to cause me to avoid the movie) but it seemed like the pilot was "navigating" by visual reference to all the tall buildings he was flying between for some reason.
 
chucky said:
What's the NOTAM shorthand for 'whole state has sunk into the ocean'? Anyway, why would comet strikes or near misses degrade the GPS system?
Click to expand...

Comet's generally travel in the company of lots of extra tiny bits of stuff, any one of which is probably capable of disabling any GPS SV it hits. And given the GPS polar orbits I'd expect that many more than one would get hit if a semi large comet made a glancing blow against our atmosphere.
 
gismo said:
I've only seen the trailer (which was sufficient to cause me to avoid the movie) but it seemed like the pilot was "navigating" by visual reference to all the tall buildings he was flying between for some reason.
Click to expand...

Egh, minor detail.

NOTAM: "BLDGS RDWYS OVRHD WIE UFN WTF"
 
gismo said:
Comet's generally travel in the company of lots of extra tiny bits of stuff, any one of which is probably capable of disabling any GPS SV it hits. And given the GPS polar orbits I'd expect that many more than one would get hit if a semi large comet made a glancing blow against our atmosphere.
Click to expand...

Close to a comet, the trail is very small. Big sky theory applies much more so in space than in the lower few miles of the atmosphere. Anyway, we pass through several comet trails every year - that's what the meteor showers are. Doesn't generally do any damage, although, of course, the density is much lower than it would be close to source.

Solar energetic particles are far more of a problem. Solar storms can hit more than one satellite at once, and if they aren't properly 'safed' before the particles hit, they can be permanently disabled. Even there, though, I think it's unlikely that enough satellites would be killed at once to render the system unusable. I don't know how many (if any) replacement GPS satellites are sitting around for rapid launch, should the need arise.
 
chucky said:
I don't know how many (if any) replacement GPS satellites are sitting around for rapid launch, should the need arise.
Click to expand...

If it's anything like most management I've seen, the answer is to keep 0 on hand, because the ones we have will last forever.
 
chucky said:
I don't know how many (if any) replacement GPS satellites are sitting around for rapid launch, should the need arise.
Click to expand...
It seems like there are a constant stream of GPS launches of about 3 or 4 a year. The new block IIF satellites are starting to be launched this year with block IIIa starting in 2014.
 
ScottM said:
It seems like there are a constant stream of GPS launches of about 3 or 4 a year. The new block IIF satellites are starting to be launched this year with block IIIa starting in 2014.
Click to expand...

Ah, I didn't realize the hardware was continuously being replaced. That makes a big difference. Now I'm curious about the protection protocols for solar events. The practical question, of course, is whether or not there are temporary system outages during big solar storms (almost certainly).
 
ScottM said:
I figures that what is happening is pretty much the plan of record. I thought I might have missed a more official notice.
Click to expand...

If memory serves, I thought I read somewhere else that the FAA is just not going to push to keep the VOR system funded. This means it will keep running until it collapses on it's own. They may, as NextGen takes hold, actively decommission it to the point of a date (like what happened with Loran), but I just think they'll let it fade away. It is unbelievably expensive.
 
Bob Noel said:
um, ADS-B is not a navigation system.
Click to expand...

you got me.

Still the two changes are intertangled in my luddite view of the universe. I'm in the clouds and I know where I am becuase of my trusty garmin and ATC knows where I am becuase of the transponder exchange complemented by reverting to primary radar. If they retire the radar they are relying on the same 1970s electrical system I am -- either to recieve my mode-C or to receive my GPS coordinates via ADS-B.

Today I can navigate by asking where I am and which direction I should go (it unnerves the passengers but it works). I am utterly dependent on GPS once we all switch over to ADS-B.

Todd
 
twdeckard said:
Still the two changes are intertangled in my luddite view of the universe. I'm in the clouds and I know where I am becuase of my trusty garmin and ATC knows where I am becuase of the transponder exchange complemented by reverting to primary radar. If they retire the radar they are relying on the same 1970s electrical system I am -- either to recieve my mode-C or to receive my GPS coordinates via ADS-B.
Click to expand...

I don't believe there are any plans to retire the radar. Prior to 9/11 there were plans to retire center primary radar. The events of 9/11 showed secondary radar only works with those that want their position known. Center primary radar is still with us.
 
chucky said:
Ah, I didn't realize the hardware was continuously being replaced. That makes a big difference. Now I'm curious about the protection protocols for solar events. The practical question, of course, is whether or not there are temporary system outages during big solar storms (almost certainly).
Click to expand...

Not a problem. We have a robust, reliable, proven and paid-for system in place - Loran.

Oops.
 
Last edited:
AuntPeggy said:
Or sunspot peak.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the geomagnetic storm predicted for 2011-2012. Major, major effects on the grid and electronics. Of course, it could be the final blow to the VOR stations--they have not been hardened in the same way as satellites have. VOR is what, 50's technology?
 
Exocetid said:
Don't forget the geomagnetic storm predicted for 2011-2012. Major, major effects on the grid and electronics. Of course, it could be the final blow to the VOR stations--they have not been hardened in the same way as satellites have. VOR is what, 50's technology?
Click to expand...

If it makes you feel any better, all the predictions for the current solar cycle have thus far turned out to be wrong. Now most predictions are that we'll get a weak solar cycle. But all it takes is one big coronal mass ejection pointed in just the right direction...

VORs themselves would be fine, I think, except insofar as they rely on the power grid.
 
chucky said:
If it makes you feel any better, all the predictions for the current solar cycle have thus far turned out to be wrong. Now most predictions are that we'll get a weak solar cycle. But all it takes is one big coronal mass ejection pointed in just the right direction...

VORs themselves would be fine, I think, except insofar as they rely on the power grid.
Click to expand...

The storm I am talking about has been predicted for quite some time to the point that the utilities are taking a serious look at protective measures. I agree that there has been some Chicken Little prognostication in the past, but from what I see, this is for real.

I am not going to pull my VOR's and put them on eBay just yet, the old system still has some life left in it.
 
If Loran is cheaper to maintain, which I'm almost certain it is, why on earth did the gubmint get rid of it?????

I'm guessing that the Coasties don't have enough pull in the budget process, and they were tired of dealing with it. They should have shifted it to the FAA.
 
flyersfan31 said:
If Loran is cheaper to maintain, which I'm almost certain it is, why on earth did the gubmint get rid of it?????
Click to expand...
Most people ditched their LORAN, if they had, one for GPS. There were only two people who responded affirmatively to my question about who had used a LORAN within the past few years. How many people would actually equip their airplanes with LORAN just in case?
 
Everskyward said:
Most people ditched their LORAN, if they had, one for GPS. There were only two people who responded affirmatively to my question about who had used a LORAN within the past few years. How many people would actually equip their airplanes with LORAN just in case?
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, I was thinking about it back when LORAN C was being mooted as the GPS backup. I'm not convinced that GPS is 100% reliable. VORs aren't the greatest, but they work. I just can't believe the FAA is willing to put all its navigation eggs in one basket. They oughta stop worrying about whether someone's silkscreened placards are the appropriate font and start worrying about $pit that really matters.
 
flyersfan31 said:
Believe it or not, I was thinking about it back when LORAN C was being mooted as the GPS backup. I'm not convinced that GPS is 100% reliable. VORs aren't the greatest, but they work. I just can't believe the FAA is willing to put all its navigation eggs in one basket. They oughta stop worrying about whether someone's silkscreened placards are the appropriate font and start worrying about $pit that really matters.
Click to expand...
But why would they want to support a system that very few people have the equipment to use?
 
flyersfan31 said:
If Loran is cheaper to maintain, which I'm almost certain it is, why on earth did the gubmint get rid of it?????

I'm guessing that the Coasties don't have enough pull in the budget process, and they were tired of dealing with it. They should have shifted it to the FAA.
Click to expand...
The Coasties did not get any money to maintain it when the DHS asked industry if they needed it as a back up to GPS and did an internal review.

This was an ALCOAST (Message to the entire USCG) I got back in November

R 251518Z NOV 09

ALCOAST 675/09
COMDTNOTE 16560
SUBJ: LONG RANGE NAVIGATION (LORAN-C) TERMINATION
1. EARLIER THIS YEAR, AFTER RELEASE OF THE PRESIDENTS FY10
BUDGET REQUEST THAT IDENTIFIED LORAN-C FOR TERMINATION, THE

VICE COMMANDANT RELEASED AN ALL-HANDS EMAIL THAT DISCUSSED THE
PLANNED TERMINATION AND OUR WAY FORWARD. SINCE THEN, A BROAD
CROSS-FUNCTIONAL TEAM BASED OUT OF CGHQ, LED BY COMDT (CG-541)
AND COMDT (CG-43), AND INCLUDING REPRESENTATIVES FROM PERSONNEL

SERVICE CENTER, NAVIGATION CENTER, LORAN SUPPORT UNIT, THE CIVIL
ENGINEERING PROGRAM, AND OTHER ELEMENTS, HAS DEVELOPED A
COMPREHENSIVE TERMINATION PLAN THAT WILL FURTHER GUIDE OUR ACTIONS.
ON OCTOBER 28, 2009,THE PRESIDENT SIGNED THE 2010 DEPARTMENT

OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, WHICH DIRECTS THE COAST
GUARD TO DISCONTINUE LORAN-C OPERATIONS NOT EARLIER THAN 4 JAN 2010
AS LONG AS CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE MET.
2. THE ACT REQUIRES THE COMMANDANT TO CERTIFY THAT

TERMINATION OF THE OPERATION OF THE LORAN-C SIGNAL WILL NOT
ADVERSELY IMPACT THE SAFETY OF MARITIME NAVIGATION, AND
FURTHER REQUIRES THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY TO CERTIFY THAT THE LORAN-C SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE IS NOT

NEEDED AS A BACKUP TO THE GPS SYSTEM OR TO MEET ANY OTHER FEDERAL
NAVIGATION REQUIREMENT. WHEN THOSE CERTIFICATIONS ARE MADE, THE
U.S. COAST GUARD SHALL, COMMENCING JANUARY 4, 2010, TERMINATE THE
TRANSMISSION OF THE LORAN-C SIGNAL AND COMMENCE A PHASED

DECOMMISSIONING OF THE LORAN-C SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE.
3. OUR CURRENT MISSION REMAINS CLEAR. WE WILL CONTINUE TO
STAND THE WATCH AND OPERATE THE LORAN-C SYSTEM UNTIL BOTH
CERTIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE. CONCURRENTLY, WE MUST PREPARE

OURSELVES TO OPERATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED BUDGET AND
CONTINUE TERMINATION PROGRESS. IT IS CRITICAL THAT THROUGHOUT THE
PLANNING PROCESS WE REMAIN STEWARDS TO THE TAXPAYERS, THE
ENVIRONMENT, THE LOCAL COMMUNITIES THAT HOST LORAN SITES, AND MOST

IMPORTANTLY THE GUARDIANS WHO HAVE LOYALLY OPERATED AND MAINTAINED
OUR STATIONS FOR THE PAST FIFTY YEARS, AND WHO CONTINUE TO
PROFESSIONALLY DO SO TODAY.
4. TAILORED INSTRUCTIONS FOR SIGNAL TERMINATION, AND
STATION-SPECIFIC SHUTDOWN PROCEDURES, WILL BE TRANSMITTED

OVER THE NEXT TWO MONTHS TO EACH STATION BY NAVCEN, THE
OPERATIONAL COMMANDER OF THE NATIONS LORAN SYSTEM.
5. WE UNDERSTAND AND ACKNOWLEDGE THE CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH
EXECUTING A MISSION WHEN PROGRAMMATIC AND PERSONAL FUTURES ARE

UNCLEAR. WE WILL CONTINUE TO DISSEMINATE INFORMATION TO AREAS AND
DISTRICTS THAT HAVE LORAN STATIONS IN THEIR AORS, FOR FURTHER
TRANSMISSION TO STATION PERSONNEL. THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS, WE
COLLECTIVELY REMAIN COMMITTED TO MINIMIZING PERSONNEL DISRUPTIONS

TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE WHILE FULFILLING OUR NATIONAL MANDATE TO
FULLY OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE SYSTEM UNTIL TERMINATED.
6. COAST GUARD PERSONNEL HAVE STAFFED AND OPERATED LORAN
SINCE 1943. SINCE THAT TIME, LORAN HAS GONE THROUGH SEVERAL

CHANGES WITH INCREDIBLE ACCURACY AND WITH NEAR ZERO LOST
TIME. THE LORAN SYSTEM SUPERBLY SUPPORTED NAVIGATION AND
POSITIONING NEEDS FOR MANY YEARS, AND HAS BEEN A FOUNDATIONAL
ELEMENT OF THE COAST GUARDS LONG AND PROUD HISTORY. THANK YOU ALL

FOR YOUR CONTINUED PROFESSIONALISM AND DEDICATION TO THE LORAN
PROGRAM AND THE COAST GUARD.
7. POC: CDR BOB FEIGENBLATT, LORAN PROGRAM MANAGER,
AT 202-372-1558, OR EMAIL BOB.I.FEIGENBLATT(AT)USCG.MIL.

8. RDML KEVIN COOK, DIRECTOR OF PREVENTION POLICY, SENDS.
9. INTERNET RELEASE AUTHORIZED.
 
Everskyward said:
Most people ditched their LORAN, if they had, one for GPS.
Click to expand...

My Mooney had a LORAN in it at one point, the PO ditched it about two years before the USCG turned it off. Marine GPS units are significantly cheaper than aviation units, there really was no reason to keep LORAN active. It would have been a colossal waste of money for the FAA to take it over. I don't give the government high points for intellect, but they are not the idiots that some think they are.
 
Exocetid said:
My Mooney had a LORAN in it at one point, the PO ditched it about two years before the USCG turned it off. Marine GPS units are significantly cheaper than aviation units, there really was no reason to keep LORAN active. It would have been a colossal waste of money for the FAA to take it over. I don't give the government high points for intellect, but they are not the idiots that some think they are.
Click to expand...

The annual budget for Loran was less than Nancy Pelosi's jet fuel bill.

Look, some time, at (1) the signal level of the GPS signal at the receiver; (2) the relative ease of jamming (intentional, accidental and naturally-occurring); (3) the fact that Loran was (still is) operationally complete and easily-maintained; and (4) the remarkable cost of maintaining and renewing the GPS constellation.

Loran sensors could be added to future GPS receivers for a sum so small it's trivial; and you could purchase an annuity which would fund Loran in perpetuity for less than the cost of one GPS satellite.

VORs are being allowed to die. Are you happy with the idea of GPS - great though it is, it's also fragile - being the only show?

--

Edit:

My M1 Loran was rock-solid, worked flawlessly until it had no signal to receive, and I can recall a non-trivial number of times when I was able to navigate with it while the GPS signal was unavailable. This is in the 2.7 years I have owned it.
 
SCCutler said:
VORs are being allowed to die. Are you happy with the idea of GPS - great though it is, it's also fragile - being the only show?
Click to expand...
GPS isn't the only show, though. According to the Federal Radionavigation Plan even at the end there will still be a network of DMEs to support DME-DME navigation which FMSs can use.

I agree with Exocetid that the costs would outweigh the benefits for keeping LORAN active. Even if the cost for keeping the stations going isn't that much, how are you going to get aircraft owners to install it just-in-case? Thats not even to mention all the airliners that are flying around without LORAN and which can use DME-DME.

The current VOR services will be maintained at their current level until at
least 2010 to enable aviation users to equip their aircraft with SATNAV
avionics and to become familiar with the system. There is an FAA effort
underway enabling a reduction in the VOR population, to begin in 2010,
that will reduce VOR services by discontinuing facilities no longer needed.
VOR services will be gradually discontinued in accordance with airway
planning standard criteria after appropriate coordination. Service will be
discontinued first at facilities where service is not needed or where
satisfactory alternatives are available. VORs will remain in service
throughout the transition to SATNAV to support IFR operations as needed,
and serve as an independent navigation source in the NAS.
The FAA plans to sustain existing DME service to support en route
navigation and to install additional low-power DME to support ILS
precision approaches as recommended by the Commercial Aviation Safety
Team. The FAA may also need to expand the DME network to provide an
RNAV capability for terminal area operations at major airports and to
provide continuous coverage for RNAV routes and operations at en route
altitudes.
Click to expand...
 
SCCutler said:
Loran sensors could be added to future GPS receivers for a sum so small it's trivial;
Click to expand...
I am not too sure about that. Having worked in the consumer electronics business for sometime the cost/benefit to profit ration is very small. Saving $.01 to $.03 per unit is sometimes enough to justify entire programs while increase of $.05 have been known to kill an entire line of products.

A large chunk of the money that has to be recouped is the engineering, it is not just components that add tot he cost. All the engineering, regression testing of the software, reliability testing, certification, etc. all needs to be dealt with. Most of the product cycle attempts to recoup that in the first year. With the number of aviation units that are sold each year being so small that cost/unit could end up being very high, maybe a $1000 or more per unit. Then if a customer were offered a unit without LORAN back up for less money would they take it? Probably.
 
Last edited:
ScottM said:
I am not too sure about that. Having worked in the consumer electronics business for sometime the cost/benefit to profit ration is very small. Saving $.01 to $.03 per unit is sometimes enough to justify entire programs while increase of $.05 have been known to kill an entire line of products.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying...but isn't the aviation GPS unit market size somewhat smaller than "consumer"? Maybe it is....what do you consider the annual unit sale number that is considered "consumer"?
 
Cap'n Jack said:
I understand what you are saying...but isn't the aviation GPS unit market size somewhat smaller than "consumer"? Maybe it is....what do you consider the annual unit sale number that is considered "consumer"?
Click to expand...
The likely key for Garmin being able to sell aviation GPS at the low price point that they do has got to be linked to a common platform architecture strategy. That is to say a great amount of the innards are related to the non-aviation consumer market. You might not think that the 430W is really cheap, but I also work with government and public safety business and see the prices on equipment that shares nothing in common with the consumer world. If Garmin were only making their box for us the cost would be higher, much higher. I think that is a big reason why King has not been too successful in their GPS development. There market to recoup costs is much smaller without that non-aviation side.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top