Anyone still use VORs?

I used VORs on every cross country I take! Admittedly, I have neither an installed GPS nor a handheld. Even if I did, I think I'd still choose using the VORs (unless a direct route saved enough time and fuel to be worthwhile). I just like it when you fly right over the stations and so far, my passengers have enjoyed the game of who can find it first!

I'm sure you'll fly a plane one day that doesn't have GPS, so don't skip it, you might need it one day.
 
I started flying in 1972... VORs were the way we did it then... Along came LORAN... I thought that was cool but still relied heavily on VOR... Nowadays my Skyhawk has a GTN750 but every time I line up on that magenta line I feel like I'm somehow cheating on a test... I tend to use just the GPS for quick runs here and there... Longer trips I normally have a VOR dialed in for back up... This is all VFR, by the way..
 
champ driver said:
Sometimes my flying is just wandering towards interesting views and not direct from A to B.
Click to expand...

That sounds nice! I'm probably thinking of it the wrong way. When I eventually take friends up VFR, even if we have a destination, we will probably do a good bit of wandering and sightseeing.

These answers are all great, I'm getting some really useful insight into the different ways people do things, so thanks everyone! Keep 'em coming!
 
Yes. Frequently.

Two reasons:

(1) There are still a lot of rental airplanes with no GPS. Even IFR. I took up a /A Warrior just last month IFR.

(2) Especially for IFR, GPS disruptions and outages do occur, sometimes over large areas. While regs do not require a terrestrial alternative with WAAS, it's a good idea to have it, and be proficient in its use. GPS signals are quite vulnerable to interference, and there are apparent military exercises in exploiting this going on.

And you'll occasionally see claims that VORs are "going away." There is nothing like that on the horizon. Some redundancy is being reduced, and that's about it.
 
Lachlan said:
Thanks. And like Hawk just said a couple posts back- GPS sort of feels like cheating on a test. :)
Click to expand...

yeah but...

Out here in the Rocky Mountains you need to be REAL high to see each VOR to get a decent signal... GPS is supreme for mountain flying as the terrain does not shadow the incoming signal.......

My usual answer when this question comes up is..
"VOR, what's that"..:lol::lol::rofl::D
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
Yes. Frequently.

Two reasons:

(1) There are still a lot of rental airplanes with no GPS. Even IFR. I took up a /A Warrior just last month IFR.

(2) Especially for IFR, GPS disruptions and outages do occur, sometimes over large areas. While regs do not require a terrestrial alternative with WAAS, it's a good idea to have it, and be proficient in its use. GPS signals are quite vulnerable to interference, and there are apparent military exercises in exploiting this going on.

And you'll occasionally see claims that VORs are "going away." There is nothing like that on the horizon. Some redundancy is being reduced, and that's about it.
Click to expand...

Personally, I'm going to miss ECA. It seems odd to decommission a VOR that has so many approaches and airways based on it.
 
I use VORs a lot flying in southern California airspace. To fly VFR corridors through LAX areas you must be competent to fly radials correctly. Also for my IFR training, VOR is the core of skill to fly approaches, holds and so forth. Third as backup I like using one to supplement a GPS is the plane is so equipped.
 
My plane is /A, so that's all I can use legally. The GPs in there is IFR certified, but the database is unsupported (Apollo 50).
 
I put the flight plan in the GPS and fly that, mostly just because it's easier and the GPS needle is more stable than a VOR needle. Also makes turning over VORs a lot easier.

That said, I do still tend to tune in VORs on the airway I'm flying and use them for holds/approaches. We have more options now, but they aren't going away anytime soon. Plus they're kind of fun. If you do the instrument rating, you'll be using VOR's a lot.

VOR's also have more personality... they're a radial signal vs GPS which is stable everywhere (although on approaches GPS does simulate a radial-like signal with increasing sensitivity). VOR's can also be a bit 'twitchy' where the needle will jump a dot or two and then jump back. GPS signal tends to be very smooth. It's important to get a feel for the signal output from these different systems.
 
Last edited:
Even in /G planes I've used a VOR on occasion.

By default I like to just keep everything GPS when I can, direct to, to a LPV, less button pushing and it seems to flow easier.
 
MAKG1 said:
(2) Especially for IFR, GPS disruptions and outages do occur, sometimes over large areas. While regs do not require a terrestrial alternative with WAAS, it's a good idea to have it, and be proficient in its use. GPS signals are quite vulnerable to interference, and there are apparent military exercises in exploiting this going on.

And you'll occasionally see claims that VORs are "going away." There is nothing like that on the horizon. Some redundancy is being reduced, and that's about it.
Click to expand...

I dug into the MON information that Bob suggested, and it was pretty interesting. I found this, similar to what you were saying:

  • GPS is a very weak signal and therefore vulnerable to unintentional or intentional interference

  • The GPS signal is almost a billion times weaker than other navigation signals (DMEs, VORs, ILS, etc)
Link: http://scpnt.stanford.edu/pnt/PNT14...les/3.FAA_Navigation_Update-PNT_Symposium.pdf

I always kind of assumed that the only instance in which the whole GPS system would go down would be some sort of apocalypse. Apparently that isn't the case. Long live the VOR!
 
Long live the VOR!
Click to expand...

That is my thinking also, OneZuluDelta. There has been (to say the least) a LOT of back and forth here about GPS. Some have multiple GPS units for backup, but my thinking is that it is much better to have alternate input sources if you truly want a backup. Long live the VOR! (It would have been much, much better if the FAA had used a little more "common sense" in my opinion and kept the LORAN system functional. It was similar to GPS, only ground based. Hindsight is 20/20).
 
onezuludelta said:
I dug into the MON information that Bob suggested, and it was pretty interesting. I found this, similar to what you were saying:

  • GPS is a very weak signal and therefore vulnerable to unintentional or intentional interference

  • The GPS signal is almost a billion times weaker than other navigation signals (DMEs, VORs, ILS, etc)
Link: http://scpnt.stanford.edu/pnt/PNT14...les/3.FAA_Navigation_Update-PNT_Symposium.pdf

I always kind of assumed that the only instance in which the whole GPS system would go down would be some sort of apocalypse. Apparently that isn't the case. Long live the VOR!
Click to expand...

The logical thing to have done was to leave the Loran C network in place for redundancy....
 
Given the investment to HAVE en-route and approach GPS in my plane you better believe I use it!

I didn't pay enough for WAAS, so I will fly the ILS where ever possible, but when the choice comes down to LOC or GPS I stay on the GPS.

Maybe I'll shake loose the WAAS money as part of my 2020 compliance planning. :(
 
There is a subset of pilots that have a dangerous over trust in some of the new technologies that are out there. Never touched a manual E6B, have virtually no situational awareness and want to just hop in the plane and let the autopilot follow a nice magenta line. All those things are fantastic tools but are not a replacement for proper skills. Things like GPS can and will fail and it's a big "single point of failure" given that every GPS fix relies on the same network. Ground based systems have more natural redundancy in that one VOR can go down but it's far more unlikely that all VORs magically go offline.

Call me old fashion but I like instructors that make their students do things the old school way and only allow any fancy tools once proficiency has been established.
 
Last edited:
Used one today. I like to keep and least 2 and preferably three navigation methods going at any given time.
 
I haven't used a VOR since my GTN-750 was installed more than two years ago and that's over quite a bit of flying, both IFR/IMC and VFR.
I consider VOR like the old vinyl records and player I keep -- quaint with lots of fond memories, but belonging in the Museum.
If the entire GPS system ever dies (I have 4 independent GPS receivers on board, and that's not counting my phone), assuming there is a world to go back down to, I'll have plenty of other options, even IMC. If it's VMC I'd have my e-charts and eyeballs, so a no-brainer.
 
Last edited:
This thread should have been a poll.

My answer to the OP ... never.

The CDI head that was installed with my 430W has been nothing but dead weight. And an aggravation. The 430 always flashes up a message "turn VOR to xxx degrees" after entering a new heading.
 
RotorDude said:
If the entire GPS system ever dies
Click to expand...
Sometimes out here in the west it does. Occasionally there are NOTAMed tests making GPS unreliable for a radius of hundreds of miles, depending on altitude. When I'm skirting the edges of the R-areas in western Nevada and the GPS starts acting squirrelly, I like to have the VOR needles confirm that I'm safely outside the hot airspace.
 
Pilawt said:
Sometimes out here in the west it does. Occasionally there are NOTAMed tests making GPS unreliable for a radius of hundreds of miles, depending on altitude. When I'm skirting the edges of the R-areas in western Nevada and the GPS starts acting squirrelly, I like to have the VOR needles confirm that I'm safely outside the hot airspace.
Click to expand...

AMEN!
 
Not sure why I would ever use VOR nav when I have WAAS GPS. Even flying Victor airways on IFR flight plans, I'm navigating by GPS. The only VOR work regularly flown was the approach to the home field but now we have LPV so even that VOR approach qualifies as an emergency or backup procedure now. I can still fly VOR nav but it's just not needed much anymore for me.
 
I don’t have IFR capability in either of the gyroplanes I fly so I am always flying VFR.
Giving my distance from the VOR and the radial I am crossing when I am reporting my position to ATC seems to cut down on questions from ATC. The information is on my Garmin 696 or I can reference a marked up chart quickly.
Because I fly low on a cross country I navigate with charts because it is more fun and just use the GPS as a backup.
I seldom fly direct to anywhere.
Intercepting radials was a part of my rotorcraft, gyroplane commercial practical test.
 
VOR's are a lot more useful for instrument than for private. I wondered the same thing before getting my IR. They're not useful for much else but cross checking the position when VFR.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Use VOR tracking along with the GPS all the time. I practice VOR and LOC approaches with the GPS screen on the traffic page flying the CDI needles only on the #2 NAV radio.

It's amazing how accurate the DME distance is when flying to a given VOR on my route loaded into the #2, as compared with the distance derived from the GPS. They are within 1/10nm of each other.

Had to smile at Jordan's comment about flying 'direct'. We both deal with the famously complex NY Metro airspace. You must have some magic flying around here that eludes me all the time. All I get is 'ready to copy full route clearance', and not on the ground either!
 
Last edited:
2 of the 3 planes in the club do NOT have GPS on board, so, yes, I still use VORs. Even if flying on an instrument flight plan.
 
I almost exclusively use GPS but I don't always fly direct. I program in waypoints over various things I want to go buy. When I get bored Ill tune a VOR and determine where I am on the charts.

Interesting tidbit I learned when talking with a Delta mainliner: the MD-88/90 and B717s don't have GPSs installed (except for a few of the very latest MadDogs they received).
 
VORs are useful when you are flying through a challenging terrain and often best transitioning airways are depicted by VORs. Whether you will actually tune a VOR and use its signal that's a different matter but their locations/waypoints designations will stay with us for some time.
 
txflyer said:
The CDI head that was installed with my 430W has been nothing but dead weight. And an aggravation. The 430 always flashes up a message "turn VOR to xxx degrees" after entering a new heading.
Click to expand...

Do you use it for IFR? I prefer the CDI head to the CDI screen on the GPS for instrument approaches, as it's more within my scan.

To answer the question, for VFR, I almost never use the VOR unless for fun which is once in a great while. IFR is a different story.
 
txflyer said:
This thread should have been a poll.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I realized that pretty quickly after I posted. I'll keep in mind for next time. I have a million questions (always learning!), so there WILL be a next time!
 
Seanaldinho said:
I almost exclusively use GPS but I don't always fly direct. I program in waypoints over various things I want to go buy. When I get bored Ill tune a VOR and determine where I am on the charts.

Interesting tidbit I learned when talking with a Delta mainliner: the MD-88/90 and B717s don't have GPSs installed (except for a few of the very latest MadDogs they received).
Click to expand...

Yep. My first 121 gig was plumbing on a 727. We had dual VOR's and ADF's. Flew all over the country at .88 Mach. Worked great.
 
I use VOR alot, even with the fancy g1000 I fly. Alot of fun actually. I had a database error, or something happen the other day. Took off, setup my flight plan on the garmin, and it told me to fly east for a westerly destination. Confused I was, but not a problem. Setup for the VOR near the destination airport, no go, so I just tracked a radial outbound from my local VOR. I could have flown it via ground ref as well. I enjoy flying VORs

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 
The cheapest IFR equipped planes that I rent from Plus One at KMYF don't have GPS only VOR and DME with ILS so for instrument training it's way less expensive for training and flying. The difference adds up. With that said everything is moving toward GPS. So I'll be using VORs a lot until planes are forced to upgrade to ADSB and GPS.
 
I have thought for a long time now that the avionics manufactures should build their boxes to be able to do RNAV calculations using the VORs and display the same magenta line on a moving map display just like GPS. Sort of a simulated, somewhat less accurate GPS using ground based inputs instead of satellites.

The point of it would be redundancy as well as ease of use and friendly user interface. No need to learn two disciplines. GPS navigation and VOR navigation would be virtually the same, just the former would be less accurate. If the GPS signals go down for some reason, the system could switch over to VOR navigation seamlessly and the pilot would continue on as normal with moving map navigation, but with a warning that it is less accurate.

With today's computing power, I doubt it would be that big of a deal to work out. The typical box is already a GPS and a VOR receiver. Just need to either add another VOR receiver to the box, or link it with another secondary box to make it work. I see no downsides myself and it eliminates the- "Yeah... well what if the whole GPS constellation goes down? Then what??" argument.
 
VOR based RNAV is not at all a new idea, but building it into the same box creates reliability risks you wouldn't otherwise have. Like a blown fuse taking out ALL your navigation.

It's not great to combine one nav radio with a GPS, but if there is another separate one (with a glideslope!), it's not that bad.

Having a second VOR based RNAV box is a pretty good idea, though they do not seem to be common.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top