Anyone still use VORs?

MAKG1 said:
Having a second VOR based RNAV box is a pretty good idea, though they do not seem to be common.
Click to expand...


Not only is it not common, but I have gotten laughed out of two avionics shops for saying I wanted an RNAV installed when I do my major panel upgrade this year (converting to a center stack and adding WAAS GPS/ ADS-B)

A KNS 80 may be a bit big, but where else can you get a nav radi on with GS and DME for under $1000?

I don't plan to us it much, but it sure does make a great backup for the GPS IMHO
 
I practice with them from time to time. I did have a data base problem with our 530W. I pulled a heading off of the sectional and used a vor to help keep me clear of the local class B. Nice to know they're still available to use.
 
One reason for still using VORs on IFR flights is the cost of database updates. Another is that over high mountain ranges, airways can be the only places where the minimum IFR altitude is within the climb performance of the airplane, and VOR receivers are a convenient tool for flying airways.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what you have now? I don't know about your plane, but my GNS 430 is both my primary GPS and my #1 VOR receiver. With various boxes being able to talk to one another, all I'm saying is, have your primary box, lets say the GTN-850 be a GPS, a single VOR receiver and com just like now, but in addition have the computing function to be able to display RNAV courses, derived from it's internal VOR receiver and the #2 VOR receiver, right on the same moving map that the GPS uses.

A step up in boxes could be the GTN-950 that has a second VOR receiver built in so that those on a limited budget, or limited panel space could choose the risk of lack of redundancy and use just one box for everything. Or, they could buy two 950s and have ultimate redundancy.

A typical radio stack of the future might include something like a single GTN 850/950 and an SL-30 with external CDI. People with more money to spend could have two GTN 850/950s. This would give you all the same redundancy most of us have now, plus a new level of safety and ease of use.
 
I tune them and identify them on long XCs to maintain SA in the cockpit but I don't navigate by them any longer. I practice tracking them for currency but that is about it.
 
Dav8or said:
Isn't that what you have now? I don't know about your plane, but my GNS 430 is both my primary GPS and my #1 VOR receiver. With various boxes being able to talk to one another, all I'm saying is, have your primary box, lets say the GTN-850 be a GPS, a single VOR receiver and com just like now, but in addition have the computing function to be able to display RNAV courses, derived from it's internal VOR receiver and the #2 VOR receiver, right on the same moving map that the GPS uses.

A step up in boxes could be the GTN-950 that has a second VOR receiver built in so that those on a limited budget, or limited panel space could choose the risk of lack of redundancy and use just one box for everything. Or, they could buy two 950s and have ultimate redundancy.

A typical radio stack of the future might include something like a single GTN 850/950 and an SL-30 with external CDI. People with more money to spend could have two GTN 850/950s. This would give you all the same redundancy most of us have now, plus a new level of safety and ease of use.
Click to expand...

Not really.

A common setup is a GNS430 with NAV1 (and glideslope), and a separate cheap-a** (Narco, etc.) NAV2. Without the glideslope, a blown fuse/CB can take out every approach. In principle, you could fly a straight localizer, but without DME or a second VOR receiver, it's gonna be real hairy identifying step-downs. Same deal for a VOR approach. About all you can do is vectors to final on a localizer.

If you happen to have a glideslope on NAV2, you can fly an ILS, a BIG improvement. Or if you have a separate DME unit, you can fly a LOC/DME or VOR/DME.

It's important here to think about what happens if your one big box fails. This isn't that rare.

I have yet to see any rental airplane with two GNS or GTN units installed. I've seen a few that have a GTN650 plus a second nav/comm with glideslope. There is one (CAP) that has a GNS400W + GX55 + two nav/comms with glideslope. I rather like that setup (well, not the GX55, but you can do a helluva lot with the 400).
 
MAKG1 said:
Not really.

A common setup is a GNS430 with NAV1 (and glideslope), and a separate cheap-a** (Narco, etc.) NAV2. Without the glideslope, a blown fuse/CB can take out every approach. In principle, you could fly a straight localizer, but without DME or a second VOR receiver, it's gonna be real hairy identifying step-downs. Same deal for a VOR approach. About all you can do is vectors to final on a localizer.

If you happen to have a glideslope on NAV2, you can fly an ILS, a BIG improvement. Or if you have a separate DME unit, you can fly a LOC/DME or VOR/DME.

It's important here to think about what happens if your one big box fails. This isn't that rare.

I have yet to see any rental airplane with two GNS or GTN units installed. I've seen a few that have a GTN650 plus a second nav/comm with glideslope. There is one (CAP) that has a GNS400W + GX55 + two nav/comms with glideslope. I rather like that setup (well, not the GX55, but you can do a helluva lot with the 400).
Click to expand...
Pretty much all the planes at my flight school have dual glide slopes whether it's two 430s or a G1000. But for the most part, you are correct it's tough to find.
 
Palmpilot said:
One reason for still using VORs on IFR flights is the cost of database updates. Another is that over high mountain ranges, airways can be the only places where the minimum IFR altitude is within the climb performance of the airplane, and VOR receivers are a convenient tool for flying airways.
Click to expand...

I would not venture IFR (and request RNAV routing or approaches) without a current database update.
And regarding mountainous airways, I can fly any airway I want (using GPS) without a VOR receiver, so I am not sure why a VOR receiver would be necessary for airway flying.
 
RotorDude said:
I would not venture IFR (and request RNAV routing or approaches) without a current database update.
And regarding mountainous airways, I can fly any airway I want (using GPS) without a VOR receiver, so I am not sure why a VOR receiver would be necessary for airway flying.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they were necessary, but they are convenient for that purpose, because they don't require a database, their user interface is generally consistent between manufacturers, and their user interface is much less complex.
 
MAKG1 said:
Not really.

A common setup is a GNS430 with NAV1 (and glideslope), and a separate cheap-a** (Narco, etc.) NAV2. Without the glideslope, a blown fuse/CB can take out every approach. In principle, you could fly a straight localizer, but without DME or a second VOR receiver, it's gonna be real hairy identifying step-downs. Same deal for a VOR approach. About all you can do is vectors to final on a localizer.

If you happen to have a glideslope on NAV2, you can fly an ILS, a BIG improvement. Or if you have a separate DME unit, you can fly a LOC/DME or VOR/DME.

It's important here to think about what happens if your one big box fails. This isn't that rare.

I have yet to see any rental airplane with two GNS or GTN units installed. I've seen a few that have a GTN650 plus a second nav/comm with glideslope. There is one (CAP) that has a GNS400W + GX55 + two nav/comms with glideslope. I rather like that setup (well, not the GX55, but you can do a helluva lot with the 400).
Click to expand...

You're completely missing he point. Sorry, I forgot to add glideslope to the mix. I thought it was kind of assumed. My fancy imaginary GTN 850/950 boxes would include glide slope capability just like the GNS 430/530 do now. Does that help you see the vision? An airplane can be equipped to be as capable as the owner wants, or can afford, just like now.

In my future/alternate universe, an owner that was worried about having the GPS constellation go down and also simultaneously have his primary box go down due to mechanical failure, could potentially have an all in one secondary box that contains GPS (defunct in this scenario) one, or optionally two VOR receivers with RNAV capability and a glideslope receiver.

Technologically, this is possible right now. No new research or invention required. It is just combining existing technology into a better, more comprehensive solution. Of course things being what they are with aviation in America, I might as well as propose we travel by teleportation, or with anti gravity boosters. :mad2:
 
onezuludelta said:
Or is it all GPS, all the time? I'm talking specifically VFR flights here. Ever since I was a wee lad and played with MS Flight Sim, then started planning imaginary flights on Skyvector while bored at various jobs, I learned and used VORs, because a straight magenta line doesn't make for very fun video gaming or daydreaming.

Now that I'm nearing checkride time for my PPL, I'm wondering: nowadays does anyone give a second thought to VORs once they pass their checkride? Does everyone just use GPS all the time?

I've been busy practicing flight planning, making flight plans to potential post-checkride destinations, and I just can't bring myself to go Direct To.

So, I was curious what certificated VFR pilots in 2015 (almost 2016!) are doing. What do you guys and gals use in your every-day cross-country VFR flight planning?

Alternate, more dramatic thread titles:
ARE VORs DEAD?
This pilot used Direct To, AND YOU'LL NEVER GUESS WHAT HAPPENED NEXT.
DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN, USES NDBs.
Click to expand...

All the time...in California...

VOR's are nicely placed to help you avoid restricted airspace, for example up and down the Central Valley. Even if you use them in GPS.

Always good to dial in VOR's in case you lose GPS (happened to me already once).

VOR's are mandatory for transitioning through certain LAX Bravo Airspace. Not all GPS systems are legal for this navigation (e.g., "Coasal Route" which is off the LAX radials.)
 
Lachlan said:
Thanks. And like Hawk just said a couple posts back- GPS sort of feels like cheating on a test. :)
Click to expand...

I made that comment to the DPE when I took my IR ride. He said that using everything available is the right way to do it. The 430W certainly reduces some of the workload. However, you still need to know when it is lying to you because you screwed up with a button push somewhere along the line. I did and still shot the ILS because I knew where I was and had the needles centered.


mohamedpac said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, before I got my IR I still flew across the state on Victor airways. Kept me out of R space and made simple navigation even simpler.
 
I used VORs in my training with GPS as a backup. One cross country my GPS would not follow my flight plan and the other the screen blacked out on me (screen went bad). Most of my flights will probably be GPS, but I will always write my flight plan down with a list of VORs and tune to each one throughout my flight, just in case.
 
Palmpilot said:
Personally, I'm going to miss ECA. It seems odd to decommission a VOR that has so many approaches and airways based on it.
Click to expand...


Say whaaaaaaat? When is that happening. My "milk run" every other weekend is KBFL-VIS-HYP-ECA-O20...

ECA keeps me just outside the Delta for SCK on my descent


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Tampico Trauma said:
Say whaaaaaaat? When is that happening. My "milk run" every other weekend is KBFL-VIS-HYP-ECA-O20...

ECA keeps me just outside the Delta for SCK on my descent


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yeah, ECA is on the "list" along with a lot of lesser navaids and redundant approaches (like the CCR VOR approach -- redundant because it also has a very nearly coincident LDA). They are keeping MOD for some impenetrable reason. No idea when this happens.

It makes no sense to me. A lot of airways go over ECA. Getting to MOD by airways from the west is a PITA.
 
Funny the FAA is getting rid of tons of VORs and wonder what would happen in a satellite outage? I think VORs are useful as backup to GPS. Funny lots of GPS questions on the instrument written exam that I took recently.
 
I use VORs... and GPS. I've actually added "VOR CHECK" to my CRUISE checklist, to remind me to log one and stay in 30 day currency for IFR.

What's up with that 30-day thing, anyway? Were VOR receivers and OBS indicators horribly unreliable back in the 50's and the rules just never got updated?? Don't you find it funny that if you were going to do a WAAS GPS RNAV route, you're not legal to depart IFR if you didn't do a VOR check in the past 30 days?
 
Pilawt said:
https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2016/Jan/WSMR_16-02_GPS_Flight_Advisory.pdf
Click to expand...

"It's OK, I have two GPS receivers." :rofl:

attachment.php
 
Set the runway heading in the VOR head and you can see where the wind is coming from by reading the numbers on the VOR head. Highly recommended.
 
Palmpilot said:
"It's OK, I have two GPS receivers." :rofl:

attachment.php
Click to expand...

Actually I wonder about the modern GNS chips that claim to support simultaneous acquisition of GPS and GLONASS signals. Do those military signals jam the GLONASS also? I presume more modern navigators will make use of those newer chips, so having GLONASS as backup would be nice.
How's that for Perestroika? :)
 
Looks like the DME portion of Wooside VOTAC (OSI) is seriously degraded. Apparently the military has decided that they're never going to fix it.

!OAK 12/140 OSI NAV DME 160-350 SFC-10900FT UNUSABLE 1512161902-PERM
!OAK 12/139 OSI NAV DME 230-350 BEYOND 20NM UNUSABLE 1512161901-PERM
!OAK 12/088 OSI NAV DME RADIALS 190-230 BEYOND 20NM SFC-12900FT UNUSABLE 1512112240-PERM
!OAK 12/086 OSI NAV VOR RADIALS 330-350 SFC-10900FT UNUSABLE 1512112234-PERM
!OAK 12/131 OSI NAV TACAN AZM DECOMMISSIONED 1512160018-PERM​
 
There was an unexpected GPS "blackzone" so to speak while flying in IMC near redding California a few weeks back. I simply notified ATC, requested my equipment suffix be changed to /A and flew 15 minutes or so in IMC using the vor until the gtn750 and Ipad came back alive.
Sounds really simple, but I know a handful of people who would be in a whole world of loss, including a Piper Seneca flying nearby who freaked out with Oakland ATC and needed vectors.
Even for VFR, it helps to know what vor to tune to if the ipad goes out. Flying over an overcast or really flat terrain, it can be very difficult to navigate without using the vor if the gps goes out.
VOR is not dead.
 
Used a VOR to do a departure procedure in Mexico the other night. The procedure was not coded into the FMS database.
 
All my flying is VFR, for now, but I am a big fan of pilotage so I plan a direct route with visual waypoints.
 
LOL yeah right. Mexico is positively NOT, first world.
 
I suppose they will also come in handy circumnavigating all this Class B we have here around NYC. I saw a post on FB about a new restaurant opening at 4N1 in New Jersey, so I mocked up a plan of how to get there, using DPK and CMK.
Screen-Shot-2016-01-11-at-8.10.51-AM.jpg
 
onezuludelta said:
I suppose they will also come in handy circumnavigating all this Class B we have here around NYC. I saw a post on FB about a new restaurant opening at 4N1 in New Jersey, so I mocked up a plan of how to get there, using DPK and CMK.
Screen-Shot-2016-01-11-at-8.10.51-AM.jpg
Click to expand...

Larry in TN said:
Why not 2500' under the shelf? Cut through south of HPN.
Click to expand...

Agreed, that's the way I usually do it.
 
Larry in TN said:
Why not 2500' under the shelf? Cut through south of HPN.
Click to expand...

I'm guess for the sake of safety? An engine out at 2500' in that area is likely pretty ugly. I also suspect that he just wants to play with VORs and there's nothing wrong with that either. I'm not from that area, but I have visited. Dense urban population surrounded by forests. I might want some altitude and options myself.
 
Dav8or said:
I'm guess for the sake of safety? An engine out at 2500' in that area is likely pretty ugly. I also suspect that he just wants to play with VORs and there's nothing wrong with that either. I'm not from that area, but I have visited. Dense urban population surrounded by forests. I might want some altitude and options myself.
Click to expand...

All of the above. Just playing around with online planning, mostly, but once I have my license I'll still definitely be playing it suuuuuuuper safe around NYC. Plus, we have certain airports (and general directions - east or northeast) where we go for training from FRG, so I'm pretty ignorant of a lot of the rest of the area. Focused on training right now, but I'm excited to learn more about the airspace afterward. I'm really glad I did my training here, though. It hurt my wallet, but I'm definitely not afraid of the radio!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top