Anyone still use VORs?

onezuludelta said:
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!
Click to expand...

That airspace is quite complex, but if radio work doesn't scare you, B transitions are really easy. If you can get them. Hint: avoid extended centerlines and consider midfield crossings.
 
MAKG1 said:
That airspace is quite complex, but if radio work doesn't scare you, B transitions are really easy. If you can get them. Hint: avoid extended centerlines and consider midfield crossings.
Click to expand...
Yep. NY controllers are one of the best and are very professional and accommodating. I've never been denied a transition and they'll usually send right over Kennedy.
 
jordane93 said:
Yep. NY controllers are one of the best and are very professional and accommodating. I've never been denied a transition and they'll usually send right over Kennedy.
Click to expand...

Ooooh, that makes sense. Thanks to both of you. I wonder if they would be OK (or if it is even safe) with crossing the Hudson exclusion westbound (perpendicular to it), though.

Everything else depends on what approaches they are running, I guess. I was headed out to the practice area along the north shore of Long Island once and had a 787 cross my nose (ATC gave me advisories for it) in a bank, pretty close. It was one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen. :cryin:
 
onezuludelta said:
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!
Click to expand...

I learned under the class B too. I learned in Oakland CA, so part of the SFO class B. I too was never afraid of the radio. I think learning in complex airspace will take you longer to solo and longer to get your license, but you will be a more complete and confident pilot when flying cross country. You'll also be well prepped for your IR training.

Your airspace is much more complicated than ours. Master that airspace VFR and flying anywhere in the states will be no big deal VFR, or IFR. Of course GPS makes this sooooo much easier today than it was when I learned. Ground reference and VORs was what kept you out of trouble in those days.
 
onezuludelta said:
Ooooh, that makes sense. Thanks to both of you. I wonder if they would be OK (or if it is even safe) with crossing the Hudson exclusion westbound (perpendicular to it), though.

Everything else depends on what approaches they are running, I guess. I was headed out to the practice area along the north shore of Long Island once and had a 787 cross my nose (ATC gave me advisories for it) in a bank, pretty close. It was one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen. :cryin:
Click to expand...

Just remember that as a student pilot, you must have a logbook endorsement from your instructor approving you to use that specific Class B before you can call up ATC and get a Class B clearance. Your instructor has to vouch that you have been given instruction in the workings of that airspace, have good radio skills and performed satisfactorily.

You will see cool things inside Bravo from time to time. Just be very, very mindful of the wake turbulence. The invisible storm behind that beautiful 787 can potentially ruin your day.
 
Last edited:
I once transited the SFO Class B at 3500, with my son in the right seat, and overflew a departing A380. The kid was beside himself. We got a fabulous view, and even the controller seemed to think it was cool based on the traffic call for a "soooooper jumbo." I resisted the temptation to suggest the A380 needed a wake turbulence warning.

In a dual flight, you don't need the student endorsement, because you aren't PIC. And the day you pass your check ride, there is no endorsement needed. Just make sure you know where you are and do what you're told.
 
onezuludelta said:
Ooooh, that makes sense. Thanks to both of you. I wonder if they would be OK (or if it is even safe) with crossing the Hudson exclusion westbound (perpendicular to it), though.
Click to expand...

If you leave the Class B while VFR, you have to be cleared back in. Probably not a problem, but don't skip that.
 
MAKG1 said:
I once transited the SFO Class B at 3500, with my son in the right seat, and overflew a departing A380. The kid was beside himself. We got a fabulous view, and even the controller seemed to think it was cool based on the traffic call for a "soooooper jumbo." I resisted the temptation to suggest the A380 needed a wake turbulence warning.

In a dual flight, you don't need the student endorsement, because you aren't PIC. And the day you pass your check ride, there is no endorsement needed. Just make sure you know where you are and do what you're told.
Click to expand...


I've transitioned LAX and LAS B right over the runways both times. Definitely a memorable experience... The former had a UPS 747 fly over the top of me. Pretty neat:)
 
MAKG1 said:
In a dual flight, you don't need the student endorsement, because you aren't PIC. And the day you pass your check ride, there is no endorsement needed. Just make sure you know where you are and do what you're told.
Click to expand...

True. I only pointed it out so that he might not go out and call up for a clearance on a solo fight based on what he read here. I hope if his instructor is there right beside him that that person would know what is legal and what's not.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
I've transitioned LAX and LAS B right over the runways both times. Definitely a memorable experience... The former had a UPS 747 fly over the top of me. Pretty neat:)
Click to expand...

You know, another fun thing to do is just fly over the top of the whole damn thing. The class B we have been looking at in NY is only 7,000ft at the top, so go up to 7,500, or 8,500 and do whatever you want. You don't even have to talk to ATC.

Where I live, I have to go up to either 10,500, or 11,500 to do it. I have done it several times and it's kinda fun to go up there and do whatever and look at whatever. I recommend it to those that haven't.
 
Dav8or said:
You know, another fun thing to do is just fly over the top of the whole damn thing. The class B we have been looking at in NY is only 7,000ft at the top, so go up to 7,500, or 8,500 and do whatever you want. You don't even have to talk to ATC.

Where I live, I have to go up to either 10,500, or 11,500 to do it. I have done it several times and it's kinda fun to go up there and do whatever and look at whatever. I recommend it to those that haven't.
Click to expand...

That would be fun, definitely.

It would be funny in this case, I'm chuckling to myself thinking of ATC wondering why there's a guy who squeezed out from under the shelf and is slowly circling upwards to infinity, in between the Bravo and Islip's Charlie, in a Cessna 152. Just buzzing his way upwards for 30 minutes.
 
It's been done.

It sucks when your destination and/or departure is close in, especially under a B shelf. You can ask for a VFR descent through Class B, but you might as well have transitioned it 'cause it's exactly the same (a difference is that you're likely to be given step-down altitudes to keep you away from approaches).

And almost all jets enter and especially depart through the top of the B. Yes, you see and avoid, but they climb at 250 KIAS and 2000 FPM, and might be behind you. So, flight following is very useful.

Honestly, it's easier to transit. It's even easier to go under the shelf, especially in a 152. Even in a 182, climbing up to 10500 takes more time than it's worth. I won't cruise VFR above 4000 unless the terrain requires it. IFR, the minimum altitudes usually put me at 6000 or so. But Class B is irrelevant IFR, and you very often end up inside it.
 
I think it would be cool to see it from above but it takes a while to get up there, and the two times I've done it we have had ATC just vector us through it. I also believe some class B airspace has VFR corridors which allow transition without talking to anyone... I guess I need to break out my TAC charts and have a look, see if I'm correct there.
 
Depends on the B. Some have transition corridors, some don't. Note that some corridors DO require B clearance; the difference is if they are in the B (LAX, excepting the SFRA) or not (SAN). Still others are just free-form (SFO). Flyways are not in the B and do not require clearance; they are shown on the back of TACs and not elsewhere.

If the B has transition corridors, you will be expected to use them. Though I have had ATC authorize deviations (e.g., uncharted VFR descent in LAX Class B, off the Coastal Route descending to Torrance).
 
MAKG1 said:
It's been done.

It sucks when your destination and/or departure is close in, especially under a B shelf. You can ask for a VFR descent through Class B, but you might as well have transitioned it 'cause it's exactly the same (a difference is that you're likely to be given step-down altitudes to keep you away from approaches).

And almost all jets enter and especially depart through the top of the B. Yes, you see and avoid, but they climb at 250 KIAS and 2000 FPM, and might be behind you. So, flight following is very useful.

Honestly, it's easier to transit. It's even easier to go under the shelf, especially in a 152. Even in a 182, climbing up to 10500 takes more time than it's worth. I won't cruise VFR above 4000 unless the terrain requires it. IFR, the minimum altitudes usually put me at 6000 or so. But Class B is irrelevant IFR, and you very often end up inside it.
Click to expand...

Ya missed my point. I said to go over the top just for fun. Just for the view. Something to do with your plane. That's it.
 
MAKG1 said:
Depends on the B. Some have transition corridors, some don't. Note that some corridors DO require B clearance; the difference is if they are in the B (LAX, excepting the SFRA) or not (SAN). Still others are just free-form (SFO). Flyways are not in the B and do not require clearance; they are shown on the back of TACs and not elsewhere.



If the B has transition corridors, you will be expected to use them. Though I have had ATC authorize deviations (e.g., uncharted VFR descent in LAX Class B, off the Coastal Route descending to Torrance).
Click to expand...


This. First week of November I had four trips through the LAX Bravo. First one was BFL-CRQ via Coliseum, second one was CRQ-CMA-BFL a few days later along with BFL-LGB that same night. Then LGB-BFL a couple days later.


Coliseum route was completely anti-climactic, but at 8500, I might as well have just flew over the top.

The coastal route up to CMA was 100% by the book.

Coming back that night via the coastal route I was greeted with descending vectors about four seconds after crossing LAX that set me up for 30 at LGB. Completely unexpected, but very welcomed and very easy to comply with.

Upon leaving LGB that Friday morning, I called up Clearance Delivery with my intentions and just flat out asked him for his suggestion--my plan was to take off and circle south of the bravo until climbing up and take the coastal home... But he suggested vectors to the 91/605 interchange than north under the shelf. Once again, within seconds of crossing the center lines for LAX, they cleared me to 9500 and sent me on my way.

SoCal approach has been nothing but amazing in my first few months as a PPL and owner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The advantage of Coliseum when coming from north of LA is that 8500 is a good altitude for terrain clearance over the San Gabriels. That extra 2000 to 10500 can take some time, depending on what you're flying. And you'll still get vectors, as there are lots of jets arriving into LAX above the B. Less stress IMO to just use the transitions, as those are designed to be below the STARs and above the approaches.

Climbing is kinda expensive. If you cross the San Gabriels at a lower altitude, it may be worth it to use the Mini or SFRA to get to Long Beach. Use flight following throughout, as the airspace is quite a bit more complex at lower altitudes. It's not easy to dodge the B and BUR's C and SMO's D outside the Mini.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone else feel like this after they have created a thread, and it results in an interesting discussion?

giphy.gif
 
Not much but they're there if i need it :) Mostly just GPS and waypoints along the Victors
 
OK one more question!

There are 3 types of VORs: VOR, VOR-DME, VORTAC, and they all have different symbols on the charts, I can identify those easily.

These VORs also have 3 classifications based on their power/range:

"terminal, low altitude, or high altitude. Terminal VORs are designed to be clearly received up to 25 nautical miles from the station at altitudes of 1,000 feet agl through 12,000 feet agl. Low-altitude VORs are meant to be used from 1,000 feet agl through 18,000 feet agl at distances of up to 40 nm from the station. Finally, high altitude VORs have the greatest range - 130 nm - between 18,000 feet agl and 45,000 feet agl, although they can also be effective at shorter ranges of 40 nm or more from 1,000 feet agl all the way through 60,000 feet agl." (http://flighttraining.aopa.org/magazine/2000/December/200012_Features_The_ABCs_Of_VORs.html)

Question: Is there a way to tell which VORs have higher range vs. lower range? So, if I am flight planning and using VORs, I don't want to accidentally plan a leg where I lose reception.

Hypothetical situation just to get at my question, so stick with me here: Say I'm planning from FRG to BDL, and I use the BDR VOR along the way (Skyvector map). I could bounce over to the MAD VOR, then the HFD VOR, but it seems a little bit out of the way. So say I really want to go direct BDR to BDL, but it's a 50nm leg. How do I know if BDR is terminal, low-altitude, or high-altitude?
 
It may be worth it to grab some low-altitude IFR charts. These are labeled with a "minimum enroute altitude" along airways, that guarantees navaid reception both for the navaids that determine the airway and for cross-radials identifying waypoints.

It's a good bet that all airway-determining VORs are low altitude (at least), but sometimes terrain shadowing can make them unreadable below the MEA. Terminal VORs are used for approaches.

To get to BDR, I'd suggest dead reckoning, with the VOR dialed in. When you can ID it, fly direct. If you can't DR within 22 miles, you need to work on that.

An alternative is following V229 at 2500 or higher, but note that it does NOT go to DPK, probably to stay out of a nearby Class C.

While it might be legal, don't depend exclusively on VORs. Have an alternative to cross check. As a VFR pilot, DR and pilotage (both)
 
Last edited:
onezuludelta said:
OK one more question!

There are 3 types of VORs: VOR, VOR-DME, VORTAC, and they all have different symbols on the charts, I can identify those easily.

These VORs also have 3 classifications based on their power/range:

"terminal, low altitude, or high altitude. Terminal VORs are designed to be clearly received up to 25 nautical miles from the station at altitudes of 1,000 feet agl through 12,000 feet agl. Low-altitude VORs are meant to be used from 1,000 feet agl through 18,000 feet agl at distances of up to 40 nm from the station. Finally, high altitude VORs have the greatest range - 130 nm - between 18,000 feet agl and 45,000 feet agl, although they can also be effective at shorter ranges of 40 nm or more from 1,000 feet agl all the way through 60,000 feet agl." (http://flighttraining.aopa.org/magazine/2000/December/200012_Features_The_ABCs_Of_VORs.html)

Question: Is there a way to tell which VORs have higher range vs. lower range? So, if I am flight planning and using VORs, I don't want to accidentally plan a leg where I lose reception.

Hypothetical situation just to get at my question, so stick with me here: Say I'm planning from FRG to BDL, and I use the BDR VOR along the way (Skyvector map). I could bounce over to the MAD VOR, then the HFD VOR, but it seems a little bit out of the way. So say I really want to go direct BDR to BDL, but it's a 50nm leg. How do I know if BDR is terminal, low-altitude, or high-altitude?
Click to expand...

If you look up the VOR in the Airport/Facility Directory, it will say (T), (L), or (H) next to it. In addition, it may list exceptions to the standard service volume. For example, BDR has a list of unusable radials beyond certain distances. You can see an example on the page for KBDR:

https://skyvector.com/files/tpp/1513/afdpdf/NE_28_10DEC2015.pdf
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
It may be worth it to grab some low-altitude IFR charts. These are labeled with a "minimum enroute altitude" along airways, that guarantees navaid reception both for the navaids that determine the airway and for cross-radials identifying waypoints.

It's a good bet that all airway-determining VORs are low altitude (at least), but sometimes terrain shadowing can make them unreadable below the MEA. Terminal VORs are used for approaches.

To get to BDR, I'd suggest dead reckoning, with the VOR dialed in. When you can ID it, fly direct. If you can't DR within 22 miles, you need to work on that.

An alternative is following V229 at 2500 or higher, but note that it does NOT go to DPK, probably to stay out of a nearby Class C.

While it might be legal, don't depend exclusively on VORs. Have an alternative to cross check. As a VFR pilot, DR and pilotage (both)
Click to expand...

Nice, awesome info, thanks! Yeah, this was really just a hypothetical to get at my question. I'll check out the low-alt IFR charts, thanks!
 
Palmpilot said:
If you look up the VOR in the Airport/Facility Directory, it will say (T), (L), or (H) next to it.
Click to expand...

AH! I should've thought of that. Thanks! Also, I'm assuming the theoretical usable distance and what happens in the real world probably differs some...
 
Skyvector has a world low button that changes you over to low-altitude IFR charts.
 
onezuludelta said:
Thanks! Also, I'm assuming the theoretical usable distance and what happens in the real world probably differs some...
Click to expand...

See the edit to my previous post for an example of that. Such information also appears in NOTAMs.
 
onezuludelta said:
Also, I'm assuming the theoretical usable distance and what happens in the real world probably differs some...
Click to expand...

By the way, if exceptions have not been published, and if your VOR receiver is in good working order, my experience is that it would be more likely to get reception farther than advertised than vice versa. I think that's because the FAA flight checks navaids on a periodic basis.
 
Palmpilot said:
See the edit to my previous post for an example of that. Such information also appears in NOTAMs.
Click to expand...

And one both Richard and I have to deal with all the time is OSI (Woodside) VORTAC:

!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 12/131 OSI NAV TACAN AZM DECOMMISSIONED 1512160018-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

The issue is terrain shadowing.

Not long ago, it was out of service entirely.
 
OSI didn't used to be that bad. I was thinking that since it's listed as permanent, the DME degradation might have something to do with the azimuth portion of the TACAN being decommissioned. Maybe the military is allowing the FAA to continue using the DME portion, but has washed their hands of maintaining it.
 
IFR has a good article about the Minimum Operating Network in the most recent issue.

Brifly, when it is fully implemented pilots will be able to tune and identify a VOR within 77 miles at 5000agl or higher, navigate to a designated MON airport (VOR or ILS approach) within 100nm,or navigate to an area where radar service is provided. Keep in mind that the whole MON idea is to provide a backup in the case of total GPS failure as a means of getting planes on the ground safely...it is an emergency measure.

Bob Gardner
 
Palmpilot said:
OSI didn't used to be that bad. I was thinking that since it's listed as permanent, the DME degradation might have something to do with the azimuth portion of the TACAN being decommissioned. Maybe the military is allowing the FAA to continue using the DME portion, but has washed their hands of maintaining it.
Click to expand...

You've been flying a lot longer than me, but the VOR radials have had some blacked out sections pointing directly along the ridge line for as long as I've been flying.

I don't think a TACAN has been necessary at OSI since the Navy left Moffett. OSI is in the NUQ ODPs, but it's not a military airport anymore (and its on-field TACAN is also decommissioned).
 
MAKG1 said:
You've been flying a lot longer than me, but the VOR radials have had some blacked out sections pointing directly along the ridge line for as long as I've been flying.
Click to expand...

The majority of the NOTAMs on Woodside VORTAC are for the DME. Those didn't used to be there. I don't remember whether the one for the azimuth was there before or not.

I don't think a TACAN has been necessary at OSI since the Navy left Moffett. OSI is in the NUQ ODPs, but it's not a military airport anymore (and its on-field TACAN is also decommissioned).
Click to expand...

Are you sure about the on-field TACAN being decommissioned? I'm not seeing a NOTAM on that, nor on the instrument approaches, all of which use it to one degree or another. The A/FD entry just says that the DME is unusable beyond 15 NM in a certain sector:

(T) TACAN Chan 123 NUQ (117.6) N37º25.94 ́ W122º03.46 ́ 141º 1.1 NM to fld. 4/17E. NOTAM FILE
NUQ.
TACAN DME unusable:
170º–215º byd 15 NM

By the way, my understanding is that the TACAN is what provides the DME at a VORTAC, so from that point of view, it could be considered necessary for civilian aircraft not equipped with GPS.
 
Last edited:
Hmm, I guess it wasn't permanent. There were a bunch of closures and OTS's until recently, including rwy 32L.
 
Holy crap, Bob, I just read your signature block and realized who you were (I'm new-ish to POA). I've owned Say Again, Please for....10 years? Since back when this whole adventure was still a dream.

tumblr_ldcbxwQKQ91qes9ozo1_500.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top