Decomissioned VORs - why are they still on the charts?

Cap'n Jack said:
If the VOR is decomissioned, how is it still part of the airway structure? There may some co-located GPS fixes at the same location of the fixes defined by the decomissioned VOR, but GPS fixes use an entirely different navigation mechanism, and to my limited understanding, constitute another, different, airway structure.
Click to expand...

It's still part of the airway structure by being shut down but still being used to designate airways. LAN VORTAC is a good example.

LAN
 
Last edited:
roncachamp said:
But you are disagreeing. How can you depend on a VOR routing you won't be cleared for?
Click to expand...
I had a controller once give me an arrival that has been notamed out of service for quite some time. I informed him of this, and read him the notam #. He checked on it, then came back and said the entire facility has been using that arrival for months and never knew it was Notamed unusable.
 
Kritchlow said:
I had a controller once give me an arrival that has been notamed out of service for quite some time. I informed him of this, and read him the notam #. He checked on it, then came back and said the entire facility has been using that arrival for months and never knew it was Notamed unusable.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the NOTAM was in error.
 
roncachamp said:
Sounds like the NOTAM was in error.
Click to expand...
Regardless, whether or not in error, it was indeed published. That facility, and likely the Center feeding that facility, never read their Notams.
 
roncachamp said:
It's still part of the airway structure by being shut down but still being used to designate airways. FNT VORTAC is a good example.

FNT
Click to expand...
But with the VOR being shut down or decommissioned, aren't the airways designated or defined by that VOR unusable? For the FNT example, V353 is the 234 radial of FNT and if that VOR is down, isn't the V353 airway unusable?
 
Mistake Not... said:
Seems like it'd be a fun job. Not sure why no one wants to do it. It's probably fairly easy to figure out what's wrong, you get outside, you're probably not around the usual office politics, VORs can be in some cool places, etc.

I'd do it, rather than stay in the office.
Click to expand...

When I was TDY for the controller's strike back in '81 at Quonset airport, there was a guy who flew to a number of airports in the NE (incl Quonset) in his own 182 or 210, forget, to work on navaids. I think he had a contract with the FAA. Believe he was out of Long Island.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
But with the VOR being shut down or decommissioned, aren't the airways designated or defined by that VOR unusable? For the FNT example, V353 is the 234 radial of FNT and if that VOR is down, isn't the V353 airway unusable?
Click to expand...

It's usable by RNAV capable aircraft.
 
Kritchlow said:
Regardless, whether or not in error, it was indeed published. That facility, and likely the Center feeding that facility, never read their Notams.
Click to expand...

Agreed, illustrating that it pays to read NOTAMS. Also illustrating that many pilots don't properly identify NAVAIDs.
 
Personally, I'm ok with the VORs on the map, but would prefer the INOP frequency was cross-hatched. On my long XC to South Carolina, I had to change my planned routing due to a change at my destination airport. At one point, I'm looking on the chart to find a route to my unplanned diversion. There was a VOR on the map that would have helped, but I can't dial it in and use it. Obviously, in the heat of the moment, I found a solution, but a working VOR would have helped.

Once I'm airborne, if I need to divert for whatever reason (e.g., clouds, planned airport is closed), how does one check a NOTAM for a VOR?
 
Justin M said:
Personally, I'm ok with the VORs on the map, but would prefer the INOP frequency was cross-hatched. On my long XC to South Carolina, I had to change my planned routing due to a change at my destination airport. At one point, I'm looking on the chart to find a route to my unplanned diversion. There was a VOR on the map that would have helped, but I can't dial it in and use it. Obviously, in the heat of the moment, I found a solution, but a working VOR would have helped.

Once I'm airborne, if I need to divert for whatever reason (e.g., clouds, planned airport is closed), how does one check a NOTAM for a VOR?
Click to expand...
Call Flight Watch. It's old school...

Tim

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Well, maybe not the old VOR/DME RNAV (http://www.flightlearnings.com/2012/08/14/vordme-rnav-part-one/), but we both knew that and I assumed you meant GNSS for RNAV in your response.
So I'm understanding the VOR that isn't in operation exists to define a Victor airway or J-Route, otherwise it would be some other type of airway, such as a T-route or Q-route.
Click to expand...

Even the old VOR/DME RNAV. Some route segments can even be flown with just VOR; such as VIO.V510.LAN.V45.JXN.
 
roncachamp said:
You won't be cleared via a VOR that is not in service.
Click to expand...

Who needs a clearance for a VFR flight?

tspear said:
But do not forget, GPS is new.
Click to expand...

GPS isn’t even close to “new”. It’s been around now longer than multiple navaid types of the past.

Justin M said:
Personally, I'm ok with the VORs on the map, but would prefer the INOP frequency was cross-hatched. On my long XC to South Carolina, I had to change my planned routing due to a change at my destination airport. At one point, I'm looking on the chart to find a route to my unplanned diversion. There was a VOR on the map that would have helped, but I can't dial it in and use it. Obviously, in the heat of the moment, I found a solution, but a working VOR would have helped.

Once I'm airborne, if I need to divert for whatever reason (e.g., clouds, planned airport is closed), how does one check a NOTAM for a VOR?
Click to expand...

Accurate charts are important. Stephen says you should be only “inconvenienced” by those bad charts. Don’t forget that when the thunderstorms appear out of nowhere and you’re trying to navigate away from them with a fake charted VOR that could have been removed from your chart if someone wasn’t a lazy bureaucratic ass sitting in a chair on the ground instead of sitting in the airplane tuning a dead VOR from a bad chart.

tspear said:
Call Flight Watch. It's old school...
Click to expand...

Flight Watch was decommissioned in October of 2015. I don’t think you’ll get any reply from them if you call. You might get an answer from Flight Service, assuming their radio isn’t also NOTAMed out of service. Heck, around here most of the mountain RCOs for Denver Center are NOTAMed dead until the snow melts if they break after about the end of October. FAA might hitch a ride on a State snowcat — they certainly don’t have one.

A crumbling *system.* Because they’re not building or maintaining it as an intertwined *system* designed that way for a reason, anymore.

You only need those “critical” navaids and full ADS-B coverage above 10,000 MSL too, don’t forget... It’s all about safety. Or is it?
 
denverpilot said:
Who needs a clearance for a VFR flight?



GPS isn’t even close to “new”. It’s been around now longer than multiple navaid types of the past.



Accurate charts are important. Stephen says you should be only “inconvenienced” by those bad charts. Don’t forget that when the thunderstorms appear out of nowhere and you’re trying to navigate away from them with a fake charted VOR that could have been removed from your chart if someone wasn’t a lazy bureaucratic ass sitting in a chair on the ground instead of sitting in the airplane tuning a dead VOR from a bad chart.



Flight Watch was decommissioned in October of 2015. I don’t think you’ll get any reply from them if you call. You might get an answer from Flight Service, assuming their radio isn’t also NOTAMed out of service. Heck, around here most of the mountain RCOs for Denver Center are NOTAMed dead until the snow melts if they break after about the end of October. FAA might hitch a ride on a State snowcat — they certainly don’t have one.

A crumbling *system.* Because they’re not building or maintaining it as an intertwined *system* designed that way for a reason, anymore.

You only need those “critical” navaids and full ADS-B coverage above 10,000 MSL too, don’t forget... It’s all about safety. Or is it?
Click to expand...
Oops. Correct. Flight Service.
You always had this issue with the VOR. However for a period of two or three years (I think) there were more out of service than normal.

Oh, I meant GPS was new from an FAA perspective. Not from a technology....

Tim

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk
 
roncachamp said:
It's still part of the airway structure by being shut down but still being used to designate airways. FNT VORTAC is a good example.

FNT
Click to expand...
??? I'm looking at what seems to be a current Chart and FNT seems to be still on the air? Did a quick look for Notams and didn't find any. Am I missing something?
 
luvflyin said:
??? I'm looking at what seems to be a current Chart and FNT seems to be still on the air? Did a quick look for Notams and didn't find any. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

No, I made a boo-boo. I meant to write LAN where I wrote FNT.
 
Yes, last I checked FNT is not even on the discontinuance list. Apparently it will be part of the MON.

Just checked: it is not. (But neither is ECK, which was shut down a couple of years ago and is no longer on the VFR sectional, not sure why.)
 
tspear said:
Oh, I meant GPS was new from an FAA perspective. Not from a technology...
Click to expand...

Yeah, the dear hearts are only 30 years behind. Not bad for FAA I guess.

roncachamp said:
Can't operate VFR in IMC.
Click to expand...

Who said the Airway system is only used by IFR aircraft or that a VFR chart being wrong isn’t a problem for a VFR pilot?
 
denverpilot said:
Yeah, the dear hearts are only 30 years behind. Not bad for FAA I guess.
Who said the Airway system is only used by IFR aircraft or that a VFR chart being wrong isn’t a problem for a VFR pilot?
Click to expand...

And how quickly have the airplane owners and airlines adopted GPS...
So as much as we may want to make fun of the FAA, it is a complete culture of the vast majority of aviation.

Tim
 
tspear said:
And how quickly have the airplane owners and airlines adopted GPS...
So as much as we may want to make fun of the FAA, it is a complete culture of the vast majority of aviation.
Click to expand...

I adopted GPS long ago at normal consumer prices. First GPS I owned was even a “little late” and was a Garmin GPS III. Not the “Plus” nor the Aviation version. It was affordable around 1999.

Aviation GPS uptake has been stunted by the absolutely outrageous price tags on the things.

All sorts of people would have upgraded to GPS (and DID via iPads and other “non-certified” devices using the exact same damned receiver chipsets the certified devices use) in Aviation if the price points had fallen commensurate with the price points falling in all other GPS uses.

FAA literally had to start totally screwing up the VOR-based “System” overall so much that those of us holding out for nearly two decades finally gave up and decided to upgrade to a $10,000 IFR GPS in the panel because of LABOR costs associated with it and it becoming time to follow the stupid ASS-B (oops I meant ADS-B, sorry) mandate.

Once you’re “in for a penny” at $5000 for that unsafe stupidity of a bad engineering design, you might as well toss another $10,000 on the “avionics bonfire of stupid”.

At least you can brag to your non-Aviation friends that you finally bought a touch screen GPS for your airplane while they’re wondering why you wouldn’t buy such a cheap and readily available thing they’ve been using in every aspect of their world for a decade or more by now.

FAA is DEFINITELY the *CAUSE* of the lack of uptake, not some goofy sort of victim of slow pilots not buying things. Nobody buys a $10,000 GPS except us idiots who own airplanes. Any other hobbyist or Motorsport owner would laugh your ass out of the room if you tried to sell them a $10,000 GPS.
 
Ravioli said:
You can continue to rely on VORs if you begin checking for NOTAMs BEFORE the flight instead of after. <- a little snark there
Click to expand...
It's snarky, but it's true. The PIC has to know all relevant information for the flight including decommissioned VORs. But yes, I believe the FAA should remove VOR symbols from all charts if they are closed down.
 
Kritchlow said:
But... is it not clearly denoted on the chart as decommissioned??
Click to expand...
I've seen VORs that ARE labeled on the chart as decommissioned (crosshatch) and yet, they are still on the chart, on a freaking Victor airway. (TAY, Taylor VOR in FL)
This seems absolutely counter-intuitive and illogical. But then again, it's the FAA, a government agency. *shrug*
 
BigBadLou said:
I've seen VORs that ARE labeled on the chart as decommissioned (crosshatch) and yet, they are still on the chart, on a freaking Victor airway. (TAY, Taylor VOR in FL)
This seems absolutely counter-intuitive and illogical. But then again, it's the FAA, a government agency. *shrug*
Click to expand...
I hear you, but as @roncachamp indicated, the airway is still usable by GPS and other RNAV devices. I wonder why they don't make it a J-route, unless there are still enough old VOR/DME RNAV that they need to keep it as a Victor airway.
 
roncachamp said:
T-route?
Click to expand...
Well, yes, I guess it is a T-route. I'm not sure where I got J-Route from but I can't find it.
Can you shed any light on why they don't make it a T-route? I read that T-routes are depicted on enroute low-altitude charts, which may suggest they aren't on sectionals (I haven't noted them in my area, not to say they aren't appearing on sectionals elsewhere).
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Well, yes, I guess it is a T-route. I'm not sure where I got J-Route from but I can't find it.
Can you shed any light on why they don't make it a T-route? I read that T-routes are depicted on enroute low-altitude charts, which may suggest they aren't on sectionals (I haven't noted them in my area, not to say they aren't appearing on sectionals elsewhere).
Click to expand...

T-routes do appear on sectionals. Why don't they convert Victor airways to T-routes when VORs are shutdown/decommissioned? I don't know, perhaps because there's no immediate need to. They're just labels, it'll probably happen eventually.
 
roncachamp said:
T-routes do appear on sectionals. Why don't they convert Victor airways to T-routes when VORs are shutdown/decommissioned? I don't know, perhaps because there's no immediate need to. They're just labels, it'll probably happen eventually.
Click to expand...

FAA is rationalizing the route system. Here is the overview from a few years ago:
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/fli...14-02_PBN_Route_Structure_CONOPs_Abhalter.pdf

Basically, they are not just going to replace what is there and rename it. Instead they are going to try and apply lessons learned, and optimize the network.

Tim
 
roncachamp said:
T-routes do appear on sectionals. Why don't they convert Victor airways to T-routes when VORs are shutdown/decommissioned? I don't know, perhaps because there's no immediate need to. They're just labels, it'll probably happen eventually.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the answer, especially about the T-route.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
I hear you, but as @roncachamp indicated, the airway is still usable by GPS and other RNAV devices.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But it still poses a problem for those without IFR approved GPS. (yes, there are still airplanes out there without a GPS *gasp* And without ADS-B Out. *shriek* But shhh, don't tell the FAA, they have no clue)

So while I am lucky that I have a GPS, the next guy might not and won't be able to fly that route. Just as Steven pointed out the Lansing VOR. It connects 12 Victor airways. 12. Well, not anymore. Yikes.

I agree that maybe the FAA should just change these to GPS routes and turn the dead VORs into WPs. That would clear up any confusion. Afterall, a Victor airway got its name from its definition ... by VORs (not GPS WPs).
 
BigBadLou said:
Agreed. But it still poses a problem for those without IFR approved GPS. (yes, there are still airplanes out there without a GPS *gasp* And without ADS-B Out. *shriek* But shhh, don't tell the FAA, they have no clue)
Click to expand...

What is that problem?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top