Many instrument approaches going away

I see a lot of VOR's on that list, which concerns me. I'm not equipped to do any sort of GPS approach. VOR's and ILS/LOC are what I can do.
 
I have one NDB approach logged in actual conditions with an episode of carb. ice on the missed approach. Im good to go.

Ill keep the rest of them to the simulators.
 
Pretty soon all there will be is GPS approaches. They are cheap, very versatile, save the airlines money, can put approaches into airports that can't have an ILS due to obstructions, and can be very, very precise.
 
I think it is because there are other ground based approaches to those runways with lower minimums. For instance RPD lost their VOR approach to runway 1 but there is already an ILS approach to runway 1. Same with CWA and their VOR approach to 35.
 
Seanaldinho said:
Pretty soon all there will be is GPS approaches. They are cheap, very versatile, save the airlines money, can put approaches into airports that can't have an ILS due to obstructions, and can be very, very precise.
Click to expand...
It's not cheap to purchase or install a modern IFR GPS. Airlines aren't the only ones who fly, there's us little guys, too.
 
LevelWing said:
It's not cheap to purchase or install a modern IFR GPS. Airlines aren't the only ones who fly, there's us little guys, too.
Click to expand...

I think he meant cheap as in the airport doesn't have to install any ground based navigation equipment like they do for an ILS.
 
Gucci Pilot said:
I think he meant cheap as in the airport doesn't have to install any ground based navigation equipment like they do for an ILS.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but my point remains that GA, as a whole, doesn't have the money to go out and update every aircraft to certified GPS devices. I agree that GPS approaches are more precise, and likely safer, but until the technology becomes reasonable for everyone to upgrade for, it's not going to happen. NDB's I can understand shutting down, but I'm not sure that shutting down VOR's is a great idea.
 
Seanaldinho said:
Pretty soon all there will be is GPS approaches. They are cheap, very versatile, save the airlines money, can put approaches into airports that can't have an ILS due to obstructions, and can be very, very precise.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of airliners incapable of using the more precise variants, like mine! Ironically, we DO have ADF. :yikes:
 
This cancellation program has nothing to do with shutting down VORs. It has everything to do with reducing duplication of ground-based approaches at airports while still retaining capability. Was extensively discussed on the red board about 6 months ago (and continuing on) at http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?t=95036

My searches didn't show much dicussion on this board.

The NPRM was released for comment back in April. Many VOR procedures were saved from cancellation due to public comment.
 
Last edited:
LDJones said:
There are a lot of airliners incapable of using the more precise variants, like mine! Ironically, we DO have ADF. :yikes:
Click to expand...

Many would be surprised how many very capable airplanes still have and use ADFs every day, and are even purposely installing them!
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Many would be surprised how many very capable airplanes still have and use ADFs every day, and are even purposely installing them!
Click to expand...

How else are you going to listen to the ballgame? :D
 
LevelWing said:
Perhaps, but my point remains that GA, as a whole, doesn't have the money to go out and update every aircraft to certified GPS devices. I agree that GPS approaches are more precise, and likely safer, but until the technology becomes reasonable for everyone to upgrade for, it's not going to happen. NDB's I can understand shutting down, but I'm not sure that shutting down VOR's is a great idea.
Click to expand...

True GPS equipment isn't the cheapest, but they aren't shutting down the VORs. As Russ and I said, they are getting rid of multiple ground based approaches to the same runway.

Ted DuPuis said:
Many would be surprised how many very capable airplanes still have and use ADFs every day, and are even purposely installing them!
Click to expand...

We have ADF installed but the only time I have ever done the approach in the 10 is for my 6 month currency. Our GPS can only do LNAV approaches as well.
 
If you don't want to buy GPS then fly VFR. It won't happen overnight, it'll phase that way and eventually you'll make the decision all by yourself.
 
LevelWing said:
It's not cheap to purchase or install a modern IFR GPS. Airlines aren't the only ones who fly, there's us little guys, too.
Click to expand...

I agree, I don't fly for an airline either. However, what percentage of IFR flights are airlines versus GA? And I was referring to the cost for the airport to maintain a ground based approach.

LevelWing said:
Perhaps, but my point remains that GA, as a whole, doesn't have the money to go out and update every aircraft to certified GPS devices. I agree that GPS approaches are more precise, and likely safer, but until the technology becomes reasonable for everyone to upgrade for, it's not going to happen. NDB's I can understand shutting down, but I'm not sure that shutting down VOR's is a great idea.
Click to expand...

It won't happen overnight but in the next 20-30 years I wouldn't be surprised if VORs were gone.

LDJones said:
There are a lot of airliners incapable of using the more precise variants, like mine! Ironically, we DO have ADF. :yikes:
Click to expand...

I knew most of them had ADF still, however I figured most of them were able to shoot the precise variants. Interesting. I'm sure most will be upgraded in the next 10-15 years.
 
I saw the FL KSRQ (Sarasota) VOR 32 on the list..thank goodness. That one never made sense to me.
 
Sure, ditch the NDBs, but loosing the VORs sucks, it's the cheapest way to find a IFR trainer, also not being 100% GPS makes me feel a little better.
 
KHOT is a good example of approach duplication

Runway 5 has three approaches that are exactly the same:

VOR Y RWY 5
VOR Z RWY 5
ILS/LOC RWY 5

Only difference between Y & Z is Z has lower minimum via an intermediate fix. That fix is also the OM for the ILS/LOC which has the same minimum for the LOC as the VOR Z.

So you have a duplicated runway that could be reduced to just an ILS/LOC approach.
 
Captain said:
If you don't want to buy GPS then fly VFR. It won't happen overnight, it'll phase that way and eventually you'll make the decision all by yourself.
Click to expand...
It's not a matter of wanting GPS, it's a matter of being able to afford it. Not everyone can. That doesn't mean we should restrict them to VFR or tell them to not fly. Instead we should find a way to make newer technology more affordable.
 
It's not a matter of wanting GPS, it's a matter of being able to afford it. Not everyone can. That doesn't mean we should restrict them to VFR or tell them to not fly. Instead we should find a way to make newer technology more affordable.
Click to expand...

I hear you, LevelWing. And, the cost of the GPS equipment doesn't end with the installation. You have to have updates, which are not cheap either.

We still have a ADF in our airplane. I plan to keep it.
 
The NPRM was released for comment back in April. Many VOR procedures were saved from cancellation due to public comment.
Click to expand...

Our local VOR approach was on the original list. There was enough public outcry that it was removed from the final rule. Yay!
 
ARFlyer said:
KHOT is a good example of approach duplication

Runway 5 has three approaches that are exactly the same:

VOR Y RWY 5
VOR Z RWY 5
ILS/LOC RWY 5
Click to expand...

Caramon13 said:
I saw the FL KSRQ (Sarasota) VOR 32 on the list..thank goodness. That one never made sense to me.
Click to expand...

Those are both great examples of the duplication (and therefore cost) that the VOR cancellation program is designed to reduce.

How many ways do you need to be able to get to the runway?

Each of those examples above have numerous approaches to the same runway:

KHOT: LNAV, ILS, LOC, VOR, and another VOR all to runway 5.
KSRQ: ILS, LOC, LPV, LNAV/VNAV, LNAV, VOR all to runway 32.

Since every aircraft I've been in with a VOR receiver is also capable of receiving at LEAST the Localizer part of the ILS, eliminating a VOR approach from each of these should be no particular hardship to actual IFR operations. Radio stacks that only receive VOR and not also Localizers are pretty rare.

The "training" argument is a separate matter, but there is no reason you can't just keep copies of the old approach charts and fly them VFR anyway. Heck, I and presumably many other CFIIs do something similar to that all the time. For example, using a VOR approach from somewhere completely different. Or even making our own to train on certain skills.
 
Russ is correct. Keep in mind, every approach costs our tax dollars to maintain. Flight check sends their planes (King Airs and Lears - this equipment they need is big and heavy) to fly all these approaches, and make sure we have the clearance we need to be safe. I forget how often they do it, but they have to fly each approach every so often. Eliminate a bunch of approaches that don't offer a benefit and you reduce the amount of money the government has to spend.

At the same time, the FAA has been adding GPS approaches to many airports that DO improve capability and benefit. Yes, GPS costs money to add, nobody argues with that. However the benefits are only getting greater and greater.
 
at first glace I can say that two VOR approaches being eliminated at two different airports in South Dakota are served by an ILS.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Russ is correct. Keep in mind, every approach costs our tax dollars to maintain. Flight check sends their planes (King Airs and Lears - this equipment they need is big and heavy) to fly all these approaches, and make sure we have the clearance we need to be safe. I forget how often they do it, but they have to fly each approach every so often. Eliminate a bunch of approaches that don't offer a benefit and you reduce the amount of money the government has to spend.

At the same time, the FAA has been adding GPS approaches to many airports that DO improve capability and benefit. Yes, GPS costs money to add, nobody argues with that. However the benefits are only getting greater and greater.
Click to expand...

Please tell that to my USAF Major brother still flying around with 2 Mrk12Ds. Hes got to be the biggest hurdle against installing a waas gps in my Dads plane. :mad:

Like an old man with nothing to do bellyache that the future has been coming for a decade now.
 
Gucci Pilot said:
I think it is because there are other ground based approaches to those runways with lower minimums. For instance RPD lost their VOR approach to runway 1 but there is already an ILS approach to runway 1. Same with CWA and their VOR approach to 35.
Click to expand...

All the spot checks I did had other terrestrial approaches, mostly ILS.

For instance, CCR is losing its VOR approach, but has a nearly coincident LDA. WVI is losing its VOR approach, but has a localizer. That approach will be missed -- it has real nice DME arcs. In that case, the VOR is used for approaches at a neighboring airport not on the list, so it can't be going away. It's also used for all the DPs.
 
We need the ILS and VOR approaches to back up the GPS, in case the GPS goes down (and vice versa). And yes, the databases are ongoing expense, so its also for those who dont have an IFR/GPS.
 
bnt83 said:
Please tell that to my USAF Major brother still flying around with 2 Mrk12Ds. Hes got to be the biggest hurdle against installing a waas gps in my Dads plane. :mad:

Like an old man with nothing to do bellyache that the future has been coming for a decade now.
Click to expand...

It's been coming for more than a decade if you consider when the GNS480 (which I believe was the CX80 before that) originally was created.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
It's been coming for more than a decade if you consider when the GNS480 (which I believe was the CX80 before that) originally was created.
Click to expand...

I looked it up the other day and the 430 install manual was initially released in either 1993 or 1998 I forget which
 
MAKG1 said:
All the spot checks I did had other terrestrial approaches, mostly ILS.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the intent and was spelled out in the FAA's policy on how they were determining which approaches to recommend canceling.

https://www.federalregister.gov/art...nce-of-certain-instrument-approach-procedures

Notice it specifically excludes VOR approaches without a backup.

Airports considered for NDB or VOR IAP cancellation:
—All airports with an NDB IAP.
—All airports with a VOR/DME RNAV IAP, unless it is the only IAP at the airport.
—All airports with two or more ground-based IAPs and an RNAV IAP.
—All airports with multiple, redundant ground-based IAPs (e.g., three VOR procedures).

Additional factors for consideration in determining the list of potential candidates for NDB or VOR IAP cancellation:
—Prevailing wind runways.
—Prevailing runway alignment during adverse weather operations.
—Runways with a published ILS IAP and a ground-based IAP.
—For runways with multiple VOR and NDB IAPs consider IAPs with the lowest minimums (if minimums are within 20 feet of each other), and IAPs that allow for optimum use by all users.
—Airports located within an area routinely affected by GPS signal interference testing
—Extensive use by the military for training and/or proficiency.

Airports not considered for NDB or VOR IAP cancellations:
—Airports with only RNAV/RNP IAPs published.
—Airports with only one ground-based procedure.
—Airports will not be considered if cancellation would result in removing all IAPs from the airport.
Click to expand...
 
Ted DuPuis said:
It's been coming for more than a decade if you consider when the GNS480 (which I believe was the CX80 before that) originally was created.
Click to expand...

And the cost of installation remains into five figures.
 
paflyer said:
And the cost of installation remains into five figures.
Click to expand...

That's the installed cost, not installation cost. Installation cost I've found in the low 4s typically. Then you add unit cost to it. When I first installed a KLN94/KX155A in the Aztec, that was an installed cost in the high 4s. It's still doable. If you work with your A&P and put in sweat equity, you can do it significantly cheaper as Jeff always points out (in his case, he is the A&P).
 
Ted DuPuis said:
That's the installed cost, not installation cost. Installation cost I've found in the low 4s typically. Then you add unit cost to it. When I first installed a KLN94/KX155A in the Aztec, that was an installed cost in the high 4s. It's still doable. If you work with your A&P and put in sweat equity, you can do it significantly cheaper as Jeff always points out (in his case, he is the A&P).
Click to expand...
I don't have a huge problem with the cost of installation since you're paying for labor. My biggest complaint is how far we've come with technology and how much it still costs for a certified unit. I realize there's a lot of R&D and costs associated with getting it certified, but there has to be a way to make it cheaper.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
That's the installed cost, not installation cost. Installation cost I've found in the low 4s typically. Then you add unit cost to it. When I first installed a KLN94/KX155A in the Aztec, that was an installed cost in the high 4s. It's still doable. If you work with your A&P and put in sweat equity, you can do it significantly cheaper as Jeff always points out (in his case, he is the A&P).
Click to expand...

"Installation" in this case meaning the total cost of the devices and labor to make them operational.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
That's the installed cost, not installation cost. Installation cost I've found in the low 4s typically. Then you add unit cost to it. When I first installed a KLN94/KX155A in the Aztec, that was an installed cost in the high 4s. It's still doable. If you work with your A&P and put in sweat equity, you can do it significantly cheaper as Jeff always points out (in his case, he is the A&P).
Click to expand...

Garmin must be "installed" by an authorized dealer, not Joe the mechanic and his customer.
 
LevelWing said:
I don't have a huge problem with the cost of installation since you're paying for labor. My biggest complaint is how far we've come with technology and how much it still costs for a certified unit. I realize there's a lot of R&D and costs associated with getting it certified, but there has to be a way to make it cheaper.
Click to expand...

Why are EAB units so much cheaper? Why is "certification" so onerous and expensive?
 
Another thing I wonder about is when will the Garmin 480/430/530's have to be replaced. All the other electronics seem to go down that road fairly quickly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top