VOR Approaches gone ?

RussR said:
While I do sympathize, I wonder how the actual figures work out for aircraft regularly flown IFR.

I taught someone for their instrument rating about 4 years ago in a non-GPS equipped aircraft. Since then, in the dozens of owners' airplanes I've flown and taught in, only one did not have a WAAS GPS - and that one was an early G1000-equipped aircraft, so not exactly an "old school" aircraft - and that one non-GPS aircraft now does have a 430W. All of these were normal, light GA airplanes, single and twin-engine pistons. Many were 60's and 70's vintage.

Perhaps my experience is not typical, but at least among my client list, the number of non-WAAS aircraft is vanishingly tiny.
Click to expand...

I have been using a /U Warrior II to give instrument training for about six months now. Within 100 miles of homebase there are a grand total of four VOR approaches (all at the same airport) we can do and nothing else. Everything else requires either DME, ADF, or a GPS.
 
RussR said:
While I do sympathize, I wonder how the actual figures work out for aircraft regularly flown IFR.

I taught someone for their instrument rating about 4 years ago in a non-GPS equipped aircraft. Since then, in the dozens of owners' airplanes I've flown and taught in, only one did not have a WAAS GPS - and that one was an early G1000-equipped aircraft, so not exactly an "old school" aircraft - and that one non-GPS aircraft now does have a 430W. All of these were normal, light GA airplanes, single and twin-engine pistons. Many were 60's and 70's vintage.

Perhaps my experience is not typical, but at least among my client list, the number of non-WAAS aircraft is vanishingly tiny.
Click to expand...

Sort of a similar "report" from a practical test perspective. Out of a couple hundred practical tests, a grand total of 2 have been conducted in airplanes without an IFR GPS, and those were for private pilot or commercial only, not instrument. One flight school in my area uses an airplane with a KLN-94, so no WAAS there, and I administer instrument checkrides in that airplane from time to time. Maybe 10 rides total in that airplane? Every other airplane featured a WAAS-capable GPS.

The march of GPS continues onward and the commensurate reduction of VOR approaches reflects that. It's still possible to fly IFR without an IFR GPS, but it's increasingly challenging to do so and still maintain a reasonable amount of utility for traveling around the country.
 
Palmpilot said:
There are still a fair number of rental aircraft without WAAS, and a some with no IFR GPS at all.
Click to expand...

I'm seeing that only very rarely these days.
 
Ryan F. said:
I'm seeing that only very rarely these days.
Click to expand...

Palmpilot said:
I would assume that students avoid scheduling the non-WAAS planes for checkrides.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think you're both right. A WAAS plane allows you to substitute an LPV for an ILS, if the local ILS is non-existent or OOS. Similarly, it is easier to manage even for VFR operations.
 
Y'all are reversing the causality, I think. You don't see many non-WAAS aircraft used for instrument flying because it's so impractical.
 
My club at Palo Alto (in one of the most expensive parts of the San Francisco Bay area) has 32 Cessnas (among other types). Eleven of them have a non-WAAS IFR GPS (ten KLN94s and one KLN89B). Three of the Cessnas are not IFR-equipped at all. (The rest of them are G1000-equipped).

The databases in seven of the KLN94s are being kept up-to-date. I suspect that this is because the GPS approach at Palo Alto does not require WAAS, and there is also a VOR approach here (although there can be delays in getting it because it conflicts with SJC traffic). Also, there are still a good number of VORs operational here. (I haven't checked lately, but I think there are still quite a few VOR approaches in this state.)
 
Palmpilot said:
My club at Palo Alto (in one of the most expensive parts of the San Francisco Bay area) has 32 Cessnas (among other types). Eleven of them have a non-WAAS IFR GPS (ten KLN94s and one KLN89B). Three of the Cessnas are not IFR-equipped at all. (The rest of them are G1000-equipped).

The databases in seven of the KLN94s are being kept up-to-date. I suspect that this is because the GPS approach at Palo Alto does not require WAAS, and there is also a VOR approach here (although there can be delays in getting it because it conflicts with SJC traffic). Also, there are still a good number of VORs operational here. (I haven't checked lately, but I think there are still quite a few VOR approaches in this state.)
Click to expand...

That sounds about right - 3 out of 32 with non-IFR GPS equipped aircraft makes for a fairly rare scenario in which non-IFR GPS aircraft are used for practical tests.

As indicated, I've seen it, and I'm sure others have too. But we're mostly past that these days, just about everywhere.
 
Palmpilot said:
My club at Palo Alto (in one of the most expensive parts of the San Francisco Bay area) has 32 Cessnas (among other types). Eleven of them have a non-WAAS IFR GPS (ten KLN94s and one KLN89B). Three of the Cessnas are not IFR-equipped at all. (The rest of them are G1000-equipped).

The databases in seven of the KLN94s are being kept up-to-date. I suspect that this is because the GPS approach at Palo Alto does not require WAAS, and there is also a VOR approach here (although there can be delays in getting it because it conflicts with SJC traffic). Also, there are still a good number of VORs operational here. (I haven't checked lately, but I think there are still quite a few VOR approaches in this state.)
Click to expand...

The VOR RWY 31 approach was cancelled 5 days ago.
 
Ryan F. said:
That sounds about right - 3 out of 32 with non-IFR GPS equipped aircraft makes for a fairly rare scenario in which non-IFR GPS aircraft are used for practical tests.

As indicated, I've seen it, and I'm sure others have too. But we're mostly past that these days, just about everywhere.
Click to expand...
It wasn't clear that you were only replying to the non-IFR GPS part of my post (if that's what you were doing).
 
luvflyin said:
The VOR RWY 31 approach was cancelled 5 days ago.
Click to expand...
I'm not surprised, given how little it was being used. I guess pilots who don't have an IFR GPS will have to go back to what we used to do before Palo Alto got approaches, i.e., fly an approach to Hayward and then fly across the bay under the ceiling (when it's high enough).
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm not surprised, given how little it was being used. I guess pilots who don't have an IFR GPS will have to go back to what we used to do before Palo Alto got approaches, i.e., fly an approach to Hayward and then fly across the bay under the ceiling (when it's high enough).
Click to expand...

What about Moffett? Seems like that would be a natural for that.
 
clarkmueller said:
Or fly the ILS into SJC or Moffett.
Click to expand...

luvflyin said:
What about Moffett? Seems like that would be a natural for that.
Click to expand...

SJC can work if the ceiling is high enough to fly VFR while maintaining the AGL requirements over the congested area between SJC and PAO. Moffett could work if the plane has DME. That approach used to require either a TACAN receiver or an IFR GPS for the missed approach, but I see that is no longer the case.
 
luvflyin said:
The VOR RWY 31 approach was cancelled 5 days ago.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and that’s a real shame. The VOR approach was perfect for getting to Palo Alto from San Jose. I used to fuel up at KPAO due to the really high fuel costs of KSJC (before the fuel island at KPAO went OOS), and the VOR approach to KPAO was a no brainer. Take off from 31L, cross the SJC VOR, and then turn to the radial, straight to Palo Alto. I will miss that approach. Great for getting some cheaper gas without having to go very far when there was a marine layer.
 
I miss our VOR approach o_O, which was perpendicular to the runway, with the VOR 12 nm away in hilly terrain. It was like a box of chocolates when you broke out: you never knew which way the airport was going to be out the windshield. And if you didn't spot the airport right away, the two N-S ridges surrounding it would prevent you from ever recovering. I did more than a miss or two when weather was near minimums. The LPV approaches are SO MUCH better!
 
Again - know your options. The IFP Gateway tells you anything going on. They do listen to comments.

jimhorner said:
Yeah, and that’s a real shame. The VOR approach was perfect for getting to Palo Alto from San Jose. I used to fuel up at KPAO due to the really high fuel costs of KSJC (before the fuel island at KPAO went OOS), and the VOR approach to KPAO was a no brainer. Take off from 31L, cross the SJC VOR, and then turn to the radial, straight to Palo Alto. I will miss that approach. Great for getting some cheaper gas without having to go very far when there was a marine layer.
Click to expand...

SJC isn't that bad for fuel pricing. Reasonable enough that I go there instead of RHV, because of the much better IFR service.

Rgbeard said:
Did two VOR approaches this morning. ATC threw in an extra hold.

keeping current!
Click to expand...

Were they throwing out meat rockets at SDM today?
 
N1120A said:
SJC isn't that bad for fuel pricing. Reasonable enough that I go there instead of RHV, because of the much better IFR service.
Click to expand...

Today’s prices for a gallon of 100LL according to Garmin Pilot:

San Jose KSJC: $5.89
Reid Hillview KRHV: $4.19

There’s no way I’m likely to ever purchase fuel at San Jose. If I’m in a rush, a 5-10 minute flight to Reid Hillview to save $1.70 per gallon is definitely what I’m going to do. With a fuel purchase of 50-60 gallons, that’s around a $100 price difference.

Of course, for a 20 minute flight, I can get to Byron and save even more. It’s at $3.55 per gallon today. Tracy is also usually pretty reasonable.

Palo Alto used to be cheaper relative to RHV, but it seems to be more expensive now.


Curious as to where you are based that you fly to KSJC for fuel? I’ve been based at San Jose for 8 years now, and I’ve never bought fuel there.
 
Did two VOR approaches this morning.

keeping curre
N1120A said:
Were they throwing out meat rockets at SDM today?
Click to expand...

Not when I was there. I got up in the air early to guarantee some easy IMC.

I did the VOR approach at CRQ, with an extra couple of turns in the hold, then back to SDM VOR-A.
 
Rgbeard said:
Did two VOR approaches this morning.

keeping curre


Not when I was there. I got up in the air early to guarantee some easy IMC.

I did the VOR approach at CRQ, with an extra couple of turns in the hold, then back to SDM VOR-A.
Click to expand...

Why bother with the VOR into CRQ? Does anyone ever get that as anything but practice?
 
N1120A said:
Why bother with the VOR into CRQ? Does anyone ever get that as anything but practice?
Click to expand...

Because it has that nice procedure turn, and you ask for an extra turn or two in the hold.

Coming from the direction I'm headed, it's a parallel entry for me, and I really love nailing it without GPS-assist, and looking at my track in post-flight analysis and seeing how well I executed it.

So, yeah. Practice.
 
jimhorner said:
Today’s prices for a gallon of 100LL according to Garmin Pilot:

San Jose KSJC: $5.89
Reid Hillview KRHV: $4.19

There’s no way I’m likely to ever purchase fuel at San Jose. If I’m in a rush, a 5-10 minute flight to Reid Hillview to save $1.70 per gallon is definitely what I’m going to do. With a fuel purchase of 50-60 gallons, that’s around a $100 price difference.

Of course, for a 20 minute flight, I can get to Byron and save even more. It’s at $3.55 per gallon today. Tracy is also usually pretty reasonable.

Palo Alto used to be cheaper relative to RHV, but it seems to be more expensive now.


Curious as to where you are based that you fly to KSJC for fuel? I’ve been based at San Jose for 8 years now, and I’ve never bought fuel there.
Click to expand...

I'm not based locally. I'm speaking more from a destination perspective. If I was based at SJC, and they didn't cut locals a deal, I'd do some form of what you do. I'd certainly tanker as much gas as possible in and only buy gas there when I HAD to.

PAO is currently $4.60.
 
dmspilot said:
FAA: "Let's use a large business jet to flight check approaches."
Also FAA: "Maintaining approaches is too expensive!"
Click to expand...
The jets are only used for Hawaii, places like Guam, and sometimes Alaska.

In the lower 48 they use King Air turboprops. Anything less wouldn't hold the test equipment and the avionics engineer. It is a lot less expensive to flight check an LPV, LP, LNAV than an ILS or VOR approach. Plus, the periodic flight inspection of a VOR or TACAN for en route recertification is very time consuming.
 
aterpster said:
The jets are only used for Hawaii, places like Guam, and sometimes Alaska.
Click to expand...

Not sure where you got that infomation.... NC90 (AKA FLC90) is a Canadair Challenger Twin-Jet. I was in the hangar with it yesterday. It most certainly has jet engines. Today I was listening to Live ATC at KBIS while FLC90 was flight testing the VOR-A approach into Y19. They kept screwing it up and had to do it three times.

Also, take a look at its recent flight activity in Flight Aware. If they are not doing flight checks, they sure are buning a lot of Jet A doing nothing...
 
smv said:
Also, take a look at its recent flight activity in Flight Aware. If they are not doing flight checks, they sure are buning a lot of Jet A doing nothing...
Click to expand...
The word from my FIP friend: Until COVID-19 the jets were not used in the lower 48. Because of the pandemic normal routines are on pause.
 
aterpster said:
The word from my FIP friend: Until COVID-19 the jets were not used in the lower 48. Because of the pandemic normal routines are on pause.
Click to expand...

Ahh... Yes, that would make some sense. They have been flying the hell out of N90 the last few weeks. I do recall listening in on a King Air around LAS (I think it was) not long ago. Was a little disappointed with the pilot's lackadaisical radio technique and termonology. I expected better from an FAA pilot. Today's N90 pilot was a LOT better.
 
aterpster said:
The jets are only used for Hawaii, places like Guam, and sometimes Alaska.

In the lower 48 they use King Air turboprops. Anything less wouldn't hold the test equipment and the avionics engineer. It is a lot less expensive to flight check an LPV, LP, LNAV than an ILS or VOR approach. Plus, the periodic flight inspection of a VOR or TACAN for en route recertification is very time consuming.
Click to expand...

aterpster said:
The word from my FIP friend: Until COVID-19 the jets were not used in the lower 48. Because of the pandemic normal routines are on pause.
Click to expand...

I definitely saw one of the Lears checking KSMO well before the pandemic.
 
N1120A said:
I definitely saw one of the Lears checking KSMO well before the pandemic.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what my FIP friend stated:


The Challengers are primarily for international work of course including the rest of the Pacific outside of Hawaii and Guam.

They are also used by the Det 1 squadron for the Combat Flight Inspection mission and on their way over there to “the desert” they operate all over Europe too. But you will see them (and the L60s for some time to continue) flying around doing Domestic Flight Inspection too.
Click to expand...
 
Looks like my airfield’s VOR-A is on its way out. That just leaves us 1 GPS approach. But the Class C a few miles away has ILS, GPS and VOR. Even has an NDB approach still.
 
I "flew" a VOR approach on a G1000/GFC700-based AATD (sim) today, and I noticed that it has some pitfalls compared to flying an ILS with the same equipment. For example, it doesn't automatically switch to navigating by the ground-based navaid on final the way it does on an ILS. I plan on doing it again in the near future, to smooth out the kinks in my procedure.
 
Palmpilot said:
I "flew" a VOR approach on a G1000/GFC700-based AATD (sim) today, and I noticed that it has some pitfalls compared to flying an ILS with the same equipment. For example, it doesn't automatically switch to navigating by the ground-based navaid on final the way it does on an ILS. I plan on doing it again in the near future, to smooth out the kinks in my procedure.
Click to expand...

Not a pitfall so much as a feature. G1000 - use a bearing pointer to monitor the ground-based navaid for the VOR approach. This keeps you legal per AIM 1-2-3. Leave it in GPS nav for the VOR approach and allow the G1000 to operate as usual. These days, with suitable equipment on-board your best option is to use GPS to fly approaches such as VOR or NDB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top