VOR / ILS endorsement?

[RussR]

I would say that it's about equal, because FAA requirements and insurance requirements each fall into the category of "necessary but not sufficient."

I think that it really depends on which end of the scale of aircraft type you're talking about.

For small aircraft and large aircraft, the insurance and FAA requirements are the most similar. For example, buy a 172 and the insurer may not require anything different than the FAA. Similarly, buy a Citation and the FAA requirements will be largely in line with the insurer (initial training, endorsements, and annual recurrent training), with the likely addition of "mentor pilot" time.

But it's in the vast middle that insurance requirements are usually far more stringent than the FAA requirements. Heck, I was denied as a multi-thousand hour CFI one time for a G36 Bonanza because although I had plenty of A36 time and plenty of G1000 time, I didn't have any "G36" time. Denied unless I got 25 hours in the type. Or, as discussed upthread, I could go buy a TBM as a new Private Pilot with zero additional training other than a few endorsements (and those could be in any other airplane) and fly it perfectly legally. But to get insured? That would likely require initial and recurrent training, many hours with a mentor pilot, etc, if I could even get insurance at all.

In my opinion, the insurance industry runs the show for the middle range of aircraft - I'd say the "anything retractable up to 12,500 pound turboprop" range. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, as the FAA requirements are pretty light in this area.

Consider that it's perfectly legal for you to get your Private and Instrument in a 172, fly a 182RG a couple hours for your high performance and complex endorsement, do a quick high altitude endorsement in a 210, take an online course for RVSM, and then fly a brand new TBM off the lot at 300 knots and FL300 with no additional training and only 100 hours total time.

 

[bcg-63M20C]

I feel the only one of those three that's in danger is the VOR. I think you're safe with the other two, but nowadays, being unable to fly an RNAV is greatly limiting, especially for most of the smaller community GA airports.

Adding a WAAS GPS to my plane significantly increased the available approaches. I had a non-WAAS before but, getting LPV made a big difference in capabilities and options.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

 

[flyingcheesehead]

As to the OP: Highly unlikely. There was never an endorsement required for four-course ranges, NDBs, or any other old stuff either.

Now, a more interesting question might be whether they'll require a steam gauge endorsement someday! Being able to build the moving map in your head is a skill you kind of don't develop unless you have to. But, that could probably be said about NDB approaches too!

What's your point? No endorsement is required for any of the other approaches either.

The point was to answer the question posed in the OP. I guess that's not something we normally do on this board.

As one of the unfortunate souls who doesn't have an IFR GPS in their plane, I sincerely hope ILS/VOR/LOC/etc don't decline in popularity any more than they already have

I feel the only one of those three that's in danger is the VOR. I think you're safe with the other two, but nowadays, being unable to fly an RNAV is greatly limiting, especially for most of the smaller community GA airports.

I've heard it costs roughly a million dollars a year to keep an ILS running. They'll probably be up at the big international airports for quite a while yet, but does Waukesha, WI or Ames, IA really need an ILS these days when it costs that much?

 

[ArrowFlyer86]

I've heard it costs roughly a million dollars a year to keep an ILS running. They'll probably be up at the big international airports for quite a while yet, but does Waukesha, WI or Ames, IA really need an ILS these days when it costs that much?

That sounds like a uniquely "government" price tag
For a million dollars a year you should be able to not only power the ILS transmitters and replace components when they wear out, but pay a dude in a 172 to fly the pattern 4x a day and ensure it's still working!

 

[WDD]

In theory I agree, but See numerous threads with posts to the effect of, “if your instructor tells you to do something that’s not in the ACS, tell him to pound sand.”

Such as how to use the fuel pump, how to adjust your seat, how to react to wind sheer on short final, etc.

BACK to the OP's question, sort of....

ILS and VOR approaches will continue to decline IMHO. As as example, our local field's ILS was out for a month or so not because of the ILS equipment, but a nearby VOR that was used for a fix was out for a while. Its going to get harder to keep the VOR and ILS system up and running as they are often interdependent.