Major reduction in VORs
 

This could force a lot of aircraft owners and operators to go GPS or possibly fly longer routes (airways or VOR to vor).

FlightAware > FAA Plans Major Reduction in VOR Coverage

The FAA recently released a proposed rule for a gradual but major reduction in the VOR navigation system in the United States. The proposal transitions navigation services to performance-based navigation (PBN) such as GPS and WAAS, and would keep only VORs at what the FAA calls the “Core 30” airports around the country and VORs located above 5,000 feet. (Flying Magazine | The World?s Most Widely Read Aviation Magazine) More...

I'm OK with migrating to GPS nav, since VORs are very expensive. I don't like mandating expensive requirements to GA, but GPS isn't that expensive especially for a VFR pilot with a hand-held.

But what's the backup for IFR if the GPS signal? Radar Vectors? INS? Now THAT costs money.

Also what about security...let's just say that I have intimate knowledge of GPS jamming and it's not that hard. Since it's a LOS signal from space with almost nothing but a little air in the way the signal strength is vastly lower than a VOR.

Maybe the thought is keep VORs at the big metro airports for that reason. An enroute jamming attempt would not last long since the airplanes would fly out of range quickly.

I can screw up a VOR signal easier than jamming a GPS and for a lot cheaper too!:eek:

USMCFLYR

It would require less technical acumen to build a VHF jammer, but it would take a lot more power to jam VOR signals over a large area.

VOR's can transmit in the low kilowatt range, while GPS sats put out a few tens of watts and they are further away...signal strength drops off with the square of the distance.

You would basically need a commercial radio station to jam VORs over a large area. Not to mention that your VHF jammer wouldn't affect the DME's, and any airplane with rudimentary RNAV can just use the DME without the VOR radials.

Your thinking on way to large of a scale :)

USMCFLYR

Other NAVAIDs
 

They've been slowly but surely eliminating NDBs and LOMs/OMs over the last 4 years to save money, too.

Problem for me: the T-38 GPS is not certified to be used in lieu of an OM. It should be...but the Air Force hasn't paid the money to get the TSO blessing yet.

So instead, I use a LOM with an accuracy of about 1000-2000 ft laterally, instead of the GPS/INS which is accurate to 200 ft.

Personally, I like having the old backups. I think the Feds are being penny-wise and Pound-foolish.

That isn't bad accuracy.
Trivia gem for the day :)
Marker beacons are suppose to be between 2400' and 4200' in length at a 1000' above antenna altitude with 2000' being optimum.

USMCFLYR

:confused: Maybe I'm looking at that from the wrong time zone.

I'm well familiar with the caps of current generation military jammers, but I'm assuming the bad guys don't have one.

Of course with your job, you probably know something the rest of us don't...

Now you have me confused :)
Time zones?

USMCFLYR