Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Career Builder > Technical
Major reduction in VORs >

Major reduction in VORs

Search

Notices
Technical Technical aspects of flying

Major reduction in VORs

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 01-06-2012 | 09:06 PM
  #1  
TheFly's Avatar
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,302
Likes: 0
From: Seat 0B
Default 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...
Reply
Old 01-07-2012 | 05:42 AM
  #2  
rickair7777's Avatar
Prime Minister/Moderator
Veteran: Navy
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,167
Likes: 803
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Default

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.
Reply
Old 01-07-2012 | 07:46 AM
  #3  
USMCFLYR's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,843
Likes: 1
From: FAA 'Flight Check'
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777
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!

USMCFLYR
Reply
Old 01-07-2012 | 09:07 AM
  #4  
rickair7777's Avatar
Prime Minister/Moderator
Veteran: Navy
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,167
Likes: 803
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Default

Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
I can screw up a VOR signal easier than jamming a GPS and for a lot cheaper too!

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.
Reply
Old 01-07-2012 | 09:53 AM
  #5  
USMCFLYR's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,843
Likes: 1
From: FAA 'Flight Check'
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777
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
Reply
Old 01-07-2012 | 12:53 PM
  #6  
UAL T38 Phlyer's Avatar
Moderate Moderator
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 5,681
Likes: 0
From: Curator at Static Display
Default 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.
Reply
Old 01-07-2012 | 01:53 PM
  #7  
USMCFLYR's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,843
Likes: 1
From: FAA 'Flight Check'
Default

Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer
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
Reply
Old 01-07-2012 | 04:03 PM
  #8  
Twin Wasp's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,741
Likes: 1
From: Sr. VP of button pushing
Default

Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
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
Maybe I'm looking at that from the wrong time zone.
Reply
Old 01-07-2012 | 05:10 PM
  #9  
rickair7777's Avatar
Prime Minister/Moderator
Veteran: Navy
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,167
Likes: 803
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Default

Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
Your thinking on way to large of a scale

USMCFLYR
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...

Last edited by rickair7777; 01-07-2012 at 05:22 PM.
Reply
Old 01-07-2012 | 05:24 PM
  #10  
USMCFLYR's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,843
Likes: 1
From: FAA 'Flight Check'
Default

Originally Posted by Twin Wasp
Maybe I'm looking at that from the wrong time zone.
Now you have me confused
Time zones?

USMCFLYR
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices