VOR's to be turned off 2011

Rod1 · Post by **Rod1** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 11:28 am

This is from our friends at AOPA. I have to say in an environment where infringements are a problem this appears complete madness.

It's been indicated by the CAA that the following VOR's are scheduled for decomissioniong, starting in 2011.

BKY - Barkway
DTY - Daventry
INS - Inverness
MAY - Mayfield
BEN - Benbecula
DCS - Dean Cross
JSY - Jersey
MID - Midhurst
BIG - Biggin Hill
DET - Detling
LAM - Lambourn
OCK - Ockham
BNN - Bovingdon
DVR - Dover
LON - London
PTH - Perth
BCN - Brecon
GAM - Gamston
LYD - Lydd
SAM - Southampton
BPK - Brookman’s Park
GOW - Glasgow
MAC - Macrihanish
TNT - Trent
CFD - Cranfield
GWC - Goodwood
MCT - Manchester
TRN - Turnberry

Nigel Hitchman · Post by **Nigel Hitchman** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 8:26 pm

That will be interesting as all the arrivals and departures into major airports in the UK are based on VORs, including most of these. Will their associated DME also be turned off?
Although many airliners use GPS input into their RNAV/FMS systems, quite a few dont. I know for a fact that some 737s 757s, 767s and RJ100s dont have any GPS input, thus with no VOR/DMEs to update their position they will be "lost"!

G.Dawes · Post by **G.Dawes** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 10:50 pm

Maybe i'm just a sceptic but might this have something to do with the horrendous charges the OFCOM wanted to charge for the use of the frequencies involved, they havent gone away and still want more money to run the QUANGO.

cardiffrob · Post by **cardiffrob** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:23 am

50% of our 757/767s don't have GPS updating and are dme/dme (or vor/vor if dme is not available) based for position updating. The other half of the fleet uses GPS without alerting for position discrepancy from the IRS (the source of info for the map display) and they are not currently PRNAV capable. PRNAV gives 95% of the time an accuracy of within 1 mile and is accurate enough to allow you to perform noise abatement arrivals.

Without VORs to fly past, we can't easily fly. Besides, Cardiff needs SIDs and STARs to get us onto the airways unless they are going to provide radar vectoring to airways.

Looking at the list, many seem to be ones that are somewhat surplus to arrivals at the major ports and serve only minor fields or passing GA. In other words, tough luck small aircraft operator!

steveneale · Post by **steveneale** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:32 am

I wonder what the implications will be for light GA instrument fit, PPL & IMCR syllabus/training?

Steve

Simon Clifton · Post by **Simon Clifton** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:05 am

Steve

I was wondering the same about PPL training, having just spent weeks working out what I need to do for upgrade from NPPL to JAR PPL.

Doing VOR/NDB type radio nav is really all there is that matters in my case, so what happens in 2011 then?

At the risk of thread drift, the whole of GA training needs a shake-down to take account of GPS anyway. I know its only secondary, but is a major safety and infrigement benefit nonetheless.

Simon C
~~~~~~

Steve Brown · Post by **Steve Brown** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:33 am

From the AOPA forum at

http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=57866

Quote
'I tackled DAP about this. The consultation document is NOT on their website, but they intend to add it next week.

I have also asked HOW to respond to the consultation - specifically to whom and by what medium.

I was going to post all this once I'd had all the answers. The person responsible for the consultation process had the temerity to write to me stating:

"GA pilots operating VFR should be navigating by means of a map and not relying on instrument navigation aids." '

End quote

Words fail me!!!

steveneale · Post by **steveneale** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 5:11 pm

Yep. I've met some clever people in CAA but I guess sometimes they open a closet and find one of these dinosaurs covered in dust. This one obviously escaped.

Steve

Simon Clifton · Post by **Simon Clifton** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:38 am

I agree with what Steve B and Steve N said.

I don't mind paying to train and test using nav aids, if there are nav aids.

I do mind paying if all I'm officially supposed to do is read a map, that CAA comment makes me cross.

In any case, I know GPS is used in real life.

Come on CAA, isn't Flight Safety your remit?

Simon C
~~~~~~

John Price · Post by **John Price** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:50 am

It seems that the CAA and NATS have stuck their heads in the sand, and thus revealed their thinking parts.

John.

Simon Clifton · Post by **Simon Clifton** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:05 pm

There is an interesting thread on the Flyer Forum about this.

Somebody sensible there suggests removal of legacy radio nav kit is actually a step forward. But only on the condition that 'modern' nav aids(come on GPS is getting on to be 20 years old now) are properly adopted, and that regulations and training is changed to reflect that.

Well, it seems sensible to me anyway.

Cheers

Simon C
~~~~~~

malcolm frost · Post by **malcolm frost** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:52 am

These are the VORs that have so succesfully prevented airspace incursions for many years?

GPS is a fact of life now and offers a massive improvement in navigation accuracy. I have used Pocket FMS running on a cheap Navman car GPS and it offers fantastic capability for very low outlay and running costs. If the CAA were really serious about preventing incursions then they would provide an airspace map free of charge for car GPS use.
You never know, it might give GA more freedom as it wouldn't be justifiable to have such massive areas of controlled airspace.

Gaznav · Post by **Gaznav** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:36 pm

This is from our friends at AOPA. I have to say in an environment where infringements are a problem this appears complete madness.

These are the VORs that have so succesfully prevented airspace incursions for many years?

There are also those that have infringed airspace BECAUSE of VORs. If you misread or set the wrong radial then infringement is more likely to happen! They are certainly not guaranteed stop the unwary.

More "idiot proof" or "human friendly" are moving map GPS as long as the database and map are up to date!

Being a professional flight navigator I always use ALL available nav-aids from GPS to VOR to plain "Looking out the window"! I also remember the uproar when they took away Decca and Omega - we got along fine without these that had definately seen their day. I guess it is time to say goodbye to the VOR as well?

Finally, accuracy of VOR is quoted as ±1.4°. ARINC 711-10 requires a receiver accuracy of ±0.4°. So best case at 60nm from the VOR you will be within 1/2nm of where you think you are - given today's congested airspace that just isn't good enough for infringements in my opinion. Don't forget that, Military Selective Availability (SA) on GPS was ended in 2000, improving the precision of civilian GPS from about 100m to about 20m.

There are more GPS approaches in the USA than VOR approaches so I believe it is time for VOR to be phased out...that is my two-penneth.

Nigel Bailey · Post by **Nigel Bailey** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:47 pm

If there is a switch off of VOR/DME then I think it will take many years to complete. Sending out a big list of VORs that they intend closing seems to me to have an air of shock tactics about it and for that reason I smell a rat!
Are we about to see a consultation period over this which will emerge with some way of grabbing money?
Or am I just being cynical?