another FAA MON failure
Posted by Fit_Confidence_3353@reddit | flying | View on Reddit | 65 comments
The FAA just wiped all but one VOR approach connected to the Flag City(FBC) VOR in Findlay OH. This is do to the FAAs ongoing decommission of VORs in relation to the MON program I assume . Bowling Green Flight Center, a prominent 500+ student program utilized ALL of these VOR approaches multiple times a day for their 141 compliant instrument program. Not to mention that the only vor approach remaining is an unlit runway with no markings which renders it NA at night. Another point is that the VOR is still OPERATIONAL and transmitting its identifier. This comes after some years ago the waterville VOR was also decommissioned which some gaps in the system in regard to GA aircraft. The FAA needs to get it together and start protecting GA flying or change their standards to match what they’re getting rid of otherwise there will be two VOR approaches in the country left for training and they’ll both be in Florida.
cazzipropri@reddit
I'm mostly concerned about signal integrity. A VOR signal is harder to jam than GPS.
Due-Letterhead6372@reddit
It isn't harder to jam, there is just a lot less incentive for people to jam VOR signals. If anything its actually easier to jam than a GPS signal due to its lower frequency and static nature.
cazzipropri@reddit
No, that's incorrect and not even by a bit. Just compute the two free-space path losses, for something 30 miles away vs. something \~12,000 miles away (and the two different frequencies too, if you want to be picky, but that changes little).
There's a difference of like 80 dB.
It's night and day.
Accomplished_Beat418@reddit
You wrote something entirely in my primary language and my field of work.
I still have no idea what you just said.
cazzipropri@reddit
Ok, compute the attenuation for a 50W microwave signal coming from a satellite 12000 miles away. Now compute the attenuation for a 100-200W 100MHz signal from 30-50 miles away. Do you agree that the satellite signal is many tens of dB weaker? If you have to jam either of the two with commercially available equipment, which target would you choose?
mkosmo@reddit
If somebody is looking to impact the national airspace, they won’t be using RF to jam terrestrial nav. It’s easier to impact through alternative methods. And the impact would be more permanent and significant.
Accomplished_Beat418@reddit
You’re absolutely right on all technical aspects.
This is Reddit, however, and not a laboratory or study hall. The technical info went right over my head. When the other poster said “physically easier”, I mentally pictured someone putting a tin foil hat over the transmitter, as that OP said it was a static location and easy to target.
In all honesty, the most I think about microwaves is when I need to warm up my food before my 4th flight of the day trying to get a student to perform a soft field or short field landing. The higher learning knowledge just isn’t front and center, which is why I thought it was funny.
Cheers.
mtconnol@reddit
The poster is saying, correctly, that the signal strength of the VOR as it is received at the plane is orders of magnitude stronger than the gps signal. For this reason it would take FAR more substantial jamming equipment to swamp the signal out.
I share this feeling about the relatively fragile prospect of picking a tiny GPS signal out from just above the noise floor. WAAS is also easily knocked out by solar flare activity- it’s happened multiple times for me in the plane.
kscessnadriver@reddit
Then advocate for a return of LORAN. It was cheaper than running a ton of VORs, and had eLORAN actually happened, it would have been similar to non-waas GPS in terms of accuracy
cazzipropri@reddit
Absolutely we should. You seem to have chosen an example out of perceived absurdity, but it's not absurd at all. With modern solid state electronics, the marginal complexity of adding a loran sensor to a multisensor suite would cost little and achieve a lot.
htnut-pk@reddit
Maybe. But in this day and age a new network like this would come with subscription costs and I would wager the cost to build out and equip the system/fleet would exceed decades of VOR maintenance costs.
htnut-pk@reddit
Yes, and just the simple case of redundancy. Our safety in aviation is built around the concept of reducing a safety risk by not allowing a single failure point to be a primary accident cause.
With VOR we would have two receivers and two antennas. Each airport has a separate VOR serving its approach so an alternate was actually an alternative. Plus NDB was still prolific enough that “in the soup” some reasonably nearby airport would have a means of nav.
With GPS a jamming/hacking or otherwise unforeseen event could bring the system down over a very wide geographic area. ILS is not quite prolific enough to serve as an alternate for me in my Piper. Neither is radar.
Plus there are many planes without IFR GPS and the costly subscription to keep the database updated.
I vote for the supporting our VOR network.
mkosmo@reddit
A flight school using approaches does not make them critical to the system or further justify them.
JCChitty@reddit
Is it common that VORs are NOTAM’d U/S and still transmitting? That seems to be what’s happening near me
Impossible_Sky9384@reddit
The last time I used a VOR in an actual flight mission where it was required for navigation purposes was in 2016. I think it’s time to officially retire the requirement for students to demonstrate on the check ride.
WoundedAce@reddit
There are quite a few airports international I go to that only have GPS/RNAV or VOR approaches.
I agree if the requirement to learn them is there that the decommissioning of them should stop
Impossible_Sky9384@reddit
There are a fair number of NDB approaches globally as well. I don’t believe those are taught/tested any longer in the US
WoundedAce@reddit
In training I had to do a grand total of 1
Biker1124@reddit
I mean true be told I didn’t do one for my ride. Only RNAV approaches since the only airport close enough with a in service VOR approach is pretty far from most examiners.
mambosan@reddit
I guess I’m thankful to have gotten most of my training over in the west where there’s plenty of operational VORs. Although I don’t think I would really ever choose a VOR approach over an RNAV, I guess it’s kinda like knowing how to drive stick shift. Never know when it the knowledge/skill will come in handy
No_Currency5230@reddit
The VOR at SYI is still going strong. The only on field VOR in Tennessee 💪🏼
AlexJamesFitz@reddit
If VOR approaches are mostly going away, what's the downside to a student not learning how to do them?
I guess it's good for them to at least be familiar with them in case they ever need to use them, but it feels like people were probably saying the same stuff when NDBs were dying off too.
dynamic_fluid@reddit
If you’re an instrument rated pilot the expectation is that you can do a VOR approach. If you’re looking to get hired and can’t brief and fly a VOR approach you’re not going to get hired, which makes sense: you could be expected to do one during day to day operations.
bhalter80@reddit
I like to teach VOR approaches because it's a worst case, they're not gone and they may save your life.
It's also more realistic to have someone do a VOR approach as an NP approach than degrading the GPS to non-WAAS where they still get an advisory glideslope for a PP or full panel approach. Most VOR approaches out here are ABSOLUTE GARBAGE with a short FAF->MAP, high mins etc... and are very very different from an RNAV/LNAV approach for example KCON VOR-A vs KCON RNAV17. I'd hate for my students first VOR approach to be the KCON VOR-A because of a GPS outage and some issue with the ILS.
In reality when I do this on an IPC with someone it's usually presented as "the worst that it will get" and if it's really good ADM to try or if there are other options
meticulouslycarless@reddit
Well the whole point of the MON as you may know is in case of an emergency. Also, the MON only affects from the sierras towards the east. The FAA has no plans of removing any or many VOR’s in the western coast. Not sure why. That’s what the aim states.
poser765@reddit
They definitely were.
AlexJamesFitz@reddit
I also suppose if you really wanted to teach VOR approaches, you could dig up an old plate for one co-located on an untowered field and fly it VFR with GPS in OBS mode.
imblegen@reddit
You’re missing the requirement to tune and identify the radio frequency. GPS also would provide a linear sensitivity in that use case rather than getting more sensitive near the station like a VOR would
Urrolnis@reddit
You're demanding to keep VOR approaches alive so that way we can practice flying a type of approach that would be decommissioned. That doesn't make any sense. Let it die and we won't have to teach it because it won't exist.
imblegen@reddit
I never made that claim. My argument was that IF you’re going to teach a VOR approach, you should actually teach a real one. Don’t just fake it with the GPS because you’re doing your student a disservice if they ever have to fly one for real.
Urrolnis@reddit
The FAA is clearly getting rid of them, and we won't have to teach them.
I'd have to go look at the minutae of the ACS again but if I recall correctly, you don't actually have to demonstrate a VOR approach on the checkride, just a non-precision approach, and if an ILS isn't available, you can use an LNAV/VNAV or LPV approach, right?
The skills of VHF non-precision approaches won't be going away, as there are still LOC approaches and you can always run an ILS and ignore the glideslope.
imblegen@reddit
All of that is correct. Except for the fact that you don’t have to dial in your approach coarse for an ILS/LOC.
It also still doesn’t change my point.
AlexJamesFitz@reddit
Sure, but the basics are there.
imblegen@reddit
It’s a creative idea, but for the procedures part of things, you’d be better off just doing a real VOR approach in a sim
crimea_riverr@reddit
Because the reason they’re not going away is different from when ILS/VORs replaced NDBs.
Over time, NDBs became obsolete as VOR/ILS/GPS became reliably available at most airports and fewer aircraft had ADFs installed. The difference here is VORs are not obsolete (yet). That’s the whole point of the MON. There will certainly be fewer of them, but they will remain an important part of the NAS, serving as a backup in case of planned or unplanned GPS outage/jamming/failure.
All IFR equipped aircraft I’m aware of have VOR receivers, and VOR approaches will remain an available procedure within the NAS. While yes, NDBs are still out there too and you’re not required to be tested on them unless your aircraft has an ADF installed, it is two generations of NAVAID ago. NDB was replaced by superior equipment that does not have the same type of failure risk GPS does, and as long as that risk still exists, we continue to mitigate it with ground based backups. A MON airport is not required to have an ILS, it may only have a VOR approach.
Besides the skill it creates, my argument is students should still learn how to fly them because VORs have been deemed important enough for the FAA to preserve them and their approaches. NDBs do not have a similar mandate and have largely gone away. Maybe one day VOR will follow, but for now they remain a realistic part of the NAS.
FL060@reddit
I completely agree with your 1st sentiment.
Second half of your last sentence, not so much! Everyone was happy to see them go. The only real grumbling (from the old farts) I saw at the time was about having to learn GPS approaches, or having to install a GPS unit, or "why can't I use this yoke mounted (Garmin) 296 to shoot this GPS approach? I spent an hour last night putting the lat longs in of all the fixes!"
Handag@reddit
Wish more people realize the insane amount of resources that go into keeping a VOR approach online. Someone has to maintain that VOR in Findlay OH. That means the government pays for someone to literally drive hundreds of miles out there and maintain it. They then have to pay for flight check pilots to go out there and flight check it yearly. VOR signal isn’t up to spec? Time to endlessly probe that VOR and issue the appropriate NOTAMs for each radial. Time to send tech ops out there and start the whole process over again.
I, for one, am glad the FAA is finally joining the 21st century. And please don’t cry about GPS jamming. If we are at war and some country is spoofing or jamming GPS in the continental United States, the pilots that actually have to worry about that have mitigation strategies. Don’t worry you won’t be out there in a 172 shooting practice approaches.
fedeger@reddit
You talk like if the money the goverment would save from that would come back to you in some way. When it will probably go to subsidize an AI data center near your home that will increase your utilities.
Handag@reddit
Huh? When did I say anything about the money coming back to me or saving money?
I talk about it as someone who flight checked VORs for a long time and knows there’s much better use of resources than spending hours and hours a year circling a VOR in a king air so a handful of people can shoot a VOR approach a couple times then never do it again.
fedeger@reddit
You mention the cost of it like if you had to pay for it somehow.
Also, VOR are not only for shooting a specific VOR approach but to keep RNAV updates via DME-DME, VOR-DME, etc
Handag@reddit
Brother, with all due respect, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
RickDangles@reddit
A lot of people in here who don’t seem to care about VOR approaches. I like them for training because they’re just usually more involved and that’s good for training.
I’m not flying VOR approaches because that’s realistic training for a future career, I’m flying them for the PT, HILPT, dive n drive vs CDFA learning, difference in automation management, etc.
You can learn that stuff with other types of IAPs or in a sim if you have them, but where I flew it seemed like if you wanted variety, your best bet was the nearest VOR approach.
Urrolnis@reddit
That's a lot of money spent on infrastructure all to just say you're teaching old techniques for the purposes of keeping old techniques alive.
VORs are slowly becoming like NDBs. They just aren't needed in most of the NAS system where even new ILSs aren't being built where its easier to just set up an RNAV approach.
We can have a conversation about GPS jamming for the super unlikely scenario of GPS jamming or spoofing, but so far the only organization who's done that on US soil has been the US military. Would much rather have THAT conversation vs funding infrastructure so our own government can't sabotage us.
fedeger@reddit
GPS jamming and spoofing has become very easy and accesible, you are not in 2018 anymore where it was a niche situation. It's a widespread issue in Europe, Middle East and parts of Asia.
To make matters worse, most airliners since 1980 have been built with over-reliance on those systems. The A380 craps its pants if they get spoofing, losing even weather radar because of it. In Boeing, even if you disable GPS updating, some systems still pick up GPS signals.
Airlines are going back to train pilots in doing DME arc approaches without a moving map.
autonym@reddit
*due to (means attributable to, owing to), not do to (meaningless as a modifier)
Andy_Roo_Roo@reddit
This guy grammars.
eSUP80@reddit
Won’t be sad to see them go, as long as it’s done in a way that communicates their status properly.
I train pilots from all over the world and I can’t remember a single crew claiming they use VOR approaches. Always Rnav or ILS.
Friendly-Gur-6736@reddit
I can't recall the last time (if ever) I have cleared someone to fly a VOR approach in actual conditions in 17 years as an ATC.
It has probably been a couple of years since I've cleared someone to fly the lone VOR-A in my airspace for a practice approach.
They are at the same place NDB approaches were 15-20 years ago. Airports with enough volume have an ILS or LOC to at least one runway, and RNAV approaches to the ones that don't. Every other airport, anyone who flies enough to have to be prepared for IMC conditions is going to have a GPS.
In short, outside of pilot training, nobody is flying these anymore.
Ok_Witness179@reddit
We just had to do one a couple days ago. We requested the RNAV visual, but ATC said people weren't making it in on that. VOR was the next best option for the runway 🤷
Oogaboogacoo@reddit
I did the vor-a at my local airport in imc just last week before it was cancelled. It’s a great training tool and it saw a lot of use from the flight school here
Flimsy-Ad-858@reddit
AXN? I saw they just killed that one.
RexFiller@reddit
I was flying approaches in actual a couple years ago and requested the VOR approach and the controller was like "do you have GPS on board?"
YamComprehensive7186@reddit
I can think of several VOR approaches in ZMP centers area that get regular use by the airlines based in MSP. I know there was an issue with the CRJ's being able to use some of the updated RNAV's due to the fixes not fitting in the databases etc. Not sure if that has been resolved but point being they due still get used by operators.
stickwigler@reddit
When ADFs started going away I bet people complained too.
ThatOnePilotDude@reddit
LAF has only had 1 VOR approach the entire time and we meet our instrument TCO just fine with that. When it’s not unserviceable we will shoot it in actual too.
And when it is unserviceable we just use one of the other approaches to LOC or LNAV mins instead of ILS or LPV.
Flimsy-Ad-858@reddit
Yep, but at least it's also an awful circling-only approach that goes to the airport at the literal worst possible angle for every runway!
ThatOnePilotDude@reddit
That is the Purdue GRIT.
vanillanuttapped@reddit
Those poor students of the Bowling Green Flight Center! Whatever shall they do?!?
Urrolnis@reddit
If Bowling Green is so concerned about it, I'm sure the school's owners would be more than welcome to foot the bill for the VOR upkeep and operation.
Oh, they aren't? Strange.
mtconnol@reddit
“If it’s not happening to me personally, it’s not real”
vanillanuttapped@reddit
Never doubted the authenticity. I'm just not going to pretend it's some kind of crisis that a bunch of students can't fly a VOR approach.
Oogaboogacoo@reddit
The only vor approach we had into my airport has been canceled and now all we have are rnav approaches that aren’t 30nm away. Guess we just hope GPS never has an issue now
NathanielCrunkleton@reddit
I’ve flown a VOR approach in actual in the past 5 years. If a GPS approach at that field (F14) had been available, I wouldn’t have.
Due-Letterhead6372@reddit
Old man yells at clouds
rFlyingTower@reddit
This is a copy of the original post body for posterity:
The FAA just wiped all but one VOR approach connected to the Flag City(FBC) VOR in Findlay OH. This is do to the FAAs ongoing decommission of VORs in relation to the MON program I assume . Bowling Green Flight Center, a prominent 500+ student program utilized ALL of these VOR approaches multiple times a day for their 141 compliant instrument program. Not to mention that the only vor approach remaining is an unlit runway with no markings which renders it NA at night. Another point is that the VOR is still OPERATIONAL and transmitting its identifier. This comes after some years ago the waterville VOR was also decommissioned which some gaps in the system in regard to GA aircraft. The FAA needs to get it together and start protecting GA flying or change their standards to match what they’re getting rid of otherwise there will be two VOR approaches in the country left for training and they’ll both be in Florida.
Please downvote this comment until it collapses.
Questions about this comment? Please see this wiki post before contacting the mods.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. If you have any questions, please contact the mods of this subreddit.