VOR Check question

Mark Hansen wrote:


You are also required to have available in the aircraft equipment necessary
for navigation along your route, in the event GPS goes out. That sounds
like
VOR to me.


Not if you have the right GPS. But an unchecked VOR is technically not
airworthy, so unless you're going to follow the procedures for inop
equipment, it would be easier just to do it.

Ron Natalie wrote:

Mark Hansen wrote:


You are also required to have available in the aircraft equipment necessary
for navigation along your route, in the event GPS goes out. That sounds
like
VOR to me.


Not if you have the right GPS. But an unchecked VOR is technically not
airworthy, so unless you're going to follow the procedures for inop
equipment, it would be easier just to do it.

Not so. VOR is still the primary means of navigation in the NAS. Even the
latest and greatest airline aircraft with dual GPS sensors, dual FMSes, triple
IRUs, etc, cannot be dispatched without operate VOR receivers (in their case
two).

The presumption is that the GPS system can fail at any time; at least in a given
area. WAAS doesn't mitigate that whatsoever.

wrote in :

Not so. VOR is still the primary means of navigation in the NAS.
Even the latest and greatest airline aircraft with dual GPS sensors,
dual FMSes, triple IRUs, etc, cannot be dispatched without operate VOR
receivers (in their case two).

The presumption is that the GPS system can fail at any time; at least
in a given area. WAAS doesn't mitigate that whatsoever.

Not only airliners - I have to have 2 (not just one, but 2) operable VORs
to dispatch offshore, where there are precisely zero VOR transmitters,
and I'm almost always out of range of any VOR. But both VORs have to be
operable to dispatch IFR.

Ain't bureaucracy wonderful?

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

Stan Gosnell wrote:

wrote in :

Not so. VOR is still the primary means of navigation in the NAS.
Even the latest and greatest airline aircraft with dual GPS sensors,
dual FMSes, triple IRUs, etc, cannot be dispatched without operate VOR
receivers (in their case two).

The presumption is that the GPS system can fail at any time; at least
in a given area. WAAS doesn't mitigate that whatsoever.

Not only airliners - I have to have 2 (not just one, but 2) operable VORs
to dispatch offshore, where there are precisely zero VOR transmitters,
and I'm almost always out of range of any VOR. But both VORs have to be
operable to dispatch IFR.

Ain't bureaucracy wonderful?

I suppose they feel you might need them on the leg back to shore?

wrote in :


I suppose they feel you might need them on the leg back to shore?

For what? Most of our bases have no VOR near them anyway, and no VOR
approach, so they don't do a lot of good.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

wrote in message ...


Ron Natalie wrote:

Mark Hansen wrote:


You are also required to have available in the aircraft equipment
necessary
for navigation along your route, in the event GPS goes out. That sounds
like
VOR to me.


Not if you have the right GPS. But an unchecked VOR is technically not
airworthy, so unless you're going to follow the procedures for inop
equipment, it would be easier just to do it.

Not so. VOR is still the primary means of navigation in the NAS. Even
the
latest and greatest airline aircraft with dual GPS sensors, dual FMSes,
triple
IRUs, etc, cannot be dispatched without operate VOR receivers (in their
case
two).

The presumption is that the GPS system can fail at any time; at least in a
given
area. WAAS doesn't mitigate that whatsoever.



I thought that WAAS was approved for sole means of navigation?

Mike
MU-2

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in
nk.net:

I thought that WAAS was approved for sole means of navigation?

Not that I'm aware of. WAAS has nothing to do with reliability, other
than vertical accuracy. Its only function is to give enough vertical
accuracy to allow a semi-precision approach.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

My understanding is that WAAS has an integrety function and is able to
detect an inaccurate signal.

Mike
MU-2

"Stan Gosnell" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in
nk.net:

I thought that WAAS was approved for sole means of navigation?

Not that I'm aware of. WAAS has nothing to do with reliability, other
than vertical accuracy. Its only function is to give enough vertical
accuracy to allow a semi-precision approach.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in news:HZrFe.8543$dU3.6278
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

My understanding is that WAAS has an integrety function and is able to
detect an inaccurate signal.

RAIM (Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring) is available without WAAS,
and was available before WAAS was implemented.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

"Stan Gosnell" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in news:HZrFe.8543$dU3.6278
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

My understanding is that WAAS has an integrety function and is able to
detect an inaccurate signal.

RAIM (Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring) is available without WAAS,
and was available before WAAS was implemented.

--
Regards,

Stan


I'm aware of that. The WAAS signal was to contain another
intergrety/availiblity function.

Mike
MU-2