VOR Check question

I was told by an avionics guy that if a plane has VOR's they must be
accurate to file IFR, even if I file /G.

FAR 91.171 says "(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft under IFR using
the VOR system of radio navigation unless the VOR equipment of that
aircraft..."

I'm not debating the logic of having VOR's that are accurate, and I'm
getting mine adjusted - but it seems to me if my means of navigation is an
IFR certified GPS I do not have a legal responsibility to pass the VOR
check. Am I right?

Michael

On 7/22/2005 12:01, Michael 182 wrote:

I was told by an avionics guy that if a plane has VOR's they must be
accurate to file IFR, even if I file /G.

FAR 91.171 says "(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft under IFR using
the VOR system of radio navigation unless the VOR equipment of that
aircraft..."

I'm not debating the logic of having VOR's that are accurate, and I'm
getting mine adjusted - but it seems to me if my means of navigation is an
IFR certified GPS I do not have a legal responsibility to pass the VOR
check. Am I right?

Michael



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.

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

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 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

wrote in message ...

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.


So why is it presumed that the VOR system cannot fail?

So why is it presumed that the VOR system cannot fail?

I would assume (and I know the etymology) that VORs fail 1000 square
miles at a time, and GPS fails 3,000,000 square miles at a time. Or,
more to the point, there is more systemic redundancy in the VOR system.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.