VOR Decommissioning

Matt Bozwood-Davies

  • Members
  • 63
    • View Profile
VATGOV5 - VP Development

Tom Seeley

  • Members
  • 368
    • View Profile
Re: VOR Decommissioning
« Reply #1 on: February 12, 2016, 07:46:28 AM »
It's only a matter of time before VORs will be like coin telephones ... just a memory except maybe for a couple here and there. First NDBs, now VORs, next Localizers?

I was driving from Reno to Las Vegas recently, and on that trip I passed three VORs: Mina, Beatty and Tonopah. I got to thinking about the expenses of establishing/maintaining these facilities. Aside from obtaining the land, the actual structure and electronics, they have to build a road to connect to the nearest highway. They have to bring utilities in, with poles and infrastructure. Then there is maintenance, and possibly an emergency generator. Multiply those expenses by the number of installations across the country, and it's a pretty substantial cost.

But when the entire airspace navigation system is GPS based, I hope nothing ever happens to interfere with those satellites!
Tom Seeley
Deputy Director (Retired), VATUSA

Brad Littlejohn

  • Members
  • 152
    • View Profile
Re: VOR Decommissioning
« Reply #2 on: February 12, 2016, 12:26:22 PM »

The AOPA also had an article up on this late last year:

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/November/24/FAA-begins-decommissioning-VORs

A pilot there had mentioned (not sure if it is entirely correct) that Victor airways are required by law to be anchored by VORs. So if the VOR is decommissioned, the segments that are anchored by that VOR also must be removed. So if those airways are lightly used, they won't be replaced. If they are used, there may be a T route to replace it. Another user there stated this:

Quote
I compared the current low altitude en route chart to an old one from 2012 before the Peck VOR in Michigan was decommissioned. Of the airways that Peck once defined, some are gone (e.g., V320 and V216-337, both between Peck and Saginaw) and others have been replaced with T-routes (e.g., V84 between Peck and Flint was replaced by T616). There's a new GPS waypoint (HOCKE) positioned roughly where Peck used to be. I realize that this is just a single example, but it may give some insight into how this will look going forward.

It will be interesting to see what happens going forward, as this and other changes are going to further obsolete older sims in the virtual world (read: FS9, FSX).

BL.