"The current VOR installation located at Cranfield Airport (CFD) is approaching the end of its viable life. We have consulted with users of the facility at Cranfield Airport where there is currently a single published VOR approach to one runway and reviewed the wider use of the VOR in relation to en-route and terminal airspace structures which unusually does not make use of the facility. It is therefore financially unrealistic to expect airlines to pay for the replacement and ongoing operation of a VOR they do not use. It has been possible to extend the life of the current installation well into the 'GPS' age and Cranfield Airport have published GNSS approaches for both runway directions at Cranfield. Away from the airfield itself, the withdrawal of the VOR would of course mean the loss of Cranfield radial information to GA traffic, but Daventry VOR/DME is less than 20nm away and other navaids and radar services are available locally.
NATS is proposing to withdraw the VOR in September 2013 and we are therefore looking for feedback from the GA community as to any serious impact of the withdrawal of the VOR at Cranfield."
We are going to see more and more of this. All the more reason to get GPS setups in aircraft and encourage their use.
We should be glad and support it. Maintaining VORs costs a lot of money which could be spent for other things.. like supporting GA!
Aviation will be better when students pilots no longer have to learn about radials and TO and FROM.
Firstly, I don't see this as the start of any wholesale removal of UK VORs. AIUI, NATS are removing that one because it has not for a long time featured in holding etc procedures for the nearby big airports, and VORs cost a fortune to keep going.
Secondly, Cranfield (where I have flown many times) is IME a rather unfriendly airport. They have some busy ATPL school(s) there and ATC gives them total priority. I could be arriving from the north and they would still lazily tell me to report at Woburn Abbey (a country house south of the airport, findable with a GPS that shows VRPs, like my KMD550 ) so 15 minutes later, when I have flown all the way round, allowing copious room for the IR training traffic, I finally arrive...
So I don't mind if they remove their VOR
I disagree and think there will be more of this. Not in any great rush but a lot of 'XXX aid has to be replaced, we don't have any money, everyone uses GPS anyway, let's drop it.' Which for the avoidance of doubt I am fine with.
Well, yes, AFAIK the airlines have not used a physical VOR for navigation in many years. In Europe one flies RNAV, using INS/FMS, or in GA with RNAV/GPS.
Also Cranfield has an ILS which would be the first choice anyway.
The only issue is if the ILS is out of service.
You will still have the GPS or the NDB/DME approaches.
I also think that NDB/DME are going to die a slow death. We will be left with GPS approaches and ILS.
I also think that NDB/DME are going to die a slow death.
I'll drink to it, the faster the better. Useless equipment.
Losing a VOR might save some money.... but I think the chances of that money being spent on anything that helps light GA is slim to none.
Well, yes, AFAIK the airlines have not used a physical VOR for navigation in many years. In Europe one flies RNAV, using INS/FMS, or in GA with RNAV/GPS.
I disagree, most CAT aircraft more than about 10 years old will be using an INS that auto updates from rho-theta (VOR-DME and DME-DME). Eurocontrol run a scheme to ensure that sufficient coverage remains for this. You're probably right in saying that nobody in the CAT world tunes a VOR in manually in normal operation - barring perhaps a VOR based approach.
I also think that NDB/DME are going to die a slow death.
Here's hoping - not because I think the money will be rerouted to GA (it won't), but because the safety benefit of a GPS approach is massive. Given the choice, and sufficient minima, I will always take an RNAV approach - even over an ILS. The situational awareness is hugely better, and properly integrated avionics (ie an EFIS with auto-slewing HSI and the advisory glideslope) hugely relieves the workload. As an added bonus, T/Y shaped procedures with GPS defined (and displayed) holds are trivial compared to NDB based procedures.
For single pilot, no autopilot operations, GPS approaches are far and away the safest.
most CAT aircraft more than about 10 years old will be using an INS that auto updates from rho-theta (VOR-DME and DME-DME)
I thought airliner INS systems fix-up using DME-DME ranging.
VOR/DME would be vastly less accurate.
A few years ago I went to a Eurocontrol "nav workshop" where they said they will keep up the DMEs, for this reason, and they had plans to install a few hundred new DMEs around Europe. I have noticed that some French VORs which didn't have DMEs do now have them.
I am suprised you would choose a GPS NP IAP over an ILS. Can you fly a coupled approach using the "advisory glideslope" on a GPS IAP?