MTV,

Sure works as a good backup for me.

Probably still works as a good backup for anyone else that has one.

I do in fact use my loran every time I fly my Cessna.
It works good.

Out here in the west there isn't a VOR every 15 miles like it is in your neck of the woods.
Sometimes you fly 100 miles without being able to receive one at all, even then, it is half assed until you are really close to the airport because of the mountains.

VOR is a good backup if you are shooting an approach but really sucks going cross country!!!!!!!!!!!

I would take my old "Good for nothing antiquated Loran" Any day over the "Great" VOR system going cross country any day of the week.

It's not only pilots who use the Loran for a backup, mariners use it too.

What do you propose they do for backup???

I'm sure they will like your plan to use VOR's

I have seen you post several times about the airliners "not having a loran in the cockpit".
Possibly the reason for that is they already have another back up for cross country it's called Radar!!!!!

Your average GA pilot is usually VFR.

Also If you want to base everything on whether the airliners are using it, then by your logic we should get rid of small airports too??? After all, American, Delta, and all the rest have absolutely no use for our airports.

One point I do agree on you with, is that we really have no say in what the government does.

If it is all about saving money then why not just cut back on the VOR's. Use only the ones that are necessary for IFR Approaches.

I don't know how much could be saved there, but as many as there are out there, I would assume the difference could be made up on that alone.

And by the way, 39 Mil is just a drop in the bucket compared to other social programs like Healthcare,Cash for Clunkers, Americorps, and the list goes on and on.

qmdv wrote:That will not work in an airplane. You have a hard time with horizon. You need a buble sextant and a nav dome in the plane. A copy of American Practial Navigator by Bowditch would also be handy along with tables and a very accurate time piece.

Will it work for the joke?

Celestial navigation is fascinating. I can't recall exactly what book it was, maybe the Bob Buck story... but these guys are flying across the Pacific at night and have to nail an island out in the middle to refuel, and their only hope is getting a fix with the bubble sextant. Amazing.

There was an Apollo Flybuddy in my plane when I bought it. It's sitting in a pile of junk on the hangar floor next to the ADF. Anyone in the market for either of those?

MTV- You have some good points and questions, and I appreciate you continuing to debate me over this, which is exactly what I was hoping for.

I am surprised at your taking issue with my first point though. Try this: flight plan KRDU - KMQI via V189. Check the nav NOTAMs- the RBX VOR is unavialable blo 8000 on that airway, and for much of the previous several years has been NOTAMed completely OTS. Other VORs nearby are pretty perpendicuar to the course leaving for little capability to even triangulate the E-W route which is closely bounded by water and restricted areas to the north and south. Much of that area is swamp and very dark at night. I can guarantee you that LORAN was a great comfort that dark and stormy night, and this is just one example for me personally.

Anyway, I think you're right about the need for LORAN to be certifiable for approaches. I believe that was tried for LORAN-C, but they ran into some trouble. One of the touted benefits of eLORAN is that it COULD be certified for nonprecision approaches. The purported accuracy of eLORAN is 8 - 20m:

http://www.loran.org/.../eLoran%20Definition%20Document%200%201%20Released.pdf

Admittedly the source of this info is a LORAN supporter, but I can't find anything to refute it. Can you? Here is an article by someone who also supports LORAN termination, but I believe he is misinformed on many points, as the commenters to his article state:

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/issue/columns/perspectives/Perspectives-eLORANs-Shortcomings_8786.html

If you remember, civilian GPS devices didn't start to become available until the military had already putthe GPS infrastructure into place. The guys who are selling integrated GPS + LORAN devices now are doing so for the marine market initially. I'm sure they are doing so to avoid the high cost of FAA certification fior airborne units. I'm also sure that noone will proceed with further development until the long term viability of the LORAN system.

Face it, folks: The ONLY currently available VIABLE backup to GPS is the VOR system, including the ILS systems. If the FAA starts shutting those down, we will have no viable backup.

You are exactly right again. If VORs, etc are maintained, there's not too much to worry about. But here is what the federal navigation plan called for up until the recent decision to discontinue eLORAN. The problem is that there has been no change to the plan to discontinue ALL OTHER NAVAIDS except GPS!

eLORAN:
eLoran is the next generation Loran system. Terrestrial-based, eLoran is
an independent, dissimilar complement to the GPS. It will allow properly
equipped users to retain PNT service in the event of GPS disruption. It has
better accuracy, integrity, and continuity than Loran-C, while continuing to
meet Loran-C’s traditional availability requirements. eLoran also can
provide precise time and frequency references needed by the
telecommunications systems and other elements of critical infrastructure.
This improvement is realized through station equipment upgrades, the
addition of a data channel on the signal-in-space, and all-in-view digital
signal processing receivers. eLoran is designed to be backward compatible
with Loran-C, however, users would require a new receiver in order to take
full advantage of eLoran capabilities.
The combination of infrastructure and user equipment improvements will
enable eLoran to meet the requirements for landing aircraft during an
aviation non-precision instrument approach (0.3 nm horizontal), as well as
the requirements for maritime harbor entrance and approach (10 to 20 m).

VOR:
The current VOR services will be maintained at their current level until at
least 2010 to enable aviation users to equip their aircraft with SATNAV
avionics and to become familiar with the system. There is an FAA effort
underway enabling a reduction in the VOR population, to begin in 2010,
that will reduce VOR services by discontinuing facilities no longer needed.
VOR services will be gradually discontinued in accordance with airway
planning standard criteria after appropriate coordination. Service will be
discontinued first at facilities where service is not needed or where
satisfactory alternatives are available. VORs will remain in service
throughout the transition to SATNAV to support IFR operations as needed,
and serve as an independent navigation source in the NAS.

TACAN:
The DoD requirement for land-based TACAN will continue until military
aircraft are properly equipped with GPS; GPS PPS receivers are certified
for all operations in both national and international controlled airspace; and
the GPS support infrastructure including published procedures, charting,
etc., is in place. A phase down of TACAN systems is planned for a future
date, yet to be determined. Sea-based TACAN will continue in use until a
replacement system is successfully deployed. The USN, USCG, and
Military Sealift Command (MSC) operate several hundred sea-based
TACAN stations.

ILS:
As the GPS-based augmentation systems (WAAS and LAAS) are
integrated into the NAS, and user equipage and acceptance grows, the
number of CAT-I ILS may be reduced. FAA does not anticipate phasing
out any CAT-II or III ILS systems until LAAS is able to deliver equivalent
service and GPS vulnerability concerns are addressed. A reduction in the
number of CAT-II/III ILS may then be considered. Until LAAS systems
are available, new and upgrade CAT-II and III precision approach
requirements will continue to be met with ILS.

NDB:
FAA has begun decommissioning stand-alone NDBs as users equip with
GPS. NDBs used as compass locators, or as other required fixes for ILS
approaches (e.g., initial approach fix, missed approach holding), where no
equivalent ground-based means are available, may need to be maintained
until the underlying ILS is phased out.

How much do you think it costs to maintain 1000 VOR stations? I can't imagine it's much (if any) less than finishing and operating 24 eLORAN transmitters. The problem is that our government is acting before they plan.

For what it's worth, I too enjoy compass and stopwatch nav. In fact, until some good friends presented me with a Garmin 296 for my birthday, my 618c was the newest piece of nav gear in my Stinson.

Oh, and "tastes great"...

by kevbert » Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:11 am

If you were to substitute the long-winded tedious arguments with entertaining wit, this would read like an old Miller beer commercial.

On the left... LESS FILLING!

And on the right... TASTES GREAT!


Makes me miss the old days!

Kevbert, I promise to constrain my long winded tedious arguments regarding LORAN to this thread. (It'll be therefore easy for you to avoid.)

I'm new here and not looking to piss anyone off, but neither am I afraid of a little lively banter. This happens to be a topic I'm interested in, and like to hear what others think. I promise to participate in more fun topics down the road.

-Bill

Well guys, I hate to do this but I will take donations to fly with only my trusty Loran down to Puerto Rico, Stay there until the Loran System is turned off. Then return using a GPS and VOR. I will present you with a full report upon my return? I will require Lodging, Entertainment (I like fishing), a Rental Vehicle, Food and Clothing, not to mention Life Raft, PLB and perhaps a companion . I am willing to make this sacrifice because I believe in the cause. Please PM me for money wiring instructions. I am pretty sure I can do this for under a million. Thanks for your participation.

I'll kick in a six-pack. Interested in the results!

So, anybody want my old Apollo 604? Yours for the cost of postage.

Trent wrote: "I have seen you post several times about the airliners "not having a loran in the cockpit".
Possibly the reason for that is they already have another back up for cross country it's called Radar!!!!!"

PLEASE tell me you aren't serious, Dude? Radar is NOT a viable navigation tool in aircraft. Any aircraft. Oh, and I hate to break this to you, but find a boat owner that uses LORAN nowadays. As I pointed out, the International Loran group stated that there is only ONE LORAN receiver in current production for marine use. So, every mariner is using LORAN? Go spend some time with the fishing fleet.

RDF: Your argument that VORs are sited too far apart is a little bit lame. The US aviation world, including general avaition, has been using the VOR system for decades. It's not a perfect system, by any means, as you point out. But, it functions reasonably well in the IFR environment. ANd it provides the only reasonable solution to a GPS outage.

As to MY using VOR nav, I dont'. Mine doesn't work, and I'm not interested in fixing it. I "grew up" flying in Alaska, and VOR's were simply non existent (and pretty much still are). I learned to navigate by looking out the window.

But, again, the pilots who NEED a backup to loran aren't the GA types. That is something that the jet set really needs.

Now, arguing that the VOR system is being decommissioned, therefore we desperately need to maintain the LORAN system seems a little obtuse to me as well. Keep the VOR system, and dump LORAN. The VOR system is proven, and it can provide precision approach capability, AND, virtually every commercially used airplnae out there has a receiver or four aboard.

MTV

Maybe you misunderstood me.

I'm no saying radar would be good for a long term solution, but if an airliner was enroute and the GPS failed. I would bet a large amount of money that ATC would give them a vector.

As far as the VOR's around here being too far apart . If you are using them to navigate cross country, guess what, THEY ARE!!!!!!!!!

Maybe if you stayed above 13000 feet you could do fairly well with them but I don't fly that high unless I have to.
It kinda defeats the whole backcountry flying scenaro (at least for me).

I never said every boat had a loran, what I said was, they do also deserve to have a backup to the gps.

SE6601KF wrote:
I'm no saying radar would be good for a long term solution, but if an airliner was enroute and the GPS failed. I would bet a large amount of money that ATC would give them a vector.

Since aircraft that are going GPS direct are required to be in radar contact in the first place that's a good bet.

Radar is not an acceptable "means of navigation". It can be used in certain situations as an AID to navigation, but what if the airplane experiences a comm failure? Radar, whether ground based or in the airplane is NOT a backup means of nav.

It seems that a couple folks on here seem to think that all these expensive navigation systems were funded generously by the taxpayers to support general aviation. They weren't, and general aviation is waaaaaayyyyyyy down on the list of relative importance when it comes to these types of system. Largely because VFR pilot should have lots of options to aid in navigation.

Airlines and other turbine traffic on the other hand, DO operate regularly in the flight levels, where VOR IS indeed a reliable and functional system.

MTV

58S,

Actually, it's probably more like "Who really cares?"



MTV

mtv wrote:Actually, it's probably more like "Who really cares?"

I know. My 396 currently lives in my pickup, so I can use it as my XM radio receiver.

Gump

mtv wrote:58S,

Actually, it's probably more like "Who really cares?"



MTV

This threads been very entertaining!!

mtv wrote:Radar is not an acceptable "means of navigation". It can be used in certain situations as an AID to navigation, but what if the airplane experiences a comm failure? Radar, whether ground based or in the airplane is NOT a backup means of nav.

It seems that a couple folks on here seem to think that all these expensive navigation systems were funded generously by the taxpayers to support general aviation. They weren't, and general aviation is waaaaaayyyyyyy down on the list of relative importance when it comes to these types of system. Largely because VFR pilot should have lots of options to aid in navigation.

Airlines and other turbine traffic on the other hand, DO operate regularly in the flight levels, where VOR IS indeed a reliable and functional system.

MTV

I didn't say the navigation was by radar. The fact is if you want to go GPS direct then ATC rules require you to be in radar contact.

I had a King 8001 Loran C with the -01 software option in a plane I owned back in Fla in the 80's. The thing was surprising accurate. Almost as good as a current cheap GPS handheld unit now available. Altho the southeast chain of loran stations were well placed for my situation, I can see how an error could happen in po dunk Alaska with bad signal geometry though. IMHO.

Bonanza Man wrote:

mtv wrote:Radar is not an acceptable "means of navigation". It can be used in certain situations as an AID to navigation, but what if the airplane experiences a comm failure? Radar, whether ground based or in the airplane is NOT a backup means of nav.

It seems that a couple folks on here seem to think that all these expensive navigation systems were funded generously by the taxpayers to support general aviation. They weren't, and general aviation is waaaaaayyyyyyy down on the list of relative importance when it comes to these types of system. Largely because VFR pilot should have lots of options to aid in navigation.

Airlines and other turbine traffic on the other hand, DO operate regularly in the flight levels, where VOR IS indeed a reliable and functional system.

MTV

I didn't say the navigation was by radar. The fact is if you want to go GPS direct then ATC rules require you to be in radar contact.

I understood what you said in the first post. Not sure about others though.

SE6601KF wrote:Possibly the reason for that is they already have another back up for cross country it's called Radar!!!!!

mtv wrote:Radar is not an acceptable "means of navigation".

Bonanza Man wrote:I didn't say the navigation was by radar. The fact is if you want to go GPS direct then ATC rules require you to be in radar contact.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't directed at you, BM.

Use quotes for context to clarify the object of the rebuttal, everbody. It helps to avoid confusion.