Decommisioning of UK VORs

[jalbert1]

I've heard that most UK VORs are for the chop in the not too distant future.What gives?Any news on which ones will be kept?I guess the more remote ones so as to continue offering a IRS update for the Ocean traffic?
Thanks.

[WindFarmer]

My understanding is that their number will be reduced. Some therefore have a longer future than others. I am not aware of any list or dates.

[daynehold]

Told by Manchester Controller about 18 months ago that Dean Cross definitely for the chop.

[Spitoon]

All part of a big European/Eurocontrol plan for future navigation. Because the area nav systems in large aircraft can work out the most accurate nav solutions using multiple DMEs the nav infrastructure roadmap is for more DMEs and lots of NDBs and VORs being withdrawn.

So tough luck if you're going to miss NDBs or VORs but someone must have asked you - Eurocontroil says all stakeholders were consulted.

[niknak]

As far as I know, all the VORs in the UK are owned, operated and maintained by NATS and funded for the most part by those operators who fly IFR and pay route charges within UK airspace.

It will be interesting to see the reaction of the G/A community, the very large majority of whom pay nothing towards the cost of en route navigational facilities, to this.:rolleyes: :)

[Point Seven]

Whilst I appreciate how handy the GA community find the use of VORs for en-route nav, if they pay NOTHING towards their upkeep, should VORs be de-comissioned, how could they complain?

P7:confused:

[FlyVMO]

Honest question-
Where does all the tax on Avgas go on that side of the pond? None towards "infrastructure"? General fund? Big debate starting to heat up over here re user fees.

[Stampe]

As an airline pilot VORs are largely an irrelevance for the kit I fly (75/76)DME/DME updating is preferred.In the vintage aircraft I own and fly basic navigation technique backed up by GPS means I avoid talking to you guys as much as possible,remaining clear and navigating accurately.There is little ATC can offer.other than a token (major units in the South East) flight information service.I don,t think GA will be very concerned at the demise of VORs.I certainly would be unwilling to pay to participate in the very poor level of service offered to GA in the South East by the major ATC units.Great service from you guys in the day job best in the world most probably but strap the light aircraft on and we become pariahs.I see this as the fault of your managements who fund only for minimum level to service the airlines,there,s no slack in the system.

[BDiONU]

Honest question-
Where does all the tax on Avgas go on that side of the pond? None towards "infrastructure"? General fund? Big debate starting to heat up over here re user fees.
What tax? Huge taxes on car fuel, zero tax on aviation fuel in UK.

BD

[BDiONU]

I see this as the fault of your managements who fund only for minimum level to service the airlines,there,s no slack in the system.
I see this as a result of free market forces. En route ATC is a business and the airlines are the paying customers, GA make no contribution so why should they get an ATC service for free?

BD

[Spitoon]

Whilst I appreciate how handy the GA community find the use of VORs for en-route nav, if they pay NOTHING towards their upkeep, should VORs be de-comissioned, how could they complain?

P7Ahh, the NATS commercial viewpoint. But the UK as a State has an obligation to provide a navigational infrastructure for its airspace users - it signed up to this in the ICAO convention. Perhaps the Government did not pass on this obligation in the NATS licence to provide services....or maybe NATS needs to look at the conditions on the licence.

I have no problem with NATS being a commercial organisation, or the users pays concept, but that does not mean that all other considerations go out of the window! That's one of the reasons we have regulators. In this case however, if i understand it correctly, it was the regulator who agreed to the Eurocontrol plan without consulting all of the airspace users.

[BDiONU]

Ahh, the NATS commercial viewpoint. But the UK as a State has an obligation to provide a navigational infrastructure for its airspace users - it signed up to this in the ICAO convention. Perhaps the Government did not pass on this obligation in the NATS licence to provide services....or maybe NATS needs to look at the conditions on the licence.
I have no problem with NATS being a commercial organisation, or the users pays concept, but that does not mean that all other considerations go out of the window! That's one of the reasons we have regulators. In this case however, if i understand it correctly, it was the regulator who agreed to the Eurocontrol plan without consulting all of the airspace users.
Withdrawal of VORS is a part of the emerging ECAC navigation strategy being developed by Eurocontrol. The strategy envisages withdrawal of the majority of VORs – in the order of 60% of the total population, replacement of the remaining VORs to provide a back-up in the case of aircraft RNAV system failures, and a rationalisation of the DME infrastructure to provide an optimised DME/DME RNAV coverage.
In my earlier reply I was talking specifically about ATC service as opposed to navigation service (if that makes sense). NATS do have a commitment to provide certain minimal navigation, as witness the consultation etc over the withdrawal of the NEW VOR.

BD

[Spitoon]

NATS do have a commitment to provide certain minimal navigation, as witness the consultation etc over the withdrawal of the NEW VOR.Keyword here is minimal I fear and although I don't have a copy of the NATS licence to hand I recall that the navigation that has to be provided is to support the en-route services that the licence covers.

Sadly, time does not permit further research just now - I'm being dragged off shopping.:bored: Maybe later......

[BDiONU]

Keyword here is minimal I fear and although I don't have a copy of the NATS licence to hand I recall that the navigation that has to be provided is to support the en-route services that the licence covers.
Sadly, time does not permit further research just now - I'm being dragged off shopping.:bored: Maybe later......
Oooh! Shopping! Good luck :ok:

Bd

[BEXIL160]

What tax? Huge taxes on car fuel, zero tax on aviation fuel in UK.

Ahem, ZERO on Jet A1 (AVTUR to you, BD) but a HUGE amount on 100LL AVGAS ... and destined to be raised further.

Where does the tax go? into the big UK pot (ring fencing not allowed)

Rgds BEX

[BDiONU]

Ahem, ZERO on Jet A1 (AVTUR to you, BD) but a HUGE amount on 100LL AVGAS ...
Ah! I stand corrected. :ooh:

BD

[ShyTorque]

bdionu: What tax? Huge taxes on car fuel, zero tax on aviation fuel in UK. BD

Incorrect statement. AVGAS, as used by a large proportion of smaller GA, i.e. those not being directly charged for en route navigational services, does carry a high tax levy, very similar to car fuel.

Different subject; If VORs are to be officially decomissioned, along with NDBs, does this imply an acceptance by the CAA of the only alternative type of primary navigation equipment, namely GPS? It appears it must.

But then....how are we to fly an IRT with no beacons? ;)

Edit: Oh, I see that during my phone call from my boss - someone else already mentioned tax. :O

[Spitoon]

Shopping was as much fun as anticipated.

Back to the point in question. The NATS licence includes an obligation for 'The making available, to users, of services other than Core Services, using the navigational infrastructure described in the AIP as at the date of the coming into effect of this Licence'.

Sadly, I don't think anyone actually tried to define what navigational infrastructure the non-Core Services users actually use. So it's up to NATS to make this judgement whenever they consider removing an en-route aid from service. You might also notice that, like many things in the Licence, it is not exactly set up to meet future changes - you might be able to rely on having whatever just happened to be in place in March 2001 but NATS appears to bew under no obligation to provide anything else that might be desirable in the future. I guess that will be down to the CAA or Government to provide....

[BDiONU]

you might be able to rely on having whatever just happened to be in place in March 2001 but NATS appears to bew under no obligation to provide anything else that might be desirable in the future. I guess that will be down to the CAA or Government to provide....
CAA and/or government have no infrastructure to provide, support or maintain any navaids. Of course they may choose to pay a provider to do so on their behalf :}

BD