VOR Standard Service volume legality

[Brett Hull]

Doing class I nav:

You can proceed to a VOR from outside of its service volume, provided you are ALWAYS within the service volume of SOME OTHER airways navaid.

Part 91: Have at it.

THANK YOU!!!!

You guys can take a somewhat easy job and make it more difficult than brain surgery.

 

[100LL... Again!]

Your OSV definition does not include merely "identifying it". ESV pertains to specific areas where the VOR was flight tested beyond SSV, and the published flight procedures were also specifically flight tested. Absent a flight check by FAA, I do not see where you would have a leg to stand on at the hearing, but you can try it if you like. Reminds me of someone showing up in front of the ALJ with a letter from their FSDO, or even the Region, but FAA AGC Chief Counsel has a different interp. Guess which will be more valuable to you in that hearing room, your letter or a new roll of Charmin? ;-)

Ptarmigan is correct. The definition referenced in the earlier post is easily misread.

The earlier poster interpreted this way:
Operational service volume is:
Standard svc vol.
Expanded svc vol.
anywhere else a usable signal exists


The real interp from a very knowledgeable Fed:

operational service volume is:

Standard svc vol.
Expanded svc vol.
PROVIDED you have a usable signal AND there is no restrictions to the std svc vol (found in the AFD).

It is not an OR case, it is an AND case.

 

[FN FAL]

THANK YOU!!!!

You guys can take a somewhat easy job and make it more difficult than brain surgery.

Why thank you!

Hey, at least it wasn't another boring thread...take a look at it like this, if we all weren't interested in an answer, or the discussion, this thread would have gotten ignored and found itself 10 pages into the abyss of long forgoten threads.

 

[Bernoulli]

Doing class I nav:

You can proceed to a VOR from outside of its service volume, provided you are ALWAYS within the service volume of SOME OTHER airways navaid.

Part 91: Have at it.

OK... I'm back. Sounds like the wise crackers are off butchering some other posts. Thanks for the constructive comments from ptarmigan and 100LL...AGAIN.

Regarding the quote above...Thank you for pointing this out. Did you find this in OpSpecs A002, B032, or B034?...or someplace else. Also...to clarify Operational Service Volume... do you understand this as if you can ID the station then it's operational or is OSV published somewhere like in an AFD?

 

[avbug]

Let's say you are 10,000 feet on an IFR flight plan and ATC tells you to fly direct to a high altitude VOR that is greater than 40 NM away. ..IE... you are beyond the Standard Service Volume of the VOR according to the AIM. You tune and identify it, center the CDI...all looks good...BUT...Because you are not on a published route and you are beyond the Standard Service Volume of 40 NM and you are a slant Alpha (IE...no RNAV or GPS)...are you allowed to accept the clearance or legally should you remind ATC you are a slant A and request a vector until able? Refer to AIM 1-1-8(a). I'm looking for legality here rather than practicality. Practiaclly...yeah...just center the CDI and go to the VOR... but is it legal if you are beyond the Standard Service Volume?Thanks in advance for all sincere responces.

Legally you need only be able to fix your position reliably. You can do that with dead reckoning well enough, as you can with a radar vector, an electrical position fix, or a star reading for that matter (for those of us that remember). Or by pilotage.

Ask for a vector. Look at your chart. Start timing and use your heading...you still do that, don't you? Is this legal? You betcha.

You asked about OpSpecs...these are applicable to a particular operator and only to that operator, but you got lucky and picked the right one. You picked OpSpec A002, which includes the definition for Operational Service Volume, as follows:

The Operational Service Volume is that volume of airspace surrounding a NAVAID which is available for operational use and within which a signal of useable strength exists and where that signal is not operational limited by co-chanel interference. Operational Service Volume includes all of the following:

(1) The officially designated Standard Service Volume excluding any portion of the Standard Service Volume which has been restricted.

(2) The Expanded Service Volume.

(3) Within the United States, any published instrument flight proceedure (victor or jet airway, SID, STAR, SIAP, or instrument departure).

(4) Outside the United States, any designated signal coverage or published instrument flight proceedure equivilent to U.S. Standards.

This echoes AC 91-70, which includes the note, "The operational service volume for a specific navaid can be determined by contacting the Frequency Management Section within each regional Airway Facilities Division." Note that the Operational Service Volume includes any airway.

Yes, the OpSpecs you cited do reference Class 1 navigation and address your questions, but only if you're employed by the company to whom each one is issued. They are operator-specific, and not intended as general definition or regulation. In fact, they are allowances to regulation, additions thereof that apply only to the single, specific certificate holder who receives them. These apply to Part 121, 125, 129, and 135 operators. Sister authorizations that mirror the OpSpecs are issued to Fractional operators now, operating under 14 CFR Part 91 subpart K...called "M" specs for "management specifications."

Advisory Circular 90-92, Appendix 2, provides the following definition for Extended Service Volume:

Extended Service Volume - Defines the reception limits of VOR/DME and NDB NAVAIDs which are usable for unpublished route navigation and which are flight checked to confirm these limits of coverage. The extended service volume of NDBs used in oceanic navigation (such as beyond the 75 nm standard service volume) must be individually flight checked. There is no procedure readily available to pilots to help them determine whether or not a particular charted offshore route has an extended service volume. However, air traffic separation is based on DR beyond the extended service volume, so the pilot uses the NAVAID for as long as possible, establishes the wind drift rate, then uses LRN or DR.

The widespread use of long range navigation has largely made this a non-issue. However, in keeping with the original question posed by the thread, if we consider an aircraft that isn't equipped with long range navigation, I have to assume that the pilot is certainly equipped with the capability of establishing his position by dead reckoning...basic navigational skills that should be ingrained at the student-pilot level. Are you legal to include DR in your navigational reportoire? You betcha. Can you? That's up to you. May you? You betcha. Should you? Only if you dont' want thick layers of rust to grow up around all those important skills that you buried after you got your wet ink pilot certificate.

The bottom line for you, if you're flying A to B under strictly Part 91, is that you need to be able to know (A) where you are, and (B) where you're going, and (C) how to get there. If you can do that, you can get there legally. You need to have an approved means to do that. If you're navigating by victor radios (your VOR) and you can receive and identify the navaid you're using, then you're in good shape. You are never prohibited from DR and other basic forms of navigation. Even modern GPS and FMS equipment utilizes DR for navigation...you can, too.

Remember too that you may not be within the standard, extended, or operational service volumes of the navaids from which or to which you're going, but you may be able to fix your position from numerous navaids adjacent to your course. So long as you can fix your position reliably, by the means at your disposal, then you're legal, and more importantly, safe.

As other posters have noted, in a radar environment, you can obtain a single vector across the country if you like, and be in and out of reception of naviads all the while, and be legal. Likewise, if you can fix your position by other means, such as fix to fix using triangualtion from enroute nav stations, a mixture of VOR's and NDB's along your route, and dead reckoning, you're also legal...and might I add, capable.

 

[DrewBlows]

Once again avbug is very insightful. Again, don't make it harder than it needs to be.

FN FAL, if you are going to post gibirish, at least make it insightful giberish about guns. After all, you are the gun expert of flightinfo.

 

[FN FAL]

Once again avbug is very insightful. Again, don't make it harder than it needs to be.

FN FAL, if you are going to post gibirish, at least make it insightful giberish about guns. After all, you are the gun expert of flightinfo.

I'm not an expert...I know guys that can shoot eggs at three hundred yards with a bolt action, nailing those most of the time and they don't have a clue about the Supreme court explanation of how growing wheat in your back yard correlates to why home made machine guns should not fall under federal regulation. Yet, I would probably be lucky to hit a pie or pizza pan at that distance...even with practice. I'll settle for being an expert "obsessed enthusiast" though! :nuts:

Yes, to give credit where credit is due, Avbug does a good job.

 

[suen1843]

Navaid service limitations only apply to non-radar routing. Per FAA handbook 7110:

4-1-1. ALTITUDE AND DISTANCE LIMITATIONS​

When specifying a route other than an established airway or route, do not exceed the limitations in the table on any portion of the route which lies within controlled airspace. (For altitude and distance limitations, see TBL 4-1-1, TBL 4-1-2, TBL 4-1-3, and TBL 4-1-4.) (For correct application of altitude and distance limitations see FIG 4-1-1 and FIG 4-1-2.)
4-1-2. EXCEPTIONS

Altitude and distance limitations need not be applied when any of the following conditions are met:
a. Routing is initiated by ATC or requested by the pilot and the following is provided:
1. Radar monitoring.
2. As necessary, course guidance unless the aircraft is /E, /F, /G, or /R equipped.

Notice 4-1-2 does not say radar vectoring...it says radar monitoring. If you are not in radar contact, you may not fly beyond the service limits....period.​

 

[avbug]

No, they surely don't. The paragraphs you quoted apply specifically to controlled airspace. Read it again. It is, after all, the air traffic controller's handbook to which you referred. Think about it.

 

[suen1843]

No, they surely don't. The paragraphs you quoted apply specifically to controlled airspace. Read it again. It is, after all, the air traffic controller's handbook to which you referred. Think about it.

Another typical thread creep away from the original question. Read the first post.

"""VOR Standard Service volume legality
Let's say you are 10,000 feet on an IFR flight plan and ATC tells you to fly direct to a high altitude VOR that is greater than 40 NM away...........""



If you are in the airspace in the continental US, on an IFR flight plan, at 10,000 feet, then you are in controlled airspace. I don't think the average driver around here is looking for the the minuscle exception.
Also, remember that service limitations are not only affected by distance....frequency overlap is also a factor.