There is an RNAV waypoint named STYCK co-located at what appears to be the exact location of the LOA VOR (coordinates match precisely as well). Why would the creation of a waypoint be necessary if IFR GPS/RNAV units/databases can take both VOR names and waypoints? Why not just use the VOR name that has existed there for over 50 years? Such a thing is regularly done in IFR SIDs and STARs when loading them into a GPS/FMS.


1 Answer 1


In the US, the FAA has done this alot, as in their long term plan to phase out a lot of the VORs. Doing that, they're preemptively just adding a Fix for procedures on top of the VOR so they don't have to update all the procedures when the VOR is decommissioned.

  • $\begingroup$ Agreed. Any reference? $\endgroup$
    – Pugz
    Aug 13, 2017 at 22:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No references, just discussion with the people who go around designing the RNAV arrivals, when we were designing some for LIT. $\endgroup$
    – slookabill
    Aug 13, 2017 at 22:53
  • $\begingroup$ phase out a lot of the VORs - in that case, they'd have to phase out a lot of the small Cessna aircraft also - or what are those going to navigate with ? XD $\endgroup$
    – Programmer
    Feb 1 at 22:20
  • $\begingroup$ Programmer, there aren't a lot of non-GPS Cessnas out there, anymore. GPS is cheap and fits into a small space. Pilots of such aircraft usually take a hand-held GPS along, although these units are not certified for flying approaches. $\endgroup$
    – atc_ceedee
    Feb 4 at 15:41

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.