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.
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
4
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.
answered Aug 11, 2017 at 22:07
-
-
1$\begingroup$ No references, just discussion with the people who go around designing the RNAV arrivals, when we were designing some for LIT. $\endgroup$ 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 $\endgroup$– TheEagleFeb 1, 2022 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. $\endgroup$ Feb 4, 2022 at 15:41