These are quite familiar in the USA, but at least in the UK not so numerous. Southampton having a VOR approach for both 02 and 20.
In the USA you have VOT stations which allow you to meet the 90 day rule of certifying your VOR kit as being within service limits. Alternatively the airport chart may have a designated VOR check location.
In Europe presumably this is carried out through the avionics annual, as I have not come across a VOT. Europe doesn’t have a 90 day VOR rule. The FAA also allows an airborne check.
Now keeping in mind the need to check the VOR is in limits, would you use one or two VORs when flying a VOR approach? Yes, in North America there are approaches using two VOR stations, but in this case I am just referring to a single VOR station approach like Southampton. So the context is using both VORs for a single station approach.
Somewhere in my training I picked up the technique of leapfrogging each course segment with the alternate VOR. Inbound to the VOR VOR1 would be tracking inbound, VOR2 would be on the hold QDM. Leaving the hold VOR 1 would be on the procedure turn outbound, VOR2 set on the final approach track. Base turn both VORs on final approach track, where the two VORs should be within 4 degrees of tolerance to be accepted. Assuming they are within tolerance, VOR2 would be set to missed approach track.
In Europe I am told the VOR approach is just done with a single VOR, and this two VOR technique is not known.
In this day and age loading the approach as a GPS overlay, would help confirm the serviceability of the VOR, but again the use of GPS overlay from an IFR database has not quite become standard practice.
I haven’t flown a VOR only approach for ages. I’m guessing Goodwood was the last and that must of been in the early/mid nineties.
Used a single VOR indicator technique.
@RobertL18C. I learned to fly VOR approaches in a similar way to your description. Flying POGOs round Paris you needed to use the two VOR station technique.
However the last time I flew a VOR approach was into Dinard LFRD but that was some time ago now. Then I just used one VOR station with the 2 onboard nav boxes set to it to give a back up.
We flew an NDB approach into Carlisle a couple of months ago. AFAIK the only instrument approach available. It was not FMS-coded so back to basics.
The only time I recall flying a VOR approach for real was into Corfu LGKR.
Flew it with the GPS in OBS mode 
I haven’t flown an ILS or VOR approach since 2008 in actual conditions, just practice. I don’t use the VOR on IFR flights.
And I haven’t flown a GPS approach in about 4 years. As there isn’t (m)any around here. I’ve flown the NDB into Carlise many a time. It’s a very handy procedure to have.
I have flown real VOR approaches in Greece, Turkey and Croatia but I remember that only the one in Turkey (Samsun LTFH) was to published minima – we broke the clouds just above 500 feet while minima was 470.
Bathman wrote:
And I haven’t flown a GPS approach in about 4 years. As there isn’t (m)any around here. I’ve flown the NDB into Carlise many a time. It’s a very handy procedure to have.
Well you can have your NDB overly on GPS and fly it? or better use the handy “visual ones” in GTN750 for straight-in NDB approach 
Any IFR GPS should be capable of cloud-break up to NDB minima (NDB as waypoint, set CDI scale, OBS course), ironically, the only real advantage of NDB vs GPS is you tend to completely lose reception before hitting the terrain if you are too low whareas an artificial GPS GP just cut through terrain of course you can still use position and GPS/Baro altitude to cross-check, especially if flying NDB let-down with TS/CB or terrain
If in doubt a tablet with WAAS is way more accurate than the average ADF/NDB (4 aircraft out of 6 rentals I have flown had crappy ADF receptions, is this done on purpose?)
I think ADF/NDB are very good in the ATO world: first, they increases the number of IR training hours (but it’s good to expect a higher standards from students) and second, some instructors like to charge for outdated ADF skill and knowledge (we all know themselves will never use it in real life, I do not know that many IRIs who hand fly single pilot Cessna Caravans full of passengers from Columbia to Peru with terrain & weather)
Ibra wrote:
Well you can have your NDB overly on GPS and fly it? or better use the handy “visual ones” in GTN750 for straight-in NDB approach
AFAIK not legally in IMC. Final Approach Track (FAT) have to be always flown on a designated NAV aid/method, even under the new EASA NPA.
