all the VOR’s in Europe seem to be aligned to true north
SFD is not true north, looking at the map I posted. However, the declination around here moves about 0.1 degree per year.
But maybe the biggest factor is that not much of relevance is based on VOR radials anymore. Most airways are probably based on virtual waypoints.
Somehow, there must be an explanation for why I have been checking my VOR receivers for 15 years in the way described and it works.
All European VORs are aligned to magnetic north. But at most places you only have a variation of 1-2 degrees.
dylan_22 wrote:
All European VORs are aligned to magnetic north. But at most places you only have a variation of 1-2 degrees.
Magnetic, yes
All European VORs are aligned to magnetic north. But at most places you only have a variation of 1-2 degrees
There is a lack of understanding here. The variation is irrelevant. Aviation (IFR panel mount) GPS tracks are magnetic. So if you set “DCT SFD” and are flying a track of 090, you will be flying 090 magnetic. So there is no issue with the VOR test – provided the VOR itself is radiating a field aligned on the magnetic bearings, which clearly is the case.
One thing that a CFI pointed out to me to keep in mind is that if you don’t use your VOR for IFR navigation, there is no obligation to do the VOR checks. Which makes the checklist items of those French SAFA checkers all the more interesting, because they’d have to prove to you that you have used your VOR for IFR navigation in order to determine that a missing check is indeed an infraction.
I haven’t verified that claim though, I must add.
Rwy20 wrote:
One thing that a CFI pointed out to me to keep in mind is that if you don’t use your VOR for IFR navigation, there is no obligation to do the VOR checks. Which makes the checklist items of those French SAFA checkers all the more interesting, because they’d have to prove to you that you have used your VOR for IFR navigation in order to determine that a missing check is indeed an infraction.
While technically correct I would humbly suggest having that discussion with a French inspector is not a great way to go on your way.
@Peter wrote:
Especially as one pilot reported, a few years ago, getting ramp checked in France and the policeman having a briefing pack listing VOR checks
And I’m afraid that flic’s briefing pack was correct, to the extent that the FAR 91.171 VOR checks are “not inconsistent” with applicable regulations in France – see FAR 91.703(a)(3).
Jacko wrote:
to the extent that the FAR 91.171 VOR checks are “not inconsistent” with applicable regulations in Franc
Except that we have established that 91.171 only applies within the US…
No, not exactly. FAR 91.101 says that the rules in Subpart B apply to all aircraft in the US, and 91.703 says they (mostly) apply to US aircraft outside of the US:
91.703 Operations of civil aircraft of U.S. registry outside of the United States.
(a) Each person operating a civil aircraft of U.S. registry outside of the United States shall—
(1) When over the high seas, comply with annex 2 (Rules of the Air) to the Convention on International Civil Aviation and with §§91.117(c), 91.127, 91.129, and 91.131;
(2) When within a foreign country, comply with the regulations relating to the flight and maneuver of aircraft there in force;
(3) Except for §§91.117(a), 91.307(b), 91.309, 91.323, and 91.711, comply with this part so far as it is not inconsistent with applicable regulations of the foreign country where the aircraft is operated or annex 2 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation; and
but whether anyone really cares is quite another matter 
VOR checks in Europe are a bit of an historic anachronism especially when VOT’s are not available.
It harks back, I believe, to the days when all US airways were predicated on VOR (with items like mandatory ‘change over’ points being stipulated and enforced on the charts) because they were concerned that aircraft didn’t stray to far from the centre line of airways.
In a GPS world, things are very different.
As Peter says: the only way to fulfil the legal requirement of FAR 91.101 in Europe is via the ‘dual receiver’ method.
I do this, bizarrely, not because I am over-concerned as to the instruments reliability – it is always within 2°; but in order to show that I have fulfilled a check if some French official demands evidence!
In the increasingly new world of RNAV, I assume that this regulation will eventually go the way of the do-do; just as previous evidence of a RAIM check was required if you didn’t have a ‘Waas’ GPS.
