Checkride q: Expired GPS DB

J

Jason608

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Mar 2, 2015
Messages
174
Location
Arizona
Display Name
Display name:
Jason608
I was talking with a DPE today and he asked: can you fly IFR with and expired GPS database? He told me to look it up because of new information.
My understanding is you can still fly VOR with an expired DB. VOR enroute, VOR Approach, but not GPS.

Did something in the rules change recently? I do not see any changes.
 
AIM 1-1-17 5 b says the database must be current and appropriate to be used for IFR operations.

AC 90-100 provides further guidance.
 
If you're flying old school and not using GPS, sure, shy of something in your MEL if you have one.
 
Don't forget to also check your flight manual supplement and the data it refers to.
 
Some of the older enroute/terminal (not approach) GPS units indicated in the flight manual supplement that it was OK to use them with an expired database as long as you verified each waypoint against current data. Not particularly convenient, but worked for things like the TNL-2000T after Jepp stopped supporting the database. As I recall, the 430 required current data for approaches, but for some earlier installations the local FSDO inserted or deleted language from the proposed manual supplement, so check that for reference.
 
On a similar note, can I use my GPS as primary in VFR chexkride with expired DB? Or do i have to tell him it's for situational awareness only and here is my primary paper chart

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
I suspect it depends on the DPE.

The one that gave me my commercial and CFI check rides expected current charts and a current chart supplement and checked them.

I suspect he would expect a current database in the GPS although I didn’t see him check the GPS data base. It was current.

The charts are my primary navigation.

He had me use the Garmin 696 GPS to intercept a radial outbound for my commercial check ride.
 
Last edited:
The AFMS accompanying your IFR GPS is what controls here. Most (probably all) Garmin manuals, and the King manuals that I've reviewed, only require a current database for approaches. They permit enroute and terminal GPS operations with an expired database so long you verify the accuracy of the data.
 
Vance Breese said:
I suspect it depends on the DPE.

The one that gave me my CFI check ride expected current charts and a current chart supplement and checked them.

I suspect he would expect a current database in the GPS although I didn’t see him check the GPS data base. It was current.

The charts are my primary navigation.

He had me use the Garmin 696 GPS to intercept a radial outbound.
Click to expand...

Huh, that's odd he needed everything to be current but let you use the portable to navigate a radial

image.jpg


I'd think if he was going to bend at all he'd let you take a IFR ride in VFR conditions with certified equipment, but with a expired database, before he let you use something which is straight not to be a primary means of navigation.
 
James331 said:
Huh, that's odd he needed everything to be current but let you use the portable to navigate a radial

image.jpg


I'd think if he was going to bend at all he'd let you take a IFR ride in VFR conditions with certified equipment, but with a expired database, before he let you use something which is straight not to be a primary means of navigation.
Click to expand...

I read your post and realized it was not my CFI check ride or an instrument check ride; it was my commercial check ride.

I used the same DPE for both and it was VMC for both.

He felt as a commercial pilot I should know how to use all the equipment installed in the experimental aircraft.
 
Last edited:
I read the policy letter several times. So, GPS is probably not on the MEL or MMEL of a 172. If the GPS is out of date, I think nothing changes and you can fly VOR IFR or VFR. Thoughts?
 
Jason608 said:
I was talking with a DPE today and he asked: can you fly IFR with and expired GPS database? He told me to look it up because of new information.
My understanding is you can still fly VOR with an expired DB. VOR enroute, VOR Approach, but not GPS.

Did something in the rules change recently? I do not see any changes.
Click to expand...

Unless I am missing something here, there is no reason why you can't fly VOR's with an expired GPS. Just because the aircraft has GPS, doesn't mean you have to use it. From what I hear, there was actually a such thing as IFR before the invention of the GPS.
 
if this is a checkride, the ACS equipmentnt requirements need to be consulted. And they include:
  • GPS equipment must be instrument certified and contain the current database.
Yes, it's weird. You may not need a current database for real world IFR flight, but you do need one for the checkride.

(BTW, this was also in the predecessor Instrument PTS)
 
Jason608 said:
I read the policy letter several times. So, GPS is probably not on the MEL or MMEL of a 172. If the GPS is out of date, I think nothing changes and you can fly VOR IFR or VFR. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Do you know anyone who has a MEL for their 172? just in case you are making a common error, the equipment list in a 172 POH is not a MEL. It's a subject not well covered in training because its applicability to light GA is pretty limited (and, I have to add, at least in part due to the unfortunate use of a certain burning fruit mnemonic).

A MEL is a document prepared by an operator and approved by the FAA. It is a list of equipment that may be inoperative instead of going through the 91.213(d) process (MEL is discussed in 91.213(a)-(c)). The MMEL is an FAA template (AFAIK, there isn't one for a 172). The flip side of having a MEL is, you can't fly with any inoperative equipment that isn't listed on it. A 91.123 analysis applies only to aircraft without a MEL. IOW, if a piece of equipment is not listed in your MEL, you can't fly with it inop, even if the general rules say you can. So it needs to be detailed and comprehensive.

The template has an entry for database currency, which pretty much mimics the rules anyway. If interested, you can find a collection of MMEL at http://fsims.faa.gov/PICResults.aspx?mode=Publication&doctype=MMEL

All the Policy Letter says is, the template is wrong in including database currency. A MEL is a list of "inoperative equipment" and the lack of a current database does not meet the definition of "inoperative equipment" so it doesn't belong there. It doesn't change any of the rules, just the way they are treated for MEL purposes.

As you said, "nothing changes," except the contents of the MMEL template.
 
Last edited:
This is an old topic of discussion. For the longest time, it was argued that GPS database had to be current and that is what was specified in most of the AFMS section2, limitations. Then UPS Apollo changed the wording to indicate that the approach data had to be current. Garmin bought UPS and adopted similar wording beginning with the 430W/530W. Then the AIM added a note indicating that it was OK "3 Requires current database or verification that the procedure has not been amended since the expiration of the database." That note is still there in the AIM TBL 1-1-6), but because it is not regulatory, it falls back to the actual AFMS. The FAA later changed the wording in AC 90-105 and tightened up to only allow it on changes in flight that crossed the AIRAC cycle, so you takeoff in one AIRAC cycle but land in the next. The AC and the AIM are not the final say, the AFMS is. IMHO, it is totally safe and very easy to check if the expiration of the database is prior to the last change for an approach, SID, or STAR. Most of these procedures don't change for years at a time. If the approach changed after the date of the database, then you can't use it.

The ACS makes it simple, the DB must be current.
 
John Collins said:
This is an old topic of discussion. For the longest time, it was argued that GPS database had to be current and that is what was specified in most of the AFMS section2, limitations. Then UPS Apollo changed the wording to indicate that the approach data had to be current. Garmin bought UPS and adopted similar wording beginning with the 430W/530W. Then the AIM added a note indicating that it was OK "3 Requires current database or verification that the procedure has not been amended since the expiration of the database." That note is still there in the AIM TBL 1-1-6), but because it is not regulatory, it falls back to the actual AFMS. The FAA later changed the wording in AC 90-105 and tightened up to only allow it on changes in flight that crossed the AIRAC cycle, so you takeoff in one AIRAC cycle but land in the next. The AC and the AIM are not the final say, the AFMS is. IMHO, it is totally safe and very easy to check if the expiration of the database is prior to the last change for an approach, SID, or STAR. Most of these procedures don't change for years at a time. If the approach changed after the date of the database, then you can't use it.

The ACS makes it simple, the DB must be current.
Click to expand...

A bit off topic...
You say the AFMS trumps the AIM and AC (I don't disagree). If the regs and the AFMS disagree, do you consider the AFMS or regs to be controlling? Does it matter which was changed most recently?

A few years ago, some simulators had instances where the regs, AC, and letter of authorization (probably the closest analogue to the AFMS) all said different things. I chose the letter of authorization, but not sure if that was correct.
 
\__[Ô]__/ said:
A bit off topic...
You say the AFMS trumps the AIM and AC (I don't disagree). If the regs and the AFMS disagree, do you consider the AFMS or regs to be controlling? Does it matter which was changed most recently?

A few years ago, some simulators had instances where the regs, AC, and letter of authorization (probably the closest analogue to the AFMS) all said different things. I chose the letter of authorization, but not sure if that was correct.
Click to expand...
The regs and the AFMS don't really disagree. The AIM and AC are not regulations, they are guidances based on regulatory authority. On the other hand, the restriction on database currency in the AFMS is an operating limitation.

91.9(a) is pretty specific that "no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual..." That rule applies just as much to the GPS database as it does to flap extension speed.

So the regs are controlling here. The regs say the AFMS trumps the AIM and other "non-regulatory" guidances like the AC.

Sometimes the analysis gets complicated and recency is one of the complicating factors. But then it depends on which is more recent, a reg or a limitation, which is more restrictive, and whether the change is actually regulatory or not. Fortunately, in the database situation, as it actually exists, it's relatively straightforward.
 
Last edited:
We had to update the GNS430 during my checkride. We fired up the plane, got ready to taxi out, and behold the databases were out of date by one day. Shut down the plane, went into the FBO and updated the DB. So at least my DPE wouldn't do the ride under /A.
 
labbadabba said:
We had to update the GNS430 during my checkride. We fired up the plane, got ready to taxi out, and behold the databases were out of date by one day. Shut down the plane, went into the FBO and updated the DB. So at least my DPE wouldn't do the ride under /A.
Click to expand...
As @John Collins said above, the DPE doesn't have a say in the matter...if the airplane is equipped, the database must be current for a checkride per PTS or ACS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top