GPS Database Currency

[over50]

I need some assistance from someone that still has a few brain cells. I've been studying for an eventual IPC and am currently looking at GPS database currency. Just about everything I look at states that the database needs to be current for enroute, terminal, and approach operations. Here are the references AIM 1-1-19(f)(1), AIM 5-1-16 and AC 90-100. All references are current.

From AIM 1-1-19 - The onboard navigation data must be current and appropriate for the region of intended operation and should include the navigation aids, waypoints, and relevant coded terminal airspace procedures for the departure, arrival, and alternate airfields.

But then I go out to the airport and the resident "I've been there done that" crowd proceed to tell me that the database doesn't need to be current for the enroute and terminal segments, just the approach segment. I just have to verify that each waypoint is in agreement with an official chart, AFD etc. Of course what good does that do me to just be able to fly the enroute and terminal segments legally and not the approach and why am I listening to this crowd.

Then yet another pilot jumps in and says that the Limitations section in the aircraft's AFMS determines whether I have to have a current database or not for enroute, terminal and approach operations. So far, I have not found any AFMS (posted online) that states you have to have a current database for enroute and terminal operations, just for the approach. (Anybody know of one?)

So why does the current AIM and Advisory Circulars (which I agree with; why fly with an expired database) oppose the AFMS? One is not regulatory (AIM & ACs) and the other is regulatory (AFMS). It just seems like this GPS regulatory stuff is one layer of crap on top of another. Not that I'm surprised, considering the source but it's either legal or it's not.

You know what - never mind - what a waste of time thinking about this is. If the CFI asks me, I'm saying it needs to be current and if he gives me "enroute and terminal don't need to be, I'm WALKING OUT. You would really have to be a lame brain to defend flying around with an expired database quoting some reg?

 

[somorris]

Hi Over50. Our airplane doesn't have an IFR GPS, so I can only conjecture, but when updating the database is it possible to even just update the approaches? Based on updating our portable, it all comes together (not that this answers your question .

But I agree that flying around in the clouds with out-of-date data for any of the route segments just doesn't make sense. There are others here (like Cap'nRon) that are much more up to speed on the regs than I. Hopefully, they will chime in. Inquiring minds want to know .

 

[EppyGA]

Why not update the database?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Check Table 1-1-6 at AIM 1-1-19(d). It sets out the rules for required database currency. The database rarely is required to be the most current; for the most part, the data in in does. For example, for instrument approaches, "Requires current database or verification that the procedure has not been amended since the expiration of the database."

A AFMS for a specific GPS may have more restrictive requirements that the rules provide. That's also true for every other airworthiness reg and the AFMS.

If the CFI asks me, I'm saying it needs to be current and if he gives me "enroute and terminal don't need to be, I'm WALKING OUT.

Seems reasonable to me. If you don't like acquiring information and knowledge, simply reject it and the person providing it.

 

[poadeleted20]

If the CFI asks me, I'm saying it needs to be current and if he gives me "enroute and terminal don't need to be, I'm WALKING OUT. You would really have to be a lame brain to defend flying around with an expired database quoting some reg?

No, just someone who knows the rules and how to comply with them. However, a CFI who says that without qualifying the answer as Mark did regarding the various restrictions in the AIM and possibly in your GPS's AFM Supplement would not be one you want to learn from.

 

[Velocity173]

Your reference is AIM 1-1-6 chart notes 2&3.
Note 2 IFR (enroute / terminal) Requires verification of data for correctness if database is expired.
Note 3 IFR (approach) Requires current database or verification that the procedure has not been amended since the expiration of the database.

The overriding factor in all this is what your AFM says. I'd be willing to bet it has the same type of verbaige as the AIM. Our RFM for the 530 allows IFR usage for enroute and terminal NAV with an expired database only once you identify the correctness of the data.

So, no a current database is generally not required. AOPA has a good IFR GPS class online. If you're not a member you can still take it. It'll answer most basic GPS questions including this one.

 

[taters]

Of course what good does that do me to just be able to fly the enroute and terminal segments legally and not the approach and why am I listening to this crowd.



You know what - never mind - what a waste of time thinking about this is. If the CFI asks me, I'm saying it needs to be current and if he gives me "enroute and terminal don't need to be, I'm WALKING OUT. You would really have to be a lame brain to defend flying around with an expired database quoting some reg?

Actually it provides you some reg relief, say you went on a trip and the database expired before your return flight home, you forgot to bring the means to update it. Well you can now go home GPS direct and shoot a ground based approach to get in..LEGALLY .. Otherwise you would have to fly /A or something. ....not so lame brained is it ?

its almost like you are MELing the currency of the database...just as you would a second attitude indicator etc.

 

[douglas393]

To me it's one of those issues of regardless of the regulation you WANT to be safe. Using out of date data while in IFR and not knowing it can be that first link in the chain of a fatal accident. So to me there are many good reasons to make sure that the data my GPS is giving me is current, up to date, and accurate, and no good reasons not to make sure. For me the easiest way, and "cheapest" way(my time has some value) is to make sure my database is up to date. Not only this follows the regs, but it seems to me to be the safest way to do this.

 

[taters]

(Anybody know of one?)

You don't even need them to be current in an airliner. ( for a specified period of time)

 

[midlifeflyer]

To me it's one of those issues of regardless of the regulation you WANT to be safe. Using out of date data while in IFR and not knowing it can be that first link in the chain of a fatal accident. So to me there are many good reasons to make sure that the data my GPS is giving me is current, up to date, and accurate, and no good reasons not to make sure. For me the easiest way, and "cheapest" way(my time has some value) is to make sure my database is up to date. Not only this follows the regs, but it seems to me to be the safest way to do this.

Definitely. Maintaining a current database for IFR use is best from many standpoints. But that does not automatically mean that using an expired database cannot be equally safe given the proper circumstances and pilot actions.

Last time I did it was a VFR flight when I was excited to see some clouds (it was Colorado) permitting at least part of an instrument approach to my home base to be done in actual. ILS approach was not available and checking the database, I saw it was out-of-date so I pulled up the chart, loaded the approach, compared the two, satisfied myself that the loaded approach was current and then called Approach for a pop-up.

OTOH, the database being current should not be an excuse to avoid "verification." A comparison of the GPS-loaded procedure with the current chart is a good inclusion for the approach briefing, whether the overall database is current or not. That's also the "safest way."

 

[kontiki]

I've been trying to build myself some worksheets for an airplane I just bought to ensure I am current and help me track that I an staying current.

The 337 form that documents the installation of a Garmin 430 in my airplane lists the documents that must be in the POH (onboard the aircraft at all times) a.k.a. the Flight Manual Supplement.

The flight manual supplement has a paragraph for Navigation Database compliance. To paraphrase:

2.3 a) The data base card must be installed per the TSO granted Garmin.
IFR flight is prohibited unless pilot verifies currency of database or accuracy of each selected waypoint.

2.3 b) Instrument approaches using the unit are prohibited unless the approach data it contains are verified to be current.

 

[poadeleted20]

I've been trying to build myself some worksheets for an airplane I just bought to ensure I am current and help me track that I an staying current.

The 337 form that documents the installation of a Garmin 430 in my airplane lists the documents that must be in the POH (onboard the aircraft at all times) a.k.a. the Flight Manual Supplement.

The flight manual supplement has a paragraph for Navigation Database compliance. To paraphrase:

2.3 a) The data base card must be installed per the TSO granted Garmin.
IFR flight is prohibited unless pilot verifies currency of database or accuracy of each selected waypoint.

2.3 b) Instrument approaches using the unit are prohibited unless the approach data it contains are verified to be current.

In that case, you can use the procedures in the AIM to verify the currency of the data you are using and then legally fly IFR with an expired database. However, not all Garmins (or even all Garmin 430's) have that same language, and many are not legal to fly IFR without a current database. Only way to be sure is to check the AFMS for your airplane.

 

[kontiki]

In that case, you can use the procedures in the AIM to verify the currency of the data you are using and then legally fly IFR with an expired database. However, not all Garmins (or even all Garmin 430's) have that same language, and many are not legal to fly IFR without a current database. Only way to be sure is to check the AFMS for your airplane.

I'm inclined to just maintain the database on my airplane.

And I also agree with you, different installation STCs approved at different ACOs will likely list different requirements in them. There is probably a lot of variability in the way 337 forms are completed too.

Lawyer friend of the family used to remind us constantly, never argue facts, you just look them up. I don't like to give other folks advice either, I just tell them what I'm doing or how it is for me. And I do try to stick to facts.

 

[frfly172]

It's possible for you to do an individual update,say just before an IPC or a long cross country if you don't want a yearly subscription. I don't see how you would do an IPC without current data?

 

[poadeleted20]

It's possible for you to do an individual update,say just before an IPC or a long cross country if you don't want a yearly subscription.

You could, but a one-time update for my Garmin GNS530 costs almost half what an annual subscription costs, so it wouldn't take too many such flights before it becomes more cost-effective just to have the subscription. There's also the problem of what happens if an approach you need changes -- another one-time update is now required. All in all, I'd say limping along like that is penny-wise/pound-foolish, but that's just a personal opinion.

I don't see how you would do an IPC without current data?

By regulation, an IPC must be done according to the PTS. Under "Aircraft and Equipment Required for the Practical Test", the IR PTS says "GPS equipment must be instrument flight rules (IFR) certified and contain the current database." However, there is nothing in that PTS about a requirement for a current database for an IPC. Therefore, I see no reason I can't give an IPC to someone with an expired database as long as it's either done under VFR, or if done under IFR, the AFMS for the GPS is complied with. Where we'd run into a brick wall would be if the AFMS prohibited IFR operation without a current database and we couldn't do the IPC under VFR.

 

[JHW]

You know what - never mind - what a waste of time thinking about this is. If the CFI asks me, I'm saying it needs to be current and if he gives me "enroute and terminal don't need to be, I'm WALKING OUT. You would really have to be a lame brain to defend flying around with an expired database quoting some reg?

Labor Day morning turned up 500ft overcast in the city where I needed to go pick up my kids to bring them home for school the next day. It was in a place with circuitous routing via victor airways. Since it was a federal holiday all the MOA's were cold so I preferred to file /g direct destination, but since I fried my jepp card writer my database is about 3 weeks out of date. What to do? Fortunately I was able to determine that tectonic plate motion in the preceding weeks did not have much effect on the location of the destination airport. On arriving I knew I'd get an ILS so there were no other waypoints to verify, but if I had expected a GPS approach it would have taken all of 30 seconds to check the plate revision dates. So I guess I'm just another lame brain flying around with an expired database.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Under "Aircraft and Equipment Required for the Practical Test", the IR PTS says "GPS equipment must be instrument flight rules (IFR) certified and contain the current database."

Which, considering you don't need it for a real flight in hard IMC but do for a practical test flight that is almost always in good VFR, is a bit ridiculous.

 

[poadeleted20]

Which, considering you don't need it for a real flight in hard IMC but do for a practical test flight that is almost always in good VFR, is a bit ridiculous.

Well, the question asked was legality, not ridiculousness, and I think I answered the question asked. As for the discussion of the ridiculousness of various FAA regs and policies, I'll pass.

 

[over50]

I must apologize for the "lame brain" comment I made in a post last night. Frustration bringing out the worst in me. I really can't criticize a CFI or anyone else for knowing the regulations. It's certainly better associating with someone who is knowledgeable than associating with someone who isn't. And as "Taters" said in his post, allowing operations with an expired database does provide some reg. relief, so why complain about that. It just might be that I'm the lame brain on this topic. Just trying to understand the logic behind it all. Going forward - talk less and listen more. Thanks.

 

[poadeleted20]

Just trying to understand the logic behind it all.

Logic? In the FAR's?

 

[JHW]

Logic? In the FAR's?

in this particular case I think the rules are very reasonable

 

[kontiki]

Fortunately I was able to determine that tectonic plate motion in the preceding weeks did not have much effect on the location of the destination airport.

I don't have any actual IMC time to speak of, just about a years worth of practice in a mix of rentals. I was under the impression that it was things like, maybe a tall crane temporarily situated near the approach to help with hoisting gear on a nearby building that could be the surprise obstacle.

 

[LDJones]

I don't have any actual IMC time to speak of, just about a years worth of practice in a mix of rentals. I was under the impression that it was things like, maybe a tall crane temporarily situated near the approach to help with hoisting gear on a nearby building that could be the surprise obstacle.

That's where NOTAMs come in. I don't think temporary obstacles make it into any approach plates or navdata.

 

[John Collins]

And I also agree with you, different installation STCs approved at different ACOs will likely list different requirements in them. There is probably a lot of variability in the way 337 forms are completed too.

All that is true, but the issue is not what is in the 337, but the exact wording found in the FAA approved AFMS limitations section. If the wording reads something like this from the GNS430 sample AFMS wording, then a current database is required regardless of AIM 1-1-19 table 1-1-6 note 3:

SECTION II LIMITATIONS
...
4. Instrument approach navigation predicated upon the GNS 430’s GPS Receiver must be accomplished in accordance with approved instrument approach procedures that are retrieved from the GPS equipment data base. The GPS equipment database must incorporate the current update cycle.

On the other hand, the STC AFMS wording for the GNS430W did not require a current database before or after the wording change in the AIM, although some argued incorrectly that prior to the AIM wording change that a current data base was required.

Section 2. LIMITATIONS
...
2.3 Navigation Database
...
b) GPS instrument approaches using the 400W Series units are prohibited, unless the 400W Series unit’s approach data is verified by the pilot or crew to be current. Instrument approaches must be accomplished in accordance with an approved instrument approach procedure that is loaded from the 400W Series unit database.

Note that in the second case for the GNS430W, the words used only specify that the "approach data" be verified to be current and not the approach database be the current cycle.

Since the first case is just a sample wording, many of us adopted wording similar to the later wording when we submitted the AFMS for FAA approval. This wording had been in use for some time with the Apollo GPS units.

More recently, AC 90-105 adopted the following language:

(2) At system initialization, pilots must confirm the navigation database is current and includes appropriate procedures. Pilots must also verify that the aircraft position is correct.

NOTE: Navigation databases are expected to be current for the duration of the flight. If the AIRAC cycle is due to change during flight, operators and pilots should establish procedures to ensure the accuracy of navigation data, including suitability of navigation facilities used to define the routes and procedures for flight. Traditionally, this has been accomplished by verifying electronic data against paper products. One acceptable means is to compare aeronautical charts (new and old) to verify navigation fixes prior to dispatch. If an amended chart is published for the procedure, the database must not be used to conduct the operation.

The Garmin GTN series uses the AC-105 language.

Section 2. LIMITATIONS
...
2.8 Navigation Database
...
“GPS”, “or GPS”, and “RNAV (GPS)” instrument approaches using the Garmin navigation system are prohibited unless the flight crew verifies and uses the current navigation database. GPS based instrument approaches must be flown in accordance with an approved instrument approach procedure that is loaded from the navigation database.
...
If the navigation database cycle will change during flight, the flight crew must ensure the accuracy of navigation data, including suitability of navigation facilities used to define the routes and procedures for flight. If an amended chart affecting navigation data is published for the procedure, the database must not be used to conduct the procedure.

With software version 5.03, a completely rewritten AFMS was issued for the GNS400W/500W series.

Section 2. LIMITATIONS
...
2.4 Navigation database
...
“GPS”, “or GPS”, and “RNAV (GPS)” instrument approaches using the Garmin navigation system are prohibited unless the flight crew verifies and uses the current navigation database. GPS based instrument approaches must be flown in accordance with an approved instrument approach procedure that is loaded from the navigation database.
...
If the navigation database cycle will change during flight, the flight crew must
ensure the accuracy of navigation data, including suitability of navigation facilities used to define the routes and procedures for flight. If an amended chart affecting navigation data is published for the procedure, the database must not be used to conduct the procedure.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Well, the question asked was legality, not ridiculousness, and I think I answered the question asked. As for the discussion of the ridiculousness of various FAA regs and policies, I'll pass.

And the last time you stuck strictly to the discussion at hand without adding something was...?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Just trying to understand the logic behind it all.

The FAA's regs and policies have multiple sources - visions about safety, avoidance of cost, reaction/response to accidents, societal and political pressure, simple human frailty and error - resulting in some regs that make sense up front, others that require more drill-down, and some that leave us scratching our heads.

The "logic"? Well, a logical argument has at least three elements. (1) Premises, (2) Inference (3) Conclusion. Some also refer to a fourth element, the Sources for the Premises. Quality control can be missing at any of those points. In the governmental context especially, the Sources can be a major issue.

WAG - the GPS manufacturers lobbied for an expanded acceptance of expired databases to make their hardware more useful; the database provider who lobbied to require a current database. Interestingly, I think the result in this case was a good one.

But YMMV. And you can always assert the ultimate intellectual cop-out Premise that you can't expect any government regulation to make sense and the Conclusion that we shouldn't even try.

 

[John Collins]

WAG - the GPS manufacturers lobbied for an expanded acceptance of expired databases to make their hardware more useful; the database provider who lobbied to require a current database. Interestingly, I think the result in this case was a good one.

Mark,

The Apollo team adopted the AFMS wording that permitted use of an expired database as long as the approach data was verified. They also were the first to use the STC AML process for GPS installation which both made it easier for avionics installers and provided an approved AFMS which did not need any changes for each installation. Prior to this, Garmin and the rest of the industry only provided a sample AFMS and the local FSDO Inspector approved the wording on a one off basis. When Garmin bought UPS Apollo, the same team was tasked with developing the GNS430W/530W software and getting the unit thru certification. They used their proven method of supplying an FAA approved AFMS using the Apollo wording as part of the STC AML. Garmin has used the AML STC with a common pre approved AFMS ever since.

The current FAA thinking came out of an issue raised by an airline pilot who pointed out that the database could go out of date during a flight and that a hard requirement for a current database under all circumstances did not make operational sense. The FAA then updated the AIM. Later they felt that the AIM wording overshot the requirement and AC 90-105 was written with more specific guidance. The AIM has been updated with the 90-105 wording but has kept the earlier wording as well in table 1-1-6 note 3.

 

[JHW]

I don't have any actual IMC time to speak of, just about a years worth of practice in a mix of rentals. I was under the impression that it was things like, maybe a tall crane temporarily situated near the approach to help with hoisting gear on a nearby building that could be the surprise obstacle.

The thread is about gps nav data, not reading notams

 

[Palmpilot]

Mark,

The Apollo team adopted the AFMS wording that permitted use of an expired database as long as the approach data was verified. They also were the first to use the STC AML process for GPS installation which both made it easier for avionics installers and provided an approved AFMS which did not need any changes for each installation. Prior to this, Garmin and the rest of the industry only provided a sample AFMS and the local FSDO Inspector approved the wording on a one off basis. When Garmin bought UPS Apollo, the same team was tasked with developing the GNS430W/530W software and getting the unit thru certification. They used their proven method of supplying an FAA approved AFMS using the Apollo wording as part of the STC AML. Garmin has used the AML STC with a common pre approved AFMS ever since.

Any idea why they went back to requiring a current database on the GTN 650?

The current FAA thinking came out of an issue raised by an airline pilot who pointed out that the database could go out of date during a flight and that a hard requirement for a current database under all circumstances did not make operational sense. The FAA then updated the AIM. Later they felt that the AIM wording overshot the requirement and AC 90-105 was written with more specific guidance. The AIM has been updated with the 90-105 wording but has kept the earlier wording as well in table 1-1-6 note 3.

Why do I feel like I'm watching sausages being made?