Practical Risk/GPS Approach/Expired Database?

[airdale]

Scenario:

I have current a current plate for a GPS approach and I take all the numeric info from there; freqs, altitudes, etc.

I have a year-old database in a 430/480/530/G1000

I verify that the waypoint names on the plate match the ones in the GPS, possibly verify the leg distances, but do not check waypoint lat/long.

What practical (not legal) risk am I taking by flying the approach? The only one I can think of is that the lat/long of one or more waypoints is wrong. How big a risk is that? Any other risks?

 

[dmccormack]

Scenario:

I have current a current plate for a GPS approach and I take all the numeric info from there; freqs, altitudes, etc.

I have a year-old database in a 430/480/530/G1000

I verify that the waypoint names on the plate match the ones in the GPS, possibly verify the leg distances, but do not check waypoint lat/long.

What practical (not legal) risk am I taking by flying the approach? The only one I can think of is that the lat/long of one or more waypoints is wrong. How big a risk is that? Any other risks?

If you're flying anything other than a GPS aproach, none, since the GPS tells you it's for reference only.

If you are flying a GPS approach, it sure would be tough to ignore the GPS and instead follow the chart if there is a discrepency.

 

[poadeleted20]

The level of practical risk is unknown unless you can compare all the data for that approach in your database with all the data for that approach in a current database, and that's not easy to do.

 

[John Collins]

Scenario:

I have current a current plate for a GPS approach and I take all the numeric info from there; freqs, altitudes, etc.

I have a year-old database in a 430/480/530/G1000

I verify that the waypoint names on the plate match the ones in the GPS, possibly verify the leg distances, but do not check waypoint lat/long.

What practical (not legal) risk am I taking by flying the approach? The only one I can think of is that the lat/long of one or more waypoints is wrong. How big a risk is that? Any other risks?

A better check is to verify the date of the chart's last revision precedes the date of the database. Both Jeppesen and NACO are adding a date of last procedure change in addition to the chart date, so that a pilot can verify that date verses the database date. This way if the change on the chart only affected something like a communication frequency, one could still determine that the procedure was or was not still valid in the database.

It is not uncommon for waypoints to have the same name but to move when approach procedures are updated, particularly when an RNAV (GPS) approach replaces a GPS approach, as the TERPS criteria has changed for minimum leg lengths.

 

[airdale]

A better check is to verify the date of the chart's last revision precedes the date of the database.

Good point.

It is not uncommon for waypoints to have the same name but to move when approach procedures are updated, particularly when an RNAV (GPS) approach replaces a GPS approach, as the TERPS criteria has changed for minimum leg lengths.

Thanks. I didn't know that and it's the kind of comment I was looking for.

FWIW the situation is that I occasionally fly an airplane where the owner doesn't keep the database up. So I was thinking about a situation where I got caught with near-minimum weather and either had no option to a GPS approach or my option was a circling VOR approach.

 

[Keith Lane]

I would think, as in all things aviation, the risk here is incurred only if you have an accident. If you ran out of fuel on the approach and after the insurance combs through the wreckage,finds out that your database was not current, they would deny your claim. Of course they would also deny your claim if your upholstery material came from something other that FAA PMA'd cows, too.

 

[poadeleted20]

FWIW the situation is that I occasionally fly an airplane where the owner doesn't keep the database up. So I was thinking about a situation where I got caught with near-minimum weather and either had no option to a GPS approach or my option was a circling VOR approach.

If it's a genuine emergency, 91.3(b) says you can do what you have to do to get yourself down safely, even if that means violating the regs. How the FAA would view passing up a legal VOR approach in order to violate 91.9(a) by flying an RNAV(GPS) approach with an expired database is not something one can predict with any assurance, and would probably depend on winds, vis, ceilings, and how you ensured that the outdated database wouldn't kill you. If the RNAV(GPS) approach was your only good option at that point, I do not think they'd be overly upset over that particular issue. OTOH, they might have some questions about how you got yourself into a situation where the only safe out was exercising your 91.3(b) authority.

 

[poadeleted20]

I would think, as in all things aviation, the risk here is incurred only if you have an accident. If you ran out of fuel on the approach and after the insurance combs through the wreckage,finds out that your database was not current, they would deny your claim. Of course they would also deny your claim if your upholstery material came from something other that FAA PMA'd cows, too.

This exclusion isn't absolute -- they must be able to find either evidence of fraud (e.g., claiming on your application that you had a medical when you didn't) or a material connection in order to deny coverage. For example, they can't deny coverage for an engine failure accident on the basis that the rest of the damage occurred because you landed off-airport and their coverage says "licensed airports only."

So, if the reason you ran out of fuel was that your outdated database took you out of fuel range of any usable airport, that could be grounds to deny. If it were a CAVU day and you ran out of gas after four hours in the box pattern shooting ILS approaches without reference to the GPS, that outdated database would not be grounds to deny.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

Just add 400' to all the altitudes on your old chart, then on the last fix, dive like a rock to minimums, you'll be fine.

 

[airdale]

The level of practical risk is unknown unless you can compare all the data for that approach in your database with all the data for that approach in a current database, and that's not easy to do.

Well, if I have the plate, really the only thing I am relying on the GPS for is the correct lat/long of the waypoints. And I can't easily check those.

Interestingly, I can still use the old database enroute -- there legally relying on its lat/longs for waypoints to be correct. Of course the consequences of an error are arguably less severe.

Just add 400' to all the altitudes on your old chart, then on the last fix, dive like a rock to minimums, you'll be fine.

No, remember I have all that on the plate. Again, it is only the lat/long of the waypoints that I do not have on the plate.

Re emergency authority and insurance, I am really not worried about those extremes. I'm more thinking of a day that turns somewhat ratty and I want to get into my planned destination airport vs going somewhere with an ILS.

Or maybe another way to look at it is to ask whether it is safer to fly a near-minimums circling VOR approach or to fly a GPS approach straight in with a current plate but using an expired database. I think that's a real world scenario that could occur.

 

[poadeleted20]

Well, if I have the plate, really the only thing I am relying on the GPS for is the correct lat/long of the waypoints. And I can't easily check those.

You take my point, sir.

Interestingly, I can still use the old database enroute

Maybe, maybe not. Read your AFM Supplement. Many GPS AFMS's prohibit any IFR use without a current database, and the FAA only allows the use of the GPS to sub for DME/ADF in any phase of flight (approach, terminal, or enroute) with a current database.

Re emergency authority and insurance, I am really not worried about those extremes. I'm more thinking of a day that turns somewhat ratty and I want to get into my planned destination airport vs going somewhere with an ILS.

The FAA is most unlikely to get involved unless you prang or cause a problem for the controllers, and in that case, as I said above, the expired database will be one of the least of the issues they raise.

Or maybe another way to look at it is to ask whether it is safer to fly a near-minimums circling VOR approach or to fly a GPS approach straight in with a current plate but using an expired database. I think that's a real world scenario that could occur.

As I said, the safety of that would depend on a lot of factors, including the actual winds/weather, runway direction relative to the wind, actual changes to the approach compared to the database, etc.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

No, remember I have all that on the plate. Again, it is only the lat/long of the waypoints that I do not have on the plate.

Nah, they didn't move the runway and that's all that matters with my method.
Surely someone caught it was a joke!
Where is Foghorn Leghorn when you need him!

 

[gismo]

I would think, as in all things aviation, the risk here is incurred only if you have an accident. If you ran out of fuel on the approach and after the insurance combs through the wreckage,finds out that your database was not current, they would deny your claim. Of course they would also deny your claim if your upholstery material came from something other that FAA PMA'd cows, too.

I have yet to hear first hand of an insurer's denial of an accident claim on the grounds of an unrelated technicality and AFaIK that's not even legal in most states. The will and can deny if you deliberately violate an FAR and the accident can be attributed in some way to the violation e.g. suffering an engine failure in an airplane that's out of annual or an accident that occurs with a pilot who's not current. But running out of fuel while flying with an expired DB in the GPS (assuming you didn't exhaust your fuel because the DB made you get lost) doesn't sound to me like reality. Got any verifiable examples?

 

[gismo]

Nah, they didn't move the runway and that's all that matters with my method.
Surely someone caught it was a joke!
Where is Foghorn Leghorn when you need him!

While it's rare, runways do move. At my home base, the west end of one runway moved over 1000 feet when they lengthened it last summer. And at one airport in my state (Willmar) they move every runway along with the rests of the airport a few miles from the original site. If you managed to fly an old GPS approach to the old location you'd be in for a rude surprise as I think there's a strip mall there now.