Slant-Uniform story

[kath]

Hi, all,
I took a very educational IFR flight yesterday, and learned a lot, so I thought I'd share some of the particulars here. One of those stream-of-little-things kind of stories.

I trained in the fleet of 172SP's at my flight school which are all /G. They've all got the GPS, MFD, and autopilot. They differ only slightly from one another. Here in the Northeast, you need /G to go most places, since just about every non-GPS approach in these parts says "ADF required" or "DME required" in big (or small) letters on the plate. So we did a lot of GPS approaches during training. My school has a couple of planes with ADF, but they don't always work. None have a separate DME. So when I reserved my 172SP plane for yesterday, I filed /G from KBED to KRUT like I am accostomed to.

The weather was great. There were some scattered clouds at 5000 and it was clear-and-a-million at Rutland, so this was to be an "IFR, just to keep my hand in the system" kind of flight.

I hop in the plane and fire up the engine. The GPS comes alive and says "FOR VFR USE ONLY. ACKNOWLEGDE?" in big letters. The database expired in 2001. Dammit! Okay, okay... calm down. Let's re-think this a little. First of all, tell ATC about it. What equipment code are we now? Well, looks like I've got an ADF in here... what is the code for that again? Do I even know if the ADF works? Aw, hell, I'll just file /U and fly it that way. (Arrrrrggg! This is what sucks about renting!)

Me: "Hanscom clearance, Skyhawk xxxxx is IFR to Rutland. I filed /G, but I'm actually /U."
Clearance: "Okay, I'll pass that along. You're cleared to Rutland via radar vectors, Manchester, direct..."

I read back the clearance and started taxiing. Halfway to the runup area, I realized I wasn't sure I could accept the clearance they'd given me. I mean, how am I supposed to go direct Rutland without the GPS? Arrrrrrgg!! Okay, okay, calm down, you'll sort it out after the runup.

Runup complete. Okay, let's re-think this from the beginning. I dig out the enroute chart, and realize, hey, Rutland has a VOR on the field! It's not part of the enroute structure, but it's there. So I CAN go "direct Rutland". Hot damn! Okay, that problem is solved. What about approaches? I dig through the approach plates and scan their titles. LOC Z Rwy 19, okay I can do that one. VOR/DME Rwy 1, nope. VOR/DME Rwy 19, nope. LOC/DME Rwy 19, nope. RNAV Rwy 19, nope. Dammit! I can only do one out of five of these things! Oh well, at least I can do one. It's clear and unlimited at KRUT and so I'll be cancelling IFR before doing any approaches anyway.

So I launch. Approach gives me vectors to MHT. Approach gives me direct MHT. I have a flight plan loaded in the GPS as a backup, but I keep the HSI set to "NAV" so as to do the whole thing by the book. Yay, I remembered that little rule! Good Kath! Doing great! I pop through a thin scattered cloud layer and rejoice!

Getting closer to Manchester. I tune in the Rutland VOR and turn up its volume. All I hear is <dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit> and the needle is centered on North. Somebody's VOT signal? Sooooo... what do I do when I reach MHT? Approach is expecting me to go direct Rutland. Well, I could use the GPS, but this has to be "by the book", remember?

Me: "Approach, Skyhawk xxxxx is approaching Manchester, unable to receive Rutland VOR at this time, request vectors."
Approach: "Fly heading 320, direct Rutland when able."

There. That was easy! Hey, this isn't so bad. I've got the GPS as backup and everything's going smoothly. Miles slip happily under the nose. The clouds below are thinning. Approach occasionally asks me whether I'm able direct Rutland yet, and I check (dit dit dit dit dit!) and tell them no. I use the time to try to figure out whether the ADF works. I tune in a few NDB's and receive nothing. Of course, I am like 30 miles away from the thing. What is the range of your typical NDB anyway? I've completely forgotten. Oh well, we'll not depend on the ADF for this trip. Check Rutland VOR again, aha! There are those happy dits and dahs! I tell ATC that I'm receiving the VOR and proceeding direct. Hmmm... how about that approach, the LOC Z Rwy 19 at Rutland? Let's go over that thing. Not that I'll fly it, of course... I'll cancel first. But let's have a look just for practice. Frequencies, blah blah, localizer, blah, okay.... ADF required? Aw, HELL!! <insert some swear words here> G**da*n fine print! Well, now I'm down to zero approaches out of five that I can legally fly!

Suddenly my brain goes crazy with thoughts. A stream of consciousness kind of like this: I obviously should have looked at these details before takeoff. Well, Kath, you'd have paid more attention if it weren't a beautiful VFR day today! Is it legal to file IFR to an airport that you can't legally do any approaches at? Probably not. Come to think of it, there are airports with no IAP's at all... can you fly IFR there? I suppose you just have a clearance limit that is someplace other than your destination, past which you're on your own and had better be VMC. I suppose the Rutland VOR (not the airport) could have been (should have been?) my clearance limit. Maybe it is, since they're co-located. Sort of. Or are these musing just artifacts of my panicked brain? Don't panic. Does ATC know that I can't do any approaches here? Now, now, now, Kath, that's not their responsibility, is it, no, it's YOURS. Dammit, stupid Niner Mike Echo! Why did I have to get stuck with you? The only plane in the fleet without the IFR-certified-GPS! Come to think of it, I haven't checked your logbooks, how do I know you've even had your required pitot-static checks and transponder checks and.... AAaaack! Calm down, Kath. There's the airport, clear as day! "Boston Center, Skyhawk xxxxx, field in sight, cancel IFR."

There. *sigh* Problem solved. Man, /U sucks in the Northeast! You can't do approaches hardly anywhere it seems. Is it this bad everywhere? Why is this approach "ADF required" anyway? SMUTO is the only NDB on here, and you can identify it with the localizer and a cross-radial from Lebanon! Something in the missed approach? No, the missed says nothing about SMUTO or the NDB. MSA reference? Nope. It all looks doable without the ADF. I don't get it. Now, Kath, you can figure it out later, you should focus on flying the plane. You can ask the PoA board about it later.

So I landed, feeling a little stupid and a lot drained... and sure I was going to be VFR for the return trip! You definately can't do anything at KBED without a GPS or ADF.

Now that I'm back on the ground and in front of my computer, the mystery deepens.
Here's the NOS version of the approach:
http://download.aopa.org/iap/20050609/NE-1/rut_loc_z_rwy_19.pdf
I don't see any "ADF required" statement on here. Yet on the Jepp version of the plate (can anyone post it?), note #2 below the missed approach instructions says "ADF required". What gives with this approach?

--Kath

P.S. Radio exchange of the day (heard at Hanscom):
Tower: "Experimental xxxx, nice S-turns, thanks for the help."
Pilot: (laughing while speaking) Actually, I'm not doing S-turns. I am fighting the sea breeze!"

 

[wsuffa]

Kath,

First, it was legal to file to an airport where there is no instrument approach (or none that you could fly legally). You just have to specify an alternate with a legal approach and carry enough fuel.

SMUTO defines the FAF for the approach. Without DME or ADF, you would find it as an intersection with the LEB VOR. Is something NOTAM'd out of service, or marked OTS in the AF/D? IIRC, Jepp incorporates that info as notes in the plate.

I don't have the Jepp charts.

 

[wsuffa]

BTW, Kath, also note that Obstacle Departure Procedure specifies crossing the DYO NDB.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

Jepp IAP RUT LOC Z is attached.

 

[kath]

Is something NOTAM'd out of service, or marked OTS in the AF/D? IIRC, Jepp incorporates that info as notes in the plate.

The AF/D offers no "unusable" notes about the LEB VOR for this particular radial, or the IRUT localizer. My briefer didn't say anything about the localizer or any other Notams for Rutland (except an "unlit hill"). I tuned into the LEB VOR successfully later that day. And the following day (this morning) I flew out of Lebanon airport and the briefer didn't say anything about the VOR being out of service, or any notams for Lebanon.

--Kath

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

(To me) it always sounds exciting to fly some new airplane. Then you get it and learn all the quirks of that particular one. I do like you did - never charge into weather in a new-to-me plane the first flight; it has to be good vfr.

 

[wsuffa]

The AF/D offers no "unusable" notes about the LEB VOR for this particular radial, or the IRUT localizer. My briefer didn't say anything about the localizer or any other Notams for Rutland (except an "unlit hill"). I tuned into the LEB VOR successfully later that day. And the following day (this morning) I flew out of Lebanon airport and the briefer didn't say anything about the VOR being out of service, or any notams for Lebanon.

--Kath

Kath,

Probably not the reason for the ADF note on Jepp, but the LOC is listed as unmonitored in the AF/D (and on Airnav).

I wonder if the LEB VOR is at the limits of its service volume or otherwise unreliable at low altitude. The NDB is the FAF.

A reliability issue should show in the NOS info as well as Jepp.

So, I see nothing obvious that requires the ADF.

 

[poadeleted20]

Kath:

Relax. Have a margarita. Relax. Chill out. Relax.

Ron

 

[Ed Guthrie]

I notice Ed's Jepp isn't effective until 7/7. Was the ADF note on the previous edition?

Yes (see notes on bottom of chart regarding changes). However, interestingly, the alternative identification for SMUTO (298 degree LEB crossing radial) is not shown on the LOC DME RWY 19 IAP even though it is shown on the LOC Z RWY 19 IAP. The SMUTO crossing altitudes differ by only 100' between the LOC Z RWY 19 and the LOC DME RWY 19 IAPs.

Someone else mentioned distance from LEB. According to Destination Direct it is 32.8 nm between SMUTO and LEB VOR. According to AIM, standard service volume for a low altitude VOR (L class, LEB is one) is 40 nm at 1000' AGL. The minimum crossing altitude for SMUTO is ~3000' above LEB VOR's station altitude.

Given that the crossing radial comes & goes on the Jepp charts I'm wondering if we don't have an error.

 

[grattonja]

Welcome to RUTs approaches all! I am familiar with these plates, which I think have all changed several times in the last year or so. My parents live right under the pattern for Runway 01. I seem to get up there rather often.

The only real and practical purpose that Smuto seems to exist for if you are /G is to give you a departure procedure. Note that I have been out of KRUT IFR 3 times so far and gotten routed to Smuto, per the DP, each time. That is standard for them, despite the fact that I always want to go south and Smuto takes me north, twice now into some degree of icing. But I haven't hit any rocks yet either, so it does seem to work.

These approaches all seem unnecessarily complicated to me. I would think that they could all use a bit of simplification. Maybe when RUT loses the ODals landing lights in favor of something like a MAlsr system, things will improve. I think that is part of the reason for the fairly dismal minimums.

Kath, you are lucky if your aircraft are always current on GPS database. If I don't see the VFR warning, I am not sure I am in the correct aircraft. At least, I always manage to make sure that the gps database is reasonably recent, and newer than the approaches I want to use. If I am going somewhere with real clag, I can usually bully the owners into updating the card.

You would have been "legal", if you had informed ATC that you had a gps with an expired database, but could identify KRUT and RUT VOR with it. They haven't moved since 2001. Nor has Smuto. You would then probably have gotten "direct KRUT" no doubt, and been legal doing so, as ATC would have approved it. Right? Comments by all on ATC letting you go direct with a VFR or expired database GPS, and the legality of same?

Jim G

P.S. What took you to Rutland, where I grew up? It is a pretty valley, but not as nice now as September/October, with the fall colors.

 

[kath]

Welcome to RUTs approaches all! I am familiar with these plates, which I think have all changed several times in the last year or so.

Cool, an expert!
Do you have any stories to tell about reception of the LEB cross-radial which identifies SMUTO? Or are you ADF-equipped?

Kath, you are lucky if your aircraft are always current on GPS database.

They are usually pretty good about the databases. If they weren't, no one at my school would be able to get home. (all of Bedford's approaches require ADF or GPS)

You would have been "legal", if you had informed ATC that you had a gps with an expired database, but could identify KRUT and RUT VOR with it.

Well, one can identify a VOR with a nav radio... but your question I think is more like, suppose you were going somewhere without a navaid on the field. Could you go direct to that airport? (Seems unlikely that an airport could "move" since 2001, right?) From everything I've learned on this topic, an expired-database GPS is as good as a VFR-only GPS which is as good as a hand-held GPS which is as good as a potted plant as far as IFR legality is concerned.

P.S. What took you to Rutland, where I grew up? It is a pretty valley, but not as nice now as September/October, with the fall colors.

A friend from the South Pole lives in Manchester VT... and another friend from South Pole was in the neighborhood visiting from Nebraska, staying in Lebanon. We had a little reunion at the Rutland airport. Airplane rides for all!

--Kath

 

[grattonja]

Cool, an expert!
Do you have any stories to tell about reception of the LEB cross-radial which identifies SMUTO? Or are you ADF-equipped?


--Expert? Don't know about that, but I am familiar with those approaches. I have not tried to find Smuto with a LEB cross radial. However, you have 4000 foot terrain basically between you and LEB, particularly up near Smuto. Killington sits between the two, roughly. I would think at anywhere below 5000 feet you would be out of luck that way. My regular rental has an ADF, that I am certain is basically inoperative. I have always ided Smuto with GPS so far.



They are usually pretty good about the databases. If they weren't, no one at my school would be able to get home. (all of Bedford's approaches require ADF or GPS)


Well, one can identify a VOR with a nav radio... but your question I think is more like, suppose you were going somewhere without a navaid on the field. Could you go direct to that airport? (Seems unlikely that an airport could "move" since 2001, right?) From everything I've learned on this topic, an expired-database GPS is as good as a VFR-only GPS which is as good as a hand-held GPS which is as good as a potted plant as far as IFR legality is concerned.

--What I am suggesting about legality is this. You could tell ATC, I am /U but I have an IFR GPS with an expired database. I can id Smuto and RUT with it. At that point, I am pretty sure that ATC can then clear you "direct RUT" based on that. I have seen ATC give people with a VFR only GPS "direct to intersection A" type of clearances, after asking if they have a GPS and whether they can id the intersection. We have an archer in the rental fleet which is /A with a VFR gps (the database for which was only just recently updated). ATC will sometimes give you direct under those circumstances.

You were talking about flying it "strictly legal", so I assumed you had a reason to ignore the gps, with the expired database, rather than trying to get ATC to let you make it work.




A friend from the South Pole lives in Manchester VT... and another friend from South Pole was in the neighborhood visiting from Nebraska, staying in Lebanon. We had a little reunion at the Rutland airport. Airplane rides for all!

--Kath

Rutland is a nice airport. They have treated us well every trip up. I really like the little valley. Of course, I grew up there, hunted and fished and worked there, etc. So I may be a bit biased.

If you get up that way with friends again, I recommend Mt. Snow. A little airport about 30 miles to the south of RUT. They are right up against a ski area, and have a pool table in the FBO. Neat little spot to escape to.

Jim G

Note. See stuff above. There are some answers embedded within the quoted section. Sorry. Apparently, I am technically challenged.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

--What I am suggesting about legality is this. You could tell ATC, I am /U but I have an IFR GPS with an expired database. I can id Smuto and RUT with it. At that point, I am pretty sure that ATC can then clear you "direct RUT" based on that. I have seen ATC give people with a VFR only GPS "direct to intersection A" type of clearances, after asking if they have a GPS and whether they can id the intersection. We have an archer in the rental fleet which is /A with a VFR gps (the database for which was only just recently updated). ATC will sometimes give you direct under those circumstances.

For the most part the average ATC person hasn't a clue what differences are entailed in "VFR GPS" versus "GPS" or even "/G". When the controller asks, "Are you able direct PODNK?", whatever the pilot tells ATC is what the ATC controller knows. I hear controllers say, "Can you navigate direct PODNK?" To which a pilot replies, "Affirmative, we have a VFR GPS." For the most part, in that exchange all the controller heard was "Affirmative"--the rest was meaningless gibberish. Unfortunately, the pilot lied, s/he cannot legally navigate direct PODNK, but the ATC controller has no way to know this, nor is it ATC's job to detect such lies. The correct answer to the ATC inquiry is, "Negative, we are /U (or /A, or whatever) today." Accepting direct in a /U based on a VFR GPS is just as illegal as accepting a low level, high speed, inverted pass down the runway. ATC may issue either clearance but the average pilot must decline both.

 

[grattonja]

For the most part the average ATC person hasn't a clue what differences are entailed in "VFR GPS" versus "GPS" or even "/G". When the controller asks, "Are you able direct PODNK?", whatever the pilot tells ATC is what the ATC controller knows. I hear controllers say, "Can you navigate direct PODNK?" To which a pilot replies, "Affirmative, we have a VFR GPS." For the most part, in that exchange all the controller heard was "Affirmative"--the rest was meaningless gibberish. Unfortunately, the pilot lied, s/he cannot legally navigate direct PODNK, but the ATC controller has no way to know this, nor is it ATC's job to detect such lies. The correct answer to the ATC inquiry is, "Negative, we are /U (or /A, or whatever) today." Accepting direct in a /U based on a VFR GPS is just as illegal as accepting a low level, high speed, inverted pass down the runway. ATC may issue either clearance but the average pilot must decline both.

Where's the fun in that?

Seriously, I assumed that, if atc asked you if you could get there and you explained how you would get there, vfr gps, IFR gps with expired database, and they accepted it and gave you the clearance direct, that was that.

Your answer was why I asked for comments when I first posted an answer to Kath. I was curious as to the legality of the situation. Anyone got a reg cite to back this up? Ed's answer certainly makes sense to me.

Jim G

 

[AdamZ]

Kath super post. Thanks for sharing your experience!

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

Ed, has anyone ever had a violation for this that you have heard of? (enroute navigating with a vfr gps) Or do you think it was one of those fars that will one day be softened to accomodate such use?
From the attitude I have heard from atc, as long as a person somewhat approximates 'direct to', they are happy. I have heard them give course corrections (in a helpful manner) and also rv around moa's etc for the not completely legal D-> pilots. Maybe this is just one of those bugbear points for that internet ATC dude who writes for avweb?
Anyway, most of my flying is in the friendly south so this could account for any difference in experience.

Maybe its one of those things that *could* result in a violation but the circumstances required are so remote that it just isn't happening?
For now most of us are skulking around the issue with the "request a vector of 123 direct to ABC".

 

[Ed Guthrie]

Ed, has anyone ever had a violation for this that you have heard of? (enroute navigating with a vfr gps)

No, I have not. However, I have heard of violations in which the FSDO inspector had a target and went on the hunt, eventually finding the fatal flaw. I can easily imagine a day when a FSDO inspector somewhere heads over to the local TRACON with a box of doughnuts and a stack of violation investigation form letters, all citing 14CFR91.205(d)(2) as the infraction. The inspector dons headphones and begins comparing ATC clearances he hears with IFR flight plans (equipment suffix) while munching the jelly filled doughnuts, noting each direct clearance to an intersection issued to a /U or /A aircraft. The inspector then inserts the pilot's name obtained from the flight plan into a form letter and drops it into the mail, checking another monthly quota box as he does.

Or do you think it was one of those fars that will one day be softened to accomodate such use?

I would expect the above scenario to occur long before the FAA approves handheld, VFR GPSs usage under IFR.

Maybe its one of those things that *could* result in a violation but the circumstances required are so remote that it just isn't happening?

I'll take a side bet that it is happening but you and I lack the data files to verify the assumption. My suspicion is that it gets used, for example, on Part 135 operators for which the local FSDO has decided enough is enough, but lacks a suitable hammer with which to pound the nail.

For now most of us are skulking around the issue with the "request a vector of 123 direct to ABC".

So long as we can legally navigate IFR direct ABC when able there is no skulking around the issue involved. This is a legal clearance even if we do suggest the heading as indicated on our VFR GPS and then use the VFR GPS to monitor our compliance with the vector.

 

[BillG]

A more likely scenario is something going wrong somewhere and the FAA looking into it and finding out that someone accepted an illegal clearance. They probably won't get ya unless you get caught on something else.

 

[Rick]

Seriously, I assumed that, if atc asked you if you could get there and you explained how you would get there, vfr gps, IFR gps with expired database, and they accepted it and gave you the clearance direct, that was that.Jim G

Air traffic wants a yes or no answer as they don't care how you get there. Don't add to a taped conversation that you are doing it illegally (more than unlikely that would be unbeknownst to ATC).

Rick.

 

[BillG]

This topic is very straightforward, isn't it? ATC may clear you for an illegal course of action (direct, low speed inverted pass, etc). It's not ATC's job to keep you are legal (or even know if you are). You can easily make an illegal direct clearance legal by turning it into radar vectors (which you may supply from your handheld GPS) issued by ATC. No reason not to do it that way as everyone is covered.

 

[grattonja]

This is why I asked the question about "direct to" clearances. Now I know what the correct answer is. ATC can clear you direct but you can't get there legally with a non-IFR certified device. But, if you are using a VFR GPS, you can say "can't get there from here but if you give me a vector of X degrees, I can get there directly". And that will give you a legal vector to the fix that you are basically flying to directly with that VFR GPS.

Hence, we had a discussion and you all edumacated me.

Thanks.

Jim G

 

[BillG]

Right - that's exactly it as I understand the issue. And also one of the things that makes discussion boards so great.

 

[gismo]

Where's the fun in that?

Seriously, I assumed that, if atc asked you if you could get there and you explained how you would get there, vfr gps, IFR gps with expired database, and they accepted it and gave you the clearance direct, that was that.

Your answer was why I asked for comments when I first posted an answer to Kath. I was curious as to the legality of the situation. Anyone got a reg cite to back this up? Ed's answer certainly makes sense to me.

Jim G

Actually, an IFR approved GPS installation with an expired DB is perfectly legal for IFR nav except as the primary lateral guidance on an approach. The only caveat I know of is that you must verify the location of each GPS fix used somehow (looking up the Lat/Lon on a current chart or AFD is one of many ways). Of course this is only true if the GPS is approved for IFR.

One thing that's unclear to me is the significance of a "VFR use only" message from the GPS itself. Mine doesn't say that when the DB is expired, it just says "DB expired, not valid for approaches" or something like that.

 

[wsuffa]

I think, Lance, that the database must be current to substitute for DME and ADF enroute. Granted, an NDB may have an associated fix that you can identify.

Also, the POH supplement may permit more or less than the AIM with an expired database, so you'll need to check that, too. On both of mine, it's legal to use for enroute/terminal only if you verify the waypoints, but the AIM is controlling as a DME/ADF substitute.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Where's the fun in that?

Seriously, I assumed that, if atc asked you if you could get there and you explained how you would get there, vfr gps, IFR gps with expired database, and they accepted it and gave you the clearance direct, that was that.

Your answer was why I asked for comments when I first posted an answer to Kath. I was curious as to the legality of the situation. Anyone got a reg cite to back this up? Ed's answer certainly makes sense to me.

Jim G

During airshows, in front of the tower, we get some much enjoyed high speed rolls down the runway and such. During an exam one of the FSDO dealers told me such flying was illegal.

We smiled. It was a beautiful moment.

 

[gismo]

I think, Lance, that the database must be current to substitute for DME and ADF enroute. Granted, an NDB may have an associated fix that you can identify.

Right. I wasn't clear but only meant that an expired DB doesn't preclude navigating "direct" to a fix under IFR.

Also, the POH supplement may permit more or less than the AIM with an expired database, so you'll need to check that, too. On both of mine, it's legal to use for enroute/terminal only if you verify the waypoints, but the AIM is controlling as a DME/ADF substitute.

What's unlclear to me is whether it's legal (enroute/terminal) with an expired DB if the supplement or OSD says otherwise. The AIM doesn't mention this.

 

[wsuffa]

What's unlclear to me is whether it's legal (enroute/terminal) with an expired DB if the supplement or OSD says otherwise. The AIM doesn't mention this.

The supplement is controlling if it conflicts with the AIM. IOW, if the supplement is silent on an issue, then the AIM controls. However, if the supplement has a restriction spelled out, then that is controlling. The restrictions in the POH/AFM are regulatory as far as I can tell.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

What's unlclear to me is whether it's legal (enroute/terminal) with an expired DB if the supplement or OSD says otherwise. The AIM doesn't mention this.

The FARs do mention this--no pilot will operate an aircraft contrary to the operating limitations of that aircraft. Once the AFM/POH has a GPS installed with a supplement stating that IFR enroute is illegal w/o a current database, that statement becomes an operating limitation of the aircraft.

 

[gismo]

The FARs do mention this--no pilot will operate an aircraft contrary to the operating limitations of that aircraft. Once the AFM/POH has a GPS installed with a supplement stating that IFR enroute is illegal w/o a current database, that statement becomes an operating limitation of the aircraft.

Yeah, I guess I knew that WRT to the POH supplement, but what about a message on the display? Assume that the supplement doesn't say anything about it.

And in any case, I'm curious is any IFR GPS POH supplements actually forbid all IFR use (vs approaches etc) when the DB is past due.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

Yeah, I guess I knew that WRT to the POH supplement, but what about a message on the display? Assume that the supplement doesn't say anything about it.

I suspect that is an operating limitation, too, but I'm not concerned enough to go looking for a reference.

And in any case, I'm curious is any IFR GPS POH supplements actually forbid all IFR use (vs approaches etc) when the DB is past due.

I can't remember the brand/model (Garmin 430?), but a few Oshkosh's ago I had a lengthy discussion with someone's R&D manager regarding why the GPS manufacturer's near universally place the "current database required" stipulation in the POH supplement. He admitted it was a common requirement.

 

[poadeleted20]

A more likely scenario is something going wrong somewhere and the FAA looking into it and finding out that someone accepted an illegal clearance. They probably won't get ya unless you get caught on something else.

I agree 100% with Bill. As long as you're not on a practical test or have an FAA Inspector in the right seat, and you get where the controller wants you in a nice straight (or great circle) line, nobody will notice. However, if you screw it up, and generate a Pilot Deviation ("PD") report from ATC to the Flight Standards Service (usually the FSDO in the area in which the deviation occured), you will probably eat a violation. An example of this type of situation can be seen in Administrator v. Fausak (NTSB Order EA-4167, May 24, 1994,
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4167.PDF). Had Fausak successfully completed the approach without wandering off and hamburgering the controller's airspace, nobody would have noticed or cared that he lacked the required equipment, so I can't imagine them doing something that isn't their responsibility.

BTW, I have never heard of a FSDO Inspector going to a TRACON to listen to ATC comms to find violations. TRACONs are not covered by the FSDO, but rather by the ATC folks at Region. FSDO Inspectors have other duties which so overflow their available time that they prioritize a lot of their lower-level "responsibilities" off the schedule.

 

[BillG]

I agree 100% with Bill. <snip>

Of course you do - who do you think I learned that from...?