Somedudeintn
Cleared for Takeoff
Agreed, all the 430/530w supplements I have seen stated you need a current database for gps approaches. I thought I heard that changed recently but I have not seen anything official on it.
GPS database out of date.. are you slant Golf?
- Thread starter Tantalum
- Start date
Agreed, all the 430/530w supplements I have seen stated you need a current database for gps approaches. I thought I heard that changed recently but I have not seen anything official on it.
Somedudeintn
Cleared for Takeoff
That seems very logical, is there a reference for that?
https://static.garmin.com/pumac/GNS430_AircraftFlightManualSupplement.pdf
The linked sample supplement states on page 6 that the database has to be the current cycle.
Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
it's in the AIM somewhere....the database SW is good for navigation regardless and the plates are good if they didn't update. Mine is probably out by two years....and many of the plates are still valid. I verify that with the iPad subscription.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
The AIM doesn’t supersede the AFM Supplement.
Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
Is all of the AFM "approved data"?
Somedudeintn
Cleared for Takeoff
Good catch. I now see that I did link a non-WAAS supplement. Doesn’t your screenshot state the same thing, that approaches are prohibited unless the flight crew verifies and uses the CURRENT database.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Why would that be relevant?
Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
because the whole document is "not an FAA approved document".
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
But the Limitations section, which is where these Limitations live, IS FAA Approved...even if the only Limitations section that exists is in the GPS Supplement.
So again, why is this relevant?
Briar Rabbit
Line Up and Wait
I very seldom file actual other than to get home. But I do update my Jeppesen Nav and obstacle data which does not include approach plates. The approaches in my IFD are 2 years old. The last time my home field plates were updated by the FAA was 2009 & 2008. My backup destination 2005. And I do have a current ForeFlight subscription and I use that to verify the current approach plate date. So my thought is that is legal. If ATC requests an RNAV approach at another field using a plate newer than my IFD has in the database then “unable” and fly an ILS or VOR approach manually.
Another thought: if you file GPS direct to a IAF that is shown on an approach plate that is dated prior to your Nav subscription, And if your enroute altitudes are higher than ForeFlight show as a minimum enroute altitude - are you legal? I haven’t done this but if the plate is current (older than your Nav database) the IAF location should be good and if the altitude is conservative with ForeFlight I would think that is safe especially if ATC clears your IFR plan at that altitude?
Another thought: if you file GPS direct to a IAF that is shown on an approach plate that is dated prior to your Nav subscription, And if your enroute altitudes are higher than ForeFlight show as a minimum enroute altitude - are you legal? I haven’t done this but if the plate is current (older than your Nav database) the IAF location should be good and if the altitude is conservative with ForeFlight I would think that is safe especially if ATC clears your IFR plan at that altitude?
When I become a DPE, I'm going to ask this question to everyone and keep my phone handy to photograph the look on their face...
"[uses a current database] ...or verifies each waypoint for accuracy by reference to current approved data."
If the lower left corner of a current approved approach plate says it was last updated October 2018 and your database was good until July 2019, isn't that pretty much verifying each waypoint on the approach? If a waypoint had changed, wouldn't the approach plate also change?
BTW, forgot to mention that you can't pull this trick for the purpose of a checkride. The ACS specifically says you have to have a current database.
Last edited:
Then why does the bottom of each page say "FAA approved"?
Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
Because Garmin is an ODA....and incorrectly puts it there.
Not condoning, but lots if folks are. Most folks these days with a Garmin 430 or 530 will fly a VOR approach using GPS with the raw data in Nav 2. And just about everyone I know exceed road and street speed limits by 5-9 mph.
Not all of it, and not "data," but the limitations are approved by the FAA. See FAR
23.2620
Thank you. I have one for the GTNs and have been looking for one for the GNSes.
Somedudeintn
Cleared for Takeoff
So I went though a little exercise and put in some waypoints to verify between the Garmin Trainer and Foreflight. I determined that the easiest way really is to just compare the lat/lon as it is displayed when you are inputting waypoints.
For reference my route was ILIKE PLOTS MERCA.
Fortunately the club I fly in keeps the databases updated so this is more of a thought exercise than anything (and I usually get Direct anyway), but if I was flying with an expired database and got a reroute I would feel comfortable that comparing the lat/lon of the waypoint from the expired database information with my current updated waypoint information in foreflight satisfies the legal requirement to verify the waypoints.
IRL I would get the first waypoint in and verify it, and then input and verify the next waypoints on the route as time allowed. If a waypoint did not check I would alert ATC or ask for a vector or a VOR radial to fly.
For reference my route was ILIKE PLOTS MERCA.
Fortunately the club I fly in keeps the databases updated so this is more of a thought exercise than anything (and I usually get Direct anyway), but if I was flying with an expired database and got a reroute I would feel comfortable that comparing the lat/lon of the waypoint from the expired database information with my current updated waypoint information in foreflight satisfies the legal requirement to verify the waypoints.
IRL I would get the first waypoint in and verify it, and then input and verify the next waypoints on the route as time allowed. If a waypoint did not check I would alert ATC or ask for a vector or a VOR radial to fly.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
But much like announcing violations over the radio, I can’t recommend operating illegally...especially when the underlying reason for operating illegally isn’t about legal operations being unreasonable, but rather about not wanting to figure out what constitutes legal. @Somedudeintn determined a way to do it that, quite frankly, doesn’t appear to be overly time consuming. I think it would be very reasonable to operate /G verifying waypoints that way. Looks like Jeppview has the same functionality for getting waypoint last/long.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
The lower left corner date is the Original or Amendment date. Changes can happen after that. A major change will cause an Amendment to be done. I don't know exactly what will cause a 'major' change. There are 3 dates on a Chart. In the upper right, above the name of the approach is a 5 digit number. That's the last date 'any' change was made. It's a Julian date. 15344 would be the 344th day of 2015. On the left and right margins are the current issue and next issue date. These are the dates that determine if you have a 'current' chart and I'm sure what Garmin, Jepp et al are looking at to determine 'currency.'
There is this from here https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/faq/
AC 90-100, U.S. TERMINAL AND EN ROUTE AREA NAVIGATION (RNAV) OPERATIONS, paragraph 8a(3): The onboard navigation data must be current and appropriate for the region of intended operation and must include the navigation aids, waypoints, and relevant coded terminal airspace procedures for the departure, arrival, and alternate airfields.
Navigation databases are expected to be current for the duration of the flight. If the AIRAC cycle will 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."
Published instrument procedures and routes are incorporated by reference into 14 CFR Part 95 and 14 CFR Part 97, are "law." They are "effective" only during the AIRAC cycle dates specified on the enroute chart/TPP covers or on the side of the chart when printed from the digital-TPP. If you are using a published procedure before or after the dates specified on the chart under IFR, you are technically in violation of the law.
Agreed.
a change to the procedure itself as opposed to things like the Tower frequency. There are 3 dates on a Chart. In the upper right, above the name of the approach is a 5 digit number. That's the last date 'any' change was made. It's a Julian date.
IMO that's close but not quite. The charts are not the actual regulatory document. They are graphic depictions made by the FAA and Jepp (and theoretically, Joe the Chartmaker) from the regulatory documents creating or amending the approach. Those look like this sample of one of the GPS approaches to my home base.
These are available at the FAA's Instrument Flight Procedure Gateway. Enter an airport and on the resulting page select the "IFP Documents (NDBR)" tab.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
But again, that doesn’t verify the fixes in the database are correct...while most of the bad database coding gets caught, we still see NOTAMs regarding bad fixes. If they fix the data for the next (now current) database cycle, the NOTAM goes away. The only way to determine that a fix is coded correctly is to verify it with current, approved data.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yeah. If a procedure is being Amended you can find the details there. After the Amendment is done they keep that stuff around for awhile, don't remember how long. Do you know where to find the criteria to determine when an Amendment must be done?
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yeah. NOTAM until the next Chart cycle, the dates in the left and right margins, but that doesn't Amend the Approach or change the Orig/Amdt date. Thats the point I was making when replying to a post that referenced the Amdt date to verify currency.
George Mohr
Line Up and Wait
Bottom line, the rules are there to keep you legal. It's your responsibility to stay legal. Will you get caught if you dont, or if you bluff your way through 'verifying the fixes'? No probably not, unless you wind up in a violation of some kind. In which case you'll really wish you stayed legal.
Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
so....what is legal?
my understanding is the following:
1.) It is ok to file /G for "enroute" using an outdated 530 or 530W
2.) It is ok to accept an approach using an outdated database provided the current approach plate is dated "older" than the installed database.
my understanding is the following:
1.) It is ok to file /G for "enroute" using an outdated 530 or 530W
2.) It is ok to accept an approach using an outdated database provided the current approach plate is dated "older" than the installed database.
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Apparently there isn't any one specific answer detailed however I like @Somedudeintn idea of looking at the current foreflight chart and the lat long details on the 430
frankly, if somehow you were unlucky enough to get ramp checked immediately after your IFR flight and they determined your database was not current I think that would stand up in court.. that is a reasonable way to verify that the coordinates have not moved
and if it doesn't, it would be the perfect opportunity for the FAA to detail that process
George Mohr
Line Up and Wait
Well I think that part is pretty obvious, no? In order to file /G, or to use GPS as primary enroute navigator, you must either a) have a current database, or b) have manually verified all waypoints on the route for accuracy. And to fly an RNAV/GPS approach using the GPS you must have a current database, no exceptions there.
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Right, but I think that was what part of the debate focused around and what my original question was. How exactly do you manually verify the waypoints? I like the Tennessee dude's idea
George Mohr
Line Up and Wait
1) no it isn't, unless you hand verified the position of each fix you intend to fly using another official source (hard, and hard to ensure accuracy)
2) No, not ever
Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
I guess we disagree.....
George Mohr
Line Up and Wait
I'm not sure you would ever actually do this, but maybe this is an academic question? If so, yeah, you'd need to get the lat/long of each fix and hand verify that in your database (or create manual fixes to supplement). But again, I'm pretty sure that NOBODY is actually doing this. Just get the current database!
-G
George Mohr
Line Up and Wait
Hey Six, which part, 1) or 2)?I guess we disagree.....
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
it was an academic question that my DPE on my instrument checkride posted to me as a thought exercise.. I passed the check ride this was the one area that I couldn't quite answer confidently.. primarily because at least from what I could tell the f a r and a i m do not actually tell you how to verify the waypoints.. just that you have to verify them
I agree, in practice just keep the database updated
George Mohr
Line Up and Wait
I see! Well I suppose this falls into the realm of "your choice, your responsibility". If you get into a situation that requires review, your procedure had better be defensible to an FAA g-man.
I don't have a reference to the rule on that. @aterpster will know the answer to that. Sort of educated guess - when there is a change to the TERPS analysis — altitudes, courses, waypoints — the procedure itself, not the related general information like comm frequencies.
George Mohr
Line Up and Wait
Ok so as usual, you guys sent me down a time sucking rabbit hole It isn't perfectly clear what regulatory requirements are, but the practical requirements are somewhat more clear. Here's a good thread on the minutia.
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/...gps-with-an-out-of-date-database-in-lieu-of-d
It isn't perfectly clear what regulatory requirements are, but the practical requirements are somewhat more clear. Here's a good thread on the minutia.https://aviation.stackexchange.com/...gps-with-an-out-of-date-database-in-lieu-of-d
George Mohr
Line Up and Wait
Also, to answer the actual OP's question as per the thread title, I now believe you can file anyway you like, but when you get your clearance, you will likely get a route that requires RNAV/GPS capability, and you must verify those fixes if your database isn't current. Actually filing /G doesn't seem to have a database requirement.