MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
But you haven’t explained why the fact that non-approved data exists in the AFM means that the approved data can be ignored.I guess we disagree.....
GPS database out of date.. are you slant Golf?
- Thread starter Tantalum
- Start date
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
I’d say it’s the other way around...the regulatory requirements are clear (verify the waypoints). What’s not clear is how the FAA expects that to actually be done.Ok so as usual, you guys sent me down a time sucking rabbit hole
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/...gps-with-an-out-of-date-database-in-lieu-of-d
George Mohr
Line Up and Wait
I think I disagree with you there. The FAA gives pretty clear guidance on that (see link).
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/faq/#q8c
"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. "
Interesting discussion. It makes me think about the 4000 hours of flying I did with paper charts and VOR's back in the 80's 90's. All those envelopes of chart updates Jeppesen used to send out. PITA
Now we have EFB's and updates are automatic and easy.
And here we are arguing about how to make sure the electronic data matches the electronic data....
Now we have EFB's and updates are automatic and easy.
And here we are arguing about how to make sure the electronic data matches the electronic data....
If allowed by the 530 or 530W AFM supplement, my take is as follows:
Based on Note 2 of AIM Table 1-1-6, I agree with George Mohr on #1.
Based on Note 3 of AIM Table 1-1-6, I agree with Checkout_my_Six on #2.
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/
Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
....and we know that a simple handheld gps unit can be used for enroute situational awareness....
But Cap'n Ron assured me that filing /G on a VFR flight plan was not allowed without an IFR GPS!....and we know that a simple handheld gps unit can be used for enroute situational awareness....
Last edited:
Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
well...bless his heart.But Cap'n Ron assured me that filing /G on a VFR flight plan plan was not allowed without an IFR GPS!
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
But did you notice that we were 60 posts into this discussion before anybody came up with a good method?
George Mohr
Line Up and Wait
Yeah, but that's just a little silly imo. A waypoint is a lat/lon coordinate. So it makes no small amount of sense that you just look up the lat/lon and verify it
Also, if anyone is actually bored enough to do this, here's the best source of data:
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/aero_data/loc_id_search/fixes_waypoints/
Also, if anyone is actually bored enough to do this, here's the best source of data:
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/aero_data/loc_id_search/fixes_waypoints/
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
So not to be hopelessly pedantic or pedantically hopeless.. but, is it safe to infer from this two postulates then, that
(A) "pilots should establish procedures to ensure accuracy of navigation data" - gives me latitude to determine that accuracy on my own volition. If that is @Somedudeintn method or some other method, I have the authority to ensure that on my own. Now if I crash into a mountain sure, the NTSB could say "pilot failure to adequately ensure his expired nav data base had consistently accurate waypoints" but that may not make it illegal since I was following my own procedure.. just maybe not well or accurately enough
(B) "verifying electronic data against paper products" - those paper products may be as simple as a current sectional and, if my procedure in (A) was a visual comparison of it's map point on the GTN to what the paper product says.. then I have effectively done so
I honestly wish that said "paper products" was highlighting what it actually is, and I find it peculiar that there isn't some readily available giant index somewhere or reference of every naviational waypoint and its lattitude and longitude
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Epic... thanks! Hats off to you sir
John Collins
En-Route
This argument has gone on for a long time. When Garmin released its AFMS in late 2007 for the GNS530W it followed the wording used in the GNS480 AFMS and it allowed for both enroute/terminal operations and approaches with an expired database. Here is the AFMS wording in section 2.3 of the Limitations for the GNS500W series:
It deliberately says that "unless the 500W Series unit’s approach data is verified by the pilot or crew to be current" and does not say "The 500W Series unit's database must be current, only that the approach data is verified by the pilot or crew to be current. Subsequent versions of the AFMS were rewritten, but there is no requirement that AFMS be updated. So if you still are using the older AFMS, its limitations are still in effect.
Enroute and terminal operations required that waypoints need to be verified with a current source, usually a paper chart or now a days in the case of ForeFlight a current IFR Low chart. Approaches could also be verified by loading the procedure from the database and determining the procedure thus loaded is current. This is accomplished by comparing the effective date of the database with the effective date of the chart. As long as the chart effective date was the same or earlier than the expired database effective date, the approach data is verified. Subsequently, in August of 2010, the AIM wording was changed to officially support this. Note 3 which applies to the use of an expired database for a RNAV(GPS) approach operations in TBL 1-1-6 was changed to read as "Requires current database." to now read as "Requires current database or verification that the procedure has not been amended since the expiration of the database."
So as a technical matter, it all depends. If your installation uses the AFMS wording above, RNAV(GPS) approaches may be conducted using an expired database subject to the verification of the approach data. If the later wording is used, it has provisions for using an expired database if the flight transitions into the next AIRAC cycle. The wording in the AIM has not been changed in TBL 1-1-6 and although it technically can't override what is in an AFMS, it is completely safe to do so. So what do you do if you are caught away on a flight and the database changes and can't get updated until you return home? I would follow the AIM guidance.
As far as verifying enroute and terminal points, most are easy to do as the VOR all chart the lat-long on the low altitude enroute charts. Airports don't usually move and their locations are easily verified. Many waypoints have the lat-long also shown on the approach charts and if airways are used, one can cross reference the distance and radial information to the nearest VOR, which in addition to the lat-long is shown in the Waypoint page. Also, SIDs and STAR's can use the same technique as approaches, by comparing dates. This will cover all the data in the SID/STAR. Most of my flights are direct or I just file to a VOR to VOR along the route. If the route is an airway, the VOR and turn points can be verified. It only takes a very few minutes to verify everything on a typical flight, including what approaches I can use or will need to avoid.
It deliberately says that "unless the 500W Series unit’s approach data is verified by the pilot or crew to be current" and does not say "The 500W Series unit's database must be current, only that the approach data is verified by the pilot or crew to be current. Subsequent versions of the AFMS were rewritten, but there is no requirement that AFMS be updated. So if you still are using the older AFMS, its limitations are still in effect.
Enroute and terminal operations required that waypoints need to be verified with a current source, usually a paper chart or now a days in the case of ForeFlight a current IFR Low chart. Approaches could also be verified by loading the procedure from the database and determining the procedure thus loaded is current. This is accomplished by comparing the effective date of the database with the effective date of the chart. As long as the chart effective date was the same or earlier than the expired database effective date, the approach data is verified. Subsequently, in August of 2010, the AIM wording was changed to officially support this. Note 3 which applies to the use of an expired database for a RNAV(GPS) approach operations in TBL 1-1-6 was changed to read as "Requires current database." to now read as "Requires current database or verification that the procedure has not been amended since the expiration of the database."
So as a technical matter, it all depends. If your installation uses the AFMS wording above, RNAV(GPS) approaches may be conducted using an expired database subject to the verification of the approach data. If the later wording is used, it has provisions for using an expired database if the flight transitions into the next AIRAC cycle. The wording in the AIM has not been changed in TBL 1-1-6 and although it technically can't override what is in an AFMS, it is completely safe to do so. So what do you do if you are caught away on a flight and the database changes and can't get updated until you return home? I would follow the AIM guidance.
As far as verifying enroute and terminal points, most are easy to do as the VOR all chart the lat-long on the low altitude enroute charts. Airports don't usually move and their locations are easily verified. Many waypoints have the lat-long also shown on the approach charts and if airways are used, one can cross reference the distance and radial information to the nearest VOR, which in addition to the lat-long is shown in the Waypoint page. Also, SIDs and STAR's can use the same technique as approaches, by comparing dates. This will cover all the data in the SID/STAR. Most of my flights are direct or I just file to a VOR to VOR along the route. If the route is an airway, the VOR and turn points can be verified. It only takes a very few minutes to verify everything on a typical flight, including what approaches I can use or will need to avoid.
RussR
En-Route
@midlifeflyer is broadly correct, but for the truly interested, the full list is contained in FAAO 8260.19H, para 8-3-4b:
https://www.google.com/search?q=faa...rome..69i57.2639j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
John Collins
En-Route
Filing /G does not mean the aircraft is capable of doing approaches. I know of no regulation that requires that a database be current in order to list the aircraft is equipped with a GPS in a flight plan. 91.205 requires that the aircraft "navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown". If your database is expired, don't file or accept a clearance for a route that you have not verified all of the waypoints you will use.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
Thanks for finding that. (16) answers some of whats been discussed here about verifying the 'exact' location of a fix. Outside the FAF, distance changes of less than 0.5 mile do not require Amendment as long as the Ground Track doesn't change. 0.1 miles inside the FAF. And sometimes it can wait until the Chart is Amended for some other reason. If I'm reading it right.
chemgeek
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 3,103
- Display Name
Display name:
chemgeek
But Cap'n Ron assured me that filing /G on a VFR flight plan was not allowed without an IFR GPS!
But doesn't filing /G verify that you have on board TSO c129, c145 or c146 (aka "IFR") GPS? That is, the ability to navigate with GPS as the primary means of navigation (as in flying T-routes, for example)?
On the other hand, there is no reason you can't ask for a very specific VFR vector to fly direct to your destination using non-TSO ("VFR") GPS for positional awareness. Done it many times before I owned a GNS-430W. I never filed /G with only a VFR GPS on board, though. ATC is very happy to accept a suggestion for a VFR vector of 037 degrees direct destination, wink, wink, nod, nod. They know what is going on, and as a VFR flight you are responsible for your own terrain clearance anyway, GPS or not.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yup. G tells them you can fly T-routes and go Direct to a Intersection/Fix/Waypoint or Navaid outside it's Service Volume. If you're VFR, why would you do that wink wink heading wink wink thing? Just go Direct. Controller could give a Rats Azz how yer doin it.
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
FWIW it's worth, I wonder how much weight the whole "slant Golf" thing really carries in the eyes of a controller... I've been asked 3 different times now if I am RNAV capable, but only when being given an arrival procedure into some place busy, say for example Oakland. I've also heard them over the radio give slant Alpha people "direct-to" instructions for GPS fixes.. when the slant Alpha guy came back "unable, slant alpha" it took the guy a minute "ah, ok, hang on then.. fly heading XX" and eventually just gave him a victor airway to stay on
Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
geez people.....don't any of you file and fly? You file and then you work out what works according to your capabilities.
RussR
En-Route
In practice, any fix moves will generate an amendment due to requiring database changes that are only processed if there is an amendment. Also, there is the Note: unless #16 that mentions non-RNAV procedures.
I was talking about VFR flight plans. Isn't it true that under normal circumstances, those only go to Flight Service and not to ATC? If so, then /G on a VFR flight plan tells ATC nothing whatsoever.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
That’s correct.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yes. But when you call ATC and request Flight Following they have to enter a Suffix Code into their Radar computer so it will generate a discrete beacon code to assign you. It does not have to match what you put in a VFR Flight Plan, if any. There are exceptions to this but they are uncommon. Some controllers ask you for the Suffix Code. Some just pick one and put it in.
John Collins
En-Route
No. C129 GPS is not approved for navigation as the primary means, just supplementary means. T routes require RNAV 2 capability. Most but not all GPS are RNAV 2 capable. To get the FAA automation to assign an RNAV 2 route, one needs to file with ICAO format and indicate the ICAO equipment is G, R with PBN/C2 or D2 specified in field 18.
denverpilot
Tied Down
There’s a distance limit that forces a fix name change. It was mentioned above. They CAN move a small distance and not be renamed.
chemgeek
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 3,103
- Display Name
Display name:
chemgeek
So yet another reason to go WAAS.
RussR
En-Route
Yes, the limit is 1 nm unless ATC deems it operationally necessary to keep the name.
But even if it's not renamed, any fix movement results in new fix coordinates that will require a change to the ARINC record that your GPS uses when you load the procedure. So, in effect, any fix movement results in an amendment to the procedure.