Keeping Gps current

[redcloud]

Need advice:

I have a 1997 C-182 S with a Bendix/king 89 and 90B GPS units, and am beginning IFR training.

The 90B has a removable card for updating, what about the 89?

How often, from where, and do they both need to be updated every 28 days? Especially as it relates to IFR use?

Scott

 

[ScottM]

On the 90B the 'card' is not what you want to replace each time. It is only accessible from the back of the unit and that means removing the GPS each time to do the swap. I just download the db to my laptop and then upload it to the GPS via a connector that I have remoted to the panel.

To file IFR /G you will need to have the proper GPS, which you do, and have installed and certified for IFR. Then you also need the valid db. I often will let the db expire and not update it if I am not flying any IFR. Why pay for it if I am not using it. But if I am planning an IFR flight I will upload a new one. For VFR flight a current db is not required.

 

[silver-eagle]

If I recall, the 89 is not certified for GPS approaches but the 89B (yes, I meant the 8-9-B) is. This may be why you have both (?). As to where to go - Bendix King is now a Honeywell company but here is the website: https://www3.bendixking.com/index.jsp

Follow the link to wingman services for details on updating the database.

I have an 89B with a 13 issue subscription (1 year). The aircraft is used for instruction so the database needs to be current. The card is shipped every 28 days and installed by the FBO. I thought about the download but to do that would require hauling a PC out to the plane every month.

 

[poadeleted20]

In addition, note that the FAA is cracking down on logging of database updates of IFR GPS's. Since updating the database is defined as "maintenance" in Part 43, you must log it either in the airframe log or a separate avionics log. And this is not the informal sort of record like the VOR checks, but a full Part 43 entry with the signature of someone authorized to do the work. Since updating the database is defined as "preventive maintenance," the owner/pilot can do it for Part 91 ops, but Part 135/121 operators must have an authorized repairman do the work and sign the log.

 

[ScottM]

In addition, note that the FAA is cracking down on logging of database updates of IFR GPS's. Since updating the database is defined as "maintenance" in Part 43, you must log it either in the airframe log or a separate avionics log. And this is not the informal sort of record like the VOR checks, but a full Part 43 entry with the signature of someone authorized to do the work. Since updating the database is defined as "preventive maintenance," the owner/pilot can do it for Part 91 ops, but Part 135/121 operators must have an authorized repairman do the work and sign the log.

This seems like your FSDO. No one around here has ever heard of such a thing. Did they issue this directive in writting?

 

[poadeleted20]

This seems like your FSDO. No one around here has ever heard of such a thing. Did they issue this directive in writting?

It's not my FSDO -- this came out of FAA HQ, and there's no "directive," as this is just a straight reading of Part 43. Database updates of installed GPS's are "preventive maintenance" (paragraph (c)(32) of Appendix A to 14 CFR Part 43), and all "preventive maintenance" must be entered in the maintenance records (14 CFR 43.9(a)). Maybe your folks just haven't been reading their mail. Feel free to check this with AFS-300 if you like.

 

[ScottM]

It's not my FSDO -- this came out of FAA HQ, and there's no "directive," as this is just a straight reading of Part 43. Database updates of installed GPS's are "preventive maintenance" (paragraph (c)(32) of Appendix A to 14 CFR Part 43), and all "preventive maintenance" must be entered in the maintenance records (14 CFR 43.9(a)). Maybe your folks just haven't been reading their mail. Feel free to check this with AFS-300 if you like.

That is not what you said nor what I asked. You mentioned that the FAA is cracking down on not logging GPS updates. I know in part 43 where it says that the GPS update is PM. There are many things in that section that state what PM is but many of them go unlogged when performed such as simple lubrication of parts, stitching a hole in a seat cover, etc. Are they equally cracking down on those types of things? If not why single out GPS databases? Who have they cracked down on? That is why I asked.

I want to do the right thing. I and others have simply not heard of this and our FSDO gave me a blank stare when I asked about it.

 

[poadeleted20]

Who have they cracked down on?

Nobody I know. But that's the word I've got, and you can take it or leave it.

 

[SkyHog]

That is not what you said nor what I asked. You mentioned that the FAA is cracking down on not logging GPS updates. I know in part 43 where it says that the GPS update is PM. There are many things in that section that state what PM is but many of them go unlogged when performed such as simple lubrication of parts, stitching a hole in a seat cover, etc. Are they equally cracking down on those types of things? If not why single out GPS databases? Who have they cracked down on? That is why I asked.

I want to do the right thing. I and others have simply not heard of this and our FSDO gave me a blank stare when I asked about it.

I don't understand the point. Its required, whether they have cracked down on it yet or not, its still considered preventative maintanance base on Mr. Levy's cite, so they could crack down if they wanted (if they haven't already).

 

[ScottM]

I don't understand the point. Its required,

There are a lot of thing done in PM that are not logged. Do you log each time you fill the brake resouvior or put air in your tires? Nope! The GPS database has traditionally been one of those things that people update but do not log. The GPS itself will tell you is the database is current. When I asked the local FSDO about logging GPS updates they looked at me and said "they knew of no requirment to do so".


Ron mentioned that the FAA was 'cracking down'. Well this is news to a lot of GPS users and I wanted to know more about their cracking down. It seems there is no evidence of 'cracking' down other than someone in the FAA has told Ron that this is occurring.

So between Ron's source and the local FSDO there is a disconnect. I am trying to figure what the real requirement is.

Maybe we should ask the question who, other than Ron, logs GPS updates in a maintenance log? Anyone hear form the FAA that they should have been logging the updates?

The previous owner of my plane never logged them, I have never logged updates, and other at my airport don't log them. I want to do what is right so I am trying to get to the bottom of what is correct.

Do you log the database updates?

Scott

 

[SkyHog]

There are a lot of thing done in PM that are not logged. Do you log each time you fill the brake resouvior or put air in your tires? Nope! The GPS database has tradionally been one fo those things that people update but do not log. The GPS itself will tell you is the database is current. When I asked the local FSDO about loggin GPS updates they looked at me and said "they knew of no requirmetn to do so".


Ron mentioned that the FAA was 'cracking down'. Well this is news to a lot fo GPS users and I wanted to know more about their cracking down. It seems there is no evidence of 'cracking' down other than someone in the FAA has told Ron that this is occuring.

So between Ron's source and the local FSDO there is a disconnect. I am trying to figure wha tthe real requirment is.

Maybe we should ask the question who, other than Ron, logs GPS updates in a maintenance log? Anyone hear form the FAA that they should have been loggin the updates?

Scott

I'm kinda curious now that you put it that way, also. One of the other owners just updated our GPS database, and I should look at the logs and see whether or not he logged it.

If it matters, its placarded "Not for IFR Navigation."

 

[EdFred]

Hmmm. I don't update the database. I actually replace it. I guess part 43 doesn't apply.

 

[ScottM]

Called the FSDO again today about this topic to see if we could get to the bottom of it. They took the issue and discussed internally for about an hour and called me back. The bottom line is that they could not agree either. It seems the issue comes down to interpreting whether the database upgrade is maintainence or a service. Those who believed it to be service said a log entry was not required and those who believed it to be maintenance said there needed to be a log entry. They also noted that those who felt it was maintenance were the ones that used to do FMS updates for part 135 and 121 equipment were it is most definitely a log entry requirement.

So there is our answer it is or is not required depending on who does you ramp check.

I think to be on the safe side I will probably start doing it in a separate log book.

 

[SkyHog]

I think to be on the safe side I will probably start doing it in a separate log book.

hmm - is there anything that says that certain things can not be logged? if not, then I'll suggest to the other owners that we log them as well, but no need for a separate book if its not necessary.

 

[ScottM]

hmm - is there anything that says that certain things can not be logged? if not, then I'll suggest to the other owners that we log them as well, but no need for a separate book if its not necessary.

Nothing to say want can't be logged. I was suggesting a seperate log book for them so that my airframe log does not fill up with useless GPS update entries.

 

[poadeleted20]

Called the FSDO again today about this topic to see if we could get to the bottom of it. They took the issue and discussed internally for about an hour and called me back. The bottom line is that they could not agree either.

Since AFS-300 has already said it is required, your FSDO's Inspectors' opinions aren't worth much outside that FSDO.

I think to be on the safe side I will probably start doing it in a separate log book.

Good idea.

Nothing to say want can't be logged. I was suggesting a seperate log book for them so that my airframe log does not fill up with useless GPS update entries.

That's the recommendation of the folks from whom I got the word, and you can use it to log your VOR checks, too.

 

[gismo]

Since AFS-300 has already said it is required, your FSDO's Inspectors' opinions aren't worth much outside that FSDO.

Good idea.

That's the recommendation of the folks from whom I got the word, and you can use it to log your VOR checks, too.

Just for the heck of it I checked with a couple people at the Minneapolis FSDO. They all agreed that it should be logged and that logging it in the same place as you keep your VOR checks is acceptable.

 

[poadeleted20]

Just for the heck of it I checked with a couple people at the Minneapolis FSDO. They all agreed that it should be logged

Glad to hear some FSDO's are reading their mail. But I strongly suspect this is the kind of thing that's going to get on-the-spot remedial training rather than a write-up if discovered on a ramp check or something. And it would behoove one to know the correct answer on an instrument rating Practical Test in case a DPE happens to ask the question.

 

[redcloud]

Well, I had to get my first repair doen on my plane. The artificial horizon gyro went kaput; I presume as a result of its lack of flying time and sitting around. I was referred to Muncie Aviation by a friend. While I was there I asked them to check the wiring of the data port for the King 90B and to check the data card for the King 89. They told me the data port was miswired and corrected it for future updates and I decided to buy a data card for the 89 yearly or so and to keep the 90B updated continually. On the way home, the 89, which has worked well since I purchased the plane simply quit working. I turned it off and back on but only part of 1/2 of the screen lit with a couple of lines and a few letters. What gives? I called Muncie Aviation this morning to ask them about the problem and the avionics manager said he would look into it and call me back, which he didn't today anyway!

It's difficult when one is fairly naive about these things and at the same time "mechanically challenged".

I wonder if rentals would be such a bad thing, lol. Oh and the charge was pretty high, I thought (around $1400.00).

Am I just fodder for the wolves?

Scott

 

[gismo]

Well, I had to get my first repair doen on my plane. The artificial horizon gyro went kaput; I presume as a result of its lack of flying time and sitting around. I was referred to Muncie Aviation by a friend. While I was there I asked them to check the wiring of the data port for the King 90B and to check the data card for the King 89. They told me the data port was miswired and corrected it for future updates and I decided to buy a data card for the 89 yearly or so and to keep the 90B updated continually. On the way home, the 89, which has worked well since I purchased the plane simply quit working. I turned it off and back on but only part of 1/2 of the screen lit with a couple of lines and a few letters. What gives?
Scott

I suspect that pulling and replacing the 89 disturbed the connection to the display. Hopefully it will be a simple fix (open the radio, disconnect, clean, and reconnect the display. If you need a new display, I think they are around $180 plus labor. I had a display go out on the 89B I used to have (under warranty) but that one just had a line or two that went flaky.

 

[gismo]

Well, I had to get my first repair doen on my plane. The artificial horizon gyro went kaput; I presume as a result of its lack of flying time and sitting around. I was referred to Muncie Aviation by a friend. While I was there I asked them to check the wiring of the data port for the King 90B and to check the data card for the King 89. They told me the data port was miswired and corrected it for future updates and I decided to buy a data card for the 89 yearly or so and to keep the 90B updated continually. On the way home, the 89, which has worked well since I purchased the plane simply quit working. I turned it off and back on but only part of 1/2 of the screen lit with a couple of lines and a few letters. What gives?
Scott

I suspect that pulling and replacing the 89 disturbed the connection to the display. Hopefully it will be a simple fix (open the radio, disconnect, clean, and reconnect the display. If you need a new display, I think they are around $180 plus labor. I had a display go out on the 89B I used to have (under warranty) but that one just had a line or two that went flaky. Since so many lines died at once it sounds more like a connector issue.

 

[corjulo]

In addition, note that the FAA is cracking down on logging of database updates of IFR GPS's. Since updating the database is defined as "maintenance" in Part 43, you must log it either in the airframe log or a separate avionics log. And this is not the informal sort of record like the VOR checks, but a full Part 43 entry with the signature of someone authorized to do the work. Since updating the database is defined as "preventive maintenance," the owner/pilot can do it for Part 91 ops, but Part 135/121 operators must have an authorized repairman do the work and sign the log.

dumb question Ron but what makes a GPS IFR. Is it a WAAS upgrade? Can I assume a stock Garmin 430 is NOT IFR. Sorry for the ignorance but I'm not Instrument rated....yet

 

[SCCutler]

Dan-

Not citing to FARs, but the GPS must be TSO'd for IFR operation, and must be installed by a shop qualified to certify it for IFR operation.

The GPS must be connected to a CDI;

If the CDI is not dedicated to the GPS function, then there must be provision for an annunciator which tells whether the CDI is displaying GPS course information, or VLOC course information. On the 430 and 530, this is accomplished by the indication in the lower left hand corner of the display (and Garmin CDI's include an annunciator in the CDI itself). Other GPS's have an external annunciator.

Finally, the installation must actually be tested and certified by the shop (hence, even a G430 or 530 is VFR-only until certified).

 

[gismo]

dumb question Ron but what makes a GPS IFR. Is it a WAAS upgrade? Can I assume a stock Garmin 430 is NOT IFR. Sorry for the ignorance but I'm not Instrument rated....yet

WAAS makes it potentially useable as a primary/sole source of navigation rather than a secondary one.

What makes a GPS an IFR GPS is all three of the following: 1> The unit has to be certified under an appropriate TSO (C129a for non-WAAS and C146 for WAAS). 2> It must be installed in compliance with the manufacturer's instructions necessary for IFR use (and the FAA Advisory Circular which specifies those requriements). 3> The installation must be "signed off" as complete and IFR approved.

And in case you were wondering, updating of the database in a panel mounted GPS requires a log entry whether or not the GPS is IFR approved AFaIK.

 

[AirBaker]

dumb question Ron but what makes a GPS IFR. Is it a WAAS upgrade? Can I assume a stock Garmin 430 is NOT IFR. Sorry for the ignorance but I'm not Instrument rated....yet

I find it funny that even handheld GPS say they are WAAS capable. WAAS buys you the precision guidance. As far as GA is concerned, The Garmin, previously Apolo, GNS-480 is pretty much the only one that has that capability right now. Garmin's rumored the WAAS upgrade for the 430/530 will be available soon, but I haven't seen it.

For that matter, I've yet to see a precision GPS approach anywhere near where I live.

 

[gismo]

I find it funny that even handheld GPS say they are WAAS capable. WAAS buys you the precision guidance. As far as GA is concerned, The Garmin, previously Apolo, GNS-480 is pretty much the only one that has that capability right now. Garmin's rumored the WAAS upgrade for the 430/530 will be available soon, but I haven't seen it.

For that matter, I've yet to see a precision GPS approach anywhere near where I live.

There are no "precision" GPS approaches anywhere in the country AFaIK unless you consider RNAV/LNAV to be "precision" (they do have vertical guidance). It's my understanding that true precision GPS approaches require LAAS, not just WAAS.

There are WAAS LNAV/VNAV approaches at San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco. I believe they typically don't exist at smaller airports because of the approach corridor and lighting systems required.

 

[ScottM]

Just for the heck of it I checked with a couple people at the Minneapolis FSDO. They all agreed that it should be logged and that logging it in the same place as you keep your VOR checks is acceptable.

Emphasis added for the word should.

Should implies optionality. If it was a mandated requirement it would have been shall. This proves what I have been saying is that there is not a consistent interpretation of what updating a GPS database is in the eyes of the FAA.

 

[AirBaker]

There are no "precision" GPS approaches anywhere in the country AFaIK unless you consider RNAV/LNAV to be "precision" (they do have vertical guidance). It's my understanding that true precision GPS approaches require LAAS, not just WAAS.

There are WAAS LNAV/VNAV approaches at San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco. I believe they typically don't exist at smaller airports because of the approach corridor and lighting systems required.

Well, how much precision are you looking for?

 

[gismo]

Emphasis added for the word should.

Should implies optionality. If it was a mandated requirement it would have been shall. This proves what I have been saying is that there is not a consistent interpretation of what updating a GPS database is in the eyes of the FAA.

That's fine except the quote was from me, not the FSDO. According to then logging this is mandatory.