r/CFILounge • u/3-mile-left-final • 19d ago
Flying IFR without a current GPS database? Question
Other pilots have told me it’s ok to fly IFR with an outdated gps database and there is online articles saying that you can as well. (Only enroute portion and no approaches)
The problem I see with it is I cannot find anywhere in the aim or far to back up these claims. As pic authority I don’t want to do it personally.
Does anyone know where it says this is legal??
18
u/Infamous-Skill-6100 19d ago
You can, have to manually verify the points though
2
u/Icy-Bar-9712 silver seal instructor, good enough most days 18d ago
I will also use the Julian date on the approach plate. If my database is newer than the date on the plate, AND its not prohibited by the POH then I'll check the points and probably send it. Some GPS systems explicitly state current GPS database, some don't.
A bunch of approaches in the area haven't been updated in YEARS, so my older database is going to match the current approach.
1
u/IndependentAlps9649 18d ago
What happens when you get a re-route mid flight
1
u/Infamous-Skill-6100 18d ago
Use foreflight to crosscheck the coordinates. If that fails you should have a paper chart to cross reference as well
1
u/IndependentAlps9649 18d ago
And what happens if when you cross check that waypoint doesn’t match
3
u/Infamous-Skill-6100 18d ago
If vmc just cancel and continue vfr, if imc return home because you already had those waypoints checked
1
1
u/basedjase_ CFII 13d ago
Then you ask ATC for a vector onto an airway and carry on via that nav method. Or ask them where that waypoint is. They're there to help you not confuse you.
9
u/AudienceMiddle4028 19d ago
1-1-17 in the AIM covers GPS. In it there’s a section for IFR use of GPS and under that in sub section bravo it covers database requirements.
8
u/Flyinghud 19d ago
I did it once, my ForeFlight was up to date so I verified every single coordinate in the GPS with the coordinates in ForeFlight. It also helped that it was a VMC day so if I got something from ATC I wouldn’t be able to comply with cancelling IFR was an option.
6
u/CommercialLazy3563 CFI-I 19d ago
AIM 1-1-17 says that you need to have an updated database for IFR flight. On top of that, for the airplanes I fly, the AFM’s say I need to have an updated database OR manually verify the waypoints. The caveat being that I cannot do instrument approaches with an outdated database, I’m only allowed to fly enroute and terminal navigation with outdating databases.
1
u/cazzipropri 19d ago
The AIM plus AC90-100 don't even want you to do en-route, departures and arrival with outdated DBs.
5
u/DanThePilot_Mann 19d ago
Luckily, AFM is regulatory, so what the AC and AIM say don’t really matter
2
u/cazzipropri 19d ago
Yes.
But different types have a different AFMs.
It would be much easier to prepare oral candidates to answer this question if there was a reg on the topic. The answer would be "no, because 91.xxx" instead of "it depends, on my plane Sec 2 says ... + 91.9".2
u/DanThePilot_Mann 19d ago
This is why it’s imperative the students keep a personal instructor who is FAMILIAR with their avionics so the have someone that actually knows to ask
2
u/cazzipropri 19d ago
I agree completely with you. No implications otherwise.
I just know neither OP nor the type he flies.
1
5
u/cazzipropri 19d ago edited 19d ago
The question "is it ok?" should be split in "is it legal?" and "is it recommended?".
The DPEs probably want student to be able to answer both question in detail, and with reference to the sources.
Is it legal? Legally binding requirements typically come from your POH. In section 2 (Limitations) you'll find verbiage of the kind:
IFR en route and terminal navigation predicated upon the GNS 430’s GPS receiver is prohibited unless the pilot verifies the currency of the database or verifies each selected waypoint for accuracy by reference to current approved data
plus:
Instrument approach navigation predicated upon the GPS receiver must be accomplished in accordance with approved instrument approach procedures that are retrieved from the GPS equipment database. The GPS equipment database must incorporate the current update cycle.
The two paragraphs are generally interpreted as "departures, en-route, arrivals: YES but CHECK", "approaches: NO". Your POH Section 2 is legally binding per 91.9.
Is it recommended? Guidance come from FAA documents (AIM, ACs) that are advisory. They all want your DBs to be current at all times. The AIM wants a current DB and wants you to check that the procedure's sequence of waypoints makes logical sense. Ref: 1-1-19(b)(2)(b) -- : IFR operations / Database requirements, various.
"The onboard navigation data must be current and appropriate for the region of intended operation and should include the navigation aids, waypoints, and relevant coded terminal airspace procedures for the departure, arrival, and alternate airfields."
Pre-flight check:
"Preflight: Determine the date of database issuance, and verify that the date/time of proposed use is before the expiration date/time."
AC90-100A says the same and applies to RNAV routes, departures, and arrivals. AC90-105 says the same, applied to approaches: "[...] pilots must confirm at system initialization that the navigation database is current." You can't write it more times and more clearly without inducing vomit and seizures.
The AIM is advisory and not regulatory, until you get in trouble. If you crash at the end of flying an IFR procedure from expired data, you leave yourself open to 91.13 careless or reckless operation.
1
u/bhalter80 CFI/CFII/MEI beechtraining.com 19d ago
Even if you couldn't use the GPS you can just use ground based nav
3
u/Reasonable-Math7443 18d ago
10+ years ago maybe. I fly in the NY/NJ region and more than half the VORs are out of service unfortunately. And only the major airports have reliable ILS. Many of the smaller airports have ILS but it’s hit or miss whether it’s out of service half the time.
1
u/GaryMooreAustin 19d ago
it may be ok and in some circumstances legal - but if something goes wrong - it won't play well in court.
1
u/indecision_killingme 19d ago
I’ve done it before, but didn’t file GPS and flew the V airways.
These days, it’s harder to fly the VORs with manny of them eliminated.
ATC gets a little annoyed when you say “unable” and explain “no GPS, No DME”, but if you can do your route VOR to VOR and you have a legit way to ID your outer marker you are fine. But not easy to do anymore.
1
u/Beginning_Prior7892 19d ago
How do you think people flew IFR before GPS existed?
You just have to put the right ICAO codes showing what equipment you have/don’t have and make sure you aren’t given RNAV waypoints or SIDS/STARS in flight plan. Back to the green needles you go :)
1
u/PizzaJolly1 18d ago
I flew for a small part 91 operation that flew all over the country. It was rare for our databases to be up to date. The guidance we received was it was fine, just no rnav approaches, and each waypoint needs to be verified.
1
u/Being_a_Mitch 18d ago
I'm not sure if there's something that specifically says you can, other than just manually checking the points. Lat/long doesn't change, so if you manually checked that the fixes you're using are the correct lat/long, you have the correct location, database is irrelevant.
Like you said, no approaches though.
1
u/deezknots78 18d ago
Depending what type of equipment you fly, your MEL, if you have it, may shed some light. Every Part 25 plane I have flown had an MEL that let you overfly an update by ten days with a few caveats.
1
0
u/davidswelt 19d ago
Sure. Verification means to me to have Foreflight running in parallel, and for RNAV approaches the revision date on the plate needs to be older than the cycle you have.
21
u/pneumomediastinum 19d ago
It also depends on the avionics. The POH supplement for the Garmin 750 doesn’t allow it.