Jepp

[bigmo]

Mike is spot on, the AIM is not regulatory, the AFMS *IS* regulatory. As far as I know, all Avidyne navigators share the same language that you cannot use the unit for IFR for any operations with an expired DB.

Older Garmin owners have some leeway (with homework). I'd be curious if the newer Garmin touch navigators have the same language allowing enroute and terminal use if data is verified.

All this being said, it's not realistic to think one could validate waypoint or NAVAID data with each flight. I get sent to random spots all the time by ATC - not sure how I'd respond "Please wait 15 mins while I verify that location please".

I see the back-end of this NASAR data and I can tell you the changes with each cycle are significant. Yes, airfields stay put and NAVAIDs are rarely changed, but as we're hitting strides with Performance Based Navigation and free route airspace, waypoint changes from cycle to cycle are significant and system wide.

[kortopates]

Regarding the Garmin AFMS since- there has been no change to Garmin’s limitations between GNS and GTN navigators - expired databases can not be used for approaches. it’s never been otherwise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MikeOH]

22 minutes ago, toto said:

This was an unhappy change for those of us that went to the GTN series from an earlier Garmin navigator, but as mentioned above it was never especially practical to manually verify all waypoints anyway.

Out of curiosity, do you know offhand whether the AFMS for the GTN series requires a current database for enroute or approach operations using only ground-based nav sources?

Uh, the AFMS for my GNS430W has the approach database restriction; so, not sure what you mean by 'an unhappy change'. There has been no change in this regard as far as I know.

[toto]

6 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Uh, the AFMS for my GNS430W has the approach database restriction; so, not sure what you mean by 'an unhappy change'. There has been no change in this regard as far as I know.

Interesting. It’s been quite a while since I had a GNS, but I thought it was new to the GTN AFMS and I thought that that was generally understood. Never mind

ETA: I looked up the GNS AFMS and it definitely says “or verifies each waypoint for accuracy” as an alternative to having a current database. 

 

[kortopates]

Interesting. It’s been quite a while since I had a GNS, but I thought it was new to the GTN AFMS and I thought that that was generally understood. Never mind
ETA: I looked up the GNS AFMS and it definitely says “or verifies each waypoint for accuracy” as an alternative to having a current database. 

 

Checking waypoints only applies to enroute and terminal mode.
re-read first line of second paragraph regarding approaches - db has to be currrent!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MikeOH]

41 minutes ago, toto said:

ETA: I looked up the GNS AFMS and it definitely says “or verifies each waypoint for accuracy” as an alternative to having a current database. 

 

NOT for approaches (what we've been discussing):

 

[toto]

16 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

NOT for approaches (what we've been discussing):

 

Fair enough. I honestly can’t imagine why someone would think about flying a GPS approach with an expired database, and it isn’t something I’ve ever considered. But there is a significant amount of utility in GPS direct routing, and if you’re going GPS direct from one airport to another, there aren’t a lot of waypoints to check.

For most of my flying, the destination airport has an ILS - my question about the AFMS was really just about whether Garmin requires a current database for flights that use ground-based navigation signals (either for enroute or approach). 

[MikeOH]

@toto

Agreed. For enroute you could get away with an expired database.  Thing is, I have no idea how I would "verify each waypoint for accuracy by reference to approved data".  Please explain, step by step, how one would actually go about doing that.

[PeteMc]

3 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Agreed. For enroute you could get away with an expired database.  Thing is, I have no idea how I would "verify each waypoint for accuracy by reference to approved data".  Please explain, step by step, how one would actually go about doing that.

Much easier now with EFBs...   Pick any Wpt on your Route in your EFB that has CURRENT charts and Tap on it to get the Lat/Long.  Then pull that Wpt up in your panel GPS and confirm it is still in the same place.  You've now confirmed that ONE Wpt in your Expired Database is still in the correct place according to a valid/current source.

Repeat the process with ALL of the other Wpts in your Route.   Then hope you don't get a reroute along the way with a bunch of complex Airways... 

 

[MikeOH]

Just now, PeteMc said:

Much easier now with EFBs...   Pick any Wpt on your Route in your EFB that has CURRENT charts and Tap on it to get the Lat/Long.  Then pull that Wpt up in your panel GPS and confirm it is still in the same place.  You've now confirmed that ONE Wpt in your Expired Database is still in the correct place according to a valid/current source.

Repeat the process with ALL of the other Wpts in your Route.   Then hope you don't get a reroute along the way with a bunch of complex Airways... 

 

@PeteMc

I was not aware that EFB databases were considered FAA "approved data".  I base this on my understanding that it is NOT legal to navigate via an EFB (e.g. Foreflight).

If I am wrong, please provide a cite that indicates EFB databases are FAA "approved data"

[toto]

11 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

@toto

Agreed. For enroute you could get away with an expired database.  Thing is, I have no idea how I would "verify each waypoint for accuracy by reference to approved data".  Please explain, step by step, how one would actually go about doing that.

For GPS direct to an airport, the airport is your only waypoint. You can easily confirm what the database thinks the airport information is, and you can confirm that the lat/lon has not changed. 

[toto]

4 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

@PeteMc

I was not aware that EFB databases were considered FAA "approved data".  I base this on my understanding that it is NOT legal to navigate via an EFB (e.g. Foreflight).

If I am wrong, please provide a cite that indicates EFB databases are FAA "approved data"

You don’t need an EFB. Just compare the lat/lon of the airport in the database with the A/FD. 

[MikeOH]

@toto

OK, you got me!  I would hope that the FAA's own Chart Supplement would be considered "approved data".

[PeteMc]

7 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

I was not aware that EFB databases were considered FAA "approved data".  I base this on my understanding that it is NOT legal to navigate via an EFB (e.g. Foreflight).

Sure they are.  Same as the paper charts.  

The "Do Not Navigate" means you can't look at the little airplane on the iPad and shoot an Approach.  Even following the Magenta line while in cruise is technically a no-no.  You use the APPROVED panel equipment to navigate and look at FF (or whatever) like you would look at your paper charts.  Difference is your "finger" (the little plane) magically moves to where you are on the chart.   You don't have to keep folding the map and figure out where you are. 

 

Edited November 15 by PeteMc

[PeteMc]

5 minutes ago, toto said:

You don’t need an EFB. Just compare the lat/lon of the airport in the database with the A/FD. 

You must compare ALL Waypoints.  Not just the Airports. 

So every single Intersection, VOR, whatever in your entire Route must be checked.  And before you say you filed "Direct" to the Airport.  Remember they can reroute you and put you on an Airway with mega Wpts.  

 

 

[toto]

1 minute ago, PeteMc said:

You must compare ALL Waypoints.  Not just the Airports. 

So every single Intersection, VOR, whatever in your entire Route must be checked.  And before you say you filed "Direct" to the Airport.  Remember they can reroute you and put you on an Airway with mega Wpts.  

 

 

This goes back to my original question. Does the AFMS require you to have a current database if you’re navigating using ground-based nav sources?

If not, then your re-route to an airway is not a problem.

[PeteMc]

13 minutes ago, toto said:

Does the AFMS require you to have a current database if you’re navigating using ground-based nav sources?

There is no "Database" per se if you're using VORs.  But you still have to have current charts and "data" with the correct frequencies, etc.  So as long as you have current paper charts or a current EFB, you're good to go. 

The Current Database in question in this discussion has to do with GPS/GNSS navigation.  So you could not add the DNW VOR to the Route in your GPS if you did not first confirm the location.  But you could be in NAV mode and dial in 117.2 and follow the OBS needles to navigate to/from the VOR.  Make sense?

 

[toto]

3 minutes ago, PeteMc said:

There is no "Database" per se if you're using VORs.  But you still have to have current charts and "data" with the correct frequencies, etc.  So as long as you have current paper charts or a current EFB, you're good to go. 

The Current Database in question in this discussion has to do with GPS/GNSS navigation.  So you could not add the DNW VOR to the Route in your GPS if you did not first confirm the location.  But you could be in NAV mode and dial in 117.2 and follow the OBS needles to navigate to/from the VOR.  Make sense?

 

I don’t think I agree with this. Garmin absolutely could say in their AFMS that you must have a current database in order to fly enroute on airways using the VOR receiver in your Garmin navigator. Whether the navigator technically allows you to do it does not control whether it is permitted by the AFMS. 

[toto]

I went and pulled my AFMS to see what they say about databases for enroute, and actually it reads essentially the same as the GNS:

 

I don’t see anything here about using ground-based navigation signals.

[midlifeflyer]

4 hours ago, Hank said:

Yep. The green highlight says that if the approach has not been amended since the one in my expired database, it's OK to use.

But the Limitations section of your AFMS says it’s not.

[midlifeflyer]

2 hours ago, bigmo said:

Mike is spot on, the AIM is not regulatory, the AFMS *IS* regulatory

In this case the AIM is for all practical purpose “regulatory,”* but it establishes a minimum standard. Just like any rule, regulation, or guidance which sets a minimum standard, an  aircraft or component manufacturer can impose a stricter standard. 

* Here’s the FAR 1.1 definition of (be sure to read the last sentence - it’s one of the smartest things the FAA has done.

“Suitable RNAV system is an RNAV system that meets the required performance established for a type of operation, e.g. IFR; and is suitable for operation over the route to be flown in terms of any performance criteria (including accuracy) established by the air navigation service provider for certain routes (e.g. oceanic, ATS routes, and IAPs). An RNAV system’s suitability is dependent upon the availability of ground and/or satellite navigation aids that are needed to meet any route performance criteria that may be prescribed in route specifications to navigate the aircraft along the route to be flown. Information on suitable RNAV systems is published in FAA guidance material.”

 

[bigmo]

With 100% certainty, I can assure you that the AFM supplement must be followed regardless what the AIM states. In this case (at least with Avidyne), the AFMS is clear that all IFR operations are prohibited. The AIM is a guide to good general processes. We’re required to follow all AFM and supplements. 
Not trying to be difficult, but the AIM really plays no role in this.

[MikeOH]

4 hours ago, PeteMc said:

Sure they are.  Same as the paper charts.  

The "Do Not Navigate" means you can't look at the little airplane on the iPad and shoot an Approach.  Even following the Magenta line while in cruise is technically a no-no.  You use the APPROVED panel equipment to navigate and look at FF (or whatever) like you would look at your paper charts.  Difference is your "finger" (the little plane) magically moves to where you are on the chart.   You don't have to keep folding the map and figure out where you are. 

 

I think you are missing my point: the AFMS REQUIRES that the waypoints in the EXPIRED database be verified using CURRENT "approved data" to be LEGAL to use the GPS for IFR navigation.

My contention is that looking at a paper chart does NOT allow you to meet that requirement; i.e. "eyeballing"  lat/lon of fixes is NOT acceptable "approved data". I agree you could pull up the lat/lon on the EFB as @toto pointed out.

Navigating with a paper or EFB low altitude chart is IFR legal because you are using ground based (VOR) equipment NOT pulling fixes from a GPS.

[PeteMc]

56 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

I think you are missing my point: the AFMS REQUIRES that the waypoints in the EXPIRED database be verified using CURRENT "approved data" to be LEGAL to use the GPS for IFR navigation.

Assuming this wasn't for me since I'm the one that said you could confirm the Waypoints with current charts in the EFB for enroute navigation.  Also just said that you an use your EFB and the NAV part of the GTN (or other) if you were not pulling up XXX VOR and putting into the Route as a Waypoint.  (At least not without confirming the Wpt is still correct.)

 

[midlifeflyer]

 

8 hours ago, bigmo said:

With 100% certainty, I can assure you that the AFM supplement must be followed regardless what the AIM states. In this case (at least with Avidyne), the AFMS is clear that all IFR operations are prohibited. The AIM is a guide to good general processes. We’re required to follow all AFM and supplements. 

Not trying to be difficult, but the AIM really plays no role in this.

Agree completely with first paragraph. Disagree with second. I said so pretty publicly in this article. AIM is not Regulatory.