Jepp

[N201MKTurbo]

Flying enroute IFR by ded reckoning is legal. If you have current charts in your EFB can’t you claim to be navigating by ded reckoning and your navigator as an advisory device?

[tony]

I think chapter 10 clears up most everything discussed.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_90-105A_Ed_Update_2.pdf

[N201MKTurbo]

If your database is expired, can't you file as /A and fly by VOR using the NAV receivers in your navigator and flying ILS and VOR approaches? How could that be illegal?

The last time I flew IFR /A the ATC folks were kind of annoyed...

[toto]

42 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

If your database is expired, can't you file as /A and fly by VOR using the NAV receivers in your navigator and flying ILS and VOR approaches? How could that be illegal?

The last time I flew IFR /A the ATC folks were kind of annoyed...

I think I sent the thread in a weird direction.  I was just asking out of curiosity whether the Garmin AFMS for the GTN series required a current database for ground-based navigation.  I later checked my own AFMS and did not see anything to indicate that the AFMS requires a current database for, e.g., flying on airways to an ILS, but the point is that the AFMS controls and not the regs.

Garmin absolutely can do this using their own configuration and their own supplement.  An example is the fact that Garmin requires a clear GPS signal in order to fly an ILS using a GFC500.  This isn't something that anyone at FAA requires, and nothing in the regs would say you need a GPS in order to fly an ILS, but Garmin requires it and included in their AFMS.  So even if you *could* do it with your GTN+G5+GFC, your AFMS would prohibit.

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

If your database is expired, can't you file as /A and fly by VOR using the NAV receivers in your navigator and flying ILS and VOR approaches? How could that be illegal?

 

The answer is, It depends. There are a number of things which go into the answer. From the general to the specific...

• The pure regulatory directive is 91.205(d)(2) which requires "navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown."
• The definition of suitable in the case of RNAV equipment in FAR 1.1 tells us to look at guidance material (BTW, this is a good thing - can you imagine if every single advance in GPS navigation capability needed to go through the formal regulatory process?)
• The two basic guidance materials pointed to for the pilot community are AC90-108 and the AIM. The AC was last changed 10 years ago; the AIM tends to be far more current.  
• The POH or AFMS applicable to your equipment which may be more conservative than what the rules allow. When it does, it controls under 91.9.

We've seen that final bottom line in this discussion. The FAA guidance material permits a current database or verification that the approach procedure has not changed. Garmin, however ups the requirement and requires a current database (so does Avidyne).  In terms of your question, I do not see anything in either that indicates it applies to using VOR or ILS/LOC mode.

 

 

[midlifeflyer]

49 minutes ago, toto said:

I think I sent the thread in a weird direction.  I was just asking out of curiosity whether the Garmin AFMS for the GTN series required a current database for ground-based navigation.  I later checked my own AFMS and did not see anything to indicate that the AFMS requires a current database for, e.g., flying on airways to an ILS, but the point is that the AFMS controls and not the regs.

Garmin absolutely can do this using their own configuration and their own supplement.  An example is the fact that Garmin requires a clear GPS signal in order to fly an ILS using a GFC500.  This isn't something that anyone at FAA requires, and nothing in the regs would say you need a GPS in order to fly an ILS, but Garmin requires it and included in their AFMS.  So even if you *could* do it with your GTN+G5+GFC, your AFMS would prohibit.

Does your AFMS have a prohibition?  I think your last sentence could be worded, "it's not prohibited, but the equipment won't do it."

I have not seen a "Limitation" prohibiting it. Yes, the GFC 500 requires GPS to fly an ILS (and other ground based approaches), but AFAIK, the AFMS discusses it as an emergency procedure - informing the pilot that the AP will fall back into roll and pitch mode, giving the steps to take (disconnect the AP and fly it manually). 

Yes, the ultimate bottom line - you can't - is the same. I'm just being technical (even though I know people hate that). If were talking about prohibitions and limitations, semantics counts.

 

 

[toto]

28 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

Does your AFMS have a prohibition?  I think your last sentence could be worded, "it's not prohibited, but the equipment won't do it."

I have not seen a "Limitation" prohibiting it. Yes, the GFC 500 requires GPS to fly an ILS (and other ground based approaches), but AFAIK, the AFMS discusses it as an emergency procedure - informing the pilot that the AP will fall back into roll and pitch mode, giving the steps to take (disconnect the AP and fly it manually). 

Yes, the ultimate bottom line - you can't - is the same. I'm just being technical (even though I know people hate that). If were talking about prohibitions and limitations, semantics counts.

 

 

I don't have my AFMS in front of me, so I'll happily defer to you on that - I'm sure you're correct.  I was just picking this as an example case where no FAA regulation requires an operable GPS, but the vendor has a configuration that requires something not required by regulation.

[midlifeflyer]

6 minutes ago, toto said:

I don't have my AFMS in front of me, so I'll happily defer to you on that - I'm sure you're correct.  I was just picking this as an example case where no FAA regulation requires an operable GPS, but the vendor has a configuration that requires something not required by regulation.

Absolutely correct on that point. The concept is neither new nor limited to GPS. I'm sure all of us can find equipment in our airplanes that is listed as "Required" in the POH but is not listed in 91.205.

[midlifeflyer]

2 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

  In terms of your question, I do not see anything in either that indicates it applies to using VOR or ILS/LOC mode.

...except.. arguably, it does mean that in the case of a VOR or NDB approach, your primary CDI/HSI has to be on VLOC and not just "raw data" on a second CDI or PFD bearing pointer.

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, midlifeflyer said:

Absolutely correct on that point. The concept is neither new nor limited to GPS. I'm sure all of us can find equipment in our airplanes that is listed as "Required" in the POH but is not listed in 91.205.

Yup.   Was recently helping with an airplane that is grounded until an avionics fan is replaced.    The KOEL requires it, even for VFR day operation.

It's a typical computer chassis fan, but it's $1500 from the OEM.   Not a Mooney. 

[donkaye, MCFI]

Sitting at the table in our Condo on the Big Island of Hawaii overlooking what some might call "Paradise", I sit back and summarize my simplistic observations on the above "discussion".  1. Why make things more complicated than they need to be?  2. Avoid simple brain overload and most importantly,  3.  Just update your databases monthly.

[Marc_B]

For a VFR aircraft that stays local and never sees inclement weather I can understand a thought to not pay for databases you don’t think you “need”.  But for an IFR Mooney travel machine this just seems penny un-wise and pound foolish.  Why gamble with the lives of yourself and others?

I've rarely been on an IFR flight that I wasn’t rerouted or given an arrival or amended clearance fix coming in.  No way that I’d be able to verify the validity of every fix I was using other than confirming updated database and fix name checks on chart.

This discussion seems purely academic and practically impractical.

 

[toto]

3 minutes ago, Marc_B said:

For a VFR aircraft that stays local and never sees inclement weather I can understand a thought to not pay for databases you don’t think you “need”.  But for an IFR Mooney travel machine this just seems penny un-wise and pound foolish.  Why gamble with the lives of yourself and others?

I've rarely been on an IFR flight that I wasn’t rerouted or given an arrival or amended clearance fix coming in.  No way that I’d be able to verify the validity of every fix I was using other than confirming updated database and fix name checks on chart.

This discussion seems purely academic and practically impractical.

 

I’ve been treating this primarily as an academic discussion without much practical value. But it’s certainly worth understanding the regs and the AFMS and how they relate to each other. 

I always appreciate this community for the wealth of experience, and I often learn a lot from these academic discussions. 

[Pinecone]

17 hours ago, Marc_B said:

For a VFR aircraft that stays local and never sees inclement weather I can understand a thought to not pay for databases you don’t think you “need”.  But for an IFR Mooney travel machine this just seems penny un-wise and pound foolish.  Why gamble with the lives of yourself and others?

Once I put a GPS in my fun plane that is Day VFR ONLY, this is what I will do.  Update it maybe once a year, while the Mooney is on subscription to update as they are published.

[Will.iam]

Flew 767 for a company that the fms only had 256k memory. To upgrade to 2mb it was over 100k company would not do it. They would load the fms with a region like the middle east but when we got a trip to england we had to input every point via lat/long. And that was legal. Now if the controller in say france or germany wanted to send us to a point not on our flight plan typically we said unable. And they would either send us to a further point on our flight plan or if they required us to goto that point we would request a heading while we looked up on our charts, find the point and put in the lat long then nav to the point. This was in 2014 in Europe. Same thing in the states. Had the fms loaded for east coast but if we got a charter to west coast about half way we were on lat longs only as we did not have the points in the data base. Could not fly RNAV but 99% was ILS or LOC occasionally a VOR. And NDB into Laredo, Texas.  

[kortopates]

Flew 767 for a company that the fms only had 256k memory. To upgrade to 2mb it was over 100k company would not do it. They would load the fms with a region like the middle east but when we got a trip to england we had to input every point via lat/long. And that was legal. Now if the controller in say france or germany wanted to send us to a point not on our flight plan typically we said unable. And they would either send us to a further point on our flight plan or if they required us to goto that point we would request a heading while we looked up on our charts, find the point and put in the lat long then nav to the point. This was in 2014 in Europe. Same thing in the states. Had the fms loaded for east coast but if we got a charter to west coast about half way we were on lat longs only as we did not have the points in the data base. Could not fly RNAV but 99% was ILS or LOC occasionally a VOR. And NDB into Laredo, Texas.  

Wow, that must’ve really sucked and taken a really long time to put together a flight plan. Plus the challenge in correcting errors before going off in the wrong direction must’ve been a challenge. i hope you some sort of backup that had the real data if even a vfr portable gps or ipad so you could get at least see the fms route looked as expected.

I remember the days when memory was really expensive and it was a lot longer than 10 yrs ago! And we complain about Garmin prices…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Marc_B]

54 minutes ago, Will.iam said:

Flew 767 for a company that the fms only had 256k memory.

There’s single pilot IFR and then there’s Negative (256) pilot IFR!  That’s nuts! 

[Will.iam]

4 hours ago, kortopates said:

Wow, that must’ve really sucked and taken a really long time to put together a flight plan. Plus the challenge in correcting errors before going off in the wrong direction must’ve been a challenge. i hope you some sort of backup that had the real data if even a vfr portable gps or ipad so you could get at least see the fms route looked as expected.

I remember the days when memory was really expensive and it was a lot longer than 10 yrs ago! And we complain about Garmin prices…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We did not have ipads at that company. The flight plan did have lat / longs printed by each way point and mag heading so you verified the fms heading and distance match the flight plan. This was especially important as we crossed the prime meridian as 10e could easily be put in as 10w and be in a different country. We also didn’t have gps only IRU’s so had to monitor the drift of each one to vor’s for correct position. I think we were one step up from having to use a sextant and star navigation.