VOR Approaches Using GPS

[Ibra]

2 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

I've had fellow instructors claim there is nothing in FAA literature which prohibits flying an instrument approach with an expired database provided you "verify each waypoint for accuracy".  That may be true, but if you're Garmin equipped it doesn't matter, because the AFMS for Garmin navigators explicitly prohibits it, allowing the "verify each waypoint" trick only for terminal and enroute ops.  I don't know if other navigators (e.g. Avidyne) contain this same AFMS limitation

For flying with expired database, in Europe, we are allowed as long as it's only one AIRAC cycle (28days) and you can cross-check, however, my understanding examiners will fail the test if the database is expired.

I was curious if FAA has any rule or guidance on this for P91 ops, however, it seems Garmin limitation sits above AIM guidance !

I am bit mixing EASA vs FAA (sorry for that) but I am very curious on any discrepancies, I always get questions here and there, especially for GPS operation or substitution, it's far from being trivial and it's hard to follow, it changes quicker than software versions...

Edited August 25 by Ibra

[Ibra]

While ago I had tough time crossfill flight plan between two navigators (2×G430 in Cirrus), it turns out that Garmin prevents this when the two of them are running on two different cycles.

This is not an issue of "expired database", however, it shows the kind of problems one gets when there are two set of avionics that have two databases that are out of sync...

Edited August 26 by Ibra

[Mooney in Oz]

1 hour ago, Ibra said:

While ago I had tough time crossfill flight plan between two navigators (2×G430 in Cirrus), it turns out that Garmin prevents this when the two of them are running on two different cycles.

Avidyne does the same.

[midlifeflyer]

On 8/25/2025 at 1:33 PM, Ibra said:

So, I can see how an examiner would make a fuss out of it (as it matter for VOR  holds and separation, say two aircraft one using GPS and one using VOR).

There was no fuss made by the DPE in that situation, the fuss was self-induced by the student. The DPE did not ask about the discrepancy, just wanted the applicant to fly the approach.

Edited August 26 by midlifeflyer

[midlifeflyer]

14 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

That may be true, but if you're Garmin equipped it doesn't matter, because the AFMS for Garmin navigators explicitly prohibits it, allowing the "verify each waypoint" trick only for terminal and enroute ops.  I don't know if other navigators (e.g. Avidyne) contain this same AFMS limitation.

Avidyne: “GPS/SBAS based IFR enroute, oceanic, and terminal navigation is prohibited unless current Navigation and Procedure databases are installed.”

The “debate” has two sides. Those who don’t read the POH and those who do  

[Vance Harral]

15 hours ago, Ibra said:

While ago I had tough time crossfill flight plan between two navigators (2×G430 in Cirrus), it turns out that Garmin prevents this when the two of them are running on two different cycles.

That makes sense, as a waypoint in the source device might not exist in the destination device.

With time and knob-ology experience, I've become indifferent about crossfill, and hostile to "autosync" where one device is always slaved to the other, be it between two panel-mount navigators or - more commonly these days - EFB to/from panel mount.  For me, it causes more problems than it solves, e.g. lack of ability to use one device for "what if" nav planning while the other is active.  But I say that as someone who flies IFR in a part of the world where there is never an urgent need to get more than one or two waypoints into a navigator flightplan at a time.  I might feel differently if I flew a lot of routes that involve lots of waypoints over short distances.

[Paul Thomas]

Will a GNS/GTN even let you fly an approach with an expired database?

[kortopates]

Will a GNS/GTN even let you fly an approach with an expired database?

Of course, it’s not a traffic cop and doesn’t know if you are flying under IFR rules where it may be required or under VFR rules where it does not. But Jepessen would stop displaying charts expired for more than 6 months if i recall properly, i think Garmin charts has a limit too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kortopates]

For flying with expired database, in Europe, we are allowed as long as it's only one AIRAC cycle (28days) and you can cross-check, however, my understanding examiners will fail the test if the database is expired.
I was curious if FAA has any rule or guidance on this for P91 ops, however, it seems Garmin limitation sits above AIM guidance !
I am bit mixing EASA vs FAA (sorry for that) but I am very curious on any discrepancies, I always get questions here and there, especially for GPS operation or substitution, it's far from being trivial and it's hard to follow, it changes quicker than software versions...

The GARMIN AFMS limitations are FAA Approved. Can’t top that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[midlifeflyer]

32 minutes ago, kortopates said:

 

The GARMIN AFMS limitations are FAA Approved. Can’t top that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

There’s also the shalt not in 91.9(a)  

 

[kortopates]

There’s also the shalt not in 91.9(a)  
 

Indeed:
91.9(a)
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry.


(d) only applies to helicopters


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibra]

2 hours ago, kortopates said:

The GARMIN AFMS limitations are FAA Approved. Can’t top that.

Rightly so !

I went into AFMS for G4xxW, G5xxW and GTN series and various versions, very surprised how they changed the wording in section2. Limitation, old AFMS versions and older navigators, seems to allow more “leeway” 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 26 by Ibra

[M20F]

I just follow the line on the iPad but I can’t get it to turn green?  

[PeteMc]

On 8/25/2025 at 2:33 PM, Vance Harral said:

I've had fellow instructors claim there is nothing in FAA literature which prohibits flying an instrument approach with an expired database provided you "verify each waypoint for accuracy".  That may be true, but if you're Garmin equipped it doesn't matter, because the AFMS for Garmin navigators explicitly prohibits it, allowing the "verify each waypoint" trick only for terminal and enroute ops.  I don't know if other navigators (e.g. Avidyne) contain this same AFMS limitation.

Your fellow instructors are correct on both points. The FAA does not care if you confirm the location of each fix is in the correct location on the current charts (enroute or approach), but then you'd need the new chart or chart information to confirm that. 

And I believe all of the GPS manufacturer's AFMS prohibit the use of their GPS on an instrument approach.  But you can still use it Enroute IF you confirm the location of the Waypoints....  Which brings us back to you having to have the current info to confirm the location.  So have fun digging through the current list of all Waypoints to confirm the location of each fix on your Route.  And  on the Approach if you're going to shoot a VOR, ILS or maybe even an NDB Approach.   

[65MooneyPilot]

The EU rules should be our rules here in the states where you verify the points in the database with a current approach plate. Every 121 carrier I worked at, this is the procedure if caught out and the database goes out of date. I have flown to countries that were not in the loaded database and had to enter in all the Lat Longs of all the points on the arrival and departure. Just like the old days when we had 9 waypoints and had to keep loading them in as you went. We used to build are own approaches in the “Box” for VFR and low visibility. It is not acceptable to build an LPV approach so I would not do that, but verifying points for an approach that has not changed would be fine with me. Having a current database is no guarantee the points are correct either. Years ago United doing an approach into SFO almost had a major disaster because one of the points was wrong on the approach. 
 

So getting back to the original post, doing an approach with pink needles and monitoring with green needles for a non precision approach for me would be preferred and legal.

[Ibra]

16 hours ago, PeteMc said:

Which brings us back to you having to have the current info to confirm the location.  So have fun digging through the current list of all Waypoints to confirm the location of each fix on your Route.

While ago the FAA (and EASA) made it easier to track changes in en-route charts, aip amendments and approach charts, they have AIRAC tag or time stamps. Jeppsen and Garmin rely on these tags when they make their edits as well...

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/acf/media/Presentations/08-02-RD198-Navigation-Data-Currency-WG.pdf

This should count as "validation" or "confirmation" that no change happened, although, a careful pilot who is flying with expired database in IMC should have all the fun "comparing names, numbers and coordinates"  

Edited August 27 by Ibra

[midlifeflyer]

20 hours ago, 65MooneyPilot said:

So getting back to the original post, doing an approach with pink needles and monitoring with green needles for a non precision approach for me would be preferred and legal.

"Legal" unless your navigator/FMS Limitations say no, although the truth is the GNS limitation is probably violated regularly.

"Preferred?" Maybe. They do exist, but there are not too many airports in the U.S. where a VOR or LOC approach would be a better choice than an RNAV approach. In those cases, sure. Pink needles primary with green needles on a secondary CDI or a bearing pointer. But otherwise, it seems to me that the only time one would choose a VOR or LOC approach in real life is going to be during a GPS failure. That means, to me, from a proficiency standpoint, we are better off practicing VOR or LOC approaches green needles only, preferably with the GPS off or at least with the approach not loaded and on a non-map page.  And if we're not going to practice that failure mode, don't bother practicing VOR or localizer approaches at all. 

Edited August 28 by midlifeflyer

[PeteMc]

4 hours ago, Ibra said:

While ago the FAA (and EASA) made it easier to track changes in en-route charts, aip amendments and approach charts, they have AIRAC tag or time stamps.

Love the PPT and I think I'm going to give it a go to just keep my old DB and confirm the fixes!!  

Oh wait...  my Uncle Garmin says I can't do that any more. 

 

[Ibra]

46 minutes ago, PeteMc said:

my Uncle Garmin says I can't do that any more.

Indeed, uncle Garmin wanted regular catch-up, uncle Sam and uncle Fed are fine with "once in a while" as long as it's sensible 

I have database subscription and I have two memory cards, however, sometimes I happen to need few days to update G430W: the processes is not practical (the only reason why I have a PC at home). In the other hand, keeping an iPad EFB up to date with all waypoints, routes and procedures is smooth and easy these days. Let say that flying tend to balance legality with practicality and what is acceptable risk. 

Maybe one day with Garmin + Starlink, updates will be automatic, then this happens !!

Edited August 27 by Ibra