Can you legally fly VFR with an expired GPS database?

[ QUOTE ]
The GPS in the Cessna 172 is certified for VFR only and the GPS database has expired. Is the airplane legal to fly in VFR? How about IFR?

[/ QUOTE ]

Others have adequately covered VFR use of GPS with an expired database, but an installation certified for VFR-only is never legal for IFR, even with a current database.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The GPS in the Cessna 172 is certified for VFR only and the GPS database has expired. Is the airplane legal to fly in VFR? How about IFR?

[/ QUOTE ]

Others have adequately covered VFR use of GPS with an expired database, but an installation certified for VFR-only is never legal for IFR, even with a current database.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know....I'd say that you can use it for "increased situational awareness" on an IFR flight plan.

Maybe not in IMC, but I'd say that you could use a handheld GPS to help you out on an IFR flight plan, so long as it's not your primary navigational system.

I could be wrong though...
 
Sure, you can use an expired GPS in IMC on an IFR flight plan, you just can't use it to shoot an approach, as your primary means of navigation, or in lieu of an ADF or DME.

Look in Aim Chapter 1 Table 1-1-8 under the notes:

[ QUOTE ]
VFR and hand-held GPS systems are not authorized for IFR naviagtion, instrument approaches, or as a primary instrument flight reference. During IFR operations they may be considered only an aid to siutational awareness.

[/ QUOTE ]
 
That's what I thought. Doesn't compromise safety at all, and it's really no different from a controller giving you vectors to an airport 200 miles away...
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
just VFR.....VFR use of GPS is for situational awareness only so it does not really matter too much of the satabase is expired.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who told you that? Are you saying that I can't use GPS as my primary means of navigation during VFR flight? If so, why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry about the confusion.....it came out wrong.Unlike IFR where you are required to use either NDB's or VOR's (usually) as your primary means of navigation, VFR flying has no real requirement to use anything inparticular. So by all means go ahead and use GPS

[/ QUOTE ]
Hmmm...How is that different than using an expired sectional as primary means of navigation?
 
I believe the FAA is on record saying they'd rather have a pilot use an expired sectional than no sectional at all. Sure, if you're doing low level runs at 500 AGL and collide with an uncharted tower or bust a TFR and they find out you were using an expired sectional, you're in trouble. I think you'd be in a lot more trouble if you had NO sectional. There's really no reason not to have current charts since they only cost 8 bucks, but where in the FAR's does it say you have to have a sectional for VFR flight?

It's the same concept with expired GPS databases.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Hmmm...How is that different than using an expired sectional as primary means of navigation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing illegal about that at all....
 
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know....I'd say that you can use it for "increased situational awareness" on an IFR flight plan.

Maybe not in IMC, but I'd say that you could use a handheld GPS to help you out on an IFR flight plan, so long as it's not your primary navigational system.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can use anything you want to enhance your situational awareness--be it VFR-only or handheld GPS, a sextant, clairvoyance or your lucky rabbit's foot--but I'm pretty sure you can't use a VFR GPS installation or a IFR-certified one with an expired database to file /G or fly IFR direct.
 
[ QUOTE ]
. . .but I'm pretty sure you can't use a VFR GPS installation or a IFR-certified one with an expired database to file /G or fly IFR direct.

[/ QUOTE ]

To file /G or fly IFR direct are two totally seperate things.

You can't file /G unless you have an IFR installation. To fly IFR direct, you can have no RNAV navigation equipment as long as ATC has the ability to give you vectors direct to your destination. You can't use a handheld in IMC to fly direct to anything, however.
 
You can use an IFR GPS with an expired database to go direct under IFR as long as you back it up with something, and verify that the fixes still exist and haven't moved.

I say you can even go as far as to file /G with it as well (provided you verify the data), since filing /G only means that the GPS has the ability to navigate in the IFR en route and terminal environment, not necessarily conduct approaches. For approaches, you absolutely need a current database. But I could be wrong- the AIM implies you can't, but the GPS AC implies that you can, so who knows. I'd be curious to find out for sure though.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hmmm...How is that different than using an expired sectional as primary means of navigation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing illegal about that at all....

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure about that? Be carefull with the word "nothing".
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hmmm...How is that different than using an expired sectional as primary means of navigation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing illegal about that at all....

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure about that? Be carefull with the word "nothing".

[/ QUOTE ]

What's illegal about it? There's no regulation that says you even need a chart to go fly an airplane!!!
 
135.83(a)(3) and (4)
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
135.83(a)(3) and (4)
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

smart-arse...
grin.gif


I should qualify that and say "...for part 91 operations"...
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]

I should qualify that and say "...for part 91 operations"...
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]
Alright, how about 91.13

Think outside the box.
wink.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Alright, how about 91.13

Think outside the box.
wink.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

I think that would be stretching it...

The FARS clearly spell out what you need to do for preflight actions in 91.103 .
 
There's no such thing as streaching it when a problem arises. If you have an incident due to navigation by obsolete charts or databases, they will get you with 91.13. I'd say that it would be careless and reckless to navigate with a chart that says on the front page that it became obsolete on a date that has passed. 91.13, is more or less a blanket clause that gives the FAA authority to blame you for anything that happened as a result of what they think is a poor judgement call. If its somthing simple like flying VFR with a chart that went obsolete two weeks ago they will most likely cut you some slack, like you said you aren't directly breaking any FARs. But if you crash into sombody's house located on an abandoned runway that your obsolete chart says is in operation, you'd better believe they will come after you. Obviosly there is a big difference between a two week obsolete chart and one that displays a runway where a present day residential community exists, but my point is, perhaps we should not go so far as to say there's nothing illegal about it.
 
[ QUOTE ]
There's no such thing as streaching it when a problem arises. If you have an incident due to navigation by obsolete charts or databases, they will get you with 91.13. I'd say that it would be careless and reckless to navigate with a chart that says on the front page that it became obsolete on a date that has passed. 91.13, is more or less a blanket clause that gives the FAA authority to blame you for anything that happened as a result of what they think is a poor judgement call. If its somthing simple like flying VFR with a chart that went obsolete two weeks ago they will most likely cut you some slack, like you said you aren't directly breaking any FARs. But if you crash into sombody's house located on an abandoned runway that your obsolete chart says is in operation, you'd better believe they will come after you. Obviosly there is a big difference between a two week obsolete chart and one that displays a runway where a present day residential community exists, but my point is, perhaps we should not go so far as to say there's nothing illegal about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think that we CAN say that there's nothing illegal about it, because there isn't any law (or in this case, regulation) directly prohibiting it.

I think that we would all agree that there is nothing illegal about listening to a CD while you're flying the airplane. However, if you're trying to change CD's and you collide with another aircraft...well, then you're in trouble. 91.13 would come and bite you.

Big difference. Gotta be careful about saying something is illegal when it isn't, and gotta be careful about trying to scare young pilots into thinking that the "Big Bad FAA is gonna get you for everything with 91.13". Just isn't the case...
 
My point isn't that big bad FAA is going to get you with 91.13, its that big bad FAA can get you with it. Anyway, sure there's nothing illegal about listening to a CD while flying, but it dosn't say directly on the front cover of the CD that you should not do so.
 
I do know that it's illegal for us to fly with out of date pubs, especially approach plates. For our VFR 1:50, 1:250, and 1:500 charts, we have to CHUM them via the United States CHart Update Manual (CHUM) every 60 days and annotate or remove anything that differs from the last revision of the VFR charts. Since these topo charts (unlike sectionals/WACs etc) are redone about every 10 years, it's up to us to add/remove towers, powerlines, or other obstacles, and annotate the latest CHUM date in the back of the chart.

I'd venture to say that flying with outdated pubs would be considered careless and reckless since there's a reason, for example sectional charts, have an "effective date" and a "this chart will be obsolete for navigation upon the next edition dated XX XXX XXXX" Think about approach plates. What would happen if you tried flying an approach that had been decommissioned, effective the next change of the pubs, but you failed to post the change (Jepps) or failed to obtain the new charts (NOS/NACO)? Or if the mins had changed due to an obstacle on the next revision, and you tagged that obstacle on your approach since you were at the old MDA? There's be a LOT of explaining to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top