Question on filing /G

[ QUOTE ]
mtsu, I will send another email to that same account and see if it gets there. If not, Ill just PM you.
smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

I can dig it, cat daddy!!
 
[ QUOTE ]
controller maybe didnt see that you put expired database in the remarks

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't required. If it is, I would like to see the reference. I think this is something that somebody made up.

[ QUOTE ]
I guess it would just be best to file for the equipment you actually have on the plane then ask ATC for direct when getting clearance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hold on now...why is it questionable to file /G because of an expired database, but then all of a sudden it's perfectly OK when you start talking to ATC on the radio? I think the bottom line is that if you navigate with GPS for enroute IFR, ATC expects you to be using accurate nav information. If you ask for IFR GPS direct at any time, ATC expects/assumes that your data is accurate; if you file IFR with /G, ATC expects/assumes that your data is accurate. Accurate data would include a current database or an expired one with "verified" data.

Since asking for direct while getting the clearance or during flight doesn't relieve you of your obligation to the "/G standard" you might as well just file /G in the first place after verifying the key navaid data (and keep current paper documents onboard too).

That's my interpretation, anyways. Anybody see any objections from a legal or safety standpoint?

Jason
 
Yeah, I can see your point there. Im going to read up on it some more and maybe call the FSDO just to see what kind of explanation they can pull out of their hats.
smile.gif
They are magicians...no doubt about it.
 
I don't see anything that says you cannot file /g if your database is expired. Yes, it says you cannot shoot approaches or use GPS for DME. However, you can fly around all you want in the enroute or terminal environment.
 
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess it would just be best to file for the equipment you actually have on the plane then ask ATC for direct when getting clearance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hold on now...why is it questionable to file /G because of an expired database, but then all of a sudden it's perfectly OK when you start talking to ATC on the radio?


[/ QUOTE ]

My reasoning is analogous to why you have to file an alternate that meets the 1-2-3 rule, AND you have to choose one that meets the 600-2/800-2 rule......but once you're in the air, you can make any airport your alternate.

When you file your flight plan, and you declare that your airplane is /G, the controllers may very well revolve your entire clearance around your GPS capabilities.

If you file as a /U, however, and then once enroute you inform the controllers that you CAN proceed direct to XYZ VOR, and that will make his job easier, he won't mind it one bit.

A few months ago, I was filed as a /U comming across the atlanta area from Valdosta, GA. As I approached the Atlanta class B from the south, I started getting mad vectors toward the east, and then finally, he said, "IS there any way you can go direct TRBOW??" I told him, "Yeah, the GPS isn't updated, but I can do it without a problem".

Next thing I know, I got a revised routine....a series of intersections that kept me on the path that he would have had to vector me, and I didn't get another vector until I was north of Atlanta, and dodging more weather (those vectors were MY call...lol).
 
I would just file /g anytime you have a GPS (of course certified for atleast enroute and terminal). The only time I can think that your clearance would change because you have a GPS is if they give you a SID that required RNAV...of course, you could still fly that with an expired database.
 
Not to oversimplify things, folks, but the easiest answer to this is just keep your databases up to date!!!

FL270
 
I agree, but the FBO owner doesnt always like to spend the money to keep all of the aircraft up to date. I think he has been doing a better job of it lately, though. The reason I asked this question in the first place is because the database is set to expire on 12/23, and I have the plane from 12/22-12/27. Hopefully they can have the updated before I leave, but if not...thats why I was researching to be sure I know what is legal or not.
 
[ QUOTE ]
If you file as a /U, however, and then once enroute you inform the controllers that you CAN proceed direct to XYZ VOR, and that will make his job easier, he won't mind it one bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I see your point. However, since you are telling ATC that you have GPS capability, they may give you more GPS-based routings which means now you've committed yourself to a GPS flight based on accurate GPS waypoint data - in essence, back to /G.

I guess that I would prefer to plan out a good /G GPS-based flight that will most likely give me the old "cleared as filed" along with the peace-of-mind of reviewing the waypoints beforehand.

The alternative: filing /U and getting reroute/pop-up GPS direct clearances to various waypoints/intersections/ that you may have not looked at previously, or having to give the disclaimers to ATC about the expired database, or having to verify a bunch of GPS waypoints inflight, or worrying about whether the waypoint data is truly accurate, etc. etc. You're basically asking for in-flight rerouting (normally a pain in the butt) that you may have been able to easily and legally get in the first place.

I suppose we're down to debating personal preferences and technical points, but that's fun to do sometimes
grin.gif
! I need to review IFR GPS stuff anyways, so this is a great discussion.

Jason
 
Back
Top