In the July/August issue of FAA Aviation News, the FAA responded to a letter from a reader who wanted to know whether it was illegal to fly with an outdated chart during a VFR flight. The FAA responded predictably. It said that "FAR 91.103 requires a pilot to become familiar with all available information concerning a flight. Much of this is contained in FAA-approved charts. Approved charts then list the date they become obsolete for use in navigation. Use of obsolete charts after that date then violates the 'all available information' requirement for a given flight."
Nothing unexpected there.
What was surprising, however, was that the FAA publication elaborated by saying that "the use of database equipment [such as GPS] without a current [emphasis mine] database not only violates the 'all available information' concept, it could make that device unairworthy in accordance with its and probably the aircraft's approved flight manual. This situation could then make the aircraft unairworthy. The use of an unairworthy piece of equipment and possible [sic] unairworthy aircraft could become a matter of enforcement action based upon the question of careless or reckless operation."
If this is true, then the vast majority of those who use a GPS equipped with an expired database (possibly including handheld units) could be in violation of the FARs. Most of us who use GPS in VFR flight do not invest the better part of a thousand-dollar bill each year to subscribe to a 56-day revision cycle.
One would assume that using current charts obviates the need to have a current database during a VFR flight. After all, most of us use a GPS simply to go direct to a VOR or an airport (in single or multiple legs). If a pilot keeps track of his position on a chart to verify his legality and safety at all times, what difference could it possibly make to use an outdated database for course guidance? (Some pilots, of course, do not maintain positional awareness when navigating via GPS; they simply follow the course-deviation indicator and remain oblivious to the surrounding airspace and potential hazards. There is no excuse for such complacent behavior.)
Knowing (sometimes too well) that magazine writers occasionally make mistakes, I called the editor of FAA Aviation News to determine whether the magazine's response might have been overstated, one writer's misguided opinion. No such luck. I was advised that before publication the specific language of this response was blessed by AFS-820, which is FAA-speak for the Operations Policy Branch of the General Aviation and Commercial Division of Flight Standards. In other words, this comes from the top.
The FAA representative to whom I spoke said, however, that an enforcement action most likely would not be forthcoming unless the pilot were involved in some other infraction (such as an airspace violation) that resulted from not having current information on board the aircraft.
But airspace violations are not uncommon, and these occur whether or not the pilot is using a current database. Rather, such a violation stems from his having to cope with an airspace maze so complex that only someone with a Ph.D. in airspace architecture can understand all of the requirements and ramifications. Threading one's way through some areas of the country requires the same care and concentration needed to tiptoe across a minefield. Irrespective of how or why an airspace violation might occur, the FAA apparently would have the right to declare the pilot careless and reckless and his airplane unairworthy simply because of an expired database.
One inspector with whom I discussed this issue said that he believed an overzealous inspector could begin an enforcement action after discovering during a ramp check that a pilot uses an outdated database (or simply had one aboard his aircraft), even if no other apparent violation is involved. If this is true, the FAA could then require that a mechanic verify that an airplane has a current database before completing an annual inspection.
And what implications might there be regarding the validity of aircraft insurance if a pilot has an accident while flying such an unairworthy airplane?
Taking this to its extreme, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that an ambitious FAA inspector could obtain from GPS manufacturers a list of all pilots who purchase databases at less than 56-day intervals (which includes most of us). This would provide Big Brother with a fertile field of potential violators.
Is it any wonder that so many pilots have become paranoid about the FAA?
Another problem is that regulations often are interpreted differently by inspectors from different flight standards district offices. Some FSDOs are more lenient than others — which is why, for example, some offices are more popular than others when it comes to obtaining an approval for something.
One way to avoid difficulty with the FAA regarding database expiration is to tread cautiously through the airspace maze. This labyrinth becomes more complex and challenging every year, as if the FAA were trying to find our breaking point. In some respects, it already has.
Related Articles
