Last December I used this page to stir a pot of controversy that originated in the July/August 1996 issue of FAA Aviation News. This is when the FAA's official magazine stated, in part, that the use of database equipment (such as a GPS) without a current database violates FAR 91.103, the regulation that requires pilots to become familiar with all available information concerning a flight. Furthermore, it claimed that using an expired database could render the GPS unairworthy, which, in turn, could render the airplane unairworthy. The published conclusion was that "the use of [such] an unairworthy piece of equipment and possible unairworthy aircraft ... could become a matter of enforcement action based on the question of careless and reckless operation."
If this were true, then the vast majority of pilots who use GPS (including handheld units) could be in violation of the regulations without realizing it, because the majority of pilots do use expired databases. Most of us, after all, have neither the inclination nor the spare cash to invest the better part of a thousand-dollar bill for an annual subscription to an update with a 28-day revision cycle.
These comments drew surprisingly little response, possibly because the FAA's magazine has such limited circulation beyond bureaucratic circles. But when I drew attention to these "official" comments a few months later, AOPA received an avalanche of letters and calls from members expressing rage, disgust, and disbelief. I, too, received mail, some of which fired literary bullets aimed squarely at the messenger (but I have learned to duck).
Member reaction impelled Doug Helton, AOPA's vice president for regulatory policy, to demand that the FAA provide a more realistic interpretation of the regulations insofar as they apply to both database and aeronautical chart currency.
It is a pleasure to report that the FAA recently performed a steep one-eighty and reversed its position. The current edition of FAA Aviation News essentially withdraws its previous and perhaps hastily crafted comments and allows general aviation pilots to breathe a collective sigh of relief.
The most significant of the recently published clarifications are as follows:
- Outdated charts are not forbidden on an airplane. A pilot may consider them as cargo, or even ballast, if he so chooses. The FAA now concedes that — in a pinch — an old chart is better than no chart.
- Of those who operate under Part 91 of the regulations, only those who fly large or turbine-powered multiengine airplanes are required to carry charts. Those who fly other aircraft are not required to carry them at all (although I would question the wisdom of those embarking on lengthy cross-country flights without them). Those operating under Part 121 and 135 are required to carry appropriate charts.
- Portable GPS receivers and VFR-only, panel-mounted receivers are not required to have current databases and are a nonissue, because the pilot is responsible for accurate VFR pilotage. This apparently means that a VFR pilot could also use an outdated IFR database for VFR flight.
These clarifications mean that pilots no longer need fear an FAA ramp check that might uncover outdated charts or databases. It should be noted, however, that if a pilot has an accident or makes a procedural error (such as violating Class B airspace) as a result of using an outdated chart or database, he could be cited for not having available the information required to safely complete his flight and be accused of careless and reckless operation. From my perspective, a pilot should never venture beyond the local area without current charts, but that does not necessitate your agreement. With respect to databases, be certain that you know where you are going when you command that little box of satellite magic to lead you somewhere. Someone who flies IFR, of course, is required to have current IFR charts and a current database (if it is to be so used); otherwise, to paraphrase, he will have a fool for a pilot.
Although the mechanics of how this reversal of opinion occurred within the FAA is unknown, as there is no documentation available from the responsible parties, an educated guess is that the General Counsel's Office, the Flight Standards Branch, and the Avionics Systems Branch of the Aircraft Certification Service joined for some quick (for the FAA) and rational brainstorming. The editorial staff at FAA Aviation News apparently received its marching orders verbally, which brings about an interesting caveat.
Although FAA Aviation News is an FAA publication, its contents and opinions do not replace regulations and applicable case law (which fortunately never did support the magazine's original views regarding databases and aeronautical charts). In other words, nothing published in that magazine (or any other) can be used in defending oneself against an FAA enforcement action. One would think, however, that a judge would be sympathetic to someone who believed information gleaned from an official FAA publication.
I want to thank all who wrote or called to express their indignation about what were obviously unreasonable and Draconian interpretations of the regulations. It's nice to win one for a change.
Related Articles
