GPS databases - where does it say it must be current cycle?

I don’t know the answer for the first question but for the second question, no

No, you must ensure you are flying the correct procedures so if out of date you should check that there have been no changes.

RNAV approaches: no

Enroute RNAV: yes, if you manually verify the points you use against current publications

Should be stated in the AFM Supplement

It depends on the AFMS of the GPS.

See the one described here for example. I can fly with a non-current cycle provided I have verified that the relevant data has not changed.

That makes sense because why would you need to update the whole database if all the airports applicable to the current trip have not changed, but one in Kathmandu has?

But somebody else with the same GPS (a KLN94) may well have a differently worded AFMS.

An extreme case was the original Socata KLN94 AFMS which required both the current cycle and required the pilot to check all the data. That was obviously stupid; I queried it and the reply was that the DGAC insisted on the wording. That’s the same DGAC which insisted that the fuel flow transducer is mounted in the wrong place despite this causing a 25% error.

Also if doing “UK style Class G IFR” there is usually no need for the latest database because you are not flying via Eurocontrol-assigned or ATC-assigned waypoints. The flight is a VFR flight in all practical respects enroute and it is only any IAP(s) that need to be current. Plus you will obviously view the whole programmed route before you fly it, to make sure it looks right.

There may be an airspace requirement which is stricter but I haven’t yet come across one in Europe. I have heard of an Australian (I think) regulation which actually required the pilot to be able to prove that he had a current Jepp subscription – presumably by carrying a copy of the Jepp invoice. That is just crazy and in Europe would be regarded as anticompetitive because you can e.g. get approach plates from more than one source.

Finally, I cannot see a prosecution succeeding if you carried an out of date database but the airport or enroute data in question had actually not changed. It’s the same principle that (in the UK, for sure) you cannot get prosecuted for filing an incorrect tax return if there is no tax (or no extra tax) actually due.

Sure, AFMSses may be different, so check yours. But given the increasing use of AML STCs, they seem to become more standardised. So “enroute: yes, but compare to current official sources” and “approach: no” seems to be pretty standard these days.

In my view this also covers the UK class G IFR case, the AFMS only requires you to check the waypoints you actually use, so if you use zero waypoints in the ATC context, you need to check zero waypoints.

I fully agree that the LoA requirement for the database provider essentially creates an artificial monopoly, with the associated traits: high prices and low quality. I tried to report database errors, they were totally not interested.

In the US Airman’s Information Manual Table 1-1-6 has a note 3 on the column for IFR Approach:

3 Requires current database or verification that the procedure has not been amended since the expiration of the database.

Since the AIM is not regulatory, the AFMS limitations section must be followed as it is regulatory. Ever since UPS Apollo adopted using an STC with an AML, the AFMS have been delivered with the STC as approved by the FAA. In the limitations section for the GNS series, it supports wording similar to the quoted text. The wording has evolved to deal with the issue of a flight that departs with one AIRAC cycle in effect and the change over to the next one occurs enroute, where the database is thus out of date.

Both Jeppesen and AeroNav made changes to their approach charts to support out of date database usage. Normally, a pilot would inspect the date of the database and compare it with the effective date of the current approach chart. If the effective date on the chart was later than the effective date of the database, then that GPS approach within the database could not be used, otherwise it could. It was pointed out that in many cases approach charts are changed for reasons other than a procedure change, for example a communication frequency was changed. So a new date was added to the chart to indicate the effective date of the last change of the procedure. This is called the Procedure Amendment date. So, if the effective date of the chart is past the effective date of the database, but the Procedure Amendment Date is not past the effective date of the database, the content of the approach procedure within the out of date database is confirmed to be current and may be used.

That’s interesting. I haven’t come across an AFMS that allowed the use of an out of date database for an approach, not even if you verified the whole procedure.

I guess the reasoning is that it is a certification requirement for GPS receivers that the pilot cannot modify approach segments. So if you verified your database and noticed a waypoint was moved, what are you going to do? You cannot edit that point, all you could do is “hand code” the whole approach. But the GPSes I know let you only enter TF legs – if the procedure contained an RF leg (or a hold or a pturn or…), you couldn’t even enter it. So all you could hope for is that there was another approach that was still current.

Many of the Apollo units and the Garmin units released after they gobbled up UPS Apollo, so starting from the GNS480, GNSXXXW onward. What kind o GPS or FMS do you fly with. Note it was an airline captain that requested the Procedure Amendment date be added. AC 90-105 includes the following statement:

NOTE: Navigation databases are also expected to be current for the duration of the flight. If the AIRAC cycle will change during flight, operators and pilots must establish procedures to ensure the accuracy of navigation data, including suitability of navigation facilities used to define the routes and procedures for flight. Traditionally, this has been accomplished by verifying electronic data against paper products. One acceptable means is to compare aeronautical charts (new and old) to verify navigation fixes prior to departure. If an amended chart is published for the procedure, the database must not be used to conduct the operation.