A_and_C wrote:
Usually the VFR only restriction is because the installation has not been done IAW the TSO……. the reason is owners who don’t understand what they are buying and go for the cheapest installation and to get the job the installers cut corners.
What is the way to determine why the limitation was instroduced and how to remove it?
How much it might cost?
We used to have a KLN89b.
I looked at updating the database, but if I remember correctly I couldn’t – the database size had out-grown the unit’s memory!
They still do the KLN89B
but the coverage is split up more finely than on say the KLN94 where there is just Atlantic
and you want Atlantic 4 which is this
However, I have never heard of a lack of current database rendering a plane VFR-only. What does happen is that some FTOs let databases expire because it prevents GPS being used in the checkride, which avoids them having to teach GPS 
I have this from one FTO old-timer instructor/examiner. It means they can use GPS if they want to, because it only has to be 1 cycle behind to prevent its use in the test.
However, the other angle is that a VFR-only plane can be used for IFR training provided the actual conditions are VMC. This is commonly done everywhere.
Peter wrote:
However, I have never heard of a lack of current database rendering a plane VFR-only.
It doesn’t. What it means is that you can’t use the GPS for IFR and if you live in an area where the airspace structure is such that PBN is a practical necessity it would be a showstopper. But that isn’t the case in the UK.
Peter wrote:
That depends on the precise wording in the GPS AFMS – example. Or is there an EASA reg, applicable to all aircraft regs, which overrides this?
Peter, that is my question – how would I know why THIS particular aircraft cannot fly IFR under EASA?
Peter wrote:
Or is there an EASA reg, applicable to all aircraft regs, which overrides this?
There is an ops rule, so it should not apply to N-reg.
NCO.GEN.105 Pilot-in-command responsibilities and authority
(a) The pilot-in-command shall be responsible for:
(4) only commencing a flight if he/she is satisfied that all operational limitations referred to in 2.a.3 of Annex IV to [Basic regulation] are complied with, as follows:
(vii) any navigational database required for PBN is suitable and current;
Part-NCO applies when the operator is resident or established in treaty territory† regardless of the state of registry.
Third-country operators when operating in treaty territory are required by article 59 of the Basic Regulation to comply with applicable ICAO standards. Absent such standards the default position is the essential requirement now residing at Annex V to the Basic Regulation: “5.3. All data necessary for the execution of the flight by the crew must be updated and available on board the aircraft taking account of applicable air traffic regulations, rules of the air, flight altitudes and areas of operation.”
† territory to which the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union apply. In the retained EU law (link) version of the Basic Regulation this term will be changed to “United Kingdom.” See article 84 of the Aviation Safety (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (link).
—————————————————————————————
ICAO ANNEX 6—PART II
3.7.3 Electronic navigation data management
3.7.3.1 The operator of an aeroplane shall not employ electronic navigation data products that have been processed for
application in the air and on the ground unless the State of Registry has approved the operator’s procedures for ensuring that
the process applied and the products delivered have met acceptable standards of integrity and that the products are compatible
with the intended function of the existing equipment. The State of Registry shall ensure that the operator continues to monitor
both the process and products.
Note.— Guidance relating to the processes that data suppliers may follow is contained in RTCA DO-200A/EUROCAE
ED-76 and RTCA DO-201A/EUROCAE ED-77
unaltered electronic navigation data to all necessary aeroplanes.
—————————————————————————————
Thus far, EASA’s “attack” on N-regs has been confined to FCL (the duplicate pilot papers stuff) if the “operator” is EU based.
One can understand equipment carriage being EASA-defined per EU airspace requirements. But this is quite far reaching, because if EASA invalidates an AFMS (or a statement therein) in an N-reg plane, they are interfering with its certification, which is AFAIK unprecedented.
