Re: Does an "IFR approved" GPS placard require database updates?

[Doug]

In regard to insurance, unless your insurance excludes it, you are
covered. So read your policy, paying close attention to the exclusions.
I can't imagine that a policy would exclude coverage for something like
that. All mine requires is the airplane be in annual at the anniversary
date of the policy and that I have a current medical. If, for example,
my annual expires or my medical expires, I am still covered so long as
I had them when the policy was initiated (the anniversary date).

You hear a lot of rumors about "insurance wont cover that". Most of
them quoted by people who never owned a plane and never read an
insurance policy.

Read your insurance. Does it say you have to comply with the minimum
equipment list to be covered? I would bet it doesn't.

Think about it. If your car had an expired inspection and you ran a
stop sign causing damage, do you think your car insurance would NOT
cover you?

[Jeroen Wenting]

> Think about it. If your car had an expired inspection and you ran a
> stop sign causing damage, do you think your car insurance would NOT
> cover you?
>
Small difference.
Car maintenance isn't required by law (I know in many places a minimum
maintenance level for certain safety related things is required but nothing
requires you to have maintenance performed at set intervals).
For aircraft maintenance is required by law.

[Judah]

"Jeroen Wenting" <jwenting at hornet dot demon dot nl> wrote in
:

>> Think about it. If your car had an expired inspection and you ran a
>> stop sign causing damage, do you think your car insurance would NOT
>> cover you?
>>
> Small difference.
> Car maintenance isn't required by law (I know in many places a minimum
> maintenance level for certain safety related things is required but
> nothing requires you to have maintenance performed at set intervals).
> For aircraft maintenance is required by law.

In New York and New Jersey an inspection is required. Most cars must pass
inspection at least once every 12 months. I think some newer cars are
allowed longer...

If during the inspection it is determined that the car requires
maintenance, for example needs new brakes or has a broken taillight, it
will fail inspection unless the problem is repaired. In New Jersey, it's a
big hassle because the inspectors work for the DMV, and don't do repairs on
site. In New York, it's a bit easier because most service centers can get
certified as state inspectors. I'm not sure what state you are in that
doesn't require some sort of vehicle inspection, but then they don't let us
carry guns in NY either. ;)

[Doug]

Like I said, READ the policy. Only the policy itself will tell you. And
in general, if it is not excluded, it is covered. I gave you an example
of what MY policy says. Others may handle it differently. But insurance
is designed to cover mistakes. Insurance doesn't always require
compliance with laws for coverage. What if you ran a stop sign and ran
into someone and did damage with a car? Certainly you would be covered
(unless it is excluded). Would you buy car insurance that excluded
coverage if you broke the law? Even negligence is covered. It is
negligent to run a stop sign.

If you violate a FAR and have an accident, is the insurance invalid?
Mine is still valid. There is no exclusion for that. It is highly
likely that if you have an accident you will have violated some FAR.

The idea that insurance is invalid because the pilot violated a FAR is
one that you hear quite frequently. I think it is usually, not always,
wrong. Usually there IS coverage in spite of such an error.

[Chris]

"> As regards my original post in this thread, I have now got to the
> bottom of this. Someone told me that it is illegal to fly with an
> "IFR" placarded GPS unless the database is current. I am now certain
> this is rubbish.
>
> However, in the process of digging into this area, I discovered that
> the FAA approved flight manual supplement I had prohibited the GPS to
> be used for anything whatsoever, unless the pilot had manually
> verified each waypoint's coordinates (which is silly). The aircraft
> manufacturer (Socata in France) never certified the KLN94 installation
> for IFR usage. Their U.S. outlet does this extra bit for their
> customers, using the standard procedure which involves a flight test
> and the local FSDO approves the flight manual supplement. I now have
> to get this done. Another lesson learnt.

GPS for IFR is only just coming into Europe and I think that France recently
published the first GPS approach.

This is one of the problems the Cirrus has in Europe. Most approaches here
require ADF and or DME and distances off a GPS are not allowed. Cirrus'
solution is a botch job which spoils the pretty panel and they are brassing
off a few customers in the process.

So here even an up-to-date database is worth squat in the IFR environment.

[Tauno Voipio]

Peter wrote:
> "Chris" > wrote
>
>
>>GPS for IFR is only just coming into Europe and I think that France recently
>>published the first GPS approach.
>
>
> The issue isn't approaches; it is the ability to use the GPS for
> European BRNAV routes. VOR/ADF/DME is not legally sufficient; a BRNAV
> approved (loosely meaning the same as the U.S. "IFR approved") GPS is
> mandatory for that. There is no way around this. Funny, isn't it,
> given the lack of GPS approaches in Europe and the general anti-GPS
> attitudes over here :)


This is not true: There are both VOR/DME -based and GPS-based
approved BRNAV airplanes in Europe.

The minimum requirement for BRNAV is a VOR/DME -based system
capable of storing at least 4 waypoints.

I have European approval on my Piper Turbo Arrow with a
King KNS-80 as the RNAV box.

--

Tauno Voipio, (CPL(A), OH-PYM)
tauno voipio (at) iki fi

[Tauno Voipio]

Peter wrote:
> Tauno Voipio > wrote
>
>
>>The minimum requirement for BRNAV is a VOR/DME -based system
>>capable of storing at least 4 waypoints.
>>
>>I have European approval on my Piper Turbo Arrow with a
>>King KNS-80 as the RNAV box.
>
>
> Yes, the KNS-80 RNAV was OK for this, but not any more because it does
> not meet the CAA FM Immunity requirements. (this requirement claims to
> address the proximity of the FM broadcast band to the FM aviation
> band; not that anybody has ever come across any problems but the UK
> CAA says so...)
>

That's taken care of with a suitable preselection filter from King.

The airplane (OH-PYM) is BRNAV capable and approved now.

--

Tauno Voipio
tauno voipio (at) iki fi

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Peter > wrote:

> Yes, the KNS-80 RNAV was OK for this, but not any more because it does
> not meet the CAA FM Immunity requirements. (this requirement claims to
> address the proximity of the FM broadcast band to the FM aviation
> band; not that anybody has ever come across any problems but the UK
> CAA says so...)

it was my understanding that FM immunity issues with ILS approaches was
a known problem and not theoritical.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule