GPS databse updates - maintenance approval

[lawn_dart]

A question relating to updating GPS databases for RNAV capable, TSO'd GPS units in class B aircraft (in Aus).

A few people have mentioned to me that a maintenance approval is required to update the GPS databases and sign off the maintenance release to this effect.

I am unclear on the requirement and was wondering if anyone could point me toward rules supporting or disagreeing with this.

Thanks

[Two_dogs]

I regularly update CAR, CAO, AIP, ERSA etc.
What is the difference between updating paper charts and digital charts?
Throw out the old, install the new, simple.

FFS

[JESSIE ELIZABETH]

Refer CAO 100.5

[Mach E Avelli]

Which in a nutshell says if it's a card or a chip that can't be modified, if you are endorsed on the particular unit and have the appropriate instructions from the unit's manufacturer, and the source is approved by CASA, you can do it. Fill in the maintenance release to tell 'em you did it and also note when the update you installed next expires. Not much more to it.

[PlankBlender]

sure it needs to go on the MR? Would check the CAO myself but the CASA site's been down all morning :}

[Horatio Leafblower]

It directly affects the serviceability of the GPS/RNAV unit for its intended purpose.

The DBase expires on a known date each cycle.

Our system is simply to endorse the MR "GPS DBase expires on "ddmmyy"" and clear it when the dbase is renewed by entering "DBase 0908 installed"

This of course prompts another entry for the new expiry date, etc. :hmm: :rolleyes:

Dunno about CAOs but CASA airworthiness likes it :8

[27/09]

WTF!!!!!!

Talk about making a simple procedure complicated.

Why the need for all the paper work. Seems CASA need to get with the real world.

The GPS gives the database currency each time it boots up. Any GPS's that I have used require the pilot to acknowledge the database currency before the boot up cycle can be completed.

Why the need to annotate that the update has been done and state when the next is due? The GPS tells you anyway.

[Mainframe]

27/09 and Horatio

Lets try and understand this.

An IFR GPS is approved under TSO C129, 146 etc.

Having an out of date database does not affect the IFR certification of the receiver,
however, if flying with a non current database, the legislation is quite specific about flight below route LSALT and flight in controlled airspace.

With a non current database, you cannot descend below LSALT solely by reference to the GPS with the non current database,
i.e no GPS arrival or RNAV approach.

In controlled airspace you cannot be seperated as an RNAV capable aircraft.

Further legislation caters for the integrity of pilot entered waypoint data, how it is to be verified.

The currency of a database is an operational issue, no different to your AIP or Jepp currency, it is not a maintenance issue.

Some engineering types in CASA have tried to pervert an operational currency issue to a maintenance activity, it is not,
even though they will scream and protest otherwise.

Changing the GPS software or firmware, on the other hand, is a valid maintenance issue.
You need to be licenced to do things that affect the IFR certification.

You dont need to be licenced to update your charts or your database, these are flying operational issues.

Must we certify on the maintenance release for a planned IFR flight that we are flying with current charts? these guys seem to think so!

These are the same people who insist that cleaning your windscreen or washing your aircraft is a "MAINTENANCE" activity.

Given the ADF background of a lot of these experts, such a stance is to be expected, but not forgiven.

I suspect that most likely very few of these experts would have ever updated a Garmin / King etc datacard
with all the associated verification and integrity checks built in by the approved supplier of the update.

How about we enter our medical expiry and rating expiry on the M/R while we're at it?

When will common sense and industry knowledge prevail within CASA?

[megle2]

Quote from above,
"When will common sense and industry knowledge prevail within CASA?"

Highly unlikely in my life time!

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

A few people have mentioned to me that a maintenance approval is required to update the GPS databases and sign off the maintenance release to this effect

When I first read this thread I assumed it referred to updating the internal software of the unit - which would seem to be a maintainance issue. However, on further reading I get the feeling that the question relates to changing the data card of a TSO'd GPS unit.

I am a regular user of GPS RNAV as my primary means of navigation in the IFR environment, using the TSO 145 Garmin 430W in the Bo. I have done all of the approved training required to use this unit enroute, for arrivals and approaches - and at no time has anyone told me that changing the data card required endorsement of the Maintainance Release.

If this is the case, can anyone point me to the appropriate Reg?

In my opinion, refueling the aircraft or checking the tyre pressures are more complex maintainance/airworthiness issues than updating/changing data cards. For the G430/530 type units, for example, the whole process is automated once you put the card reader/writer into a computer and fire up the appropriate software. The integrity of the updated card is automatically verified by the software. Changing the card in the GPS unit is simply a matter of pulling the old card out and pushing the updated card in !!

The validity/integrity of the database is checked by the unit on start-up and the user has to acknowledge this as part of the start-up process.

I have now changed data cards on at least 50 occassions without writing anything anywhere.

What's the deal here?

Dr :8

PS: Make that 51 - just updated the card again!

[43Inches]

CAR 42ZC entitles pilots to carry out maintenance on class B aircraft as per CAR schedule 7 & 8.

Schedule 7 lists what a pilot may not do including;


Part 4 Maintenance on electrical, instrument and radio systems

4.1 Maintenance of operational software and automatic test equipment software;


Schedule 6 also applies as it states the requirement to record all maintenance carried out on an aircraft in either the aircraft log book or aircraft documents (MR).

And finally this from the CAAP 179A-1(1)


GPS navigation database maintenance;

Quality control of the navigation database extends to the

maintenance activity associated with updating the database.
For some equipment types procedures are relatively
straightforward, however others may involve maintenance
that may only be undertaken by pilots with a maintenance
authority issued by CASA. CASA can provide more
information on the requirements applicable to particular avionics on request.

[PlankBlender]

43inches, there's nothing in the regs you quote that would suggest it must be documented.

The first one talks about 'operational software' and a database is distinct from software, so that will mean the unit's actual operating software, not a database update.

The second one talks about 'quality control' of the update process and as such does not constitute a requirement to document updates.

I'm with the DR here, there's nothing in the regs or IR(EX) teaching that suggests database updates must be documented. They are obvious in that they're in front of you when you switch on the receiver.

Sure there may be companies who prescribe documentation as part of company regulations to make the process of updating and checking more transparent internally, but that doesn't say we must all do it!

[43Inches]

Plankbender if you read the last CAAP reference it clearly indicates that a database update is regarded as a maintenance action. Schedule 6 indicates any maintenance action must be recorded full stop.

Secondly software is any form of computer data as distinct from hardware which is the actual reciever device (computer), any programed data loaded onto a computer is software.

However CAO does state the following;


9A Electronic navigational databases
9A.1 The pilot in command of an aircraft may update the navigation system database
of the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) of an aircraft on the
following conditions:
(a) he or she must be authorised under Civil Aviation Order 40.2.1 to use the
GNSS;
(b) he or she must satisfy all the requirements in paragraph 13.7 of Civil
Aviation Order 40.2.1;
(c) he or she may only use data that is supplied by an organisation that is
approved in writing by CASA to provide the data;
(d) he or she may update the navigation database system only if it involves the
insertion into the navigation data unit of a data card, a disk or a similar
device;
(e) he or she must ensure that the update of the navigation database system is
carried out in accordance with the instructions of the manufacturer of the GNSS navigation equipment.

[PlankBlender]

43inches, categorisation in computing is a little more evolved than just distinguishing between hardware and software. A database is neither, it's an organised body of related information, software is the logic that uses data from databases and acts upon that data. There's a bit of software that sits between general software that accesses data and the database itself which is called database management software (dbms). When you update the database in your GPS, you update the database itself, not the dbms or any other software.

I would very much doubt CASA would try to argue a database is software, I'm going on universally accepted definitions and a court would take a similar view.

As we know, CAAP's are not legal documents and as such the wording is not as watertight as the CAR's/CAO's. I should think it would be not too hard to challenge the CAAP statement that classifies database updates as maintenance, after all it is the same as replacing a map and as you have to have current maps you have to have a current database -- no more mo less.

In my training so far I haven't seen a single IFR MR where database updates were individually noted. Admittedly I haven't seen hundreds and hundreds of different ones, but from what I read here it doesn't seem to be common practice either..

Maybe one of the CASA guys reading here can clear this up once and for all :}