KSAN - KSNA TEC Route SANN4

[Ryan B]

PE crew can jump in here, but I've had that happen a few times until someone told me that the PEBLE departure and the SANN4 routing are so close, that they issue the SID instead. If you're a VFR pilot, don't you kind of 'have to' file TEC routes in SoCal? How would RW KSAN handle the same pilot going VFR on the TEC route?

I'm not a PE controller but No! TEC routes are for IFR. If you wanted to fly the route id only mention it to clearance if you're at a class B field.

[Keith Smith]

Steve, ATC doesn't see VFR flight plans that are filed with Flight Service. So, outside of exceptions related to TFRs or flights that cross the Canadian border, any thought involving a requirement to file a VFR flight plan for ordinary flights with ATC is probably on the wrong track.

[Keith Smith]

How would RW KSAN handle the same pilot going VFR on the TEC route?

ATC doesn't separate VFR from IFR in Class E airspace, so they don't actually have to take any action for a VFR aircraft that was mimicking the TEC route (at least for the Class E portions). If you become a factor, they might "suggest" a heading to clear the departure corridor, but that's about it in Class E.

In the Class B (ie, just departing SAN), you're going to get instructions to get you out of the way of the departure corridor.

[flyingdrill]

If you are VFR, you ought to be flying at a +/- 500' altitude from the IFR people anyway.........

As for the "illegal" question, Keith will probably confirm (unless I've got it wrong) that you cannot use a GPS for IFR navigation unless it has a current database. So, merely filling in corrected waypoints if you have an out of date database is not legal for IFR - unless you are merely using the GPS as a back-up for conventional (VOR, etc.) navigation. You could not legally describe yourself as a /G without a current database.

[Keith Smith]

regarding gps currency: https://bruceair.wordpress.com/2012/02/ ... perations/

[flyingdrill]

<<<regarding gps currency: https://bruceair.wordpress.com/2012/02/ ... perations/>>>

AIM 1-2-3 Note 4 starts with the sentence: "The navigation database should be current for the duration of the flight."

It then goes on to describe what is required of the operators and pilots should the AIRAC cycle change during the flight. This is a particular situation which may occur once every 28 days but, basically, to all intents and purposes, you are required to fly with a current database. As these databases and related info. are released several days before they become "current", I think you would be hard pressed to defend yourself for flying with an out of date database. Airlines will see that their fleets' FMSs are bang up to date at all times, and the Private Pilot can slip in his/her latest SD card into the Garmin with ease.

Of course, the procedures you happen to need on the day of the flight may not have changed, so the info. you could have in an out of date database could well be current for what you are doing. So, that's OK - or is it? Technically, it is probably acceptable, but I wonder in a nasty situation, whether an insurance company would try to use this as a way of not paying out......... That get-out for "should the AIRAC cycle change during flight", whereby you can decide that your info is still current is only OK for that particular situation, as I read it. At all other times, the database has to be current. Note that it specifically says that the "Navigation Database" should be current - not just the info. in whatever you have loaded.

I love these sort of "discussions/arguments" which crop up in aviation. In this case, I think you'd be very stupid (and illegal) in the RW to file and fly with an out of date database, particularly when it's so easy to be current. As for flight sims and PE, it's another matter, but I heard one pilot being pulled up on PE for filing an out of date departure yesterday. The Reality XP Garmins haven't had an official update for years.

Keith - do you agree?