Narrative:

Following replacement of aircraft avionics; aircraft returning to home base ZZZ. Filed IFR as /G; and given 'direct abc.' as aircraft was coming from the north; this directed us toward p-xx which is well known to the crew. Also; at no time was the aircraft south of the ZZZ runway xx extended centerline or ILS xx inbound course. New GPS had abc in the database; and 'direct to' was commanded. Center eventually questioned heading/fix. Abc is on the ILS xx ZZZ (which was deleted while runway improvements were made at ZZZ). Crew assumed that since abc was in the database; that its location was accurate and current. In fact; crew knew from briefing the current paper charts in the aircraft that 'old' abc was about 4 mi west of 'new' abc on new ILS xx. Crew also assumed that the database would have deleted abc once the old ILS was suspended; so that with abc in the database; that its location would be accurate. In fact; the new database in the new GPS was not current but did include the old location of abc. Database was one cycle out of date. In-flight; there was no way to know that the location of abc was in error; until pointed out by center. Using DME; it would have become obvious when getting closer (eventually). Center asked if current plate was in use by asking the DME at abc; which was confirmed to them off the current plate. There were no further issues and the ILS was completed without incident following radar vectors back to a point outside abc. Certainly; a current database would have avoided this; but could not be obtained (we did request it prior to departure). Since update account hadn't been set up; it was not available. Very importantly though; I believe that the database should not have included an 'expired' waypoint which was not in use after the 'old' ILS xx into ZZZ was deleted. If it wasn't available; the crew could have declined the clearance and requested radar vectors from the beginning. Most importantly; if a waypoint is moved or otherwise changed; the name should be changed. There are any number of 'honest mistakes' that could lead a pilot to the old location of a moved waypoint. All these issues would vanish if the waypoint name was simply changed.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: OUT OF DATE DATABASE IN NEWLY INSTALLED GPS DIRECTS BE58 FLT CREW TO WAYPOINT LOCATION THAT IS NO LONGER ACCURATE.

Narrative: FOLLOWING REPLACEMENT OF ACFT AVIONICS; ACFT RETURNING TO HOME BASE ZZZ. FILED IFR AS /G; AND GIVEN 'DIRECT ABC.' AS ACFT WAS COMING FROM THE N; THIS DIRECTED US TOWARD P-XX WHICH IS WELL KNOWN TO THE CREW. ALSO; AT NO TIME WAS THE ACFT S OF THE ZZZ RWY XX EXTENDED CTRLINE OR ILS XX INBOUND COURSE. NEW GPS HAD ABC IN THE DATABASE; AND 'DIRECT TO' WAS COMMANDED. CTR EVENTUALLY QUESTIONED HDG/FIX. ABC IS ON THE ILS XX ZZZ (WHICH WAS DELETED WHILE RWY IMPROVEMENTS WERE MADE AT ZZZ). CREW ASSUMED THAT SINCE ABC WAS IN THE DATABASE; THAT ITS LOCATION WAS ACCURATE AND CURRENT. IN FACT; CREW KNEW FROM BRIEFING THE CURRENT PAPER CHARTS IN THE ACFT THAT 'OLD' ABC WAS ABOUT 4 MI W OF 'NEW' ABC ON NEW ILS XX. CREW ALSO ASSUMED THAT THE DATABASE WOULD HAVE DELETED ABC ONCE THE OLD ILS WAS SUSPENDED; SO THAT WITH ABC IN THE DATABASE; THAT ITS LOCATION WOULD BE ACCURATE. IN FACT; THE NEW DATABASE IN THE NEW GPS WAS NOT CURRENT BUT DID INCLUDE THE OLD LOCATION OF ABC. DATABASE WAS ONE CYCLE OUT OF DATE. INFLT; THERE WAS NO WAY TO KNOW THAT THE LOCATION OF ABC WAS IN ERROR; UNTIL POINTED OUT BY CTR. USING DME; IT WOULD HAVE BECOME OBVIOUS WHEN GETTING CLOSER (EVENTUALLY). CTR ASKED IF CURRENT PLATE WAS IN USE BY ASKING THE DME AT ABC; WHICH WAS CONFIRMED TO THEM OFF THE CURRENT PLATE. THERE WERE NO FURTHER ISSUES AND THE ILS WAS COMPLETED WITHOUT INCIDENT FOLLOWING RADAR VECTORS BACK TO A POINT OUTSIDE ABC. CERTAINLY; A CURRENT DATABASE WOULD HAVE AVOIDED THIS; BUT COULD NOT BE OBTAINED (WE DID REQUEST IT PRIOR TO DEP). SINCE UPDATE ACCOUNT HADN'T BEEN SET UP; IT WAS NOT AVAILABLE. VERY IMPORTANTLY THOUGH; I BELIEVE THAT THE DATABASE SHOULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED AN 'EXPIRED' WAYPOINT WHICH WAS NOT IN USE AFTER THE 'OLD' ILS XX INTO ZZZ WAS DELETED. IF IT WASN'T AVAILABLE; THE CREW COULD HAVE DECLINED THE CLRNC AND REQUESTED RADAR VECTORS FROM THE BEGINNING. MOST IMPORTANTLY; IF A WAYPOINT IS MOVED OR OTHERWISE CHANGED; THE NAME SHOULD BE CHANGED. THERE ARE ANY NUMBER OF 'HONEST MISTAKES' THAT COULD LEAD A PLT TO THE OLD LOCATION OF A MOVED WAYPOINT. ALL THESE ISSUES WOULD VANISH IF THE WAYPOINT NAME WAS SIMPLY CHANGED.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 2009 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.