|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||1201 To 1800|
|Locale Reference||navaid : tbn.vor|
|Altitude||msl single value : 37000|
|Controlling Facilities||artcc : scez.artcc|
tower : cvg.tower
|Operator||common carrier : air carrier|
|Make Model Name||B767-300 and 300 ER|
|Operating Under FAR Part||Part 121|
|Navigation In Use||other|
|Flight Phase||descent : intermediate altitude|
|Route In Use||arrival star : andes1|
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : captain|
|Qualification||pilot : atp|
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : first officer|
|Anomaly||aircraft equipment problem : less severe|
other anomaly other
|Independent Detector||aircraft equipment other aircraft equipment : fmc database|
other flight crewa
other flight crewb
|Resolutory Action||none taken : anomaly accepted|
|Problem Areas||Chart Or Publication|
Flight Crew Human Performance
|Primary Problem||Chart Or Publication|
The B767 FMC continues to use a database that has incorrect fix names for some stars into santiago; chile. Specifically; I noted the ANDES1 arrival on page 20-2T of santiago; chile; dated june 2006. The normal filed route has the crew fly to toy thence U/W208 to embal and the ANDES1 arrival to scel. After embal; the first fix to pass is 60 NM north of tbn VOR with a crossing restriction of FL210 or above. This fix is designated TBN60 on both the flight plan and the FMC waypoint. This is the last fix that is correctly marked on the FMC database. All fixes that follow are incorrectly designated under nomenclature that used to exist before the chart provider page for this arrival was altered. The chart provider pages for this arrival are all designated by reference to the tbn VOR; ie; after TBN60 comes TBN40; TBN24; etc. However the FMC database waypoints after TBN60 do not match the waypoints on the chart provider's charts. The FMC database points after TBN60 are all designated 355X; 355H; etc. The FMC coordinates all agree with the corresponding chart provider fixes; but it is quite confusing and unnecessarily burdensome to have to rechk these fixes on the FMC for accuracy. If the chart provider changed the designation of fixes on the ANDES1 arrival; why cannot the FMC database be changed also to agree with the new designation? It places a great burden on the crew to rechk these points and ensure that they are the same. It is dangerous to have to check waypoint accuracy during the critical phase of flight when descending into an airport surrounded by terrain exceeding 16000 ft high. This is the second report I have written on this subject. I first wrote a report on this when I first noticed that the chart provider fix designations had changed. This continues to be a safety of flight risk that must be corrected. Why is the FMC database still not correct more than a year after the initial waypoint designation change?
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: B767-300 FLT CREW IS CONCERNED WITH FMC DATABASE FIXES NOT MATCHING THE ARR CHART FIX DESIGNATIONS TO SCEL.
Narrative: THE B767 FMC CONTINUES TO USE A DATABASE THAT HAS INCORRECT FIX NAMES FOR SOME STARS INTO SANTIAGO; CHILE. SPECIFICALLY; I NOTED THE ANDES1 ARR ON PAGE 20-2T OF SANTIAGO; CHILE; DATED JUNE 2006. THE NORMAL FILED RTE HAS THE CREW FLY TO TOY THENCE U/W208 TO EMBAL AND THE ANDES1 ARR TO SCEL. AFTER EMBAL; THE FIRST FIX TO PASS IS 60 NM NORTH OF TBN VOR WITH A CROSSING RESTRICTION OF FL210 OR ABOVE. THIS FIX IS DESIGNATED TBN60 ON BOTH THE FLT PLAN AND THE FMC WAYPOINT. THIS IS THE LAST FIX THAT IS CORRECTLY MARKED ON THE FMC DATABASE. ALL FIXES THAT FOLLOW ARE INCORRECTLY DESIGNATED UNDER NOMENCLATURE THAT USED TO EXIST BEFORE THE CHART PROVIDER PAGE FOR THIS ARR WAS ALTERED. THE CHART PROVIDER PAGES FOR THIS ARR ARE ALL DESIGNATED BY REFERENCE TO THE TBN VOR; IE; AFTER TBN60 COMES TBN40; TBN24; ETC. HOWEVER THE FMC DATABASE WAYPOINTS AFTER TBN60 DO NOT MATCH THE WAYPOINTS ON THE CHART PROVIDER'S CHARTS. THE FMC DATABASE POINTS AFTER TBN60 ARE ALL DESIGNATED 355X; 355H; ETC. THE FMC COORDINATES ALL AGREE WITH THE CORRESPONDING CHART PROVIDER FIXES; BUT IT IS QUITE CONFUSING AND UNNECESSARILY BURDENSOME TO HAVE TO RECHK THESE FIXES ON THE FMC FOR ACCURACY. IF THE CHART PROVIDER CHANGED THE DESIGNATION OF FIXES ON THE ANDES1 ARR; WHY CANNOT THE FMC DATABASE BE CHANGED ALSO TO AGREE WITH THE NEW DESIGNATION? IT PLACES A GREAT BURDEN ON THE CREW TO RECHK THESE POINTS AND ENSURE THAT THEY ARE THE SAME. IT IS DANGEROUS TO HAVE TO CHK WAYPOINT ACCURACY DURING THE CRITICAL PHASE OF FLT WHEN DSNDING INTO AN ARPT SURROUNDED BY TERRAIN EXCEEDING 16000 FT HIGH. THIS IS THE SECOND RPT I HAVE WRITTEN ON THIS SUBJECT. I FIRST WROTE A RPT ON THIS WHEN I FIRST NOTICED THAT THE CHART PROVIDER FIX DESIGNATIONS HAD CHANGED. THIS CONTINUES TO BE A SAFETY OF FLT RISK THAT MUST BE CORRECTED. WHY IS THE FMC DATABASE STILL NOT CORRECT MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER THE INITIAL WAYPOINT DESIGNATION CHANGE?
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 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.