Chapter 8 Differences Between Jeppesen Database & Charts

航空发表于 2011-9-29 11:49:21

**** Hidden Message *****

航空发表于 2011-9-29 11:50:11

Chapter 8 Differences Between Jeppesen Database & Charts Chapter 8 Differences Between Jeppesen Database & Charts §8.1 Introduction §8.2 Aeronautical Information Cut-off Dates & Effective Dates §8.3 General Differences §8.4 Navaids §8.5 Waypoints §8.6 Airways §8.7 Arrivals & Departures Procedures §8.8 Titles & Omitted Procedures of Approach Procedure §8.9 Plan View Of Approach Procedure §8.10 Profile Of Approach Procedures §8.11 Approach Procedures §8.12 Routes On Charts But NOT In Databases §8.13 Final Cockpit Authority, Charts Or Database § 8.1 Introduction The basic design for most aeronautical information contained in instrument procedures has been created for the analog world. Virtually all the aeronautical databases are loaded according to the specifications in the Aeronautical Radio, Incorporated (ARINC) 424 standard “Navigation Databases.” Many of the differences between charts and databases are because there can be no standard implemented to have the information in both places depicted the same. There are some cases where it is desirable not to have the information the same because of the different type of media where the information is displayed. There are many different types of avionics equipment utilizing the Jeppesen NavData database. The same database information may be presented differently on different types of airborne equipment. In addition, some equipment may be limited to specific types of database information, omitting other database information. Pilots should check their Operating Handbooks for details of operation and information presentation. A major factor in “apparent” differences between database and charts may be due to the avionics equipment utilized. As avionics equipment evolves, the newer systems will be more compatible with charts, however the older systems will still continue with apparent differences. § 8.2 Aeronautical Information Cut-off Dates & Effective Dates The ICAO Aeronautical Information Regulation and Control (AIRAC) governs the 28-day cycle between effective dates of aeronautical information. Charts typically use 7-day and 14-day cycles for terminal charts and 28-day and 56-day cycles for Enroute and Area charts. § 8.3 General Differences • Charted Information Not Provided in the Jeppesen Navdata Database • Magnetic Courses, Distances • Reference Datum § 8.3.1 Charted Information Not Provided in the Jeppesen Navdata Database Not all the information that is included on the charts is included in the airborne database. The following is a general listing of some of those items: • Altimetry QNH/QFE information Alternate altimeter setting sources • Intersection formations (radials, bearings, DME) • Terrain and Obstacles • Airport Operating Minimums Landing, take-off and alternate minimums • Airport taxiways and ramps • Some types of special use airspace and controlled airspace § 8.3.2 Magnetic Courses, Distances Because of different magnetic models used in airborne systems, a magnetic course read on the airborne system may differ from the charted magnetic course. Avionics computed distances may disagree with charted distances. Differences may appear on airways on Enroute Charts, and on flight procedures included on SID, DP, STAR, Approach, and Airport charts. In addition, when the database requires a specific course to be flown from “A” to “B”, the differences in magnetic variation or VOR station declination may result in a “jog” between the two fixes in lieu of a direct track. § 8.3.3 Reference Datum Not all States (countries) have complied with the ICAO Annex that specifies the use of the WGS-84 reference datum. Differences in reference datums can cause significant “accuracy bias” in the navigation guidance provided by avionics systems. § 8.4 Navaids • Completeness • NDB and Locator Identifiers • Locator Identifiers • Duplicate Navaid Identifiers § 8.4.1 Completeness Because of the duplication of identifiers and other factors, not all charted navaids are included in the database. § 8.4.2 NDB and Locator Identifiers As an example of the differences between the display from one avionics system to another: • some avionics systems will display the Foley NDB as “FPY”. • Some avionics systems include a suffix “NB” after the NDB identifiers and will display the Foley NDB as “FPYNB”. For NDBs and locators with duplicate Morse code identifiers that are located within the same State (country), may only be available using the airport identifier for access. § 8.4.3 Locator Identifiers Most locators in the United States have unique five-letter names, but most international locators have names that do not have five letters. • Some systems may display U.S. locators as “CASSE”. • Some systems may display U.S. locators as “AP”. § 8.4.4 Duplicate Navaid Identifiers There are numerous duplicates in the database. Refer to your avionics handbook for the proper procedure to access navaids when duplicate identifiers are involved. Not all navaids in the database are accessible by their identifier. Some navaids, for reasons such as duplication within terminal areas or lack of complete information about the navaid, are in the waypoint file and are accessible by their name or abbreviated name. § 8.5 Waypoints • Waypoint Database Identifiers • Common Waypoint Name for a Single Location • Fly-over Versus Fly-by Fixes/Waypoints § 8.5.1 Waypoint Database Identifiers “Database Identifiers” refers to identifiers used only in avionics systems utilizing databases. The identifiers are not for use in flight plans or ATC communications; however, they are also included in computer flight planning systems. They may be designated by the State (country) as “Computer Navigation Fixes” (CNFs) or designated by Jeppesen. To facilitate the use of airborne avionics systems, the identifiers are being added to Jeppesen’s charts. Both the CNFs created by States and the Jeppesen-created database identifiers are enclosed within square brackets and in italics. • Jeppesen’s ultimate goal is to include all database identifiers for all waypoints/fixes on the charts. • Enroute charts include the five-character identifier for unnamed reporting points, DME fixes, mileage breaks, and any reporting point with a name that has more than five characters. • SID, DP and STAR charts are being modified to include all identifiers. • Approach Charts • VNAV descent angle information derived from the Jeppesen NavData database is being added to approach charts. Identifiers are shown for the Final Approach Fix (FAF), Missed Approach Point (MAP), and the missed approach termination point. • State-named Computer Navigation Fixes (CNFs) are shown on all applicable charts. • GPS (GNSS) type Approach Charts include all database identifiers. § 8.5.2 Common Waypoint Name for a Single Location Government authorities may give a name to a waypoint at a given location, but not use the name at the same location on other procedures in the same area. The Jeppesen NavData database uses the same name for all multiple procedure applications. Charting is limited to the procedure(s) where the name is used by the authorities. § 8.5.3 Fly-over Versus Flyby Fixes/Waypoints In most cases, pilots should anticipate and lead a turn to the next leg. The database indicates when the fix must be crossed (flown-over) before the turn is commenced. The fix is coded as fly-over when the requirement is inferred or is specified by the governing authority. Fixes are charted as fly-over fixes only when specified by the governing authority. Fly-over fixes have a circle around the fix/waypoint symbol. No special charting is used for fly-by fixes. § 8.6 Airways • ATS Routes • Designators • Altitudes • Changeover Points § 8.6.1 ATS Routes Airways identified as ATC routes by States (countries) cannot be uniquely identified. They are not included in the Jeppesen NavData database. § 8.6.2 Designators Jeppesen NavData database airway designators are followed by a code indicating ATC services (such as “A” for Advisory, “F” for Flight Information) when such a code is specified by the State (country). Not all airborne systems display the ATC services suffix. § 8.6.3 Altitudes Minimum Enroute Altitudes (MEAs), Minimum Obstacle Clearance Altitudes (MOCAs), Off Route Obstacle Clearance Altitudes (OROCAs), Maximum Authorized Altitudes (MAAs), Minimum Crossing Altitudes (MCAs), Minimum Reception Altitudes (MRAs), and Route Minimum Off-Route Altitudes (Route MORAs. These minimum altitudes for airways are not displayed in most avionics systems. § 8.6.4 Changeover Points Changeover points (other than mid-point between navaids) are on charts but are not included in the Jeppesen NavData database. § 8.7 Arrivals & Departures Procedures • Arrivals & Departures Procedures Not in the Database • Procedure Titles • 400-Foot Climbs • Take-off Minimums and Climb Gradients • “Expect” and “Conditional” Instructions • Altitudes • STAR Overlapping Segments § 8.7.1 Arrivals & Departures Procedures Not in the Database Jeppesen publishes some officially designated departure procedures that include only text on IFR airport charts beneath the take-off minimums. They may be labeled “Departure Procedure”, “IFR Departure Procedure”, or “Obstacle DP”. Most of these are U.S. and Canadian procedures, although there is a scattering of them throughout the world. Any waypoint/fix mentioned in the text is in the Jeppesen NavData database. However, these text-only departure procedures are not in the database. Some States publish narrative descriptions of their arrivals, and depict them on their enroute charts. They are unnamed, not identified as arrival routes, and are not included in the Jeppesen NavData database. Some States publish “DME or GPS Arrivals”, and because they are otherwise unnamed, they are not included in the database. § 8.7.2 Procedure Titles Procedure identifiers for routes such as STARs, DPs and SIDs are in airborne databases but are limited to not more than six alpha/numeric characters. The database generally uses the charted computer code (shown enclosed within parentheses on the chart) for the procedure title. For example: CHART: Cyote Four Departure (CYOTE.CYOTE4 ) DATABASE: CYOTE4 When no computer code is assigned, the name is truncated to not more than six characters. The database procedure identifier is created according to ARINC 424 specifications. Database procedure identifiers are charted in most cases. They are the same as the assigned computer code (charted within parentheses) or are being added . Do not confuse the bracketed database identifier with the official procedure name (which will be used by ATC) or the official computer code (which is used in flight plan filing). § 8.7.3 400-Foot Climbs Virtually all departures in the database include a climb to 400 feet above the airport prior to turning because of requirements in State regulations and recommendations. The 400-foot climb is not depicted on most charts. When States specify a height other than 400 feet, it will be in the Jeppesen NavData database. § 8.7.4 Take-off Minimums and Climb Gradients The take-off minimums and climb gradients that are depicted on the charts are not included in the database. § 8.7.5 “Expect” and “Conditional” Instructions Altitudes depicted on charts as “Expect” instructions, such as “Expect to cross at 11,000,” are not included in the Jeppesen NavData database. When “Conditional” statements, such as “Straight ahead to ABC 8 DME or 600", whichever is later”, are included on the charts, only one condition can be included in the database. § 8.7.6 Altitudes Databases include charted crossing altitudes at waypoints/fixes. Charted Minimum Enroute Altitudes (MEAs) and Minimum Obstacle Clearance Altitudes (MOCAs) are not included. § 8.7.7 STAR Overlapping Segments STARs normally terminate at a fix where the approach begins or at a fix where radar vectoring will begin. When STAR termination points extend beyond the beginning of the approach, some avionics equipment may display a route discontinuity at the end of the STAR and the first approach fix. § 8.8 Titles & Omitted Procedures of Approach Procedure ICAO PANS OPS approach procedure titles are officially labeled with the navaid(s) used for the approach and are different than approach procedure titles labeled according to the TERPs criteria, which are labeled only with navaids required for the final approach segment. Because of the limited number of characters that are available for the procedure title, the name displayed on the avionics equipment may not be the same as the official name shown on the Approach Chart. The Jeppesen NavData database, in accordance with ARINC 424 specifications, codes the approach procedure according to procedure type and runway number. “Similar” type approaches to the same runway may be combined under one procedure title. The actual avionics readout for the procedure title varies from manufacturer to manufacturer. Some avionics systems cannot display VOR and VOR DME (or NDB and NDB DME) approaches to the same runway, and the approach displayed will usually be the one associated with DME. Generally, most Cat I, II, and III ILS approaches to the same runway are the same basic procedure, and the Cat I procedure is in the database. However, in isolated cases, the Cat I and Cat II/III missed approach procedures are different, and only the Cat I missed approach will be in the database. Additionally, there may be ILS and Converging ILS approaches to the same runway. While the converging ILS approaches are not currently in the database, they may be at some later date. Some States are using the phonetic alphabet to indicate more than one “same type, same runway” approach, such as ILS Z Rwy 23 and ILS Y Rwy 23. The phonetic alphabet starts at the end of the alphabet to ensure there is no possibility of conflict with circling only approaches, such as VOR A. In isolated cases, procedures are intentionally omitted from the database. This occurs primarily when navaid/waypoint coordinates provided by the authorities in an undeveloped are inaccurate and no resolution can be obtained. Additionally, the ARINC 424 specifications governing navigation databases may occasionally prohibit the inclusion of an approach procedure. § 8.9 Plan View Of Approach Procedure • Initial Approach Fix (IAF), Intermediate Fix (IF), Final Approach Fix (FAF) Designations • Base Turn (Teardrop) Approaches • Routes By Aircraft Categories • DME and Along Track Distances • Approach Transition to Localizer § 8.9.1 Initial Approach Fix (IAF), Intermediate Fix (IF), Final Approach Fix (FAF) Designations These designations for the type of fix for operational use are included on approach charts within parentheses when specified by the State, but are not displayed on most avionics systems. ARINC 424 and TSO C-129 specifications require the inclusion of GPS approach transitions originating from IAFs. Authorities do not always standardize the assignment of IAFs, resulting in some cases of approach transitions being included in the database that do not originate from officially designed IAFs. § 8.9.2 Base Turn (Teardrop) Approaches Depending upon the divergence between outbound and inbound tracks on the base turn (teardrop turn), the turn rate of the aircraft, the intercept angle in the database, and the wind may cause an aircraft to undershoot the inbound track when rolling out of the turn, thus affecting the intercept angle to the final approach. This may result in intercepting the final approach course either before or after the Final Approach Fix (FAF). § 8.9.3 Routes By Aircraft Categories Some procedures are designed with a set of flight tracks for Category A & B aircraft and with a differentset of flight tracks for Category C & D. In such cases, the database generally includes only the flight tracks for Category C & D. § 8.9.4 DME and Along Track Distances Database identifiers are assigned to many unnamed DME fixes. The Jeppesen identifier is charted on GPS/GNSS type approaches and charted on any type approach when specified as a computer navigation fix (CNF). Unnamed Along Track Distances (ATDs) are charted as accumulative distances to the MAP. § 8.9.5 Approach Transition to Localizer For DME arc approach transitions with lead-in radials, the fix at the transition “termination point” beyond the lead-in radial is dropped by many avionics systems. § 8.10 Profile Of Approach Procedures • Vertical Descent Angles • Database Identifiers • Final Approach Capture Fix (FACF) • GPS/GNSS Sensor FAF • Final Approach Fix (FAF), ILS and Localizer Approaches • Named and Un-named Stepdown Fixes • ILS and Runway Alignment § 8.10.1 Vertical Descent Angles Vertical descent angles for most straight-in nonprecision landings (Descent angles for circleto- land only approaches are currently not in the database and are not charted.) are included in the database and published on charts with the following exceptions: • When precision and non-precision approaches are combined on the same chart • Some procedures based on PANS OPS criteria with descent gradients published in percentage or in feet per NM/meters per kilometer. However, these values are being converted into angles and are being charted. In the United States, many non-precision approaches have descent angles provided by the FAA and are depicted on the approach charts. For many of the U.S. procedures, and in other countries, the descent angles are calculated based on the altitudes and distances provided by the State authorities. These descent angles are being added to Jeppesen’s charts. The descent angle accuracy may be affected by temperature. When the outside air temperature is lower than standard, the actual descent angle will be lower. § 8.10.2 Database Identifiers For approach charts where the descent angle is published, all database identifiers from the Final Approach Fix (FAF) to the missed approach termination point are charted in both the plan and profile views. When an FAF is not specified, the NavData database Sensor Final Approach Fix (Sensor FAF) is included in the database and is charted. § 8.10.3 Final Approach Capture Fix (FACF) Databases include (when no suitable fix is specified in source) a FACF for localizer based approaches and those based on VOR DME, VORTAC, or NDB and DME. In most cases, it is the fix identified as the intermediate fix. The FACF is charted only when specified by the State. 8.10.4 GPS/GNSS Sensor FAF The Jeppesen NavData database includes a Sensor FAF when the approach was not originally designed with an FAF, and they are charted on “GPS/GNSS type” approaches. § 8.10.5 Final Approach Fix (FAF), ILS and Localizer Approaches There may be several types of fixes charted at the same FAF location - locator, waypoint, intersection, DME fix, OM, or perhaps an NDB instead of a locator. Since many airborne navigation systems with databases don’t store locators and NDBs as navaids, a four- or five- character identifier will be used for the FAF on ILS and localizer approaches. The four- or five-character identifier assigned to the FAF location is contained in the waypoint file of the Jeppesen NavData database. If there is a named intersection or waypoint on the centerline of the localizer at the FAF, the name of the fix will be used for the FAF location. The FAF must be on the localizer centerline or the avionics system will fly a course that is not straight. Frequently, OMs and LOMs are not positioned exactly on a localizer centerline and a database fix is created to put the aircraft on a straight course. When the LOM is on the centerline and there also is a named intersection or waypoint on the centerline, the name of the intersection or waypoint will be used for the FAF. When the ILS or localizer procedure is being flown from the database, the four- or fivecharacter name or identifier such as CHUPP, FF04, or FF04R, etc. will be displayed as the FAF. If the LOM is not on the localizer centerline, an identifier such as FF04L may be the identifier for the computed “on centerline” final approach fix for runway 04L. If there is only an outer marker at the FAF, the FAF identifier may be OM04L. When there is no intersection or waypoint at the FAF such as the MONRY LOM, the database identifier will be • “OM09” if the LOM is on the centerline, and • “FF09” if the LOM is not on the centerline. In some systems, to access the locator on most ILS and localizer approaches, the Morse code identifier can be used. In the United States, virtually all locators have a five-letter unique name/identifier so the location can usually be accessed in some systems by the navaid Morse code identifier or the five-letter name. In some systems, the locator is accessed by the name or by adding the letters “NB” to the Morse code identifier. § 8.10.6 Named and Unnamed Stepdown Fix Named and un-named stepdown fixes between the FAF and MAP are currently not included in the databases, but will be added in the future. They are often DME fixes, and in those cases, can be identified by DME. The distance to go to the MAP may be labeled on some GPS/GNSS type charts and VOR DME RNAV charts. Proper identification of these displayed fixes is necessary to clear all stepdown fix crossing altitudes.
§ 8.10.7 ILS and Runway Alignment Differences in government specified values for localizer and airport variation may cause apparent non-alignment of the localizer and the runway. These differences are gradually being resolved, and whenever possible the airport variation is used for the localizer variation. 8.11 Approach Procedures (Missed Approach) • Missed Approach Point (MAP) • 400-Foot Climbs • Missed Approach Procedure § 8.11.1 Missed Approach Point (MAP) For non-precision approaches, when the MAP is other than a navaid, there will be a database MAP waypoint with a unique identifier. If the MAP is a waypoint and is at or within 0.14 NM of the threshold the MAP identifier will be the runway number. If the MAP is not at the runway, there will either be an official name or an identifier for the MAP, or an identifier is provided. GPS/GNSS type approaches and charts with descent angles, include the database identifier of the MAP. § 8.11.2 400-Foot Climbs The database includes a climb to 400 feet above the airport prior to turning on a missed approach. This climb is not part of the official procedure, but does comply with State regulations and policies. This specific climb to 400 feet is not included on charts. The missed approach text supplied by the State authority is charted.
§ 8.11.3 Missed Approach Procedure The routes/paths that comprise a missed approach are not always displayed in some avionics systems that use databases. Additionally, some avionics systems that include missed approach procedures don’t always implement a full set of path terminators so many legs will not be included in the airborne database. Refer to the charted missed approach procedure when executing a missed approach. §8.12 Routes On Charts But NOT In Databases The routes in approach procedures, SIDs, DPs, and STARs are coded into the database using computer codes called path terminators which are defined in the ARINC 424 Navigation Database Specification. A path terminator : • Defines the path through the air • Defines the way the leg (or route) is terminated. Not all avionics systems have implemented the full set of path terminators specified in the ARINC 424 document. If the avionics systems don’t have all the routes, or don’t have the means to display them, it is the pilot’s responsibility to fly the routes depicted on the charts. 8.13 Final Cockpit Authority, Charts Or Database There are differences between information displayed on your airborne avionics navigation system and the information shown on Jeppesen charts. The charts, supplemented by NOTAMs, are the final authority.

coindong 发表于 2011-10-9 16:36:07

Chapter 8
Differences Between
Jeppesen Database & Charts

thunderland 发表于 2013-11-11 23:57:32

Thanks for sharing!

信恒毅 发表于 2013-12-16 13:55:46

下来看看学习一下

tonyblairer 发表于 2014-5-27 19:02:01

很好的资料，谢谢分享

页: [1]

航空论坛_航空翻译_民航英语翻译_飞行翻译's Archiver

Chapter 8 Differences Between Jeppesen Database & Charts