Chapter 8 Differences Between Jeppesen Database & Charts

航空

游客，如果您要查看本帖隐藏内容请回复

tonyblairer

很好的资料，谢谢分享

信恒毅

下来看看学习一下

thunderland

Thanks for sharing!

coindong

Chapter 8 Differences Between Jeppesen Database & Charts

航空

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
[enclosed within square brackets].
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.