《杰普遜航圖與導(dǎo)航數(shù)據(jù)庫-第八章課件》由會員分享，可在線閱讀，更多相關(guān)《杰普遜航圖與導(dǎo)航數(shù)據(jù)庫-第八章課件（91頁珍藏版）》請在裝配圖網(wǎng)上搜索。

1、單擊此處編輯母版標題樣式,單擊此處編輯母版文本樣式,第二級,第三級,第四級,第五級,,,*,Chapter 8 Differences Between Jeppesen Database & Charts,,,Chapter 8 Differences Betwee,1,Chapter 8 Differences Between Jeppesen Database & Charts,§8.1 Introduction,§8.2 Aeronautical Information Cut-off Dates & Effective Dates,§8.3 General Differen

2、ces,§8.4 Navaids,§8.5 Waypoints,§8.6 Airways,§8.7 Arrivals & Departures Procedures,,,Chapter 8 Differences Between,2,§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 Char

3、ts But NOT In Databases,§8.13 Final Cockpit Authority, Charts Or Database,,,§8.8 Titles & Omitted Proced,3,§ 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 lo

4、aded according to the specifications in the Aeronautical Radio, Incorporated (ARINC) 424 standard “Navigation Databases.”,,,§ 8.1 IntroductionThe basic de,4,Many of the differences between charts and databases are because there can be no standard implemented to have the information in both places de

5、picted 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.,,,,,Many of the differences betwee,5,There are many different types of avionics equipment utilizing the Jeppesen NavData databas

6、e.,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 a

7、nd information presentation.,,,There are many different types,6,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 sti

8、ll continue with apparent differences.,,,A major factor in “apparent” d,7,§ 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 u

9、se,7,-day and,14,-day cycles for terminal charts and,28,-day and,56,-day cycles for Enroute and Area charts.,,,,,§ 8.2 Aeronautical Information,8,§ 8.3 General Differences,Charted Information Not Provided in the Jeppesen Navdata Database,,Magnetic Courses, Distances,,Reference Datum,,,§ 8.3 General

10、 DifferencesChar,9,§ 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 set

11、ting sources,Intersection formations (radials, bearings, DME),,,§ 8.3.1 Charted Information No,10,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,,,,Terrain and Obstacles,1

12、1,§ 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 Enrout

13、e Charts, and on flight procedures included on SID, DP, STAR, Approach, and Airport charts,.,,,,§ 8.3.2 Magnetic Courses, Dist,12,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 “j

14、og” between the two fixes in lieu of a direct track.,,,,In addition, when the database,13,§ 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” i

15、n the navigation guidance provided by avionics systems.,,,,§ 8.3.3 Reference DatumNot all,14,§ 8.4 Navaids,Completeness,NDB and Locator Identifiers,Locator Identifiers,Duplicate Navaid Identifiers,,,§ 8.4 NavaidsCompleteness,15,§ 8.4.1 Completeness,Because of the duplication of identifiers and other

16、 factors, not all charted navaids are included in the database.,,,,§ 8.4.1 CompletenessBecause of,16,§ 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

17、systems include a suffix “NB” after the NDB identifiers and will display the Foley NDB as “FPYNB”.,,,§ 8.4.2 NDB and Locator Identi,17,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

18、access.,,,,For NDBs and locators with dup,18,§ 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. locato

19、rs as “AP”.,,,,§ 8.4.3 Locator IdentifiersMos,19,§ 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

20、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.,,,§ 8.4.4 Duplicate Navaid Ident,20,§ 8.5 Waypoints,Waypoint Database Identifiers,,Co

21、mmon Waypoint Name for a Single Location,,Fly-over Versus Fly-by Fixes/Waypoints,,,§ 8.5 WaypointsWaypoint Databa,21,§ 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 o

22、r 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.,,,§ 8.5.1 Waypoint Database Iden,22,To facilitate the use of airborne avionics systems, the identi

23、fiers 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,.,,,,To facilitate the u

24、se of airbo,23,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.,,,Enroute charts include the fiv,24,SID, DP and STAR charts are being modified to include all identifie

25、rs.,Approach Charts,,,,,,SID, DP and STAR charts are be,25,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.,,,,V

26、NAV descent angle information,26,State-named Computer Navigation Fixes (CNFs) are shown on all applicable charts.,GPS (GNSS) type Approach Charts include all database identifiers.,,,,,State-named Computer Navigatio,27,§ 8.5.2 Common Waypoint Name for a Single Location,Government authorities may give

27、 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.,,,§

28、8.5.2 Common Waypoint Name f,28,§ 8.5.3 Fly-over Versus Fly-by 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

29、inferred or is specified by the governing authority.,Fixes are charted as fly-over fixes only when specified by the governing authority.,,,,§ 8.5.3 Fly-over Versus Fly-by,29,Fly-over fixes have a,circle,around the fix/waypoint symbol.,No special charting is used for fly-by fixes.,,,,Fly-over fixes h

30、ave a circle a,30,§ 8.6 Airways,ATS Routes,,Designators,,Altitudes,,Changeover Points,,,§ 8.6 AirwaysATS Routes,31,§ 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.,,,§ 8.6.1 ATS RoutesAir

31、ways ide,32,§ 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.

32、2 DesignatorsJeppesen Na,33,§ 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

33、 Off-Route Altitudes (Route MORAs.,These minimum altitudes for airways are not displayed in most avionics systems.,,,§ 8.6.3 AltitudesMinimum Enrou,34,§ 8.6.4 Changeover Points,Changeover points (other than mid-point between navaids) are on charts but are not included in the Jeppesen NavData databas

34、e.,,,,§ 8.6.4 Changeover PointsChang,35,§ 8.7 Arrivals & DeparturesProcedures,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 Arrivals & De

35、parturesPr,36,§ 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 “Obstacl

36、e DP”.,Most of these are U.S. and Canadian procedures, although there is a scattering of them throughout the world.,,,,§ 8.7.1 Arrivals & Departures,37,Any waypoint/fix mentioned in the text is in the Jeppesen NavData database.,However, these text-only departure procedures are not in the database.,,

37、,,Any waypoint/fix mentioned in,38,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

38、they are otherwise unnamed, they are not included in the database.,,,,Some States publish narrative,39,§ 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

39、 uses the charted computer code (shown enclosed within parentheses on the chart) for the procedure title.,,,,§ 8.7.2 Procedure TitlesProced,40,For example:,,,CHART,: Cyote Four Departure (,CYOTE.CYOTE4,),,,DATABASE,:,CYOTE4,,,,For example:,41,When no computer code is assigned, the name is truncated

40、 to not more than six characters.,The database procedure identifier is created according to ARINC 424 specifications.,,,,,When no computer code is assig,42,Database procedure identifiers are charted in most cases.,They are the same as the assigned computer code (charted within parentheses) or are be

41、ing 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,).,,,Database procedure identifiers,43,§ 8.7.3 400-Foot Climbs,Virtually al

42、l 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 databa

43、se.,,,§ 8.7.3 400-Foot ClimbsVirtual,44,§ 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.,,,,§ 8.7.4 Take-off Minimums and,45,§ 8.7.5 “Expect” and “Conditional” Instructions,,Altitudes depicted on

44、 charts as “Expect” instructions, such as “Expect to cross at 11,000,” are not included in the Jeppesen NavData database,.,,,,§ 8.7.5 “Expect” and “Conditio,46,When “Conditional” statements, such as “Straight ahead to ABC 8 DME or 600", whichever is later”, are included on the charts, only one condi

45、tion can be included in the database.,,,,When “Conditional” statements,,47,§ 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.,,,§ 8.7.6 AltitudesDatabases inc,4

46、8,§ 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 an

47、d the first approach fix.,,,,§ 8.7.7 STAR Overlapping Segme,49,§ 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 TER

48、Ps 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.,,,§ 8.8

49、 Titles & Omitted Procedu,50,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

50、 the procedure title varies from manufacturer to manufacturer.,,,The Jeppesen NavData database,,51,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, I

51、I, 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.,,,Some avionics systems ca

52、nnot d,52,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, s

53、uch 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.,,,Additionally, there may be ILS,53,In isolated cases, procedures are intentionally omitted from the database. Thi

54、s 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.,,,,In isolat

55、ed cases, procedures,54,§ 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 Plan View Of App

56、roach Pr,55,§ 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.,,,,§

57、 8.9.1 Initial Approach Fix (,56,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 or

58、iginate from officially designed IAFs.,,,ARINC 424 and TSO C-129 specif,57,§ 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

59、 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).,,,§ 8.9.2 Base Turn (Teardrop) A,58,§ 8.9.3 Routes

60、 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.,,,,§ 8.9.3 Routes By Aircraft Cat,59,§ 8

61、.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).,,,§ 8.9.4 DME and Along Track Di,60,Unnamed Along Track D

62、istances (ATDs) are charted as accumulative distances to the MAP.,,,,Unnamed Along Track Distances,61,§ 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 sy

63、stems.,,,§ 8.9.5 Approach Transition to,62,§ 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.

64、10 Profile Of Approach Pro,63,§ 8.10.1 Vertical Descent Angles,Vertical descent angles for most straight-in,non-precision,landings (Descent angles for circle-to-land only approaches are currently not in the database and are not charted.),,are included in the database and published on charts with the

65、 following exceptions:,When precision and non-precision approaches are combined on the same chart,,,§ 8.10.1 Vertical Descent Angl,64,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 conv

66、erted into angles and are being charted.,,,Some procedures based on PANS,65,In the United States, many non-precision approaches have descent angles provided by the FAA and are depicted on the approach charts,.,,,,In the United States, many non,66,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.,,,For many of the U.S. procedur