GOVERNMENT/INDUSTRY AERONAUTICAL CHARTING FORUM

**Instrument Procedures Group**

### **April 7-8, 1997** 

#### HISTORY RECORD

**FAA Control \#** **[97-01-175]{.underline}**

**[SUBJECT:]{.underline} Pilot Duties to Confirm GPS Data Base.**

**[BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:]{.underline}** TSO-C129 requires that the
approach string for an IFR GPS approach, whether overlay or standalone,
be contained in the database of an IFR-approach-approved airborne
avionics device. Yet, the database itself does not seem to enjoy the
same level of certification as does the associated approach chart and
source documents. There appears to be an emerging body of opinion that
the pilot is responsible for assuring the correctness of each and every
GPS approach database string prior to flying an approach. This is an
impossible task for the pilot to perform both from a human-factors
standpoint and because of the fact that neither GPS overlay nor
standalone approach charts contain the LAT/LON for the applicable
waypoints.

**[RECOMMENDATION:]{.underline}** The FAA needs to define the division
of responsibilities between the FAA, the pilot, and the providers of
TSO-C129-compliant databases. Information should be disseminated to
pilots in an effective and permanent manner, such as a detailed advisory
circular with permanent follow-up in the AIM.

**[COMMENTS:]{.underline}** This recommendation affects GPS instrument
approach operations information provided to pilots by the FAA, and
charting and database vendors. It also affects the AIM.

Submitted by Captain Tom Young, Chairman

Charting and Instrument Procedures Committee

**AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION**

PH: (703) 689-4205

FAX: (703) 689-4370

March 6, 1997

**[INITIAL DISCUSSION (Meeting 97-01):]{.underline}** Discussion was led
by Wally Roberts on behalf of ALPA. ALPA believes that the FAA needs to
clearly define the responsibility of the pilot in flying GPS IAP's from
a manufactured database. Jim Enias, AFS-410, stated that there is an
AFS-200 bulletin stating that flight crews are responsible for verifying
databases. The intent was for the crew to accomplish a reasonableness
check to validate that charted points match databases, not to verify
geographic coordinates. Database integrity is not an issue due to checks
and balances in the ARINC and RTCA documentation. AFS-410 took the IOU
to create a FSIB through AFS-200 on this issue. Jim Terpstra, Jeppesen,
agreed to publish the FSIB as a Jeppesen briefing bulletin when
completed. [[ACTION]{.underline}: AFS-410]{.mark}.

**[MEETING 97-02]{.underline}:** Wally Roberts, ALPA, restated the ALPA
concern that the FAA needs to clearly define the responsibility of the
pilot in flying GPS SIAP's from a manufactured database. The intent was
for the crew to accomplish a reasonableness check to validate that
charted points match databases, not to verify geographic coordinates.
Database integrity is not an issue due to checks and balances in the
ARINC and RTCA documentation. AFS-410 was assigned as OPI for this issue
with responsibility to develop a FSIB for AFS-200 dissemination.
[[ACTION]{.underline}: AFS‑410]{.mark}.

**[MEETING 98-01]{.underline}:** No action taken since last meeting.
AFS-410 was not available to provide a briefing. [[ACTION]{.underline}:
AFS‑410]{.mark}.

**[MEETING 98-02]{.underline}:** AFS-410 has an IOU through AFS-200 to
develop a FSIB to address this issue. Neither office was represented at
the meeting. Howard Swancy, AFS-420, briefed that he had coordinated
with AFS-410 and AFS-200 and they stated that they were still working on
the FSIB. Issue continued to the next meeting. [[ACTION]{.underline}:
AFS‑410]{.mark}.

**[MEETING 99-01]{.underline}:** Pete Dula, Manager, AFS-410, has agreed
to assign a POC to work with and provide information to AFS-200 for a
FSIB addressing this issue. Once in agreement, AFS-200 will create and
circulate the FSIB. AFS-410 requested to provide updated status at the
next meeting. [[ACTION]{.underline}: AFS‑410]{.mark}.

**[MEETING 99-02]{.underline}:** AFS-200 is to prepare a FSIB on input
from AFS-410; however, a representative of AFS-410 was not available to
address this issue. Howard Swancy, AFS-420, agreed to request that
AFS-410 prepare a status update for inclusion with the minutes; however,
the update was never received. Issue deferred to the next meeting.
[[ACTION]{.underline}: AFS‑410]{.mark}.

**[MEETING 00-01]{.underline}:** AFS-200 is to prepare a FSIB on input
from AFS-410; however, a representative of AFS-410 was not available to
address this issue. The subgroup requested that Howard Swancy, AFS-4,
address the non-participation of AFS-410 on issues that they are
responsible for. Howard agreed to do so and promised that AFS‑410 would
participate in the next meeting. [[ACTION]{.underline}: AFS‑4 and
AFS-410]{.mark}.

**[MEETING 00-02]{.underline}:** AFS-4 had no success in ensuring an
AFS-410 representative was available to report on the issue. AFS-200
cannot take any action until AFS-410 responds to the issue. Discussion
continued to the next meeting. [[ACTION]{.underline}: AFS‑410]{.mark}.

**[MEETING 01-01]{.underline}:** Hooper Harris, AFS-410, briefed that
the FAA goal is to set a standard for satellite navigation similar to
that required for ground based NAVAID's. The reasonableness check is
that the waypoint name in the approach string or airway is the same as
that published on the appropriate chart. It was never intended that the
pilot verify coordinates. He noted that this issue should also be
coordinated with AFS‑200/800. Bill Hammett, AFS-420 (ISI), noted that
there has been an extensive re-write of paragraphs 1‑1-21b regarding VFR
use of GPS and 5-4-5d regarding TAA procedures in the January 25 AIM
change. Simon Lawrence, ALPA, commented that there was no AIM
educational material regarding the IFR SIAP waypoint string, nor was
there policy to not use VFR GPS databases for IFR flight. Hooper agreed
to develop AIM material for IFR GPS use. [[ACTION]{.underline}:
AFS-410]{.mark}.

**[MEETING 01-02]{.underline}:** An AFS-410 representative was not in
attendance. Issue continued to the next meeting. [[ACTION]{.underline}:
AFS-410]{.mark}.

**[MEETING 02-01]{.underline}:** Hooper Harris, AFS-410, addressed this
issue. He noted that databases do not receive the same level of review
as the corresponding chart. The database logic is certified but not the
actual data. He provided a concept for a FSIB and information to be
added to AIM paragraph 1-1-21o that included the following pilot
responsibilities: 1) Check the currency of the database, 2) Check
NOTAMs, 3) Verify that the correct procedure was retrieved, 4) Verify
the waypoint string (names and altitudes), and 5) perform a
reasonableness check. Steve Bergner, NBAA, asked if database NOTAMs
should be required of database providers. The consensus was yes. Brad
Rush, AVN-160, asked if there was a conflict between the printed chart
and the database, which has precedence. The group consensus was the
paper chart. The requirement for database NOTAMs must be addressed by
the NOTAM Working Group, chaired by ATP-300. The ACF concurred with
Hooper's recommendations and agreement to prepare a FSIB and
corresponding AIM material. [[ACTION]{.underline}: AFS-410]{.mark}.

**[MEETING 02-02]{.underline}:** Hooper Harris, AFS-410, advised the
group that this issue status should remain open until the necessary AIM
information is published. He stated that no action has been taken since
the last meeting; however, AFS-410 is committed to developing AIM
literature to address the issue for publication in AIM Change 3 on
August 7^th^. Material will be submitted for publication NLT February
20, 2003 to meet this goal. [[ACTION]{.underline}: AFS-410]{.mark}.

**[MEETING 03-01]{.underline}:** Rick Gastrich, AFS-410, briefed that
the necessary AIM material did not get forwarded prior to the Feb 20
suspense for publication on August 7^th^. Rich assured the group that
the information would be forwarded for publication on February 19, 2004.
Bill Hammett, AFS-420 (ISI) offered to circulate the draft AIM change
through the ACF membership for comment if desired by AFS-410. Larry
Wiseman, AFFSA, briefed a problem the USAF had with chart/database
harmonization. A procedure had been developed using all flyover
waypoints; however, it was coded using flyby waypoints. The group
consensus was that the procedure was incorrectly designed. Tom
Schneider, AFS-420, re-capped the concept that was briefed by AFS-410 at
the last meeting. If any agency has problems with this approach, they
should contact AFS-410 directly with their concern. Mark Ingram, ALPA,
briefed a paper developed by Jack Befus of Smiths Aerospace FMS
Navigation Database Group on database handling. Bill agreed to
distribute the paper to the ACF Master mailing list for informational
review. [[ACTION]{.underline}: AFS-410]{.mark}.

**[MEETING 03-02]{.underline}:** Bill Hammett, AFS-420 (ISI), briefed
that the AFS-410 developed information was published in the AIM on
August 7^th^. Bill also noted that the paper developed by Jack Befus of
Smiths Aerospace FMS Navigation Database Group on database handling was
forwarded to the ACF master mailing list as requested by ALPA at the
last meeting. Ted Thompson, Jeppesen, provided an update on various
industry database comparison tools. He noted that JAA has established
database certification requirements and that FAA has agreed to accept
the JAA requirements. Ted also briefed that the FAA National Flight
Database (NFD) was discussed at the last ATA FMS Task Force meeting and
that FAA (ANM-111) is currently developing an Advisory Circular to
explain NFD use. [[Item Closed]{.underline}]{.mark}.