Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MMEX.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach; Initial Approach
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I'm sending this report in as a safety 'heads up' about some critical deficiencies in our FMS database; specifically for airports down in Mexico. In multiple airports (BJX; MTY; QRO for example; I'm sure more); there are missing or misnamed procedures in our FMS that don't match with what we have in our Jeppesen procedure manual.  This leads to obvious confusion as we are assigned procedures we have plates for by ATC; but unable to select in our FMS. The results of this range from an annoyance; to possibly a huge safety issue. In Mexico we operate often in a non-radar environment; with ATC relying upon pilot position reporting for traffic avoidance; weather avoidance; altitude changes/descent planning; and approach/landing clearances. Without the proper navigation guidance/procedures in the FMS; the flight crew is left attempting to shoot approaches in green needles; something we receive minimal training for in the sim (we receive NO training that I'm aware of on shooting a DME arc in green needles); while attempting to give constant position reports; without the benefit of having our FMS position read outs on screen.I would say the most obvious error in our current FMS database is the complete exclusion of the VOR/DME 1 procedures at some of these airports. The '1' procedure is a teardrop procedure turn that starts overhead the VOR on the field and takes you outbound then back onto the final approach course. In our Jepp approach manual all of these airports down in Mexico generally have a VOR/DME1 and VOR/DME 2 procedure. But if you bring up the approach select page in the FMS; the '1' procedure is missing completely. This leaves the flight crew 2 options.Build the approach by using radial/DME fixes (including making them 'fly over' fixes; what percentage of flight crews can do this off the top of their head?) and then sequencing the approach midway through flying the procedure to enable us to vector ourselves onto the final approach course. A complicated; intense; jury-rigged procedure that is not trained.Flying the approach in green needles. Not impossible; but not something trained in the sim much; if at all; and further complicated by the non-radar environment. No help from ATC with vectors; and constant position reporting made more difficult by the lack of guidance from the FMS. The 2nd issue I see is the mislabeling of Initial Approach Fixes (IAF) on the VOR/DME 2 procedures. The '2' procedure generally seems to be a DME arc around the VOR that leads you to the final approach course. Many of the IAFs in our Jepps ARE NOT the same names as found in our FMS approach transition selection page. ATC will clear us for a VOR/DME 2 approach from an IAF that is found on our Jepp; but if you look for it in the FMS; the name for that IAF transition will be different from what's on our plates! Usually the approach fix listed in the FMS is a fix before the IAF on the approach plate. Furthermore this FMS fix name will not be named on our approach plate; making it impossible to determine which IAF transition to choose in the FMS without consulting the enroute chart to figure out which fix in the FMS corresponds with the correct IAF listed on our plate. Not exactly an ideal solution; and crews unfamiliar with these discrepancies could be very confused; leading to a safety issue; and loss of navigation guidance. Crews are left to either hopefully figure out the naming discrepancy; refuse the approach procedure; or flying the DME arc in green needles. Again; we're not trained to do this. Another potential safety concern is sending aircraft down to Mexico to shoot these complicated procedures in non-radar environments with our FMS/autopilot MEL'd. In situations like these we need all the tools at hand to get the job done; and expecting flight crews to be able to fly these approaches in inclement weather in green  manually; not having being trained to do so in the sim; with possible abnormal emergency situations; bringsan extremely high work load leading to errors. Our FMS procedures need to be updated so they correspond with what we have on our Jepp procedure plates. The two need to match exactly. The missing approaches need to be added to our database and the names of the IAF transitions need to correspond with what we have on our Jepp plates. Aircraft should NOT be dispatched to Mexico without having operable FMS's and autopilots. The approach procedures and Mexican ATC environment is more complicated; the information we receive from ATC is affected by the language barrier and by the lack of radar/wx equipment they have; all which means we really need these tools to be operable operating in that environment.




Synopsis: The First Officer calls attention to several airports in Mexico with 'missing or misnamed procedures' where the FMS doesn't match the Jeppesen procedure manual. He also mentions the 'minimal' training on these procedures.