Missing waypoints in GPS databases

I'm not impressed by the quality of the Jepp derived GPS databases. I've had the missing points problem too, even from procedures, and even turning points.

Furthermore, my GPS doesn't support very many leg (path terminator) types. Yet they still code procedures in the database which require other path terminator types, and just leave those legs out. If you then try to fly such a procedure, you get to write some explanation to ATC, if you survive this.

That's why I always fly procedures classically, using GPS in direct to mode as backup for the leg types where it makes sense...

Now if you complain to Jeppesen, you get into a blame game, Jepp pointing fingers to the GPS manufacturer, and the GPS manufacturer pointing back...

Maybe it's better with a less antique GPS, I don't know...

I once saw presentation slides from a Jepp employee claiming that 1/1000th of the information in their database is erroneous - unfortunately these slides disappeared from the net.

This is the big problem with GPS precision approaches. With an ILS, you don't know where you are, but you know where you should go. With GPS, you know exactly where you are, but not where to go. For that, you need a database, but if the database is wrong...

Now some countries (eg. switzerland) have started to print the final approach datablock as hexdump in their AIP. Whether that is the golden solution, more than 40 years after the internet...

My understanding is that all the data for the databases come from each country authority. Some countries do a good job, others not so good. Even so, mistakes are made by all parties. Jeppesen publishes Chart and database NOTAMS for mistakes it is aware of on their web site.

From a quality standpoint, IMHO Jeppesen does an excellent job although they are not perfect. Here in the US, we have two sources for charts, AeroNav and Jeppesen. Only Jeppesen provides database support. When an error is suspected in the AeroNav charts, the first thing I do is check Jeppesen. In most cases where there is an error it is correct in the Jeppesen Chart. If they both agree, then I look to the FAA 8260-3 form that is the official government input data to both charting outfits. This form is included in the Federal Register and becomes a regulation by reference. If there are errors discovered, then a NOTAM is published.

I recently reported an apparent error on an approach chart that had a note baring the LNAV/VNAV being flown using Baro-VNAV if the temperature exceeded 96 C. Even Al Gore doesn't predict the temperature will get that bad. :)

My understanding is that all the data for the databases come from each country authority.

Well yes; but how this country data is then coded is decided by Jeppesen.

I'm completely baffled by the large differences in coding standards between countries. For example, the Jepp database for my GPS only contains procedures that are explicitly marked as RNAV procedures for german airports, yet for swiss airports all procedures are coded, even those meant to be navigated by classical instruments (but unusably so, because my GPS does not support the necessary path terminators). Why this is the case couldn't be explained by Jepp Support.

My experience with the Jepp tech support hasn't exactly been stellar, I reported a few problems, but they didn't seem interested...

You are only confirming my insistance: we should only rely on ( GPS ) systems with open data files (I refuse to speak of a database for something so simple). That is to say, if anyone wants to pay Jepp et al for formatting data that is publicly available anyway, that is up to them; but our navigation software or device should allow us to add our own data to whatever is there; ideally we should even be able to modify the supplied data.

I could never understand people willing to pass substantial payment only to be limited to the closed data of certain suppliers, who (as far as I can gather) take neither liability nor responsability over the quality of the data they supply.

Jan, you are missing the IFR case here. IFR GPS have to be certified and that includes the database and update process. Unfortunately Jeppesen completely owns that market today.

I gladly admit I have no idea of what the world looks like from an IFR pilot's eye.

But must I then understand that Jeppesen supply a product certified by whomever, yet it shows errors (which is in itself perfectly acceptable and understandable, perfection is not of his world as we say here) which neither they can be blamed/sanctioned for, nor can their customer correct them?

What thickhead ever gave a certificate to such a supplier and/or product?? What does the overall certification process look like, and who controls it? ICAO, I should expect?

To make myself more clear: I can perfectly accept errors on a paper map, even if published by a public authority (it happens to us here in Belgium most years on the low altitude charts) because to err is human. But on a paper chart I can correct with pencil / corrector fluid / fluo marker.

Closed format electronic data can not be corrected by the end user, that is what so infuriates me.

I refuse to speak of a database for something so simple

Well I put this data into an sqlite file, which I think qualifies as a database :)

But must I then understand that Jeppesen supply a product certified by whomever

By the FAA and EASA (it's called a "Letter of Acceptance", LoA)

yet it shows errors

I totally agree with you that certification is completely overrated. It doesn't prevent errors, it just prevents those errors from ever being fixed.

Closed format electronic data can not be corrected by the end user

It's even worse. FAA AC20-138 (Airworthiness Approval of Positioning and Navigation Systems) demands from GPS firmware vendors that they prevent the pilot from modifying a procedure even if it has been copied into the flight plan. So you have no chance to fix the error manually.

The problem is that the authorities (EASA, but also FAA to some extent) created an artificial monopoly with the accompanying high prices and low quality. It would tremenduously help if states started to publish aeronautical information in a meaningful way (which is actually mandated by ICAO). Today, 40 years after the internet, this would mean for example AIXM, and not dead trees.

which neither they can be blamed/sanctioned for

This is what Jepp would like you to believe. I've heard somebody actually sued them and at least partially succeeded, but I don't have any details.