Warning: GPS data incorrect

[Cheetah236]

Thought I'd better share this as others might be flying approaches
using the newest Jepp database for the Northstar M3 Approach GPS.

I downloaded the newest Northern Hemisphere database using Skybound USB
just prior to going for an Instrument Proficiency Check. The examiner
had me fly the GPS-B approach into KMMV using BERNI as the IAF. I
selected and ACK'd the approach to fly direct BERNI and flew the
indicated heading. When the GPS said I'd arrived at BERNI, I turned to
enter the hold and the examiner asked me to look outside. I was right
over the airport! BERNI is five miles Southwest of the airport!

I checked BERNI as an intersection as opposed to its position in the
approach and it indicated at its correct distance and bearing. Flipped
back to the approach and confirmed that it repeated the behavior after
resetting the unit - it did. We then decided to fly the NBG(GPS) RWY22
approach using MINNE as the IAF. Went to dial it into the database and
it didn't exist. The only IAFs listed were AAA, ABBMY and ABB#2, none
of which exist.

I ended up flying the VOR for my non-precision approach and everything
else was anticlimactic. When we got back, I pulled out last month's
database card and put it in the GPS. Everything was fine on it.

I don't know how widespread the problem is, but I suspect that if two
out of two approaches I sampled were bad, it might be ubiquitous. If
so, someone could end up flying into a mountain five miles from the
runway they think they're about to touch down on.

I notified Jeppesen and they are aware of the problem. Apparently CMC
Electronics, who currently own the Northstar GPS software, are involved
in the issue and are currently researching it.

BE CAREFUL!

[Rip]

I saw a similar issue last year with my approach certified Garmin.
According to the data card, one of our local airports was over 50 miles
from its actual location. Garmin blamed Jeppesen, and Jeppesen blamed
Garmin. Moral: verify your data. Computers (GPS) are as smart as the
data they are given.

Rip

Cheetah236 wrote:
> Thought I'd better share this as others might be flying approaches
> using the newest Jepp database for the Northstar M3 Approach GPS.
>
> I downloaded the newest Northern Hemisphere database using Skybound USB
> just prior to going for an Instrument Proficiency Check. The examiner
> had me fly the GPS-B approach into KMMV using BERNI as the IAF. I
> selected and ACK'd the approach to fly direct BERNI and flew the
> indicated heading. When the GPS said I'd arrived at BERNI, I turned to
> enter the hold and the examiner asked me to look outside. I was right
> over the airport! BERNI is five miles Southwest of the airport!
>
> I checked BERNI as an intersection as opposed to its position in the
> approach and it indicated at its correct distance and bearing. Flipped
> back to the approach and confirmed that it repeated the behavior after
> resetting the unit - it did. We then decided to fly the NBG(GPS) RWY22
> approach using MINNE as the IAF. Went to dial it into the database and
> it didn't exist. The only IAFs listed were AAA, ABBMY and ABB#2, none
> of which exist.
>
> I ended up flying the VOR for my non-precision approach and everything
> else was anticlimactic. When we got back, I pulled out last month's
> database card and put it in the GPS. Everything was fine on it.
>
> I don't know how widespread the problem is, but I suspect that if two
> out of two approaches I sampled were bad, it might be ubiquitous. If
> so, someone could end up flying into a mountain five miles from the
> runway they think they're about to touch down on.
>
> I notified Jeppesen and they are aware of the problem. Apparently CMC
> Electronics, who currently own the Northstar GPS software, are involved
> in the issue and are currently researching it.
>
> BE CAREFUL!
>

[Stan Prevost]

We ran into the same thing the other day with our M3. Exact same behavior,
but at KHSV and KMDQ. Then we redownloaded the database and programmed our
spare datacard, same behavior. Then we tried to restore the old database,
at least it would be good for VFR. But that cannot be done, Jeppesen says
it is obsolete and expired and they will not allow it to be reprogrammed.


"Cheetah236" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Thought I'd better share this as others might be flying approaches
> using the newest Jepp database for the Northstar M3 Approach GPS.
>
> I downloaded the newest Northern Hemisphere database using Skybound USB
> just prior to going for an Instrument Proficiency Check. The examiner
> had me fly the GPS-B approach into KMMV using BERNI as the IAF. I
> selected and ACK'd the approach to fly direct BERNI and flew the
> indicated heading. When the GPS said I'd arrived at BERNI, I turned to
> enter the hold and the examiner asked me to look outside. I was right
> over the airport! BERNI is five miles Southwest of the airport!
>
> I checked BERNI as an intersection as opposed to its position in the
> approach and it indicated at its correct distance and bearing. Flipped
> back to the approach and confirmed that it repeated the behavior after
> resetting the unit - it did. We then decided to fly the NBG(GPS) RWY22
> approach using MINNE as the IAF. Went to dial it into the database and
> it didn't exist. The only IAFs listed were AAA, ABBMY and ABB#2, none
> of which exist.
>
> I ended up flying the VOR for my non-precision approach and everything
> else was anticlimactic. When we got back, I pulled out last month's
> database card and put it in the GPS. Everything was fine on it.
>
> I don't know how widespread the problem is, but I suspect that if two
> out of two approaches I sampled were bad, it might be ubiquitous. If
> so, someone could end up flying into a mountain five miles from the
> runway they think they're about to touch down on.
>
> I notified Jeppesen and they are aware of the problem. Apparently CMC
> Electronics, who currently own the Northstar GPS software, are involved
> in the issue and are currently researching it.
>
> BE CAREFUL!
>

[Doug]

If you rely on GPS in IMC you need TWO GPS's (or backup your location
with VOR/DME). And it is best if they are of different manufacturers. A
handheld to backup the panel mount is sufficient.

[Marco Leon]

Two different GPS's from two different manufacturers?? That would also mean
two different navdata subscriptions too. Your second suggestion of VOR/DME
backup is OK but on pure GPS approaches that wouldn't work. Probably the
most practical thing to do is your third recommendation to have a portable
GPS running to verify your position. In the original poster's case, he would
have noticed that he was approaching the airport immediately realizing that
something was wrong.

It's another reason to get the Garmin 396 or even the 296 with terrain.

Marco Leon

"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> If you rely on GPS in IMC you need TWO GPS's (or backup your location
> with VOR/DME). And it is best if they are of different manufacturers. A
> handheld to backup the panel mount is sufficient.
>

[Doug]

Well a handheld IS a GPS. Two different GPS', like one panel mount and
a handheld.

[Stan Gosnell]

"Doug" > wrote in news:1126227944.916583.168690
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

> If you rely on GPS in IMC you need TWO GPS's (or backup your location
> with VOR/DME). And it is best if they are of different manufacturers. A
> handheld to backup the panel mount is sufficient.

I don't agree. We regularly fly in IMC using one GPS, and it's approved
under Part 135. We do have 2 VORs installed, but they're worthless a
couple of hundred miles from the nearest transmitter. Before GPS, we flew
approaches using a single LORAN.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

[Tim]

Marco Leon wrote:

> It's another reason to get the Garmin 396 or even the 296 with terrain.
>
For navigation and situational awarenes there is no difference between a
296 and 396.

If a person wants to keep the 296/396 database current they should buy
the annual subscriptions to both the Jeppesen and obstacle databases.

Perhaps this seems pricy to renters but it shouldn't be for an owner,
less he/she is underfunded. ;-)

[Tim]

Stan Gosnell wrote:

> "Doug" > wrote in news:1126227944.916583.168690
> @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>>If you rely on GPS in IMC you need TWO GPS's (or backup your location
>>with VOR/DME). And it is best if they are of different manufacturers. A
>>handheld to backup the panel mount is sufficient.
>
>
> I don't agree. We regularly fly in IMC using one GPS, and it's approved
> under Part 135. We do have 2 VORs installed, but they're worthless a
> couple of hundred miles from the nearest transmitter. Before GPS, we flew
> approaches using a single LORAN.
>
It's like vanilla and chocolate, a matter of personal preference and
comfort level.

In your situation you are a professional flying to familiar locations
again and again, so you have a lot of built-in situational awareness
that folks who go to unfamiliar places do not have.

[[email protected]]

Cheetah236 wrote:

> Thought I'd better share this as others might be flying approaches
> using the newest Jepp database for the Northstar M3 Approach GPS.

Jeppesen just posted a bulletin on their web site about this issue.

Scary, isn't it.

[xyzzy]

wrote:

> Cheetah236 wrote:
>
>> Thought I'd better share this as others might be flying approaches
>> using the newest Jepp database for the Northstar M3 Approach GPS.
>
>
> Jeppesen just posted a bulletin on their web site about this issue.
>
> Scary, isn't it.

I'm kinda surprised it didn't result in an emergency AD on GPS's running
with the database in question

--
"You can support the troops but not the president"
--Representative Tom Delay (R-TX), during the Kosovo war.

[Hilton]

Cheetah wrote:
> When the GPS said I'd arrived at BERNI, I turned to
> enter the hold and the examiner asked me to look outside. I was right
> over the airport! BERNI is five miles Southwest of the airport!

FWIW: I just checked with WingX and it gave BERNI as 5.4nm from MMV so it
looks like the current FAA data and presumably the translation (or perhaps
some GPS software) got things wrong.

Hilton

[Dave Butler]

Hilton wrote:
> Cheetah wrote:
>
>>When the GPS said I'd arrived at BERNI, I turned to
>>enter the hold and the examiner asked me to look outside. I was right
>>over the airport! BERNI is five miles Southwest of the airport!
>
>
> FWIW: I just checked with WingX and it gave BERNI as 5.4nm from MMV so it
> looks like the current FAA data and presumably the translation (or perhaps
> some GPS software) got things wrong.

I'm not familiar with the fix or the area, but from the ATA-100 data from May or so:
Fix BERNI
state: OR
latitude: 45-07-15.370N longitude: 123-12-27.600W
fix definition: UBG*D*194.00/17
fix use: REPORTING POINT

[Jon Woellhaf]

I had an interesting conversation with a man from Jeppesen at a convention
several years ago in pre-GPS days -- about the time the mid-continent LORAN
gap was closed. That was a few days before GPS took over if I recall
correctly.

We were discussing electronic approach plates and the gentleman expressed
sympathy for anyone who attempted to do it. He said that Jeppesen was
legally required to publish approach plate data exactly as they received it
from the FAA, even if they knew of an error. He said it was a lose-lose
situation for them.

Perhaps that's still the case?

Jon

[[email protected]]

Jon Woellhaf wrote:
> I had an interesting conversation with a man from Jeppesen at a convention
> several years ago in pre-GPS days -- about the time the mid-continent LORAN
> gap was closed. That was a few days before GPS took over if I recall
> correctly.

Spring of 1991.
>
> We were discussing electronic approach plates and the gentleman expressed
> sympathy for anyone who attempted to do it. He said that Jeppesen was
> legally required to publish approach plate data exactly as they received it
> from the FAA, even if they knew of an error. He said it was a lose-lose
> situation for them.
>
> Perhaps that's still the case?
>
The guy was blowing smoke. If Jeppesen knows the data are in error,
they have a duty to notify the source provider.

[Cheetah236]

Jeppesen notified me Thursday that CMC had sent them a new file that
tested correct. They forgot to reset my download count to allow another
download of the Sept data but I got it Friday night and it looks
correct for all the problems I'd noted.

I'm still spooked to know that you can't count on this stuff to be
correct. I can't think of any independent way to confirm the data that
is practical and affordable. I really thought the QC at Jeppesen would
be adequate to catch and correct this sort of problem long before they
turned the data over to pilots who would place their lives and those of
their passengers under the guidance of that data.

The subtlety of the problem (the fix was correct in the intersection
portion of the database but five miles off in the approach section) is
particularly insidious.

[[email protected]]

Cheetah236 wrote:
> Jeppesen notified me Thursday that CMC had sent them a new file that
> tested correct. They forgot to reset my download count to allow another
> download of the Sept data but I got it Friday night and it looks
> correct for all the problems I'd noted.
>
> I'm still spooked to know that you can't count on this stuff to be
> correct. I can't think of any independent way to confirm the data that
> is practical and affordable. I really thought the QC at Jeppesen would
> be adequate to catch and correct this sort of problem long before they
> turned the data over to pilots who would place their lives and those of
> their passengers under the guidance of that data.
>
> The subtlety of the problem (the fix was correct in the intersection
> portion of the database but five miles off in the approach section) is
> particularly insidious.
>
And, they are now officially FAA-certified to provide databases for the
new, very unforgiving RNP IAPs.

[Roger]

On 18 Sep 2005 07:09:41 -0700, "Cheetah236"
> wrote:

>Jeppesen notified me Thursday that CMC had sent them a new file that
>tested correct. They forgot to reset my download count to allow another
>download of the Sept data but I got it Friday night and it looks
>correct for all the problems I'd noted.
>
>I'm still spooked to know that you can't count on this stuff to be
>correct. I can't think of any independent way to confirm the data that
>is practical and affordable. I really thought the QC at Jeppesen would
>be adequate to catch and correct this sort of problem long before they
>turned the data over to pilots who would place their lives and those of
>their passengers under the guidance of that data.
>
>The subtlety of the problem (the fix was correct in the intersection
>portion of the database but five miles off in the approach section) is
>particularly insidious.

Why should they be any different than the government information used
in the charts. It's quite common to see NOTAMs correcting mistakes on
approach and enroute charts.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com