Narrative:

While en route we requested two hourly sfo ATIS reports which advertised simultaneous prm approaches lda prm runway 28R and ILS prm runway 28L. Preparing for the approach and approach briefing; I followed the sfo airport advisory page which noted to review the attention all users page and to select localizer runway 28 from the navigation database. After doing this; the first officer and I noticed a major discrepancy between the aircraft database and the commercial lda prm runway 28R approach chart. Specifically; commercial approach chart listed numerous step down fixes that began at anete to include fatus; hegot; wasop; miuke; gobec and darne. The FMGC database displayed anete; a fix named batke (?) and then darne. We attempted to insert the fixes fatus; hegot; etc; into the FMGC but the database did not recognize any of them. We searched for other approaches in the FMGC database that matched the lda prm runway 28R approach and found none. I contacted oakland approach and notified them of our database error and requested another approach other than the lda prm runway 28R. They came back and told us to expect the ILS runway 28R at sfo. We loaded that approach into the fmcg; briefed it; and flew it without further incident. At gate arrival; I contacted dispatch to report the error. He stated that he didn't think we were legal to fly the lda prm approach to begin with and only thought that we were approved for the prm approaches at ZZZ only. I disagreed with him and he agreed to file an operations report concerning the discrepancy. Inaccurate navigation database for sfo prm lda runway 28R that did not match the commercial chart lda prm runway 28R for sfo.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A319 FLT CREW DISCOVERS THAT THE LDA PRM RWY 28R FOR SFO IS NOT CORRECT IN THEIR DATABASE. FLT CREW IS CLEARED FOR ILS RWY 28R.

Narrative: WHILE ENRTE WE REQUESTED TWO HOURLY SFO ATIS REPORTS WHICH ADVERTISED SIMULTANEOUS PRM APPROACHES LDA PRM RWY 28R AND ILS PRM RWY 28L. PREPARING FOR THE APPROACH AND APPROACH BRIEFING; I FOLLOWED THE SFO AIRPORT ADVISORY PAGE WHICH NOTED TO REVIEW THE ATTENTION ALL USERS PAGE AND TO SELECT LOC RWY 28 FROM THE NAV DATABASE. AFTER DOING THIS; THE FO AND I NOTICED A MAJOR DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE AIRCRAFT DATABASE AND THE COMMERCIAL LDA PRM RWY 28R APPROACH CHART. SPECIFICALLY; COMMERCIAL APPROACH CHART LISTED NUMEROUS STEP DOWN FIXES THAT BEGAN AT ANETE TO INCLUDE FATUS; HEGOT; WASOP; MIUKE; GOBEC AND DARNE. THE FMGC DATABASE DISPLAYED ANETE; A FIX NAMED BATKE (?) AND THEN DARNE. WE ATTEMPTED TO INSERT THE FIXES FATUS; HEGOT; ETC; INTO THE FMGC BUT THE DATABASE DID NOT RECOGNIZE ANY OF THEM. WE SEARCHED FOR OTHER APPROACHES IN THE FMGC DATABASE THAT MATCHED THE LDA PRM RWY 28R APPROACH AND FOUND NONE. I CONTACTED OAKLAND APPROACH AND NOTIFIED THEM OF OUR DATABASE ERROR AND REQUESTED ANOTHER APPROACH OTHER THAN THE LDA PRM RWY 28R. THEY CAME BACK AND TOLD US TO EXPECT THE ILS RWY 28R AT SFO. WE LOADED THAT APPROACH INTO THE FMCG; BRIEFED IT; AND FLEW IT WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT. AT GATE ARRIVAL; I CONTACTED DISPATCH TO REPORT THE ERROR. HE STATED THAT HE DIDN'T THINK WE WERE LEGAL TO FLY THE LDA PRM APPROACH TO BEGIN WITH AND ONLY THOUGHT THAT WE WERE APPROVED FOR THE PRM APPROACHES AT ZZZ ONLY. I DISAGREED WITH HIM AND HE AGREED TO FILE AN OPERATIONS REPORT CONCERNING THE DISCREPANCY. INACCURATE NAV DATABASE FOR SFO PRM LDA RWY 28R THAT DID NOT MATCH THE COMMERCIAL CHART LDA PRM RWY 28R FOR SFO.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 2009 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.