Narrative:

I have flown 2 -700's over the past 2 days and have experienced numerous problems with the new database. Problems are as follows: 1) first of all; the hard 280 KT crossing restrs (that are greater than 261 KTS) are now displayed as 280B. The problem is that you cannot override the 280B with 280 to match the chart. The only solution is to change the cost index or accept the FMC profile error. This was first noted on the seavu arrival into lax at the konzl crossing restr. This may encourage crews to cross the restr at 261 KTS (it is in the box -- it must be what the company wants!) in apparent compliance with our airline procedure; but in violation to the charted restr. 2) we were on climb out from oak and were given direct to mckey on the coast 5 departure. Every time we tried to select direct to mckey; the FMC gave us an error about the altitude crossing restr of 11000 ft at benet. The only way to clear it was to erase 11000 ft from benet; then select direct to mckey; and finally to reselect 11000 ft at benet. 3) when being vectored towards sna; we were unable to select the approach points for runway 19R at sna. It would not allow us to select direct to snake or lemon or to extend the centerline at either of these points. 4) problem #1 resurfaced on the sadde arrival into lax. I can only assume it will repeat itself for any approach with a hard crossing restr over 261 KTS. This is very concerning because these glitches create several undesirable consequences. First; they require crews to divert their attention to clearing the problems in the FMC (often during the approach) in a desire to update the approach geometry as required for LNAV missed approach and as directed by our procedures. Second; they require us to investigate work-arounds to get the FMC to accept the change; often involving both pilots and diverting their attention from outside. Third; they decrease crew confidence in the FMC; thus encouraging non-compliance with published fom procedures. While I strongly support efforts to save fuel; it appears that many of the details of how to actually employ these new speeds have been overlooked or; at least; unanticipated. There is great frustration out here in the field and this contributes to undesirable behaviors. Please consider convening a team to immediately resolve these problems. A greater effort needs to be made to pre-check new software and databases 'before' they are released to the line. Concern with current FMC database.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 CAPT REPORTS GLITCHES IN NEW (MAY 08) FMC DATABASE FOR THE B737-700.

Narrative: I HAVE FLOWN 2 -700'S OVER THE PAST 2 DAYS AND HAVE EXPERIENCED NUMEROUS PROBS WITH THE NEW DATABASE. PROBS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1) FIRST OF ALL; THE HARD 280 KT XING RESTRS (THAT ARE GREATER THAN 261 KTS) ARE NOW DISPLAYED AS 280B. THE PROB IS THAT YOU CANNOT OVERRIDE THE 280B WITH 280 TO MATCH THE CHART. THE ONLY SOLUTION IS TO CHANGE THE COST INDEX OR ACCEPT THE FMC PROFILE ERROR. THIS WAS FIRST NOTED ON THE SEAVU ARR INTO LAX AT THE KONZL XING RESTR. THIS MAY ENCOURAGE CREWS TO CROSS THE RESTR AT 261 KTS (IT IS IN THE BOX -- IT MUST BE WHAT THE COMPANY WANTS!) IN APPARENT COMPLIANCE WITH OUR AIRLINE PROC; BUT IN VIOLATION TO THE CHARTED RESTR. 2) WE WERE ON CLBOUT FROM OAK AND WERE GIVEN DIRECT TO MCKEY ON THE COAST 5 DEP. EVERY TIME WE TRIED TO SELECT DIRECT TO MCKEY; THE FMC GAVE US AN ERROR ABOUT THE ALT XING RESTR OF 11000 FT AT BENET. THE ONLY WAY TO CLR IT WAS TO ERASE 11000 FT FROM BENET; THEN SELECT DIRECT TO MCKEY; AND FINALLY TO RESELECT 11000 FT AT BENET. 3) WHEN BEING VECTORED TOWARDS SNA; WE WERE UNABLE TO SELECT THE APCH POINTS FOR RWY 19R AT SNA. IT WOULD NOT ALLOW US TO SELECT DIRECT TO SNAKE OR LEMON OR TO EXTEND THE CTRLINE AT EITHER OF THESE POINTS. 4) PROB #1 RESURFACED ON THE SADDE ARR INTO LAX. I CAN ONLY ASSUME IT WILL REPEAT ITSELF FOR ANY APCH WITH A HARD XING RESTR OVER 261 KTS. THIS IS VERY CONCERNING BECAUSE THESE GLITCHES CREATE SEVERAL UNDESIRABLE CONSEQUENCES. FIRST; THEY REQUIRE CREWS TO DIVERT THEIR ATTN TO CLRING THE PROBS IN THE FMC (OFTEN DURING THE APCH) IN A DESIRE TO UPDATE THE APCH GEOMETRY AS REQUIRED FOR LNAV MISSED APCH AND AS DIRECTED BY OUR PROCS. SECOND; THEY REQUIRE US TO INVESTIGATE WORK-AROUNDS TO GET THE FMC TO ACCEPT THE CHANGE; OFTEN INVOLVING BOTH PLTS AND DIVERTING THEIR ATTN FROM OUTSIDE. THIRD; THEY DECREASE CREW CONFIDENCE IN THE FMC; THUS ENCOURAGING NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLISHED FOM PROCS. WHILE I STRONGLY SUPPORT EFFORTS TO SAVE FUEL; IT APPEARS THAT MANY OF THE DETAILS OF HOW TO ACTUALLY EMPLOY THESE NEW SPDS HAVE BEEN OVERLOOKED OR; AT LEAST; UNANTICIPATED. THERE IS GREAT FRUSTRATION OUT HERE IN THE FIELD AND THIS CONTRIBUTES TO UNDESIRABLE BEHAVIORS. PLEASE CONSIDER CONVENING A TEAM TO IMMEDIATELY RESOLVE THESE PROBS. A GREATER EFFORT NEEDS TO BE MADE TO PRE-CHK NEW SOFTWARE AND DATABASES 'BEFORE' THEY ARE RELEASED TO THE LINE. CONCERN WITH CURRENT FMC DATABASE.

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.