Narrative:

We had been filed the SEAVU2 arrival into lax. Upon checking the STAR against the SEAVU2 arrival loaded in the FMS database we discovered multiple discrepancies between the information on the plate and the FMS. Namely the new SEAVU2 ended at the fix seavu and provided no other data to transition to the ILS to either runways 25L or right or 25L or right. There was no notation listed indicating whether to expect radar vectors or fly a heading after arriving at seavu. The FMS database however; displayed fixes and crossing altitudes for many of the fixes from the prior SEAVU1 such as dymmo; taroc; krain; luvyn and dixxn. So we had a STAR that ended at seavu and a FMS that continued on past seavu with constraints and fixes to fuelr at which point it transitioned to the ILS catiii runway 25L into lax. Upon our initial handoff to socal approach we asked them about this discrepancy and what fix we could expect after crossing seavu. The controller replied that we could expect to join the localizer after seavu. This was odd since we really had no guidance as to how to get the localizer since seavu does not lie on the localizer course. We elected to remain with the FMS programmed arrival which would provide us a course and guidance to join the runway 25L localizer. ATC made no queries to us so we had assumed that this was the correct course of action. It is clear however that there must be clearer guidance between printed ATC charts; FMS database arrs; and ATC expectations; such differences between the 3 represent a clear threat to aviation safety. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter disclosed during the conversation that an electronic flight bag was being used and that some of the confusion arose because the efb did not have the current ILS 25L which shows fixes all the way out to seavu. The FMC data was current and correct and installed these fixes when the ILS 25L procedure selected. It was also noted that the seavu 2 chart was issued and effective on sept 19 while the new ILS 25L chart was issued on sept 19 and effective on the twenty fifth. While this incident occurred after that date this difference in issue and effective date may have been a factor.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A320 CAPT ARRIVING LAX ON NEW SEAVU 2 REPORTS FMC CONTAINS FIXES FROM THE OLD SEAVU 1 AND QUESTIONS LACK OF ROUTING AFTER SEAVU.

Narrative: WE HAD BEEN FILED THE SEAVU2 ARR INTO LAX. UPON CHKING THE STAR AGAINST THE SEAVU2 ARR LOADED IN THE FMS DATABASE WE DISCOVERED MULTIPLE DISCREPANCIES BTWN THE INFO ON THE PLATE AND THE FMS. NAMELY THE NEW SEAVU2 ENDED AT THE FIX SEAVU AND PROVIDED NO OTHER DATA TO TRANSITION TO THE ILS TO EITHER RWYS 25L OR R OR 25L OR R. THERE WAS NO NOTATION LISTED INDICATING WHETHER TO EXPECT RADAR VECTORS OR FLY A HDG AFTER ARRIVING AT SEAVU. THE FMS DATABASE HOWEVER; DISPLAYED FIXES AND XING ALTS FOR MANY OF THE FIXES FROM THE PRIOR SEAVU1 SUCH AS DYMMO; TAROC; KRAIN; LUVYN AND DIXXN. SO WE HAD A STAR THAT ENDED AT SEAVU AND A FMS THAT CONTINUED ON PAST SEAVU WITH CONSTRAINTS AND FIXES TO FUELR AT WHICH POINT IT TRANSITIONED TO THE ILS CATIII RWY 25L INTO LAX. UPON OUR INITIAL HDOF TO SOCAL APCH WE ASKED THEM ABOUT THIS DISCREPANCY AND WHAT FIX WE COULD EXPECT AFTER XING SEAVU. THE CTLR REPLIED THAT WE COULD EXPECT TO JOIN THE LOC AFTER SEAVU. THIS WAS ODD SINCE WE REALLY HAD NO GUIDANCE AS TO HOW TO GET THE LOC SINCE SEAVU DOES NOT LIE ON THE LOC COURSE. WE ELECTED TO REMAIN WITH THE FMS PROGRAMMED ARR WHICH WOULD PROVIDE US A COURSE AND GUIDANCE TO JOIN THE RWY 25L LOC. ATC MADE NO QUERIES TO US SO WE HAD ASSUMED THAT THIS WAS THE CORRECT COURSE OF ACTION. IT IS CLR HOWEVER THAT THERE MUST BE CLEARER GUIDANCE BTWN PRINTED ATC CHARTS; FMS DATABASE ARRS; AND ATC EXPECTATIONS; SUCH DIFFERENCES BTWN THE 3 REPRESENT A CLR THREAT TO AVIATION SAFETY. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE REPORTER DISCLOSED DURING THE CONVERSATION THAT AN ELECTRONIC FLIGHT BAG WAS BEING USED AND THAT SOME OF THE CONFUSION AROSE BECAUSE THE EFB DID NOT HAVE THE CURRENT ILS 25L WHICH SHOWS FIXES ALL THE WAY OUT TO SEAVU. THE FMC DATA WAS CURRENT AND CORRECT AND INSTALLED THESE FIXES WHEN THE ILS 25L PROCEDURE SELECTED. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE SEAVU 2 CHART WAS ISSUED AND EFFECTIVE ON SEPT 19 WHILE THE NEW ILS 25L CHART WAS ISSUED ON SEPT 19 AND EFFECTIVE ON THE TWENTY FIFTH. WHILE THIS INCIDENT OCCURRED AFTER THAT DATE THIS DIFFERENCE IN ISSUE AND EFFECTIVE DATE MAY HAVE BEEN A FACTOR.

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.