B767-300 FLT CREW IS CONCERNED WITH FMC DATABASE FIXES NOT MATCHING THE ARR CHART FIX DESIGNATIONS TO SCEL.

Narrative

THE B767 FMC CONTINUES TO USE A DATABASE THAT HAS INCORRECT FIX NAMES FOR SOME STARS INTO SANTIAGO; CHILE. SPECIFICALLY; I NOTED THE ANDES1 ARR ON PAGE 20-2T OF SANTIAGO; CHILE; DATED JUNE 2006. THE NORMAL FILED RTE HAS THE CREW FLY TO TOY THENCE U/W208 TO EMBAL AND THE ANDES1 ARR TO SCEL. AFTER EMBAL; THE FIRST FIX TO PASS IS 60 NM NORTH OF TBN VOR WITH A CROSSING RESTRICTION OF FL210 OR ABOVE. THIS FIX IS DESIGNATED TBN60 ON BOTH THE FLT PLAN AND THE FMC WAYPOINT. THIS IS THE LAST FIX THAT IS CORRECTLY MARKED ON THE FMC DATABASE. ALL FIXES THAT FOLLOW ARE INCORRECTLY DESIGNATED UNDER NOMENCLATURE THAT USED TO EXIST BEFORE THE CHART PROVIDER PAGE FOR THIS ARR WAS ALTERED. THE CHART PROVIDER PAGES FOR THIS ARR ARE ALL DESIGNATED BY REFERENCE TO THE TBN VOR; IE; AFTER TBN60 COMES TBN40; TBN24; ETC. HOWEVER THE FMC DATABASE WAYPOINTS AFTER TBN60 DO NOT MATCH THE WAYPOINTS ON THE CHART PROVIDER'S CHARTS. THE FMC DATABASE POINTS AFTER TBN60 ARE ALL DESIGNATED 355X; 355H; ETC. THE FMC COORDINATES ALL AGREE WITH THE CORRESPONDING CHART PROVIDER FIXES; BUT IT IS QUITE CONFUSING AND UNNECESSARILY BURDENSOME TO HAVE TO RECHK THESE FIXES ON THE FMC FOR ACCURACY. IF THE CHART PROVIDER CHANGED THE DESIGNATION OF FIXES ON THE ANDES1 ARR; WHY CANNOT THE FMC DATABASE BE CHANGED ALSO TO AGREE WITH THE NEW DESIGNATION? IT PLACES A GREAT BURDEN ON THE CREW TO RECHK THESE POINTS AND ENSURE THAT THEY ARE THE SAME. IT IS DANGEROUS TO HAVE TO CHK WAYPOINT ACCURACY DURING THE CRITICAL PHASE OF FLT WHEN DSNDING INTO AN ARPT SURROUNDED BY TERRAIN EXCEEDING 16000 FT HIGH. THIS IS THE SECOND RPT I HAVE WRITTEN ON THIS SUBJECT. I FIRST WROTE A RPT ON THIS WHEN I FIRST NOTICED THAT THE CHART PROVIDER FIX DESIGNATIONS HAD CHANGED. THIS CONTINUES TO BE A SAFETY OF FLT RISK THAT MUST BE CORRECTED. WHY IS THE FMC DATABASE STILL NOT CORRECT MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER THE INITIAL WAYPOINT DESIGNATION CHANGE?