An A320 was released under MEL 34-61 after maintenance stated the NAV DATABASE was out of date. However; incompatible FMGC system software was loaded following the NAV DATABASE OUT OF DATE alert which rendered the FMGC's inoperative for flight.
Synopsis
An A320 was released under MEL 34-61 after maintenance stated the NAV DATABASE was out of date. However; incompatible FMGC system software was loaded following the NAV DATABASE OUT OF DATE alert which rendered the FMGC's inoperative for flight.
Narrative
I believe that an incorrect Mel was issued by ZZZ maintenance. Mel 34-61-01 was issued. Preflight was difficult because there was no way to load the route or other entries into the MCDU; but at the time we believed that this was the issue that was covered by the MEL. Later in flight the flight crew became aware that the condition was much worse and was possibly issued the wrong Mel. Both FMGCs were found to be inoperative. Associated systems that were affected beyond just the NAV DATA being out of date included autopilot inoperative; Autothrust inoperative; GPWS degraded; pressurization degraded; along with a total loss of all automation afforded from the MCDU. ACARS was accessible. The aircraft was operated without incident; and a safe landing was performed at the intended destination.I believe that the discrepancy should have involved both failed FMGC's and under Mel 22-83-01 this does not afford the airplane to be dispatched with both FMGC inoperative. I believe that the maintenance department withheld information from the flight crew and instead of grounding the aircraft affixed a placard that allowed dispatch.
NASA callback
The Reporter stated that incompatible NAV DATABASE and FMGC software were used to update that aircraft's FMGC after the NAV DATABASE out of date alert appeared the previous day. As a result the flight crew could not load all of the needed flight data and after takeoff when they realized the magnitude of the automation loss had to remain below RVSM and fly VOR airways to the destination. The correct software was loaded after arrival and the FMGCs worked normally. The Reporter still believes that maintenance knew what the problem was and did not want to deal with it. Another issue was passenger service pushing the crew to get off the gate because they were hours late. The flight crew had not finished the preflight when boarding was complete and the passenger service agents were pushing the crew to depart. The pressure did not allow the crew to research the FMGC problem as much as they normally would have and so departed not understanding the complexity of aircraft's systems losses having relied on maintenance to have researched the issue. Instead maintenance was not truthful about the FMGC problems.
More incidents for this aircraft family →
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.