Narrative:

There I was getting ready for an early departure; when I noticed that the FMS backlighting was inoperative. I could see the keypad as the day began to brighten and there is a flood-light above the console; too. But I elected to write up the item expecting maintenance to defer the cockpit lighting under MEL section 33. I was astounded when maintenance deferred the whole FMS; not the related cockpit lighting. This nonsensical deferral served to decrease safety of the flight and created a good deal of extra work for the crew and ATC. (I made pretty pointed protests to maintenance and dispatch on this matter.) issues: 1) was maintenance correct? If so; how about separate MEL relief for FMS backlighting; either in section 33 or section 34? 2) clearance delivery controllers in both stations stated that they were still confused by the ICAO flight format. The first clearance delivery guy said 'we don't show you RNAV anyway.' despite the 'G' in the equipment line and the standard 'rnv????' flight plan remark; center controllers kept clearing us direct-to fixes; too. 3) the return flight plan showed the FMS deferral and dropped the 'G' but still had the RNAV remark as above. (This remark was deleted but the subsequent flight on this plane; though.) the next time I see FMS lighting inoperative; I will certainly be tempted to ignore the problem; rather than have no FMS.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR CAPT DESCRIBED FMS LIGHTING PROB THAT RESULTED IN FMS DEFERRAL; ATC WAS CONFUSED BECAUSE OF THE NEW ICAO ACFT SUFFIX INFO.

Narrative: THERE I WAS GETTING READY FOR AN EARLY DEP; WHEN I NOTICED THAT THE FMS BACKLIGHTING WAS INOP. I COULD SEE THE KEYPAD AS THE DAY BEGAN TO BRIGHTEN AND THERE IS A FLOOD-LIGHT ABOVE THE CONSOLE; TOO. BUT I ELECTED TO WRITE UP THE ITEM EXPECTING MAINT TO DEFER THE COCKPIT LIGHTING UNDER MEL SECTION 33. I WAS ASTOUNDED WHEN MAINT DEFERRED THE WHOLE FMS; NOT THE RELATED COCKPIT LIGHTING. THIS NONSENSICAL DEFERRAL SERVED TO DECREASE SAFETY OF THE FLT AND CREATED A GOOD DEAL OF EXTRA WORK FOR THE CREW AND ATC. (I MADE PRETTY POINTED PROTESTS TO MAINT AND DISPATCH ON THIS MATTER.) ISSUES: 1) WAS MAINT CORRECT? IF SO; HOW ABOUT SEPARATE MEL RELIEF FOR FMS BACKLIGHTING; EITHER IN SECTION 33 OR SECTION 34? 2) CLRNC DELIVERY CTLRS IN BOTH STATIONS STATED THAT THEY WERE STILL CONFUSED BY THE ICAO FLT FORMAT. THE FIRST CLEARANCE DELIVERY GUY SAID 'WE DON'T SHOW YOU RNAV ANYWAY.' DESPITE THE 'G' IN THE EQUIP LINE AND THE STANDARD 'RNV????' FLT PLAN REMARK; CTR CTLRS KEPT CLRING US DIRECT-TO FIXES; TOO. 3) THE RETURN FLT PLAN SHOWED THE FMS DEFERRAL AND DROPPED THE 'G' BUT STILL HAD THE RNAV REMARK AS ABOVE. (THIS REMARK WAS DELETED BUT THE SUBSEQUENT FLT ON THIS PLANE; THOUGH.) THE NEXT TIME I SEE FMS LIGHTING INOP; I WILL CERTAINLY BE TEMPTED TO IGNORE THE PROB; RATHER THAN HAVE NO FMS.

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.