B767-300 and 300 ER
Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Time Pressure; Workload
ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Company Policy; Aircraft; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors
Illegal departure due equipment.Flew VOR based departure procedure without RNAV (Arear Navigation) or GPS (Global Positioning System); as required by NOTAM (Notice To Airman)Arrived to the plane (Aircraft X) in preparation for flight from ZZZ to ZZZ1 and discovered both FMCs (Flight Management Computers)were deferred.  The Captain and I discussed the conduct of the flight without the use of either FMC.  I reviewed the route of flight based on short range navigation.  The release showed that we were filed for the SID departure; which required we depart Runway X; straight out until reaching 19 DME from ZZZ VOR; then turn to a heading and intercept an inbound course to VOR.DME information was not present on the ground; I assumed it would be present in the [air] because of terrain features in the area. I noticed there was no DME information after takeoff.  The Captain suggested using FMC navigation data for the turn.  Following the turn; I switched back to heading select in combination with short range NAV (Navigation).Upon closer inspection and cross check; the following details were discovered;1) SID; which is a VOR based departure; had a NOTAM; 'SID DEPARTURE...TAKEOFF RWY X NA EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT EQUIPPED WITH SUITABLE RNAV SYSTEM WITH GPS; ZZZ TACAN OUT OF SERVICE'2) Right DME not receiving DME from any sourceA clearance via the SID departure made sense to me; as it was a VOR based departure.  I believed all components of the departure were functioning since that is how we were cleared.  I also believed that short range NAV would be sufficient to fly the departure legally since that is the equipment the departure was predicated on; and the absence of any notes requiring RNAV equipment on the departure procedure.The oversight is easy to understand when considering that clearance via a departure procedure based on short range NAV was expected due to lack of RNAV capability.  Clearance via the SID would not raise any red flags regarding the lack of GPS equipment required as the departure is not based on RNAV equipment.  The failure is not a single source failure; as these details were missed by dispatch; flight crew; and ATC; as they cleared us via a departure requiring RNAV when; to the best of my knowledge; the RNAV related equipment codes were removed.Spend a little more time reviewing details; such as NOTAMs; especially during abnormal procedures.Given the lack of GPS equipped aircraft; file departure procedures not requiring GPS; as a matter of general practice.
Upon arrival at the aircraft (Aircraft X) to fly the first leg of flight from ZZZ to ZZZ1; we discovered the IRS (Inertial Reference System) NAV (Navigation Only) ONLY discrepancy we had noted in the logbook two days prior had not yet been corrected. In fact; because of this; both FMC's (Flight Management Computers) were now deferred. I called the dispatcher and ensured he changed the strip to reflect that we were no longer RNAV (Area Navigation) capable. The FO (First Officer) and I discussed what was available from the FMC's and we determined: even though they were working and we knew it was only the IRS updating function which was not functioning properly; because the entire FMC was deferred none of the functions were legally available. We discussed short range NAV procedures for a flat panel aircraft and reviewed the filed SID and the route beyond to ZZZ1. Because of this deferral and the discussion it caused; I was only able to quickly review the NOTAMS (Notice to Airman) In the time remaining prior to departure. After takeoff; we quickly determined we were not receiving ZZZ VORTAC's DME (Distance Measuring Equipment). Knowing the position in the IRS's was still good; I encouraged the FO (First Officer) to follow the FMC generated magenta course until I could dial in another NAVAID in which was suitable for navigation. I quickly determined the problem was two fold: ZZZ DME was out and the right VOR was not receiving DME at all (from any source). Once out of the critical phase of flight and high volume area; I again checked the NOTAMS to see if ZZZ DME was out of service. I found the following NOTAM (partly hidden by a staple): SID...TAKEOFF RWY Y; X NA EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT EQUIPPED WITH SUITABLE RNAV SYSTEM WITH GPS; ZZZ TACAN OUT OF SERVICE (see photo). Not only were we not legal to file or fly this departure because of the dual FMS deferral but this aircraft was NEVER legal for this departure as it has yet to updated with the addition of GPS. No deviations occurred but we should NEVER have filed; been cleared or flown this SID. This entire situation would have been avoided if Company had done any one of three things in advance of this event: 1) Upgrade its fleet to modern navigation standards by installing GPS. 2) Repair the minor discrepancy rather than defer both FMC systems in their entirety.3) Flight Control reviewing the NOTAMS and not filing us for a departure we were not legal to fly.Having said that; I allowed time constraints and training an FO just off IOE (Initial Operating Experience) on highly non-standard procedures to distract me from a through review of the NOTAMS. I also believe the NOTAM itself was poorly worded; in that it used the term TACAN rather than DME. Civilian pilots and dispatchers do not generally use this military term (civilian aircraft are not TACAN equipped).
Flight Crew flying 767-300 aircraft report using illegal departure procedure.