Widebody Transport
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting; Workload
ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Aircraft; Company Policy; Equipment / Tooling
Attempted to load the departure assigned by ATC into the FMS. There were no SIDs to even select from. The EFB had all the commercial charts for the airport (LIMC). We contacted ATC to confirm our expected SID. We were told to expect the NELAB 5G and AOSTA 5L Transition to AOSTA. Though the initial segment (NELAB 5G) is not shown as an RNAV procedure (initially fly 358 heading to 4.1 DME from MMP VOR; then turn right to intercept 305 radial from SRN...); we attempted to build as much as  possible to have a decent presentation on the ND. Set up the first 2 radials on the NAV/RAD page so we could see our position relative to those radials. There was also no way to build a point to comply with the 3;000 restriction. The NADP1 procedure made that one somewhat irrelevant since we would easily attain 3;000 FT well before arriving at the intercept point of the SRN 305 radial. We spent a good deal of time building and briefing this. The transition is the more significant issue since there happens to be note on the chart 'AOSTA 5L (RNAV): P-RNAV required.' This note left us unsure of the legality of building waypoints instead of having a defined FMS loaded procedure to navigate by. We advised ATC that we 'could not comply with the RNAV procedure for the transition due to not having the data in our nav computer.' He began to read the text of the chart. We informed him that we had a copy of the chart; but nothing to load into our computer. He basically stated that we should just fly off the chart. He had no concern with our computer problem since he was convinced we could fly the procedure from the chart.  There are 2 fixes that follow waypoint NELAB: MC501 and MC502. Neither of these waypoints were in the FMS. We built them as defined waypoints by using the charted course and distance from the previous waypoints. After takeoff; Departure Control cleared us direct to NELAB; making the bulk of the radials and turning points now irrelevant. However; after passing NELAB; we still flew over MC501 and MC502. We had no way to confirm the lat/long of either waypoint; but when we checked the waypoints relative to the chart on the Plan page of the ND we were pretty sure we would be right on those fixes.  We just simply could not get ATC to give us a different departure procedure. We even loaded the previous database to see if the SIDs might have been omitted from the new database. We made the best possible decision we could; given the circumstances; but feel strongly that the FMS should have these procedures. There is significant terrain to the north. A CFIT Risk - Moderate airport with not a single RNAV SID is hard to believe. I have to go on record that this situation is unacceptable; especially with the special Note on the transition chart. I suggest fix the FMS database to include all SIDs.
An air carrier flight crew discovered that their FMS did not include the LIMC NELAB 5G and AOSTA 5L transitions; so they built minimum route waypoints and ATC modified the route inflight so they could comply.