Widebody Transport
Time Pressure; Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action
Procedure; MEL; Manuals; Company Policy; Aircraft
Inoperative ADS improperly deferred MEL item cards in error. ICAO flight plan improperly filed. CPDLC failure. Concerns about the ADS-B In-Trail Climb Procedure. The aircraft arrived with a write-up 'ADS INOP WITH ALL ATC FACILITIES.' Maintenance deferred the ADS-B under MEL 34-53. Although we did not know it at the time; this was an improper deferral because the real fault was that all ADS functionality; both B and C were inoperative.We questioned Dispatch on the ground about the need to re-file the ICAO flight plan to indicate the lack of ADS and were told that there was no requirement to do so. I specifically asked the Dispatcher via ACARS to verify that all requirements regarding the lack of ADS had been addressed to which he answered affirmative. Based upon that; we departed. Upon reaching cruise altitude we looked in the Flight Operations Manual (FOM) and Flight Manual (FM) and found that we were indeed filed incorrectly. Our equipment codes in our flight plan were filed as /LB1D1; indicating ADS-B and ADS-C capability; which we did not have (see FOM 4.70.2-3). We notified Dispatch again and requested a re-file of the ICAO flight plan but did not receive a response. Shortly after entering oceanic airspace; Center notified us that they were not receiving our ADS-C. We advised ATC that we would make a logbook entry and again notified Dispatch and Maintenance. Maintenance suggested switching transponders. We did that but to no avail. The Dispatcher later admitted that the MEL item card might be in error for ignoring the requirement to notify ATC and re-file the ICAO flight plan with the correct equipment codes (see MEL item cards 34-53 and 34-57). 34-57 speaks to re-filing the flight plan while 34-53 does not. He noted that he would file a report.Upon entering the U.S. FIR; ATC advised us that our CPDLC was giving erroneous coordinates and requested us to switch to HF position reporting; which we did. In my opinion; a culture of rushing to get an on-time departure prevented maintenance from properly diagnosing the problem (total ADS failure) and improperly deferring it as an ADS-B-only problem despite the inbound flight's unambiguous write-up (ADS-B is NOT an ATC function; that is ADS-C). The Maintenance write-up clearly states: NEEDS MORE TIME TO T-S. It also caused Dispatch to improperly file our ICAO flight plan with the wrong equipment codes; and resulted in our flight departing with an illegal flight plan and much confusion and unnecessary workload in the cockpit and on the ground and with ATC. Numerous discussions with Dispatch and Maintenance via SATCOM and ACARS went on for over 3 hours and caused a major cockpit distraction. This is a serious concern since ADS is used to maintain separation by ATC. In addition; I am very concerned that our improperly filed flight plan (showing ADS capability when it was inoperative) could pose a serious safety issue with regard to the ADS-B IN TRAIL CLIMB PROCEDURE currently in use on Oceanic routes. In this case; we were invisible on ADS and other aircraft performing the ITC procedure potentially could have conflicted with us; causing a separation problem. This is the second time that my ADS has failed where our ICAO flight plan was improperly filed (i.e. showing ADS capability when it was inoperative). I reported this to the Company's Flight Technology Department and filed a report when this happened to me the first time but was told that 'that can never happen.'
An air carrier crew with a MEL'ed ADS system was not filed with correct ICAO equipment codes and later in flight notified that ADS B; C and CPDLC were inoperative. After lengthy inflight discussions with Dispatch and Maintenance it was determined a rushed departure and improper troubleshooting were involved.