Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: As soon as we arrived at the aircraft we noticed that the NAV database was out of date and the alternate [database] was even older; so we were unable to line select a current database. This aircraft came from Maintenance for the winglet mod. This was its first revenue flight since the mod. I immediately called and asked that Maintenance be dispatched to the aircraft. The Mechanic that arrived made the comment that he noticed the expiration date and said he thought since we were flying on that date it was current. He believed it was current until 2359 on that date. He asked us if a current NAV database was required for flight? I answered we would prefer to have it. I knew it would take about 35 to 40 minutes to upload a new database. Maintenance immediately started the upload process. They encountered some hardware problems. The cable connectors from the uploader to the aircraft panel were not fitting properly. After approximately 30 minutes they said because of this they wanted to defer the NAV database and asked if this was a big deal. I said that it would entail all manual entries by the crew; it was not desirable but manageable. I called the flight's Dispatcher. He told me that it would take some time to change the flight plan to non RNAV and redo the entire flight. He pointed out to me to pass to Maintenance that the amount of time it would take for him to redo the flight; get the paperwork to the crew; have the crew manually enter the flight plan; verify all and block out would take more time than to just upload the NAV database. I agreed with him and asked Maintenance to just upload the new database. About this time Maintenance found a cable with the correct connection on it and started the upload process. The first upload process failed due to a mistake by the Mechanic and they then asked if they could defer the NAV database again. During the first attempt the Maintenance personnel were talking about performance information that was in the database. I inquired as to what that might be. They said they were not sure but were convinced it was no big deal. At this point I became concerned about performance data. Not an engineer; I called the Dispatcher and asked him about the performance issues. He wasn't sure and asked if I would like to consult a Subject Matter Expert (SME). I said yes. He told me he would get one and call me back. By the time I walked up to the flight deck; Maintenance told me all was going well and that they would be done in a few minutes. I called Dispatch back and conveyed we were minutes from leaving and cancelled the SME request. Maintenance did the logbook entries and we were blocking out shortly afterwards. We incurred a lengthy delay as a result of the entire process. The following were my safety concerns throughout: 1- Although the NAV database can be deferred; it creates a huge workload on the pilots. All the manual entries take one of the crew entirely out of the flying process. A short flight in a dense traffic area and the probability of reroutes that would take one of the crew out of the loop was an unnecessary compromise of the safe operation of the flight. The unnecessary part is there were three timely opportunities to update the database earlier in the day but were neglected. 2- The uncertainty of performance information in the NAV database and how it would impact the flight was unsettling. The Mechanic pointed and I agreed that the performance data now deals with an aircraft with winglets instead of without. So; flying a winglet plane with non winglet data was an uncertain safety risk. Dispatch thought but was unsure that these performance issues were less restrictive but was unable to determine what or if they existed. That is why I requested a SME. 3-When we arrived at the aircraft we discovered a large number of switches in non normal positions in addition to the NAV database out of date. Was there not some sort of checklist from the Maintenance Facility to make sure all these items were correct and the aircraft was ready for flight? How about a Maintenance checklist for such items as NAV database current? 4- Lastly; the Mechanic who did the daily and noticed the date; he was unaware of the expiration date/time and signed the bottom of the log page and DMI log off as airworthy; when in fact it was not. The database being out of date is an open issue and either upload a new one or defer the expired one were the two choices to sign off the logbook as airworthy. So there were three windows to upload or defer the database before the crew arrived at the aircraft and were not taken advantage of. How could this be prevented? Make sure the facility has a checklist for all airworthy items. Even if they can not fix them at least have a way to identify them so that Maintenance can correct them before the crew arrives. Make sure our Maintenance has a checklist for the same. Educate the mechanics on the actual expiration date of NAV the database. Any one of these would have prevented the delay caused by this issue. OK; phase two of the delay. During push back we saw a RT FWD FUEL PUMP EICAS message with the associated PRESS light on the pump switch. We ran the QRH procedure and did not correct the problem. So; we contacted Maintenance. They responded with MEL 28-42-1-X with associated DMP 28-42-1-X and asked if we were OK with doing the DMP. We were stopped by step 5. NOTE: Center Pump operation is normally inhibited during ground operation. To operate pumps; simulate an engine run condition by jumping both engine speed cards or opening fueling panel door; we could not perform that portion of the DMP and thus did a return to blocks. Maintenance deferred the pump and we then blocked out again and proceeded uneventfully to destination. I might want to add the logbook reflected that the Maintenance Facility had replaced that same pump the day before.




Synopsis: B767-300 Captain reports accepting an aircraft for the first flight after the winglet modification and finding the NAV database is out of date with the standby database even older. The reporter asks that the database be replaced and a lengthy delay ensues.