Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airport; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Prior to departing; I had added 2;000 LBS of fuel because of bad weather on departure and a forecast low landing weight in RNO. We had a runway change which cut into our fuel load some; but once airborne; everything proceeded normally. Enroute to RNO; we pulled up the ATIS and found that it was raining with low ceilings (2;300 broken.) Forecast had been for >3;000/5. We contacted Dispatch for an updated forecast and were again told > 3;000/5 for our arrival time. ATIS was calling 2;300 broken. Runway 34L (the primary instrument runway) was closed. Runway 34R had only RNAV approaches available; however; none of the RNAV approaches to this runway were in the Airbus database! We tried to coordinate with Approach Control to shoot an RNAV to the L runway and circle to land (sidestep) to the right; taking a 360 turn to set all this up; but this was ultimately disapproved; the Tower Controller told us the Approach Controller would lose radar contact with us in the clouds and that we would never break out. The visual approach to 34R required 5;000/5. At this point we were becoming critically low on fuel and opted to divert immediately to SMF. We declared min fuel and landed with 8.0 LBS of fuel.There needs to be much better coordination between Dispatch and Maintenance as to what approaches are loaded into the FMS database on these airplanes. Dispatch knew that the left (instrument) runway was going to be closed for an extended period of time; ergo; they should have done their research to make sure that the airplane they were sending to RNO was capable of landing there. When I contacted the Dispatcher after landing in SMF; he had no idea that the RNAV approaches to 34R were not in our database. A further conversation with Dispatch revealed that Maintenance claimed the RNAV approaches had been loaded to Runway 34L but later admitted that this had not been done. This bears additional investigation; this was a serious - and potentially fatal - error.


Second narrative: Dispatched to RNO with forecast weather better than 3;000/5 with no alternate and 10;100 LB FOD on FPR. Captain added 2;000 LBS fuel for departure and coordinated with Dispatch. Approach planning at altitude RNO ATIS was visual approaches in use to 34R with winds out of the north at 15+ knots; but with multiple cloud decks above 3;000 AGL to penetrate during the approach. Our FMS did not contain any approaches for 34R even though our EFB had an RNAV GPS 34R X approach. RNO 34L NOTAMed closed. Our plan was briefed at altitude to use GPS RNAV 34L X approach and sidestep/circle to land visually based on good visibility of 10 SM; but cloud decks above 3;000 AGL (visual to 34R backed up by the RNAV GPS 34L X approach. Upon initial contact with Norcal Approach we were given a vector for the RNAV GPS 34R X approach. We told Norcal Approach we were unable due to not having that approach in our database and requested RNAV GPS 34L X to sidestep/circle to land RNO Runway 34R. Norcal approved the request initially and gave us a descent and vector to the IAF JUKNU and cleared us for that approach. With approach check complete and approaching the IAF at JUKNU Norcal told us he was unable to approve the approach because RNO Tower told him we wouldn't break out for the visual and that Norcal would lose radar contact with us before we could break out of the cloud decks. Our fuel on board at that moment was 11;000 LBS with no time to try another approach. Captain decided to divert to closest available field (SMF.) We coordinated the divert with Norcal. Declared min fuel and landed at SMF with 8;200 LBS. Make sure applicable approaches are in the database like the RNAV GPS 34R X. Our FMS database was current.


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew reports diverting from RNO due to Runway 34L being closed and RNAV approaches to 34R not being part of their database. An RNAV approach to Runway 34L with sidestep to Runway 34R was denied by ATC due to weather.