Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Situational Awareness
Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Human Factors; Procedure
Prior to descent; the WLEEE5 RNAV Arrival was assigned by Houston ARTCC; loaded into the FMC; and validated. Current ATIS indicated that RNAV and visual approaches were in use to Runways 17L/R. Based upon previous experience with AUS Approach Control; we changed the approach to the RNAV Z 17R and configured the FMC for the approach. The FMC linked the arrival and the approach perfectly! We validated the approach; but did not notice that the FMC deleted the last two waypoints on the RNAV arrival in the process.Upon checking in with Austin Approach we were advised to 'expect Runway 17R;' but no approach was specified. As we reached the transition point for the RNAV Z 17R; the First Officer (pilot flying) noted that 'SSURF' (on the tail end of the arrival) was missing. As he was attempting to insert it quickly; ATC advised 'looks like you missed the turn at SSURF...fly heading XXX.' Shortly thereafter; we were cleared for and completed a visual approach to 17R without incident.The final fix on this WLEEE5 RNAV Arrival is BEESO; accompanied by the note 'Expect RNAV RNP Approach; or Vectors...' However; the RNAV Z 17R approach does NOT have a BEESO transition. In fact; the only common fix for the arrival and approach is XWING; not BEESO. The arrival and the approach do not link at BEESO; the note notwithstanding. Accordingly; when the arrival and the approach procedures are loaded in accordance with proper procedure; the FMC drops SSURF and BEESO to automatically close the discontinuity. This is a trap! I'm not aware of any way to prevent the FMC from doing this; if both the WLEEE5 and the RNP Z 17R are selected. And it would not be prudent to wait until the approach clearance is issued to insert and validate and brief the RNP procedure.These AUS RNP approaches appear to be unusual designs in that they are close-in arcs that 'shortcut' the downwind leg and bypass typical approach gates (6-mile final at around 1;800 feet). If the crew expects; and loads; the RNAV approach as they should - as directed by the note on the WLEEE 5 - the last two fixes on the WLEEE 5 are eliminated and the downwind leg will not be flown. Normally; on initial contact I'd expect to hear 'expect the RNAV Z 17R after XWING;' or something similar and specific. AUS Approach did not indicate what approach to expect; and we assumed it would be an RNP approach; as in previous experience.Now that I'm aware that a procedural mismatch like this might exist; I'll specifically look for it when inserting and validating RNAV procedures; and if necessary; query Approach Control as to the track they intend for the aircraft to fly. This will provide a barrier against future ambiguous arrival tracks.Ultimately; I think the AUS RNAV arrivals and approaches need to be examined and redesigned as necessary to make them compatible with each other. Since we cannot accept vectors to [right final] legs; I don't see how the RNAV 17R approach as designed; can be utilized if the WLEEE5 is flown to BEESO as charted.
A319 Captain reported a track deviation occurred on the RNAV Z 17R approach to AUS.