A319
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Training / Qualification; Human-Machine Interface
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 Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Human Factors
During preflight; we received a revised clearance. While checking the flight plan I noticed a change in our filed clearance to include the TERPZ5 departure with the RAMAY transition and pointed the change out to the captain. While checking the printed departure procedure against the FMGC procedure I noted no discrepancies; with the exception of a flight path discontinuity after the transition and before the rest of the route as I would expect when a procedure is inserted as a change to the route. The flight plan from dispatch began at RAMAY; and I noted no further discrepancies. Push back and departure were without anomaly.Prior to reaching TERPZ intersection above 11;000 feet; the captain stated something to the effect that all restrictions had been complied with; and I agreed. Upon reaching TERPZ; as had been programmed and as I was expecting the aircraft proceeded directly to RAMAY. A few minutes elapsed and ATC inquired about our route and we discovered that LITME was not included in our FMGC flight plan and cleared us directly to RAMAY. ATC noted no conflict and that this is a regular occurrence. The flight proceeded without further incident.At a later time; the captain and I tried to recall the sequence of events that led to LITME being excluded from the flight plan; and the only way we were able to both exclude LITME and introduce a discontinuity was to not select the RAMAY transition while inserting the departure procedure.While the captain and I individually checked the flight plan; we had both somehow missed the LITME intersection or that the RAMAY transition had [not] been inserted.At a previous airline it was company policy that in reviewing planned RNAV departures one crew member read aloud from the printed procedure while the other crew member checked against the FMS/FMGC. I found this to be an effective procedure in detecting errors and promoting a cooperative and inclusive crew environment.
It starts with the release was not file with a departure procedure. Once we received the PDC there was a change with the TERPZ5 RAMAY Q72 HACKS. I put the departure into the box. I don't know if I just did not include the transition or when I hit the button it did not take. Nevertheless LITME was not in the flight plan. Our course took us from TERPZ direct to RAMAY bypassing LITME by 4 miles. Which we was notified by ATC. We were then cleared direct RAMAY with no farther incidents.We could have carefully compared the departure in the box to the paper departure in our Jepps; instead I think we went too fast and missed one waypoint.
A319 flight crew note a revised PDC to include the TERPZ5 RAMAY transition. The TERPZ5 is loaded in the FMGC but the RAMAY transition is not selected; resulting in LITME being omitted. ATC takes notice then issues direct to RAMAY.