AN A320 PLT ON THE CLE RWY 6C AMRST 1 SID RPTS FMGC OMITS DJB AS A RTE FIX AND PROCEEDS DIRECTLY TO HUDDZ. RWY 6C NOT GIVEN TEXTUAL DEP DESCRIPTION.

Narrative

ALL OF THE SIDS FROM CLE ARE VERY CONFUSING. THE DEP THAT THE FMGC BUILDS DOES NOT AGREE WITH DEPICTION ON THE SIDS. THE VERBAL DIRECTIONS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SIDS ALSO DO NOT AGREE WITH THE DEPICTIONS. THE SOLID BLACK LINE DRAWN ON THE DEPICTIONS LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE TO FLY THAT COURSE AS SHOWN BUT THE VERBAL INSTRUCTIONS CONFLICT WITH THE PICTURE. I WOULD EXPECT A DOTTED LINE FOR PROCEEDING ON AN ASSIGNED HEADING AND NOT A SOLID BLACK LINE. ALSO; THERE ARE NO SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS FOR A DEP FROM RWY 6C. THE FMGC BUILT A DEP THAT BYPASSED DJB AND WENT DIRECTLY TO HUDDZ. CLRNC DEL WAS QUERIED ABOUT THESE DISCREPANCIES AND THEY SEEMED TO BE AWARE OF SOME BUT NOT ALL THE PROBLEMS WITH THE SIDS THAT WERE IN MY POSSESSION.CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT THIS FLT WAS HIS SECOND IN 2 WKS AFTER NEARLY 5 YEARS OF NOT HAVING OPERATED FROM CLE. ON THIS; HIS SECOND TRIP; THE FIRST EXCHANGE HE HAD WAS WITH CLB CLRNC DELIVERY CONCERNING THE FACT THE FLT WAS CLRED FOR DEP ON RWY 6C WHICH IS NOT DEPICTED ON THE SID. THE CTLR STATED THAT WAS OK BECAUSE RWY 6C WAS NOT GOING TO BE IN SVC MUCH LONGER. RPTR STATED THAT THE LACK OF A RWY INITIAL CLB DEFINITION MADE THEM NOT LEGAL FOR TKOF FROM THAT RWY. THE SECOND ISSUE FOR THE CREW WAS AN FMGC ANOMALY THAT DID NOT SHOW DJB ON THE ND RTE EVEN THOUGH IT IS THE FIRST FIX ON THE DEP ROUTING. THE CREW MANUALLY SELECTED DJB AND INSERTED IT ON THE ROUTING PAGE. THIS SAME ANOMALY OCCURRED THE PREVIOUS WEEK ON THIS SAME ROUTING. THE RPTR EXPRESSED SOME CONFUSION ABOUT THE ARPT TEXTUAL DESCRIPTIONS. HE HAD FORGOTTEN THAT CLE WAS HOPKINS INTL AND INITIALLY READ THE TEXT FOR BURKE LAKEFRONT. HE REALIZED HIS ERROR EARLY ENOUGH TO CORRECT IT BUT BELIEVES THE DESCRIPTION SHOULD BE CLEVELAND-HOPKINS INTL AS WITH TWO OF THE OTHER SIDS.