Flight Crew departing CLT reports entering a runway change into the FMC prior to gate departure but forgetting to reenter the RNAV departure which is runway dependent. A track deviation occurs but no loss of separation.
Synopsis
Flight Crew departing CLT reports entering a runway change into the FMC prior to gate departure but forgetting to reenter the RNAV departure which is runway dependent. A track deviation occurs but no loss of separation.
Narrative
After takeoff on Runway 18L; CLT; F/D commanded a bank to right. PF delayed autopilot (AP) selection due to not desiring to turn to right toward Runway 18C & 18R. AP was selected on when climbing out of about 2000 ft MSL and slight right bank occurred. CLT Departure instructed left turn to 110 degree and PF immediately selected left turn using heading select. ATC Departure controller stated there was no loss of separation or other problem with any other aircraft. Remainder of flight uneventful. PF (First Officer 'F/O') initially selected Runway 18C and the Meril 5 departure. After discussions with Captain and review of TPS; decision was made to use Runway 18L for departure. After selecting Runway 18L; PF did not re-select Meril 5 departure. Therefore Gergy stayed as initial fix off the runway instead of initial fix changing to Hisor for Runway 18L. When PF and PM verified route; we both noted Gergy as initial fix on the Meril 5. PF (F/O) is now fully aware that when Runway change is made in the MCDU; the associated Departure must also be recycled in order to string the correct initial fix on the Departure. Since the PM (Captain) was not aware that PF had initially entered Runway 18C in MCDU (and therefore Runway 18L represented a Runway change); he did not do his normal back-up of checking for the new initial fix. I would make sense to have the initial fix on a common departure (such as Meril 5 departure covering all three (3) south Runways) be tied directly to the associated runway in the MCDU (so it is strung when the Runway is selected). Associated but not causal factors include: short taxi; this was PF's (F/O) first time to take off on Runway 18L in many years; and ATC ground control stating to our flight that 'we were holding up the line' as we were in the process of doing the before take-off checklist as we approached the departure end of Runway 18L.
Second reporter narrative
The PF and the PM during the briefing did not catch the wrong initial fix entry and the PF in fact read the incorrect fix from the SID. This made the FMC and Briefing agree. There were other factors involved that created distractions; however none of which could be considered the cause of the over sight; but would be considered contributing factors.Since we followed the procedures outlined in the PHB and FOM and the error still occurred I have to think there is a problem with the system. I feel that we should not have three runways going out the same SID with three different initial fixes listed on one chart. I also feel the anchor point should be associated with the entry of the runway in the MCDU and changed with the runway instead of once entered remaining when the runway is changed. At minimum we should have the SID's changed so that GIRGY is not so prevalent when looking at the chart; while HISOR the fix associated with Runway 18L is almost invisible and very hard to see when in motion. I suggest we immediately change the SID to reflect not more than one runway on a single chart. The company has been diligent in training for this situation; however it has always been in reference to a runway change by ATC which did not happen to us. Also the PF was recently qualified on the aircraft and was not aware of the requirement to re enter the SID with any runway re-selection.
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.