Narrative:

The flight began at an arrival at the airplane an hour before departure. The aircraft was completely unpowered as the gpu was unable to maintain power to the aircraft. This began a series of resets of systems in the aircraft and eventually ended in a call to maintenance control for the final reset that [we] were not able to accomplish. Maintenance control had to walk us through a reset for the 'terrain' fault. We continued to prep the airplane; get our clearance and we chose to do an in depth route review do to the very short flight duration. [We] did a complete speed and altitude verification of the IVANE2 arrival at this time. We were pressed to get off in time for our 'wheels up' time as the ground crew was new and things were going very slowly but we made it to the end of the runway with a couple of minutes to spare. Our take off clearance was to climb on a 050 degree heading to 5;000 ft.takeoff was normal; clean up was normal; and we were handed off to departure. They climbed us to 11;000 ft and a left turn to 310 heading. Again all was normal. Our flight plan routing was radar vectors to majic; IVANE2 arrival to clt. At this time first officer pulled the IVANE2 chart and the RNAV 36R approach to clt out. We reviewed all the speed and crossing restrictions on the IVANE2 and briefed the approach. We were switched over to atlanta center and on contact we were cleared to climb to 13;000 ft; direct majic; descend on the IVANE2 north arrival. We climbed to 13;000 and began the descent and approach checklist. First officer selected the managed descent for the arrival and I gave the passenger arrival announcement. Moments into the announcement atlanta center called us and asked for our altitude. We replied 11;800 ft descending on the IVANE2 north. His reply was majic has a 13;000 ft crossing altitude; climb back to 13;000 ft and resume the arrival. On two occasions the speed and altitudes on the arrival were checked. First officer felt that when he had selected the managed descent that the aircraft would maintain 13;000 ft until passing majic and follow the path down on the arrival. The problem was; we think; that when atlanta issued the climb to 13;000 ft it dropped out the 13;000-17;000 ft crossing at majic or it dropped out when first officer selected managed descent for the arrival. Either way the majic speed of 250 KTS remained; but the altitude restriction dropped out and did not restrict the aircraft from beginning a 1;000 ft per minute descent. In researching this in my limited spare time today I have found that the same problem has occurred on the arrival with flights originating from ZZZ to clt. Problem there takes place with the FL260 crossing. I believe this scenario occurred because of multiple events taking place in a very short time; but the primary reason is that the flight plan to clt from ZZZ1 is at 12;000 ft. When the route is loaded it loads a predetermined and set arrival conditions for the IVANE2 arrival so that when it is reviewed on the ground it looks fine. But when the 13;000 ft climb clearance is given by atlanta center; the altitude restriction drops out. I enjoy flying the airbus and have done so for many years but even after all these years it does things that I cannot explain. Automation is primarily to reduce the work on the pilot. However; it requires more attention to be directed with our monitoring skills; there lies its faults.even though I was not flying the aircraft; I accept responsibility for the incorrect path that it took. My job was the pilot not flying. My lesson that I learned today was that it is necessary to review the crossing restrictions and speeds on these RNAV arrivals but the pitfall is that even after you have reviewed and verified the restrictions; you cannot follow the flight path on the nd screen as I believe I was taught. One must use the arrival page to verify the aircraft will meet every restriction published. I have found that there are too manytimes that the crossing restrictions and/or altitudes drop out when certain criteria are changed from the published and programmed arrival. All of this works very well on paper and when it is flown just exactly like the arrival is set up. My own personal opinion is that the first time that a change from the designed program occurs; ATC should take back positive control of the aircraft's arrival. On the airbus; assigned speed decreases will take the aircraft off the flight path almost instantly and there is a short window that the speed brake can adjust before it leaves the programmed decent path. Bottom line suggestion for this case; emphasize verifying speed and crossing restriction off of the page in the book and do not trust that just because the pilot just checked and verified every restriction prior to beginning the arrival that it will still be there when you get to it. Until this day; I have always reviewed and verified from the page to the nd and mcdu then used the nd to make sure all of the restriction are met. From this day forward I will be using the arrival page to verify the aircraft will meet the restrictions not what is shown on the nd.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A319 flight crew reported an altitude deviation on IVANE2 arrival to CLT.

Narrative: The flight began at an arrival at the airplane an hour before departure. The aircraft was completely unpowered as the GPU was unable to maintain power to the aircraft. This began a series of resets of systems in the aircraft and eventually ended in a call to Maintenance Control for the final reset that [we] were not able to accomplish. Maintenance Control had to walk us through a reset for the 'terrain' fault. We continued to prep the airplane; get our clearance and we chose to do an in depth route review do to the very short flight duration. [We] did a complete speed and altitude verification of the IVANE2 arrival at this time. We were pressed to get off in time for our 'wheels up' time as the ground crew was new and things were going very slowly but we made it to the end of the runway with a couple of minutes to spare. Our take off clearance was to climb on a 050 degree heading to 5;000 FT.Takeoff was normal; clean up was normal; and we were handed off to Departure. They climbed us to 11;000 FT and a left turn to 310 heading. Again all was normal. Our flight plan routing was radar vectors to MAJIC; IVANE2 arrival to CLT. At this time First Officer pulled the IVANE2 chart and the RNAV 36R approach to CLT out. We reviewed all the speed and crossing restrictions on the IVANE2 and briefed the approach. We were switched over to Atlanta Center and on contact we were cleared to climb to 13;000 FT; direct MAJIC; descend on the IVANE2 North arrival. We climbed to 13;000 and began the descent and approach checklist. First Officer selected the managed descent for the arrival and I gave the passenger arrival announcement. Moments into the announcement Atlanta Center called us and asked for our altitude. We replied 11;800 FT descending on the IVANE2 North. His reply was MAJIC has a 13;000 FT crossing altitude; climb back to 13;000 FT and resume the arrival. On two occasions the speed and altitudes on the arrival were checked. First Officer felt that when he had selected the managed descent that the aircraft would maintain 13;000 FT until passing MAJIC and follow the path down on the arrival. The problem was; we think; that when Atlanta issued the climb to 13;000 FT it dropped out the 13;000-17;000 FT crossing at MAJIC or it dropped out when First Officer selected managed descent for the arrival. Either way the MAJIC speed of 250 KTS remained; but the altitude restriction dropped out and did not restrict the aircraft from beginning a 1;000 FT per minute descent. In researching this in my limited spare time today I have found that the same problem has occurred on the arrival with flights originating from ZZZ to CLT. Problem there takes place with the FL260 crossing. I believe this scenario occurred because of multiple events taking place in a very short time; but the primary reason is that the flight plan to CLT from ZZZ1 is at 12;000 FT. When the route is loaded it loads a predetermined and set arrival conditions for the IVANE2 arrival so that when it is reviewed on the ground it looks fine. But when the 13;000 FT climb clearance is given by Atlanta Center; the altitude restriction drops out. I enjoy flying the Airbus and have done so for many years but even after all these years it does things that I cannot explain. Automation is primarily to reduce the work on the pilot. However; it requires more attention to be directed with our monitoring skills; there lies its faults.Even though I was not flying the aircraft; I accept responsibility for the incorrect path that it took. My job was the pilot not flying. My lesson that I learned today was that it is necessary to review the crossing restrictions and speeds on these RNAV arrivals but the pitfall is that even after you have reviewed and verified the restrictions; you cannot follow the flight path on the ND screen as I believe I was taught. One must use the arrival page to verify the aircraft will meet every restriction published. I have found that there are too manytimes that the crossing restrictions and/or altitudes drop out when certain criteria are changed from the published and programmed arrival. All of this works very well on paper and when it is flown just exactly like the arrival is set up. My own personal opinion is that the first time that a change from the designed program occurs; ATC should take back positive control of the aircraft's arrival. On the Airbus; assigned speed decreases will take the aircraft off the flight path almost instantly and there is a short window that the speed brake can adjust before it leaves the programmed decent path. Bottom line suggestion for this case; emphasize verifying speed and crossing restriction off of the page in the book and do not trust that just because the pilot JUST checked and verified every restriction prior to beginning the arrival that it will still be there when you get to it. Until this day; I have always reviewed and verified from the page to the ND and MCDU then used the ND to make sure all of the restriction are met. From this day forward I will be using the arrival page to verify the aircraft will meet the restrictions not what is shown on the ND.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.