Narrative:

I originally programmed the FMC for departure on the porte 5 via runway 28L. During the departure briefing; we briefed takeoff via runway 1L and actually both caught the FMC error that runway 28L was set in the box. I verbally stated I would fix it immediately and; as I replaced my charts; the load sheet arrived with a bit of confusion as to how many people were actually onboard. The captain handled that issue and I instinctively entered the load sheet numbers into the performance computer without first correcting the departure runway to 1L. I never did fix the problem; and we departed runway 1L a few minutes later. Passing 400 feet AGL; I called to select LNAV and followed the flight directors to the left. Passing the 333 heading; I realized there was a problem and knew the box was not directing me on the procedure I had briefed. Obviously; the box was trying to direct us to the first point on the porte 5 departure from 28L. As I realized something wasn't right; I started to reverse the turn and correct back to intercept the proper 350 radial by manually navigating to it. In that turn correction; norcal queried our departure instructions as they saw we had overshot the 350 radial. Checking the FMC; we told them we were navigating to senzy (the first point on the 28L departure procedure; I believe. We should have been navigating to septy instead; the appropriate first point on the 1L departure); which is when we realized exactly what the problem was that I had not corrected the departure to the proper runway before we took off. Norcal then directed us to fly heading 280 to get us back on the proper departure procedure. The rest of the departure was not affected by the error as the next direction from norcal was to fly heading 160 followed by direct to ave; which was already loaded in the FMC as part of the 28L porte 5 departure. I should not have allowed the distraction to keep me from fixing the problem first. I should have also double checked that the runway in the performance computer (which was correct) matched the runway in the FMC (incorrect) before I handed the performance data over to the captain for the before push checklist. I will do that from now on.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An air carrier crew programmed and briefed a SFO PORTE 5 Runway 28L departure but because of preflight distractions did not reprogram for a Runway 1L which resulted in a track deviation when LNAV was selected after takeoff.

Narrative: I originally programmed the FMC for departure on the PORTE 5 via Runway 28L. During the departure briefing; we briefed takeoff via Runway 1L and actually both caught the FMC error that Runway 28L was set in the box. I verbally stated I would fix it immediately and; as I replaced my charts; the load sheet arrived with a bit of confusion as to how many people were actually onboard. The Captain handled that issue and I instinctively entered the load sheet numbers into the performance computer without first correcting the departure runway to 1L. I never did fix the problem; and we departed Runway 1L a few minutes later. Passing 400 feet AGL; I called to select LNAV and followed the flight directors to the left. Passing the 333 heading; I realized there was a problem and knew the box was not directing me on the procedure I had briefed. Obviously; the box was trying to direct us to the first point on the PORTE 5 Departure from 28L. As I realized something wasn't right; I started to reverse the turn and correct back to intercept the proper 350 radial by manually navigating to it. In that turn correction; NorCal queried our departure instructions as they saw we had overshot the 350 radial. Checking the FMC; we told them we were navigating to SENZY (the first point on the 28L departure procedure; I believe. We should have been navigating to SEPTY instead; the appropriate first point on the 1L departure); which is when we realized exactly what the problem was that I had not corrected the departure to the proper runway before we took off. NorCal then directed us to fly heading 280 to get us back on the proper departure procedure. The rest of the departure was not affected by the error as the next direction from NorCal was to fly heading 160 followed by direct to AVE; which was already loaded in the FMC as part of the 28L PORTE 5 Departure. I should not have allowed the distraction to keep me from fixing the problem first. I should have also double checked that the runway in the performance computer (which was correct) matched the runway in the FMC (incorrect) before I handed the performance data over to the Captain for the Before Push Checklist. I will do that from now on.

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.