Narrative:

Flight was cleared out of atl via the cadit 5 RNAV departure. The cadit 5 was retrieved from the database; then was loaded in the FMS for an 8R takeoff. The cadit 5 was reviewed; discussed and compared to the commercial chart. No discrepancy was noted. The first officer and myself had no questions or doubts as to how to fly this departure. We are now based in ZZZ had flown RNAV departures extensively out of dfw. Prior to takeoff from runway 8R; we once again ensured the proper procedure was loaded for that runway. The departure was flown without problem. But unlike other RNAV departures (ie; dfw; lax; mia); atl tower gave us a heading after takeoff then atl approach gave us direct an intersection down the road without any additional instructions. As we were climbing through the mid-twenties with ZTL; the controller gave us direct to glazr intersection. This intersection is not part of the departure but was part of our filed routing. We had passed cadit intersection not too long ago. Shortly after; the same controller asked us to what waypoint we had been proceeding after cadit intersection before he gave us the new clearance. The first officer answered respe intersection. The controller told us then we had been cleared direct to glazr intersection after cadit intersection and not to respe intersection as published on the departure procedure. After a few mins of discussion amongst ourselves wondering what we should have done and how we should have known when to do it; I finally asked the controller for some explanation; reminding him we had been cleared via the cadit 5 RNAV departure and that respe intersection was part of the procedure. He simply responded we had done nothing wrong. I think he used the words we were not at fault but that a supervisor was looking into it. It is obvious the atl ATC system is not using the RNAV departures as they were designed. This hybrid form of RNAV SID is not conducive to the SOP's in place in the rest of the country and is downright confusing. By changing so many components and the method by which a full RNAV departure is to be flown creates a safety risk. Other ATC systems at airports around the country (ie; dfw; lax) are clearing aircraft on RNAV departures without meddling into the process; yet when radar vectors are needed a new RNAV departure clearance is given like: '...proceed direct to abcde intersection then resume the xyz departure' as defined in the advisory circular and described in our flight manual; atl ATC does not do that. In addition to adding more confusion to the process there is no continuity and consistency from one flight to the other.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN AIR CARRIER PILOT CLEARED ON THE ATL CADIT 5 RNAV DEPARTURE WAS GIVEN VECTORS AFTER TAKEOFF. THE CREW WAS CONFUSED BY THE HYBRID COMBINATION OF RNAV PROCEDURE; VECTOR; AND DIRECT TO CLEARANCES.

Narrative: FLT WAS CLRED OUT OF ATL VIA THE CADIT 5 RNAV DEP. THE CADIT 5 WAS RETRIEVED FROM THE DATABASE; THEN WAS LOADED IN THE FMS FOR AN 8R TKOF. THE CADIT 5 WAS REVIEWED; DISCUSSED AND COMPARED TO THE COMMERCIAL CHART. NO DISCREPANCY WAS NOTED. THE FO AND MYSELF HAD NO QUESTIONS OR DOUBTS AS TO HOW TO FLY THIS DEP. WE ARE NOW BASED IN ZZZ HAD FLOWN RNAV DEPS EXTENSIVELY OUT OF DFW. PRIOR TO TKOF FROM RWY 8R; WE ONCE AGAIN ENSURED THE PROPER PROC WAS LOADED FOR THAT RWY. THE DEP WAS FLOWN WITHOUT PROB. BUT UNLIKE OTHER RNAV DEPS (IE; DFW; LAX; MIA); ATL TWR GAVE US A HDG AFTER TKOF THEN ATL APCH GAVE US DIRECT AN INTXN DOWN THE ROAD WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS. AS WE WERE CLBING THROUGH THE MID-TWENTIES WITH ZTL; THE CTLR GAVE US DIRECT TO GLAZR INTXN. THIS INTXN IS NOT PART OF THE DEP BUT WAS PART OF OUR FILED ROUTING. WE HAD PASSED CADIT INTXN NOT TOO LONG AGO. SHORTLY AFTER; THE SAME CTLR ASKED US TO WHAT WAYPOINT WE HAD BEEN PROCEEDING AFTER CADIT INTXN BEFORE HE GAVE US THE NEW CLRNC. THE FO ANSWERED RESPE INTXN. THE CTLR TOLD US THEN WE HAD BEEN CLRED DIRECT TO GLAZR INTXN AFTER CADIT INTXN AND NOT TO RESPE INTXN AS PUBLISHED ON THE DEP PROC. AFTER A FEW MINS OF DISCUSSION AMONGST OURSELVES WONDERING WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE DONE AND HOW WE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN WHEN TO DO IT; I FINALLY ASKED THE CTLR FOR SOME EXPLANATION; REMINDING HIM WE HAD BEEN CLRED VIA THE CADIT 5 RNAV DEP AND THAT RESPE INTXN WAS PART OF THE PROC. HE SIMPLY RESPONDED WE HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG. I THINK HE USED THE WORDS WE WERE NOT AT FAULT BUT THAT A SUPVR WAS LOOKING INTO IT. IT IS OBVIOUS THE ATL ATC SYSTEM IS NOT USING THE RNAV DEPS AS THEY WERE DESIGNED. THIS HYBRID FORM OF RNAV SID IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO THE SOP'S IN PLACE IN THE REST OF THE COUNTRY AND IS DOWNRIGHT CONFUSING. BY CHANGING SO MANY COMPONENTS AND THE METHOD BY WHICH A FULL RNAV DEP IS TO BE FLOWN CREATES A SAFETY RISK. OTHER ATC SYSTEMS AT ARPTS AROUND THE COUNTRY (IE; DFW; LAX) ARE CLEARING ACFT ON RNAV DEPS WITHOUT MEDDLING INTO THE PROCESS; YET WHEN RADAR VECTORS ARE NEEDED A NEW RNAV DEP CLRNC IS GIVEN LIKE: '...PROCEED DIRECT TO ABCDE INTXN THEN RESUME THE XYZ DEP' AS DEFINED IN THE ADVISORY CIRCULAR AND DESCRIBED IN OUR FLT MANUAL; ATL ATC DOES NOT DO THAT. IN ADDITION TO ADDING MORE CONFUSION TO THE PROCESS THERE IS NO CONTINUITY AND CONSISTENCY FROM ONE FLT TO THE OTHER.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 2009 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.