Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb; Climb
Airspace: Class C RNO
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Aircraft component: Communication Systems
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Workload
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Equipment / Tooling; Company Policy; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I called for clearance and Reno said they just sent over a PDC and it came through while I was talking to them; so I got off the radio and proceeded to review the clearance on the PDC. The new clearance highlighted a route change: *CREW ALERT* *ATC ROUTE CHANGE* SWR ZZZ THEN AS FILED. I then selected page 2 to verify the route that was filed to see where to insert the route change: FILED FLT PLAN RNO ZEFFR6 MRLET ZZZ.There was really nowhere on the ZEFFER6 departure to insert SWR. I brought this to the attention of [the Captain]. We kept the ZEFFR6 and inserted SWR followed by [the destination airport]. We verified the route page which showed: ZEFFER6 4920' SWR ZZZ and the legs page: 16RT 164 heading SWR ZZZ. As we discussed the departure the load supervisor came up with weight and balance and the mechanic began closing the cargo door. He interrupted the Captain by asking for hydraulics to be turned on. Distractions led us away from any more discussion about the departure. Per SOP we reviewed that we would be departing 16R; Flaps 5; TO2; select LNAV and VNAV; NADP 1 departure; Clearance altitude 16;000 transition 180 (filed 170) and the complex engine out procedure for 16R ZEFFER. We were cleared for takeoff and immediately told to contact departure. At 4920 feet the aircraft begin a right turn direct to SWR (Squaw Valley) after tracking the 164 heading up to 4920 feet. At that time air traffic control queried us and asked us about the Reno nine departure. They then instructed us to make an immediate left turn to 090. [The Captain] disconnected the auto pilot without hesitation and made an immediate turn to the left at approximately 9700 feet. We had about a 7000 FPM climb rate. Air traffic control re-vectored us on the 164 heading from the runway centerline until we reached the minimum vector altitude and turned us direct SWR. They then changed their minds and gave us direct to [the destination]. [The Captain] asked if they had a phone number for ATC once we got to our cruising altitude. When [the Captain] called the supervisor; she mentioned that this is a known problem with several airlines in the last year or two. Upon re-examination of the PDC we noticed that the RENO 9 departure was in fact stated at the top of page 2. This was not easily noticed because it was inconspicuously put at the very top and I was led to the bottom of the page to see where to insert the changes on the filed route. The fact that the route change was highlighted without any change of departure procedure led us to believe we were to fly they originally filed ZEFFER6 departure 164 heading to 4920 feet and then right turn direct to SWR then direct [to the destination airport]. In combination with distractions from ground crew trying to get the aircraft out on time; we simply missed the inconspicuous statement of a new departure. This was misleading because the route change was so clearly marked. In hind sight; we should have revisited the clearance after the ground crew left the cockpit. Perhaps the pressures of being rushed allowed us to be satisfied with our previous discussion of the clearance due to the nature of how it was presented to us. A future recommendation is that if we were able to print the clearance (which is not available in the [this aircraft]) it may have been more clear since the FMC tends to truncate messages in a way that is not user friendly. In the future I plan to contact clearance delivery to clarify any route changes.


Second narrative: ATC noticed our error and immediately sent us back on course for the new assigned SID; then on to destination. At our destination I called NORCAL and had a discussion with a controller. The Controller was very friendly but was curious what we 'saw' in the ACARS. She said she's had reports where there is confusion related to display issues. She advised that I should fill out a report because they were going to file a possible pilot deviation due to loss of MVA.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew received their IFR clearance with a revision from RNO via CPDLC. CPDLC page 2 of 3 contained the revision which both crew members failed to detect and so after takeoff had a track deviation with some flight below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude (MVA).