Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: I90.TRACON, TX
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Dispatch had filed the following route of flight: N0480F320 BNDTO5 SAT J138. During preflight planning; we requested and received our flight clearance via the CPDLC (Controller Pilot Data Link Communications) services by logging on to IAH ATC from the aircraft. Due to weather conditions at the Houston International Airport; the departure runway was being reported as runway 27. Winds were approximately 270/20G30. Winds were reported variable 220V300 which made it logical and appropriate to takeoff from runway 27.While loading the route of flight; departure; and arrival information as normal; both the captain and myself noted that there was no connection in the FMC which would allow use of runway 27 for departure linked up to the PITZZ4 departure assigned by ATC. Accordingly; I contacted Clearance Delivery on the radio to clarify the PITZZ4 departure received and inquire how we would be cleared after takeoff. Clearance Delivery stated that we would expect radar vectors on takeoff and assignment to an appropriate fix.During taxi for takeoff; we queried the tower controller for clarification of our departure instructions. I asked the tower to confirm that we were taking off with radar vectors to an altitude of 4000 ft. The controller responded with 'Sounds about right.'Upon takeoff and climb to 4000 ft MSL; tower switched us to the departure frequency. After checking in with the departure controller; the controller stated proceed to ZUUUU (enroute fix). Not having ZUUUU on our cleared route of flight; we requested clarification. The controller was confused in thinking that we were questioning the 4000 ft level off and a couple of times stated something pertaining to the climb via exception to altitude. We asked a couple of times for confirmation about the enroute point when the controller finally asked if we were on the Bandito Five departure (BNDTO5). We informed the controller we were not and that we were radar vectors with an assigned PITZZ4 departure.After approximately one more minute with radar vectors towards ZUUUU and the desire for departure to have us on the BNDTO5; we re-loaded the FMC with the BNDTO5 departure and then proceeded on course.This sequence of events caused serious confusion as we followed our pre-departure clearance; clarified with tower; and then ultimately checked in with a controller who then thought we were on a BNDTO5 when it was not in our flight clearance.It is recommended that the PITZZ4 departure not be assigned with departures from runway 27 until and unless it is charted by Jeppesen and programmed in the FMC.




Synopsis: B757 First Officer reported receiving a PDC from IAH to include the PITZZ4 SAT transition. ATIS advised that Runway 27 was in use. The crew determined that Runway 27 was not compatible with the PITZZ4 and Clearance delivery was contacted for clarification. The crew was instructed to fly runway heading for vectors but after takeoff they were cleared direct to ZUUUU which was not part of the SAT transition. ATC believed the crew had been assigned the BNDTO5 departure.