Narrative:

The original flight plan to las was a nonstandard route. It was ZZZ [SID] bce GRNPA1 klas. While sitting at the gate; ZZZ had a runway change that generated a new departure SID. I had yet to start the controller pilot data link communication (cpdlc) process when the runway change happened but had already used the new procedure to upload the flight plan into the FMC. The FMC reported that the runway I had selected (now 34R) and the departure SID were not compatible so I anticipated when I went in to the cpdlc that there would be a change to our clearance. I have limited experience with the cpdlc but was aware of the highlighted issues with clearance changes in the cpdlc. After selecting the proper information for the cpdlc; I received the following '[SID].mlf maintain 230 knots. This is a revised clearance.' I expected this because of the runway change. I don't remember if the 'load' function appeared with the new route but had read in one of our bulletins that for standard sids and transitions you probably will not have that option. I entered the change in manually. After reviewing the SID and las STAR I manually input this clearance '[SID] mlf bce GRNPA1'. This is where my mistake took place. When I reviewed the las star I didn't notice or anticipate a mlf transition. I saw the bce transition for the grnpa 1 and assumed that we were still cleared for that segment. This route was briefed to the captain; but just prior to push we encountered a scenario where the captain wanted to board to 2 more passengers; but the supervisor denied this request. Additionally; after pushing from the gate; our runway was changed to 34L; and this added an additional workload on us. It is highly likely that this string of events distracted both of us from giving more attention to the programmed route (understand that the route was reviewed and all checklists were accomplished in accordance with company procedures). Enroute to las; ATC questioned our route after they noticed we went from mlf to bce instead of flying the mlf transition for the grnpa 1. They asked us to call them for a possible deviation. The rest of the flight was uneventful.I think if the cpdlc had displayed the full route it would have made this a non-issue. Also; a better briefing of both the departure SID and arrival STAR (since it was a short flight) may have highlighted the error.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air Carrier flight crew reported misunderstanding a revised Controller Pilot Data Link Clearance to LAS.

Narrative: The original flight plan to LAS was a nonstandard route. It was ZZZ [SID] BCE GRNPA1 KLAS. While sitting at the gate; ZZZ had a runway change that generated a new departure SID. I had yet to start the Controller Pilot Data Link Communication (CPDLC) process when the runway change happened but had already used the new procedure to upload the flight plan into the FMC. The FMC reported that the runway I had selected (now 34R) and the departure SID were not compatible so I anticipated when I went in to the CPDLC that there would be a change to our clearance. I have limited experience with the CPDLC but was aware of the highlighted issues with clearance changes in the CPDLC. After selecting the proper information for the CPDLC; I received the following '[SID].MLF Maintain 230 Knots. This is a revised clearance.' I expected this because of the runway change. I don't remember if the 'load' function appeared with the new route but had read in one of our bulletins that for standard SIDS and transitions you probably will not have that option. I entered the change in manually. After reviewing the SID and LAS STAR I manually input this clearance '[SID] MLF BCE GRNPA1'. This is where my mistake took place. When I reviewed the LAS Star I didn't notice or anticipate a MLF transition. I saw the BCE transition for the GRNPA 1 and assumed that we were still cleared for that segment. This route was briefed to the Captain; but just prior to push we encountered a scenario where the Captain wanted to board to 2 more Passengers; but the Supervisor denied this request. Additionally; after pushing from the gate; our runway was changed to 34L; and this added an additional workload on us. It is highly likely that this string of events distracted both of us from giving more attention to the programmed route (understand that the route was reviewed and all checklists were accomplished in accordance with Company procedures). Enroute to LAS; ATC questioned our route after they noticed we went from MLF to BCE instead of flying the MLF transition for the GRNPA 1. They asked us to call them for a possible deviation. The rest of the flight was uneventful.I think if the CPDLC had displayed the full route it would have made this a non-issue. Also; a better briefing of both the departure SID and arrival STAR (since it was a short flight) may have highlighted the error.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.