Narrative:

While receiving the cpdlc clearance we observed a 'load new route' annotation after our login was accepted. We observed that the amended clearance matched our filed clearance of baylr 3 tehru clearance and there was no changes compared to our filed clearance. The revised routing stated 'baylr 3 tehru as filed climb via the SID' we selected the load command and then attempted to accept the clearance but were unable due the accept command being replaced with an 'aborted' command.' we executed the FMC and observed that the leg routing was the baylr 3 departure but had a first fix direct to tuulo with a 34R departure runway that we had originally selected. The revised cpdlc routing loaded an incorrect routing into the FMC and deleted the initial 353 heading and the cragr fix with hold down 10;000 restriction. This omission could have led to a potential lateral and or vertical deviation immediately after departing runway 34R. I contacted den clearance delivery to confirm if our cpdlc was accepted. ATC informed us that we had aborted the link and I informed that we had not done so. ATC stated that we have had many company aircraft reporting the same problem lately and ATC cannot determine why the complication is present. We verified that we had received the clearance and proceeded with our preflight duties. Per company procedures and briefings we identified the incorrect FMC routing from the cpdlc and manually reloaded the baylr 3 departure with tehru transition. We confirmed the legs on the FMC which now included the correct fixes and briefed our departure per company procedure. The flight departed without any further complications or delay.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air carrier Captain reported an issue with the CPDLC generated clearance.

Narrative: While receiving the CPDLC clearance we observed a 'Load New Route' annotation after our login was accepted. We observed that the amended clearance matched our filed clearance of BAYLR 3 TEHRU clearance and there was no changes compared to our filed clearance. The revised routing stated 'BAYLR 3 TEHRU as filed climb via the SID' We selected the load command and then attempted to accept the clearance but were unable due the accept command being replaced with an 'aborted' command.' We executed the FMC and observed that the leg routing was the BAYLR 3 Departure but had a first fix direct to TUULO with a 34R Departure Runway that we had originally selected. The revised CPDLC routing loaded an incorrect routing into the FMC and deleted the initial 353 heading and the CRAGR fix with hold down 10;000 restriction. This omission could have led to a potential lateral and or vertical deviation immediately after departing Runway 34R. I contacted DEN Clearance Delivery to confirm if our CPDLC was accepted. ATC informed us that we had aborted the link and I informed that we had not done so. ATC stated that we have had many Company aircraft reporting the same problem lately and ATC cannot determine why the complication is present. We verified that we had received the clearance and proceeded with our preflight duties. Per Company procedures and briefings we identified the incorrect FMC routing from the CPDLC and manually reloaded the BAYLR 3 departure with TEHRU transition. We confirmed the LEGS on the FMC which now included the correct fixes and briefed our departure per Company procedure. The flight departed without any further complications or delay.

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.