Narrative:

A previous center controller had approved our request to proceed direct to our filed oceanic entry point. Next center controller informed us he had to revise our clearance for flow and to proceed direct ZZZ; which was not in our flight plan and then XXXXX1. The pilot flying inserted ZZZ as the to waypoint and executed it to comply with the initial clearance. Remembering XXXXX1 was one of the filed waypoints the pilot flying then typed XXXXX1 into the scratchpad and entered it as the next waypoint but did not execute because he realized the XXXXX1 was the oceanic exit point and this was not a valid clearance for center to issue. The pilot flying then spoke to center and advised him that we could not comply with XXXXX1 after ZZZ because this was our oceanic exit point on the far side of the atlantic ocean. Center; basically; replied that this was the clearance passed along to him and we would need to work it out with next center controller after our handoff shortly. While proceeding direct to ZZZ the pilot flying decided that proceeding to XXXXX1 after ZZZ while waiting for the handoff was not acceptable called center back and informed the controller that we could not comply with XXXXX1 after ZZZ and would proceed to XXXXX2 after ZZZ instead. The center controller did not approve or disapprove XXXXX2 after ZZZ and reiterated that we work it out with next center controller.after contacting the next center; a few minutes later and informing him of what we were doing; he stated that he was informed that there was a problem with our previous clearance; continue to XXXXX2; and give him a minute. Center came right back and asked us to verify what our filed route was between XXXXX2 and XXXXX1; which the pilot monitoring did and the center controller was happy with it. Unfortunately; after proceeding direct to ZZZ and subsequently entering XXXXX1 as the next waypoint in the FMS; all the original filed waypoints prior to XXXXX1 were deleted from the FMS route 1 legs; and [they] had to be reentered. This added some fuel to the invalid clearance problem temporarily; but all of the deleted waypoints were re-entered manually successfully and the crew was just beginning to verify the entries with the flight plan when center [us] asked to verify the filed routing.there were several errors associated with this event:1) invalid route revision. The crew certainly have no idea what occurred within in the ATC system to generate the invalid route revision 'direct ZZZ then XXXXX1' to be issued; but it was obviously in error. The center controller indicated it had been passed on to him from some other entity. 2) deleted FMS waypoints. The pilot monitoring while in the haste of complying with the clearance to proceed direct ZZZ; which wasn't very far away ; and subsequently typing XXXXX1 into the FMS scratchpad for insertion as the next waypoint did not follow B777 FMS standard procedure which proscribes down selecting the desired waypoint from the route 1 legs into the scratchpad.3) potential for ATC perception of our failure to comply with revised route clearance. Neither of the two centers voiced any concern over our flight track after flying to XXXXX2 after ZZZ in lieu of the issued XXXXX1; but technically neither did they approve our proposal to fly to XXXXX2 after ZZZ. The frequency was busy and the crew did not subsequently seek center's clear approval to fly to XXXXX2 after ZZZ. Center's approval appeared to be tacit with his response but it was not clearly voiced.suggestions referencing the aforementioned errors; first; as far as I know; this was a breakdown within the ATC flow control system to a clearance to be issued to fly from ZZZ to a north atlantic track oceanic exit point; 2400-plus miles away and totally circumventing the north atlantic track oceanic clearance system. Hopefully; there will be some follow up within ATC circles regarding this particular event. Had the pilot flying followed proper FMS procedure he wouldhave realized that XXXXX1 was the oceanic exit point before modifying the FMS routing. Although the entry of XXXXX1 as the next waypoint had not been executed; it still caused all the intervening waypoints to be deleted after XXXXX1 was inserted after ZZZ because as the active waypoint was not in the original route 1 legs. Following proper procedure would have prevented deletion of route 1 waypoints to include all oceanic waypoints; which in turn should have allowed the crew to better focus on coordination with center to address the problem. As stated previously; had the pilot flying followed proper FMS procedure; his attention would not have been devoted to rebuilding deleted route 1 waypoints and would have been better able to obtain the unequivocal approval from center to proceed to XXXXX2; which he saw as the most logical plan of action.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B777 flight crew reported receiving a revised ATC flow clearance that was not in compliance with the Oceanic Clearance system.

Narrative: A previous Center controller had approved our request to proceed direct to our filed Oceanic Entry Point. Next Center Controller informed us he had to revise our clearance for flow and to proceed direct ZZZ; which was not in our Flight plan and then XXXXX1. The Pilot Flying inserted ZZZ as the TO Waypoint and executed it to comply with the initial clearance. Remembering XXXXX1 was one of the filed waypoints the Pilot Flying then typed XXXXX1 into the scratchpad and entered it as the next waypoint but did not execute because he realized the XXXXX1 was the Oceanic Exit Point and this was not a valid clearance for Center to issue. The Pilot Flying then spoke to Center and advised him that we could not comply with XXXXX1 after ZZZ because this was our Oceanic Exit Point on the far side of the Atlantic Ocean. Center; basically; replied that this was the clearance passed along to him and we would need to work it out with Next Center Controller after our handoff shortly. While proceeding direct to ZZZ the Pilot Flying decided that proceeding to XXXXX1 after ZZZ while waiting for the handoff was not acceptable called Center back and informed the controller that we could not comply with XXXXX1 after ZZZ and would proceed to XXXXX2 after ZZZ instead. The Center Controller did not approve or disapprove XXXXX2 after ZZZ and reiterated that we work it out with Next Center Controller.After contacting the next Center; a few minutes later and informing him of what we were doing; he stated that he was informed that there was a problem with our previous clearance; continue to XXXXX2; and give him a minute. Center came right back and asked us to verify what our filed route was between XXXXX2 and XXXXX1; which the Pilot Monitoring did and the Center Controller was happy with it. Unfortunately; after proceeding direct to ZZZ and subsequently entering XXXXX1 as the next waypoint in the FMS; all the original filed waypoints prior to XXXXX1 were deleted from the FMS route 1 legs; and [they] had to be reentered. This added some fuel to the invalid clearance problem temporarily; but all of the deleted waypoints were re-entered manually successfully and the crew was just beginning to verify the entries with the Flight plan when Center [us] asked to verify the filed routing.There were several errors associated with this event:1) Invalid Route Revision. The crew certainly have no idea what occurred within in the ATC system to generate the invalid route revision 'Direct ZZZ then XXXXX1' to be issued; but it was obviously in error. The Center controller indicated it had been passed on to him from some other entity. 2) Deleted FMS Waypoints. The Pilot Monitoring while in the haste of complying with the clearance to proceed direct ZZZ; which wasn't very far away ; and subsequently typing XXXXX1 into the FMS scratchpad for insertion as the Next Waypoint did not follow B777 FMS standard procedure which proscribes down selecting the desired waypoint from the Route 1 Legs into the scratchpad.3) Potential for ATC Perception of our Failure to Comply with Revised Route Clearance. Neither of the two Centers voiced any concern over our flight track after flying to XXXXX2 after ZZZ in lieu of the issued XXXXX1; but technically neither did they approve our proposal to fly to XXXXX2 after ZZZ. The frequency was busy and the crew did not subsequently seek Center's clear approval to fly to XXXXX2 after ZZZ. Center's approval appeared to be tacit with his response but it was not clearly voiced.Suggestions referencing the aforementioned errors; first; as far as I know; this was a breakdown within the ATC flow control system to a clearance to be issued to fly from ZZZ to a North Atlantic Track Oceanic Exit Point; 2400-plus miles away and totally circumventing the North Atlantic Track Oceanic Clearance system. Hopefully; there will be some follow up within ATC circles regarding this particular event. Had the Pilot Flying followed proper FMS procedure he wouldhave realized that XXXXX1 was the Oceanic Exit Point before modifying the FMS routing. Although the entry of XXXXX1 as the next waypoint had not been executed; it still caused all the intervening waypoints to be deleted after XXXXX1 was inserted after ZZZ because as the active waypoint was not in the original Route 1 legs. Following proper procedure would have prevented deletion of Route 1 waypoints to include all Oceanic Waypoints; which in turn should have allowed the crew to better focus on coordination with Center to address the problem. As stated previously; had the Pilot Flying followed proper FMS procedure; his attention would not have been devoted to rebuilding deleted Route 1 waypoints and would have been better able to obtain the unequivocal approval from Center to proceed to XXXXX2; which he saw as the most logical plan of action.

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.