Narrative:

During climbout between 2;000 ft and 4;000 ft AGL; while being vectored; we received a new full route clearance (our third including a new release) for our route to our destination. One change was in very close range which included going direct to xxxxx. I (pm) reached for the low enroute chart; which we already had out and available while the captain (PF); attempted to enter the new clearance on the route page. Though the fixes were all on the airway; the box would not accept the change; further intensifying the urgency we felt to comply with the clearance and adding to task saturation. While this was occurring; we were given a climb to 110. The captain set the altitude (110) but I don't remember him leaving his finger there till I confirmed or whether I did confirm it. The captain was still trying to fix the FMC route and I had told ATC that the FMC wouldn't take the route. He finally gave us xxxxx and then said descend and maintain 100 (we were at 10;600 ft) and contact center. Autopilot was on from about 2;000 ft AGL. After changing frequencies; it seemed an odd clearance (though it was given in a routine manner) and we questioned whether we had erred or if the controller had changed his mind; hence this report. We were given many reroutes in a very short amount of time; and I think in climbout at 2;000 ft is no place ATC should give full route clearances. Furthermore; there is no logical reason to give pilots going 250 knots last minute changes requiring using charts to enter routes. A simple 'cleared direct xxxxx on course' would have sufficed. Also; the FMC programming should be changed to accept the clearance 'xxxxx' which in our tail number it would not.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A flight crew reported that leaving 2;000 FT in the climb; ATC issued an amended full route clearance; but the crew could not get the FMC to accept it. The Captain became task saturated and failed to level at 10;000 FT while the First Officer was getting airways charts out.

Narrative: During climbout between 2;000 FT and 4;000 FT AGL; while being vectored; we received a new full route clearance (our third including a new Release) for our route to our destination. One change was in very close range which included going direct to XXXXX. I (PM) reached for the Low Enroute Chart; which we already had out and available while the Captain (PF); attempted to enter the new clearance on the route page. Though the fixes were all on the airway; the box would not accept the change; further intensifying the urgency we felt to comply with the clearance and adding to task saturation. While this was occurring; we were given a climb to 110. The Captain set the altitude (110) but I don't remember him leaving his finger there till I confirmed or whether I did confirm it. The Captain was still trying to fix the FMC route and I had told ATC that the FMC wouldn't take the route. He finally gave us XXXXX and then said descend and maintain 100 (we were at 10;600 FT) and contact Center. Autopilot was on from about 2;000 FT AGL. After changing frequencies; it seemed an odd clearance (though it was given in a routine manner) and we questioned whether we had erred or if the Controller had changed his mind; hence this report. We were given many reroutes in a very short amount of time; and I think in climbout at 2;000 FT is no place ATC should give full route clearances. Furthermore; there is no logical reason to give pilots going 250 knots last minute changes requiring using charts to enter routes. A simple 'cleared direct XXXXX on course' would have sufficed. Also; the FMC programming should be changed to accept the clearance 'XXXXX' which in our tail number it would not.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.