AFTER RECEIVING CLRNC; FLC INSERTED IT INTO THE INS'S; BUT FAILED TO INCLUDE AN INTERMEDIATE POINT. ACFT FLEW RTE AS INSERTED UNTIL ATC INTERVENED TO ADVISE FLC THEY WERE OFF COURSE. CORRECTIVE ACTION FOLLOWED.

Narrative

THE EVENT IN QUESTION PROBABLY BEGAN IMMEDIATELY AFTER PASSING FICKY INTXN BTWN HNL AND ONTARIO; CA. THE ORIGINAL CLRNC WAS: ONCE IN RADAR CONTACT WITH ZLA THEY ISSUED A REVISED ARR CLRNC FROM FICKY CTL ROUTING 1177 SXC; DIRECT OCN. SIMULTANEOUS WITH RECEIPT OF THE NEW CLRNC; BOTH PLTS WERE INVOLVED WITH INVESTIGATING A 5-6 MI DIFFERENCE BTWN THE #1 AND #2 INS. THE NAVING INS WAS #2. THE NEW CLRNC WAS READ BACK TO ZLA; AND INPUT INTO BOTH INS'S WITHOUT INCLUDING ONE INTERMEDIATE POINT. THE ACFT FLEW EXACTLY WHAT WAS PUT IN INS. ACFT WAS NOTED BY ZLA DIVERGING L OF ARR ROUTING COURSE. VECTORS TO RETURN TO COURSE WERE ISSUED AND THE ACFT CORRECTED TO CLRED COURSE. MAX DEV FROM ASSIGNED COURSE WAS 7-9 MI. RTE RECHKED; INPUT AND VERIFIED BY BOTH CREW AFTER CORRECTION. ERROR WAS PROBABLY A RESULT OF CREW TASK SATURATION AND ATTN DIVERSION DURING A KEY COM POINT. WE COULD PROBABLY HAVE HELPED OURSELVES OUT TWO WAYS. AVOID SITS WHERE BOTH PLTS BECOME INVOLVED WITH QUESTIONABLE DATA AT THE SAME TIME. LET ONE HANDLE THE PROB WHILE THE OTHER PLT MAINTAINS ACFT CTL. WHEN IN RADAR CONTACT; USING RNAV PROCS; RADAR COULD HAVE BEEN OUR BEST HELP IN RESOLVING OUR ACTUAL POS.