Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAN.ARTCC, AK
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAN
ATC / advisory: Center ZAN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Refused entry into Russian airspace and diverted to RJAA for fuel.I had exited the cockpit to use the lavatory just prior to my enroute break. Upon return to the cockpit I was advised by the FO that we had been refused entry into Russian airspace for unknown reason and that we were now cleared to NUBDA intersection by Anchorage Center; approximately 600 miles away and about a 30-degree offset into adverse winds from the original route. We calculated that we would not have adequate fuel to continue to our destination and a decision was made to divert to Narita (RJAA) for fuel.Unknown reason for route refusal. Neither Dispatch nor ATC could tell us why we were not allowed entry into Russian airspace. Dispatch stated that they we calling 'Moscow' for answers; which we did not get until landing in Narita. I found out later that Dispatch had missed the fact that the airspace was closed and no NOTAM was issued. [A company aircraft]; just behind us; also had to divert for the same reason. Unable to get route. I was concerned that we had a clearance limit of NUBDA but nothing beyond that. Over the next hour or more Dispatch kept trying to coordinate a routing back to the originally filed route from our present position; that position becoming further away from the original route as time went on. We told them that our calculations showed inadequate fuel to do so and suggested a reroute to Narita and a fuel stop. Dispatch kept trying to give us proposed routings via present position to a Russian fix then the original route. This is unacceptable because they cannot accurately predict; nor can we; the fuel required from present position because by the time you get the clearance you are way past the point that was planned. Any reroute should be from an along track waypoint well ahead of your present position. By well ahead; I mean with enough time to request the reroute from foreign ATC in an oceanic environment; load it; get the winds; evaluate it for adequacy and execute it. That means more than a few minutes. Dispatch kept forwarding us plans which would have had us backtracking. We received release 2 to [our destination] at XA:03 from N53E162. We passed E162 at approximately 5 minutes prior and hadn't even requested the clearance yet. The clearance was denied by ATC. We received release 3 to [our destination] at XA:42 which had us going from n49e160 direct NURBA. However; we had crossed E160 at approximately XA:12; some 30 minutes prior. I would say this release was a bit untimely. This release would have had approximately 30 minutes of unaccounted for flight time. That is unacceptable. We finally received release 5 to RJAA at XB:54; almost 3 hours after the divert began. Clearly; this is unacceptable. Flying to a point-in-space clearance limit with no release in hand for almost 3 hours doesn't seem to be the best course of action. Why did it take so long for Dispatch to accept the fact that we needed to divert to RJAA for fuel? In the middle of all this the FMCs failed and completely deleted our selected route. Fortunately; we were able to quickly recover from this problem. This could have had a bad ending e.g. talking a less experienced crew to accept a re-re-route and ending up with vapors at destination. Fortunately; on this day we had a very experienced crew with a good backup plan in mind.FAA came on board at RJAA to inquire about the situation. Upon arriving at the gate in Narita; an FAA inspector came to the cockpit to find out what happened. I told him I did not know but was in the process of calling Dispatch to find out. When I did; I was told that Dispatch had missed the fact that the airspace was closed. I asked when they first found out about that. He told me 30 minutes before our scheduled departure. I wonder why we were not told or held at the gate for the problem to be resolved.Enroute to Narita we received an ACARS message from Dispatch telling us to keep the passengers seated upon arrival at the gate due to a 'aircraft tipping issue'. We had never heard of this type of problem on [this type of aircraft]. No one could give us more information and the station seemed completely unaware of it. Can someone explain this to me? We cannot recall any training or briefing on a potential tipping issue on this aircraft




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported being unable to obtain an overfly clearance from Russian ATC. The Dispatcher responsible for the flight had missed the fact that Russian airspace; for the route involved; had been closed. A reroute was unacceptable due to fuel concerns; so a diversion was successfully accomplished.