Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZOA.ARTCC, CA
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute; Oceanic
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Second reporter function: Oceanic; Enroute
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X and aircraft Y were coming out of ZLA; a radar/oceanic transition sector into Oakland Oceanic. Both aircraft were assigned Flight Level 300. Aircraft X was routed FICKY direct 28N130W. Aircraft Y was routed FICKY FOOTS FLITY. They had 8 minutes longitudinal (10 minutes minimum separation) and approximately 30 miles lateral (50 miles minimum separation). The aircraft were slightly diverging; but not enough for the 15 degree rule. I told the ZLA controller to route aircraft Y direct FLITY. This would take the aircraft north of FICKY/FOOTS and enter non radar airspace with 70 miles separation from aircraft X. The ZLA controller put the route in the machine; I approved the direct routing; and it cleared up the conflict on my screen.After coming back from break; my relieving controller advised me that aircraft Y reported over FOOTS which was no longer being probed by ATOP instead of direct FLITY on the route I had previously coordinated. After conforming the position report with aircraft Y; he immediately issued a clearance to gain another form of separation.It appears that the aircraft never received the reroute clearance that I had coordinated with the controller.Controllers need to follow through with clearances that are coordinated; keep the routing in the machine up to date; and follow SOPs. The aircraft could not have been in FLAT track before radar termination as he was off the route in the machine by about 40 miles.


Second narrative: In my brief the briefing controller told me that aircraft Y was direct to a fix so that he would have lateral with another aircraft departing aircraft X. Aircraft Y was in trail. I assumed responsibility for the sector and I received a report that was out of conformance. It gave a waypoint (FOOTS) time and estimate for fixes afterwards. I requested another position report to confirm that he had crossed over FOOTS. I then asked aircraft X when he was able FL310 since the location of the other aircraft was in question. Aircraft X said he was able higher so I climbed him to FL310 so that FL300 would be open. Around that time I received a message from aircraft Y that confirm the routing. I put in the route and submitted the position report so that it would show an accurate location. I then asked aircraft Y to confirm latitude and longitude and next way point as an extra measure to ensure his location. He did and I put in that information as well. The aircraft was not at the location that we had in the system originally. It never showed a conflict because the routing was different and by the time I put in the correct routing the conflicting aircraft was at a higher altitude. I am not sure if they would have or did lose separation.I was not around when this coordination happened. Not sure if this was a coordination issue or a deviation.


Synopsis: An Oceanic Controller coordinated a route change for an aircraft they were receiving in their sector. The transferring Controller failed to issue the new route.