Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Training / Qualification; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Aircraft; Software and Automation; Human Factors
FMS data was up-linked as usual.  Being familiar with the route we noticed we were flight planned much further north than usual.  Captain called Dispatch and asked for briefing and was told the route was due to headwinds.  We noticed 3 fixes; YVQ; FOIRD and DEYEP did not upload.   However we verified the distance on our flight plan was within a reasonable distance of what was loaded onto the FMS.  Both of us had heard from other pilots that many fixes in Canada were not in the database and a common practice was to build the fix using lat/long per FOM.  Due to already being hours late for departure and the fixes in question (YVQ; FIORD; DEYEP) were hours away we concluded we would build those fixes after departure.  The Captain also verbalized that he expected the HRDING3 Arrival and we likely wouldn't need those fixes.  The Captain had added an additional 1000 lbs of fuel and our fuel load was planned with those fixes so I felt comfortable that fuel would not be a concern after adding those fixes enroute.  After departure we were cleared to YVQ much sooner than we expected.  We told ATC that we did not have that fix in our database and we would need a moment to insert the LAT/Long.  ATC then asked if we could proceed to FIORD instead.  We said we could and then began to load that as Lat/long.  After a few moments ATC asked if we were proceeding direct FIORD and we admitted we were still in the process of building the Lat/Long.  He then asked if we could proceed direct CHAPO.  This was in our database and we accepted the cleared direct CHAPO and then to the airport.  We landed without any other issues or concerns.I was fit for duty however I was concerned that due to the late departure; the length of the flight and the time of day; we could become fatigued prior to arrival if we delayed departure much longer.  It seemed reasonable at the time that we could add the fixes enroute without incident and without any concern towards our fuel burn.  The issue I was not aware of was the format of the lat/long on the flight plan does not match the format that the FMS would accept.  It took some time of trial and error to discover the proper format.  We did however load the FMS with the proper LAT/LONG and were capable of navigating to the proper fix as ATC requested.  There was however a small delay between when we accepted the direct and actually could proceed direct. And before actually proceeding direct FIORD we were cleared to CHAPO.More training in the building of a fix as a LAT/LONG.  An iPad hyperlink to the instruction of lat/long FMS inputs.  It should be assumed that the need to build a LAT/LONG is time sensitive therefore training and documents should reflect this need.  Adding all fixes to the Data Base that could be reasonably expected with a regularly scheduled flight.
Air carrier First Officer reported there were 3 waypoints in Canada that were not in the navigation database. The First Officer reported the crew was slow to enter the Lat/Long in the FMS; after a request of direct-to from ATC; because the format on the flight release is different than what is accepted by the FMS. First Officer reports more training is needed.