Narrative:

I was the first ZBW center controller to work air carrier X after it departed from kbos. The aircraft came into my sector on the departure routing and the standard practice is to clear aircraft to the first NAVAID/way point on the enroute preferred routing. In this case; it was the baf VORTAC. I cleared air carrier X to baf and climbed the aircraft to the upper limit of my airspace (FL230). Typically we do not need to route aircraft in the computer to the fix they're proceeding; but for some reason I did for this aircraft. When I routed air carrier X direct to baf the uret/host computer applied a different preferential route to the flight plan which differed significantly from the one they had received. I did not notice the change and wasn't looking for one since we haven't had this issue before at this sector. Other sectors and routes have been problematic so we know not to route aircraft direct or if we need to we can use a 6-7-10 amendment. Air carrier X was handed off to bos sector 46 where they continued its climb to requested altitude. They handed air carrier X off to kingston sector 20 and I believe they noticed the aircraft off course from the route in host. There were no traffic conflictions or airspace issues that I'm aware of as a result of this. Recommendation; a patch where uret/host computers don't apply a preferential routing without the controller's awareness. In many cases we see the preferential route that it wants us to apply and that clues us in. In this case I don't believe there was any.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZBW Controller described a confused routing event; suggesting a URET/HOST software patch that would alert controllers when preferential routings were being applied.

Narrative: I was the first ZBW Center Controller to work Air Carrier X after it departed from KBOS. The aircraft came into my sector on the departure routing and the standard practice is to clear aircraft to the first NAVAID/way point on the enroute preferred routing. In this case; it was the BAF VORTAC. I cleared Air Carrier X to BAF and climbed the aircraft to the upper limit of my airspace (FL230). Typically we do not need to route aircraft in the computer to the fix they're proceeding; but for some reason I did for this aircraft. When I routed Air Carrier X direct to BAF the URET/HOST computer applied a different preferential route to the Flight Plan which differed significantly from the one they had received. I did not notice the change and wasn't looking for one since we haven't had this issue before at this sector. Other sectors and routes have been problematic so we know not to route aircraft direct or if we need to we can use a 6-7-10 amendment. Air Carrier X was handed off to BOS Sector 46 where they continued its climb to requested altitude. They handed Air Carrier X off to Kingston Sector 20 and I believe they noticed the aircraft off course from the route in HOST. There were no traffic conflictions or airspace issues that I'm aware of as a result of this. Recommendation; a patch where URET/HOST computers don't apply a preferential routing without the Controller's awareness. In many cases we see the preferential route that it wants us to apply and that clues us in. In this case I don't believe there was any.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.