ZNY ARTCC controllers state a flight had multiple flight plans and was using the one that the contro...

Narrative:

Aircraft X comes to the sector I am working from sector 89. On the boundary is ameno when the aircraft reports ameno via HF radio he advises his next way point is 39n050w; which generates a message that advises me to verify his route of flight since that next point is not correct. I then notice the flight had filed two flight plans. The flight was flying the other flight plan which was filed before the current or most recent filed flight plan. They were flying ameno 39n050w 44n040w 47n030w 48n020w bedra nertu. The flight profile in atop that was being protected was not that it was ameno 34n055w 39n050w 43n045w 47n040w 52n030w 56n020w balix ninex. Once the flights routing was confirmed and reissued the flight was off course according to what atop had projected for the planes position. Once the current lat and long was obtained it was clear that since this was caught early enough he was not very far off projected course. The sector 89 controller received the same message as I did; when aircraft X progressed baroe; and said the flights ensuing was 39n050w this should have been enough to show the controller that his route needed [to be] verified. If that would have been completed than aircraft X would never have been off course and unprotected. Contact aircraft X dispatch and advise them of the correct procedures when filing a new flight plan; this includes canceling the invalid flight plan. Recurrent training on all the error messages and system messages that atop generates. This is not the first time this has happened in the last two weeks; and it is almost identical situation to what happened to me last week. The increase work load and the fact that the flight was not being correctly profiled could lead to a loss of separation. These 'system' messages need to be addressed; and this is unacceptable.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZNY ARTCC Controllers state a flight had multiple flight plans and was using the one that the controllers were not using. This may have caused a loss of separation.

Narrative: Aircraft X comes to the sector I am working from Sector 89. On the boundary is AMENO when the aircraft reports AMENO via HF radio he advises his next way point is 39n050w; which generates a message that advises me to verify his route of flight since that next point is not correct. I then notice the flight had filed two flight plans. The flight was flying the other flight plan which was filed before the current or most recent filed flight plan. They were flying AMENO 39n050w 44n040w 47n030w 48n020w Bedra Nertu. The flight profile in Atop that was being protected was not that it was AMENO 34n055w 39n050w 43n045w 47n040w 52n030w 56n020w Balix Ninex. Once the flights routing was confirmed and reissued the flight was off course according to what Atop had projected for the planes position. Once the current lat and long was obtained it was clear that since this was caught early enough he was not very far off projected course. The Sector 89 Controller received the same message as I did; when Aircraft X progressed BAROE; and said the flights ensuing was 39n050w this should have been enough to show the Controller that his route needed [to be] verified. If that would have been completed than Aircraft X would never have been off course and unprotected. Contact Aircraft X dispatch and advise them of the correct procedures when filing a new flight plan; this includes canceling the invalid flight plan. Recurrent training on all the error messages and SYS messages that Atop generates. This is not the first time this has happened in the last two weeks; and it is almost identical situation to what happened to me last week. The increase work load and the fact that the flight was not being correctly profiled could lead to a loss of separation. These 'SYS' messages need to be addressed; and this is unacceptable.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.

Attributes
ACN	1158772
Time
Date	201403
Local Time Of Day	1801-2400
Place
Locale Reference	ZNY.ARTCC
State Reference	NY
Environment
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Heavy Transport Low Wing 4 Turbojet Eng
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Cruise
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Enroute
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Developmental
Person 2
Function	Enroute
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Experience	Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 1.75
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Conflict Airborne Conflict Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Deviation - Track / Heading All Types

ZNY ARTCC controllers state a flight had multiple flight plans and was using the one that the controllers were not using. This may have caused a loss of separation.