Narrative:

Aircraft X scheduled to depart sjc at PXX00; had an edct time of XX00+90. ZOA-tmu had amended the route of flight for the aircraft because of a swap route at xx+45. Proper notice is considered outside of 30 minutes. (We had 46). Anything less than 30 minutes needs to be verbally coordinated. So this didn't need verbal coordination. The aircraft had taken off sjc on sjc.LOUPE1.lin...peons...inslo...dta...etc. However; the route in our machine and computer was the swap route of sjc.LOUPE1.lin...jsica...ilc...mlf...etc. Basically; the pilots had a clearance that was different than what (should have been) issued by the tower and also what we showed in the machine. This created a problem for us after lin because the aircraft took a left turn instead of the right turn we were expecting. Fortunately; it was caught by the r-side; before it caused any major traffic conflicts. We quickly put the aircraft on a heading (so we knew exactly what to expect) and called the supervisor about what needs to be done. We didn't know which route was the route the aircraft was supposed to be on. Further confusion came from the fact that during swap routes going eastbound; we routinely get re-routes for aircraft that are already airborne and didn't get the amendment before takeoff. So we were unsure what route of flight was necessary. After talking with the stmc (tmu supervisor) about the problem and asking getting the correct route; we issued the lin...jsica...ilc...mlf...etc route to the pilot; and continued back into normal operations. The stmc looked into what had happened. [The flm] got the appropriate times when the amendment was made (as noted above). Afterwards the stmc called sjc tower and asked what had happened. Sjc tower indicated their ACARS [pre departure clearance] system (which I believe handles the clearance delivery electronically) still had the lin...peons...inslo...dta route currently in (30 minutes after takeoff). Which means the amendment wasn't received from the tower. Therein lies the problem. Our computers note the amendment was received and had the proper clearance in our system. However; sjc tower didn't receive the amendment. Further discussing with the local eram head of automation the stmc; we found that ACARS [pre departure clearance] only looks at cid and revision numbers to ensure the correct route and clearance. However; when the edst template is used to amend the clearance; eram doesn't issue a new revision number to the strip cid. Therefore; in this case; the automation between the edst template/eram and ACARS [pre departure clearance] is at fault. Theoretically; we could amend a clearance ten times using the template; and ACARS [pre departure clearance] will not receive any of these because a revision number isn't issued to that cid. Therefore; the original flight plan and the most recent amendment (through the template) have the exact same revision number. I feel the automation should be redesigned to issue a new revision number to the cid when the edst template is used to amend the clearance. Until a time this happens; whenever the template is used to amend a clearance on an aircraft using ACARS [pre departure clearance]; the route needs to be verified before takeoff because these changes don't necessarily have to be en-route; it could include a SID that was changed. Maybe tmu can keep a track of aircraft they use the template to change routes on. My understanding is most swaps they use a normal 6-10 or 6-7-10 amendment which appear to have no problems. If the automation isn't at fault; the reason needs to be found as to why this happened to avoid a potential catastrophic event. Anytime an aircraft is flying a route other that what the controller expects; is a major problem.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZOA Controller describes situation where aircraft was supposed to receive a SWAP clearance from the Tower; but the Tower never received the new clearance to issue the traffic. ZOA controllers issued revised clearance to pilots.

Narrative: Aircraft X scheduled to depart SJC at PXX00; had an EDCT time of XX00+90. ZOA-TMU had amended the route of flight for the aircraft because of a SWAP route at XX+45. Proper notice is considered outside of 30 minutes. (We had 46). Anything less than 30 minutes needs to be verbally coordinated. So this didn't need verbal coordination. The aircraft had taken off SJC on SJC.LOUPE1.LIN...PEONS...INSLO...DTA...etc. However; the route in our machine and computer was the SWAP route of SJC.LOUPE1.LIN...JSICA...ILC...MLF...etc. Basically; the pilots had a clearance that was different than what (should have been) issued by the Tower and also what we showed in the machine. This created a problem for us after LIN because the aircraft took a left turn instead of the right turn we were expecting. Fortunately; it was caught by the R-Side; before it caused any major traffic conflicts. We quickly put the aircraft on a heading (so we knew exactly what to expect) and called the Supervisor about what needs to be done. We didn't know which route was the route the aircraft was supposed to be on. Further confusion came from the fact that during SWAP routes going eastbound; we routinely get re-routes for aircraft that are already airborne and didn't get the amendment before takeoff. So we were unsure what route of flight was necessary. After talking with the STMC (TMU Supervisor) about the problem and asking getting the correct route; we issued the LIN...JSICA...ILC...MLF...etc route to the pilot; and continued back into normal operations. The STMC looked into what had happened. [The FLM] got the appropriate times when the amendment was made (as noted above). Afterwards the STMC called SJC Tower and asked what had happened. SJC Tower indicated their ACARS [PDC] system (which I believe handles the Clearance Delivery electronically) still had the LIN...PEONS...INSLO...DTA route currently in (30 minutes after takeoff). Which means the amendment wasn't received from the Tower. Therein lies the problem. Our computers note the amendment was received and had the proper clearance in our system. However; SJC tower didn't receive the amendment. Further discussing with the local ERAM head of automation the STMC; we found that ACARS [PDC] only looks at CID and revision numbers to ensure the correct route and clearance. However; when the EDST template is used to amend the clearance; ERAM doesn't issue a new revision number to the strip CID. Therefore; in this case; the automation between the EDST template/ERAM and ACARS [PDC] is at fault. Theoretically; we could amend a clearance ten times using the template; and ACARS [PDC] will not receive any of these because a revision number isn't issued to that CID. Therefore; the original flight plan and the most recent amendment (through the template) have the exact same revision number. I feel the automation should be redesigned to issue a new revision number to the CID when the EDST template is used to amend the clearance. Until a time this happens; whenever the template is used to amend a clearance on an aircraft using ACARS [PDC]; the route needs to be verified before takeoff because these changes don't necessarily have to be en-route; it could include a SID that was changed. Maybe TMU can keep a track of aircraft they use the template to change routes on. My understanding is most SWAPs they use a normal 6-10 or 6-7-10 amendment which appear to have no problems. If the automation isn't at fault; the reason needs to be found as to why this happened to avoid a potential catastrophic event. Anytime an aircraft is flying a route other that what the controller expects; is a major problem.

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.