Narrative:

Flight was from lipy to kbol. Though outside united states airspace, the events are interesting for dissemination. The original flight plan was generated by communication company a flight planning through our dispatch office. A second flight plan was generated by communication company B flight planning, who we are changing over to, for comparison purposes. The PIC assumed both were the same since the same dispatcher generated both plans. The routing, however, was different. Ancona tower issued a caf clearance, climb to FL310. Everything was ok until we switched to marseille's control at the fir boundary. They advised us moments later that we were well left of course. We corrected course via vectors while we sorted out the flight plan problem. We found the error. Rather than proceeding over dijon we were supposed to fly over rlp VOR. What is interesting is that the radua controller cleared us over saronna to dijon. The french had the second flight plan showing saronna to rpl. Apparently, both flight plans were active at the same time. I have no idea why or how. I have seen similar sits while I was in ATC when two flight pans are proposed and the wrong one issued but never both active. I advised our operations that any time a second flight plan is prepared for any reason, it should always include a 'full readback clearance' in remarks as mandatory to preclude this from happening, but even that wouldn't have helped here. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter explained that his freight air carrier is in the neophyte stages of forming a dispatch function. He said they try hard but don't have their act together yet. He has already suggested to them that a 'full readback' (fcr) be received anytime an amended flight plan is filed.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DISPATCHER FILED 2 FLT PLANS BY MISTAKE. ANCONA TWR HAD ONE AND MARSEILLE ARTCC HAD THE OTHER. GROSS NAV ERROR RESULTED.

Narrative: FLT WAS FROM LIPY TO KBOL. THOUGH OUTSIDE UNITED STATES AIRSPACE, THE EVENTS ARE INTERESTING FOR DISSEMINATION. THE ORIGINAL FLT PLAN WAS GENERATED BY COM COMPANY A FLT PLANNING THROUGH OUR DISPATCH OFFICE. A SECOND FLT PLAN WAS GENERATED BY COM COMPANY B FLIGHT PLANNING, WHO WE ARE CHANGING OVER TO, FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES. THE PIC ASSUMED BOTH WERE THE SAME SINCE THE SAME DISPATCHER GENERATED BOTH PLANS. THE ROUTING, HOWEVER, WAS DIFFERENT. ANCONA TWR ISSUED A CAF CLRNC, CLB TO FL310. EVERYTHING WAS OK UNTIL WE SWITCHED TO MARSEILLE'S CTL AT THE FIR BOUNDARY. THEY ADVISED US MOMENTS LATER THAT WE WERE WELL L OF COURSE. WE CORRECTED COURSE VIA VECTORS WHILE WE SORTED OUT THE FLT PLAN PROB. WE FOUND THE ERROR. RATHER THAN PROCEEDING OVER DIJON WE WERE SUPPOSED TO FLY OVER RLP VOR. WHAT IS INTERESTING IS THAT THE RADUA CTLR CLRED US OVER SARONNA TO DIJON. THE FRENCH HAD THE SECOND FLT PLAN SHOWING SARONNA TO RPL. APPARENTLY, BOTH FLT PLANS WERE ACTIVE AT THE SAME TIME. I HAVE NO IDEA WHY OR HOW. I HAVE SEEN SIMILAR SITS WHILE I WAS IN ATC WHEN TWO FLT PANS ARE PROPOSED AND THE WRONG ONE ISSUED BUT NEVER BOTH ACTIVE. I ADVISED OUR OPS THAT ANY TIME A SECOND FLT PLAN IS PREPARED FOR ANY REASON, IT SHOULD ALWAYS INCLUDE A 'FULL READBACK CLRNC' IN REMARKS AS MANDATORY TO PRECLUDE THIS FROM HAPPENING, BUT EVEN THAT WOULDN'T HAVE HELPED HERE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH REPORTER REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR EXPLAINED THAT HIS FREIGHT ACR IS IN THE NEOPHYTE STAGES OF FORMING A DISPATCH FUNCTION. HE SAID THEY TRY HARD BUT DON'T HAVE THEIR ACT TOGETHER YET. HE HAS ALREADY SUGGESTED TO THEM THAT A 'FULL READBACK' (FCR) BE RECEIVED ANYTIME AN AMENDED FLT PLAN IS FILED.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.