Narrative:

Aircraft #1 (X) was on a SID with the abi transition. Aircraft #2 (Y) was on a SID to an en route transition. Aircraft #1 was to proceed over mqp VOR, mqp 253 degree radial to abi 069 degree radial to abi. Aircraft #2 was filed mqp direct sjt (147 NM) and cleared as filed (SF34 and AT42/72's are all slant a equipped '/a'). Aircraft #2 was unable to navigation on his filed and cleared route. Instead, the pilot of aircraft #2 departed mqp on the 253 degree radial. Approximately 10 mi west of mqp, I noticed aircraft #2 north of course and asked him about his heading. The pilot of aircraft #2 advised he was tracking the mqp 253 degree radial, not proceeding direct to sjt. At that time, the adjacent sector forced a data block on aircraft #1 onto my scope. Aircraft #2 was 7 mi behind aircraft #1, and 35 KTS faster. I turned aircraft #2 south and then issued a radar vector toward sjt for the aircraft. On questioning the pilot of aircraft #2, he indicated the route does not have a known procedure for navigation (that they are aware of) and are generally expecting a radar vector. The pilots of aircraft #2 admitted confusion regarding their clearance and means of navigation. I reviewed both the worth 1 and the coyote 3 sids. Neither has a published transition to sjt. ZFW automation indicates the route is a 'garbage' route that allows avoidance of identing a preferential route. We cannot find any record of the route being flight checked, and with an 80 NM service volume NAVAID limitation for common turboprop altitudes. Aircraft #2 is apparently filing improper rtes via their knowledge of our computer flows. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: analyst asked what in-house coordination had been completed, identing the problem and a resolution. Reporter stated that he was concerned with the ability of airspace and procedure to resolve the problem. Although his operational area has a supervisor idented with a collateral responsibility over this issue, he had not brought it to his 'complete' attention. There is no controller work group available within his operational area to resolve procedural issues. The reporter advised that recently, the air carrier flying this route has filed an altitude into the stratum which will allow direct VOR navigation, but 'each time they depart, they ask for the lower altitude,' thus negating the VOR service navigation limits, and request radar vectors. The reporter was not aware of any contact with the user to state the ATC problem or to attempt resolution.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZFW CTLR TRACKS OBSERVES ACR SF34 FLC FAIL TO TURN ON COURSE. WHEN THE FLC IS CHALLENGED, PLT ADMITS TO FILED RTE CONFUSION, EXPECTING VECTORS TO DEST. CTLR RECOGNIZES THAT ACR CONSTANTLY FILES INCORRECT ROUTING TO SJT.

Narrative: ACFT #1 (X) WAS ON A SID WITH THE ABI TRANSITION. ACFT #2 (Y) WAS ON A SID TO AN ENRTE TRANSITION. ACFT #1 WAS TO PROCEED OVER MQP VOR, MQP 253 DEG RADIAL TO ABI 069 DEG RADIAL TO ABI. ACFT #2 WAS FILED MQP DIRECT SJT (147 NM) AND CLRED AS FILED (SF34 AND AT42/72'S ARE ALL SLANT A EQUIPPED '/A'). ACFT #2 WAS UNABLE TO NAV ON HIS FILED AND CLRED RTE. INSTEAD, THE PLT OF ACFT #2 DEPARTED MQP ON THE 253 DEG RADIAL. APPROX 10 MI W OF MQP, I NOTICED ACFT #2 N OF COURSE AND ASKED HIM ABOUT HIS HDG. THE PLT OF ACFT #2 ADVISED HE WAS TRACKING THE MQP 253 DEG RADIAL, NOT PROCEEDING DIRECT TO SJT. AT THAT TIME, THE ADJACENT SECTOR FORCED A DATA BLOCK ON ACFT #1 ONTO MY SCOPE. ACFT #2 WAS 7 MI BEHIND ACFT #1, AND 35 KTS FASTER. I TURNED ACFT #2 S AND THEN ISSUED A RADAR VECTOR TOWARD SJT FOR THE ACFT. ON QUESTIONING THE PLT OF ACFT #2, HE INDICATED THE RTE DOES NOT HAVE A KNOWN PROC FOR NAV (THAT THEY ARE AWARE OF) AND ARE GENERALLY EXPECTING A RADAR VECTOR. THE PLTS OF ACFT #2 ADMITTED CONFUSION REGARDING THEIR CLRNC AND MEANS OF NAV. I REVIEWED BOTH THE WORTH 1 AND THE COYOTE 3 SIDS. NEITHER HAS A PUBLISHED TRANSITION TO SJT. ZFW AUTOMATION INDICATES THE RTE IS A 'GARBAGE' RTE THAT ALLOWS AVOIDANCE OF IDENTING A PREFERENTIAL RTE. WE CANNOT FIND ANY RECORD OF THE RTE BEING FLT CHKED, AND WITH AN 80 NM SVC VOLUME NAVAID LIMITATION FOR COMMON TURBOPROP ALTS. ACFT #2 IS APPARENTLY FILING IMPROPER RTES VIA THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF OUR COMPUTER FLOWS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: ANALYST ASKED WHAT IN-HOUSE COORD HAD BEEN COMPLETED, IDENTING THE PROB AND A RESOLUTION. RPTR STATED THAT HE WAS CONCERNED WITH THE ABILITY OF AIRSPACE AND PROC TO RESOLVE THE PROB. ALTHOUGH HIS OPERATIONAL AREA HAS A SUPVR IDENTED WITH A COLLATERAL RESPONSIBILITY OVER THIS ISSUE, HE HAD NOT BROUGHT IT TO HIS 'COMPLETE' ATTN. THERE IS NO CTLR WORK GROUP AVAILABLE WITHIN HIS OPERATIONAL AREA TO RESOLVE PROCEDURAL ISSUES. THE RPTR ADVISED THAT RECENTLY, THE ACR FLYING THIS RTE HAS FILED AN ALT INTO THE STRATUM WHICH WILL ALLOW DIRECT VOR NAV, BUT 'EACH TIME THEY DEPART, THEY ASK FOR THE LOWER ALT,' THUS NEGATING THE VOR SVC NAV LIMITS, AND REQUEST RADAR VECTORS. THE RPTR WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY CONTACT WITH THE USER TO STATE THE ATC PROB OR TO ATTEMPT RESOLUTION.

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.