Narrative:

When aircraft X was 5 NM east of the maf approach, I attempted to hand off the aircraft by the computer. I then went to reroute an aircraft at FL390 that was about 4 mins from loss of separation from another aircraft at FL390. While I was occupied with the route of the aircraft at FL390 I allowed the aircraft at 6000 ft to get to the approach boundary. Upon review I found that aircraft X had entered a speed of 17 KTS when the aircraft was really flying at 170 KTS. There were at least 3 controllers who would have had trouble handing off the aircraft previous to me. If any of these three had corrected the speed in our computer, this event would not have occurred. As for me, if I had read my computer reply, I would have corrected the problem first and not allowed this event to occur.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A ZFW ARTCC RADAR CTLR WAS DISTR ENTERING A REROUTE ON HIS COMPUTER TO PREVENT A CONFLICT AT FL390 WHILE OTHER TFC IN HIS SECTOR AT 6000 FT ENTERED APCH CTL AIRSPACE WITHOUT A HDOF.

Narrative: WHEN ACFT X WAS 5 NM E OF THE MAF APCH, I ATTEMPTED TO HAND OFF THE ACFT BY THE COMPUTER. I THEN WENT TO REROUTE AN ACFT AT FL390 THAT WAS ABOUT 4 MINS FROM LOSS OF SEPARATION FROM ANOTHER ACFT AT FL390. WHILE I WAS OCCUPIED WITH THE RTE OF THE ACFT AT FL390 I ALLOWED THE ACFT AT 6000 FT TO GET TO THE APCH BOUNDARY. UPON REVIEW I FOUND THAT ACFT X HAD ENTERED A SPD OF 17 KTS WHEN THE ACFT WAS REALLY FLYING AT 170 KTS. THERE WERE AT LEAST 3 CTLRS WHO WOULD HAVE HAD TROUBLE HANDING OFF THE ACFT PREVIOUS TO ME. IF ANY OF THESE THREE HAD CORRECTED THE SPD IN OUR COMPUTER, THIS EVENT WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED. AS FOR ME, IF I HAD READ MY COMPUTER REPLY, I WOULD HAVE CORRECTED THE PROB FIRST AND NOT ALLOWED THIS EVENT TO OCCUR.

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.