Saus controller described a automated handoff failure claiming the flight data controller improperly...

Narrative:

The flight route was not processed right and an automated hand off could not be effected to ZHU. I had to rely on flight data to input a 6;7;10 flight plan entry so this flight would process correctly to the appropriate ATC facilities along his route of flight. After flight data supposedly entered the 6;7;10 entry I still could not process an automated hand off to ZHU. At this time I had wasted too much time and needed to effect a hand off but had other separation duties required of me at that time with higher priority. So I was forced to request the flm to make a manual hand off of the aircraft in question. There would have been an airspace deviation if this manual hand off was not done. Only after my session on radar was over was I able to look at the flight plan entry done by flight data. As it turns out the flight data controller knowingly failed to input the 6;7;10 entry properly as directed by me; but intentionally entered the wrong fix; which caused the route of the flight plan to be inaccurate and ZHU had no information on this aircraft which further complicated the situation. This is not the first time this particular controller has failed to be able to complete a simple 6;7;10 data entry. Recommendation; at aus there seems to be a sense from the developments that the flight data positions are of no real importance. Yet; I have been constantly hindered in doing my job whether at the radar scope or working the tower position by having to fix/resolve/work around the many issues created by incompetence at this position. I have no idea how to convey the real importance that lies with the flight data positions and how much they can impact the operation. This individual has had difficulties with flight data entries before and no actions have been taken to correct this deficiency.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SAUS Controller described a automated handoff failure claiming the Flight Data Controller improperly changed the flight plan data leading to the event. The Reporter indicating the importance of correct flight data procedures is not emphasized enough at AUS.

Narrative: The flight route was not processed right and an automated hand off could not be effected to ZHU. I had to rely on Flight Data to input a 6;7;10 flight plan entry so this flight would process correctly to the appropriate ATC facilities along his route of flight. After Flight Data supposedly entered the 6;7;10 entry I still could not process an automated hand off to ZHU. At this time I had wasted too much time and needed to effect a hand off but had other separation duties required of me at that time with higher priority. So I was forced to request the FLM to make a manual hand off of the aircraft in question. There would have been an airspace deviation if this manual hand off was not done. Only after my session on RADAR was over was I able to look at the flight plan entry done by Flight Data. As it turns out the Flight Data Controller knowingly failed to input the 6;7;10 entry properly as directed by me; but intentionally entered the wrong fix; which caused the route of the flight plan to be inaccurate and ZHU had no information on this aircraft which further complicated the situation. This is not the first time this particular Controller has failed to be able to complete a simple 6;7;10 data entry. Recommendation; at AUS there seems to be a sense from the Developments that the Flight Data positions are of no real importance. Yet; I have been constantly hindered in doing my job whether at the RADAR scope or working the Tower position by having to fix/resolve/work around the many issues created by incompetence at this position. I have no idea how to convey the real importance that lies with the Flight Data positions and how much they can impact the operation. This individual has had difficulties with Flight Data entries before and no actions have been taken to correct this deficiency.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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	896094
Time
Date	201006
Local Time Of Day	1801-2400
Place
Locale Reference	AUS.TRACON
State Reference	TX
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C 210D
Flight Phase	Cruise
Flight Plan	VFR
Person 1
Function	Departure Approach
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy

Saus controller described a automated handoff failure claiming the flight data controller improperly changed the flight plan data leading to the event. The reporter indicating the importance of correct flight data procedures is not emphasized enough at aus.