Narrative:

I had taken a point out on air carrier X who had been cleared direct nld. Because nld is in mexico; the flight plan data did not pass in the NAS. Because sector 47 was the last ZAU sector prior to entering ZID; my sector was apparently the only one to receive an unsuccessful flight plan message. The aircraft was therefore navigating to nld when the NAS in ZID was indicating he should have been going direct enl. Although our records show that sector 47 received the unsuccessful message; I do not recall seeing it. I make a habit of dropping deadwood from the uret and don't recall seeing the yellow 'U' there either. Recommendation; after a point out has been accepted; it is the responsibility of the sector making the point out to assure that all other point outs and subsequent information needing passed be performed. It comes as a surprise to me that the sector which made the clearance and in this case the point out; does not get an unsuccessful message regarding a computer entry that they made. If it had been me making the entry; I would want to know if something concerning that entry was not right. I think that needs to change so that the sector making the entry always receives a message regarding their own clearances and not fall to a sector that just took a point out. When point outs are performed; the pointed out aircraft is watched for separation; but typically not for forwarding information; assuming that information is noticed in the first place. We have been informed in our area not to clear aircraft to fixes in mexico because the information will not pass. I don't know exactly how the other areas operate; but I would think that this information should be known to everyone. There were at least four fixes on air carrier X's flight plan prior nld mexico that could have been used as clearances. I think that we all need to know what fixes are appropriate to clear aircraft to and the subsequent need to coordinate if these cross border fixes are used. Had I noticed the unsuccessful message I likely would not have done anything with it. This is because; after a point out is made; although I am still performing traffic searches on that aircraft; I understood the rules that it is the responsibility of the sector making the point out to pass the necessary information. I also did not know that the sector making the computer entry; in this case anyway; would not receive any message regarding the flight plan not passing. So; I would benefit from knowing the rules better on this situation. If this is how it works; I would be better off taking radar contact on all these point outs so that I will automatically pay much closer attention to everything concerning that aircraft prior to shipping him as opposed to taking a point out after a traffic search and moving on.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZAU Controller described an unexpected route change event in an adjacent sector when traffic was cleared direct to a fix outside the country; resulting in confused and uncoordinated information.

Narrative: I had taken a point out on Air Carrier X who had been cleared direct NLD. Because NLD is in Mexico; the flight plan data did not pass in the NAS. Because Sector 47 was the last ZAU sector prior to entering ZID; my sector was apparently the only one to receive an unsuccessful flight plan message. The aircraft was therefore navigating to NLD when the NAS in ZID was indicating he should have been going direct ENL. Although our records show that Sector 47 received the unsuccessful message; I do not recall seeing it. I make a habit of dropping deadwood from the URET and don't recall seeing the yellow 'U' there either. Recommendation; after a point out has been accepted; it is the responsibility of the sector making the point out to assure that all other point outs and subsequent information needing passed be performed. It comes as a surprise to me that the sector which made the clearance and in this case the point out; does not get an unsuccessful message regarding a computer entry that they made. If it had been me making the entry; I would want to know if something concerning that entry was not right. I think that needs to change so that the sector making the entry always receives a message regarding their own clearances and not fall to a sector that just took a point out. When point outs are performed; the pointed out aircraft is watched for separation; but typically not for forwarding information; assuming that information is noticed in the first place. We have been informed in our area not to clear aircraft to fixes in Mexico because the information will not pass. I don't know exactly how the other areas operate; but I would think that this information should be known to everyone. There were at least four fixes on Air Carrier X's flight plan prior NLD Mexico that could have been used as clearances. I think that we all need to know what fixes are appropriate to clear aircraft to and the subsequent need to coordinate if these cross border fixes are used. Had I noticed the unsuccessful message I likely would not have done anything with it. This is because; after a point out is made; although I am still performing traffic searches on that aircraft; I understood the rules that it is the responsibility of the sector making the point out to pass the necessary information. I also did not know that the sector making the computer entry; in this case anyway; would not receive any message regarding the flight plan not passing. So; I would benefit from knowing the rules better on this situation. If this is how it works; I would be better off taking RADAR contact on all these point outs so that I will automatically pay much closer attention to everything concerning that aircraft prior to shipping him as opposed to taking a point out after a traffic search and moving on.

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.